19.11.2012 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

against itself, augmented and inverted, in the bass. The one question one could raise<br />

about Sechter’s completion is whether Mozart might have planned to exploit the<br />

thematic significance of the cadence in bb.17-19 and 24-26 later in the piece—<br />

although as we have noted questions of intent in fugal writing are often problematic.<br />

The main trouble with divining Mozart’s intentions for the future direction of this<br />

piece may well be that he didn’t have any. Did Mozart see the latent possibilities of<br />

the subject which Sechter was to uncover? Perhaps not. The work that Stadler did on<br />

the sonata movements that we discussed above had a certain element of ‘clairvoyance’<br />

about it, decoding the implications of an exposition so as to supply a recapitulation and<br />

perhaps a development. Fugal forms are not predictive in this way. Simon Sechter<br />

took a fresh look at where Mozart had ground to a halt, found perhaps more potential<br />

in the material than Mozart had, and finished the fugue by seamlessly extending<br />

Mozart’s texture in his own fashion.<br />

The fugue in E flat, K.153/375f, also completed by Sechter, is the only one<br />

with a noticably ‘tuneful’ subject, characterised by a descending scale of nearly two<br />

octaves. It might be thought that this would be difficult to manage in a fugal texture,<br />

but it fits in well with the fluid, scalar motion of the other voices. As in K.154/385k,<br />

Mozart abandoned the movement after the exposition, just at the point of the first entry<br />

in another key. Sechter continued along Mozart’s lines, using the same subsidiary<br />

material, finding opportunity for one—not quite exact—stretto, and finishing with an<br />

unexpectedly galant cadence.<br />

Although both fugues stopped at the same point, it is not clear why this is so;<br />

whether Mozart ran into difficulties or lost interest. The question occurs even more<br />

acutely with the G minor fugue K.401(375e). Why, having written ninety-five bars<br />

and surely taken the fugue as far as he intended, did Mozart not spend the few minutes<br />

it would have taken to bring the movement to a satisfactory conclusion? He may of<br />

278

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!