J. S. BACH Jonathan Berkahn - Victoria University - Victoria ...

episodes. This brings us to b.143—long enough, one might think, but no, the fugue
still has nearly a hundred bars to run. At this point Krebs simply turns his subject
upside down and starts again. The subject is one of that large group of melodies that
works nearly—if not quite—as well when inverted (the repeated D in bb.144-5 makes
the eventual cadence on that note seem a little redundant); like all the others this new
development has an exposition to itself, and it too is followed by the usual alternation
between episodes and entries. In b.197 he combines both forms of the subject, recte
and inverted, with each entry separated by yet more freely-generated episodes. A final
entry over a tonic pedal brings the fugue to a close at last.
One of the most remarkable things about this movement is the number of
organisational strategies Krebs did not use. A fugue as big as the largest of J. S.
Bach’s is organised along the lines of Pachelbel and Buxtehude. There is no attempt
to explore the range of available keys (i, iv, v, III, VI, VII) in any systematic way—the
vast majority of the entries are on i or v. Neither does Krebs employ any recurring
thematic material beside the fugal subjects themselves. While his ability to create
endless episodes from scratch could be held to represent at least a sort of imaginative
fertility, the ultimate effect is one of diffuseness and irrelevance. The connection from
moment to moment—the sense of rhythmic/harmonic propulsion—is always at least
adequate; but one doesn’t get the feeling that Krebs is thinking in terms of larger
musical spans, apart from his schematic layout of expositions, entries, and episodes. 95
In the introduction I described how fugue, not being limited by expectations of formal
symmetry and proportion, can be extended almost indefinitely as long as long as
interest is maintained—there is nothing to stop the composer from going on as long as
he or she wants. But I should have also mentioned that it was possible the listener’s
interest might wane before that of the composer.
95 Note how this echoes David Humphreys’ criticism of BWV 534 (p.49 above).
101