C.P.E.バッハあるいはJ.S.バッハ? : 作品の真偽をめぐって

• 久保田 慶一

書誌事項

タイトル別名

• C.P.E. Bach or J.S. Bach? : A Study on the Authenticity of Works

抄録

In J.S. Bach study, especially in discussions about the authenticity of works, Bach's second son, Carl Philipp Emanuel, has played the role of "deus ex machina." This discussion usually concludes with the supposition: the author could possibly be the second son, or at least a pupil of his father. However, in C.P.E. Bach study this attribution to him has never been examined and recognized. The purpose of this paper is to re-examine the arguments in support of the attributions from the viewpoint of C.P.E. Bach study. We are concerned with the following works: Trio Sonata in d minor (BWV 1036/H569/Wq 145), Solo Sonata in C major (BWV 1033/H564.5/Wq-), Duo Sonata in g minor (BWV 1020/H542.5/Wq-), Trio Sonata in G major (BWV 1038/H590.5/Wq-), Duo Sonata in F major (BWV 1022/H-/Wq-), and Concerto for the keyboard and strings in d minor (BWV 1052a/H484/Wq-). A brief examination of the historical backgrounds of the works shows that they were composed in relation to the compositional study in the Bach circle. The technical aspects of these can be traced to the revisions and arrangements that constituted an important part of the study under J.S. Bach; each work was due to a composition of solo sonata based on a given bass melody, an arrangement of trio sonata for duo sonata with leading keyboard, or one of violin concerto for keyboard concerto. The manuscript sources of the works seem to show a more possible participation of C.P.E. Bach in the compositions. Consequently, in this paper I have differentiated his participation by recognizing the essential features of the revisions and arrangements characteristic of him. Trio Sonata in d minor is preserved in two different versions. The early version consists of four movements, but the later one misses the first Andante movement. It seems that Bach parted with it to accomodate the musical taste of Berlin. He also revised the three remaining movements; he changed the forms of these movements, in which each section successively proceeded, into the reprise forms as a ritornello form and a binary form with a recapitulation of the beginning part. Although Solo Sonata in C major is an elementary piece, it is noteworthy that Bach preserved this piece to his death, and he also attributed it to his father in the estate catalogue (1790). A student, possibly Emanuel, prologued the bass melody that the father gave to him, and he then wrote the upper voice above it. It was perhaps an excellent example for the compositional study in the Bach circle. In Duo Sonata in g minor, there are some features inherent in the works that the second son composed in his youth: a polyphonic texture, a characteristic melodic and rhythmic expression, a direct combination of the tonic key and its parallel one, and a diffusive disposition of keys. Moreover, a stylistic analysis of the work indicates the possibility that is could be an arrangement of an unknown trio sonata. It is well known that Trio Sonata in G major, Duo Sonata in F major, and Solo Sonata in G major (BWV 1021) are based on the same bass melody. Trio Sonata, which is preserved only in the autograph score by J.S. Bach, seems to be a piece for exercise purposes in the Bach circle. Solo Sonata, which can be recognized as authentic work by J.S. Bach, is an excellent example in which he as a teacher resolved some compositional problems inherent in the trio sonata. On the other hand, Duo Sonata is a study piece in which the second son also resolved the same problems with his own unique devices, and he consequently betrayed his weak points unconsciously. As to whether the second son merely transcribed the arranged keyboard by his father, or whether he himself arranged a lost, original violin concerto, there is little agreement. However, in his transcription the second son altered some notes and added some new ones to the keyboard part. As a result, he there represented interpretations different from those of his father. One can safely state that is was a "critical" transcription by Emanuel.

収録刊行物

• 東京藝術大学音楽学部紀要

  東京藝術大学音楽学部紀要 25 61-79, 1999

  東京芸術大学

詳細情報

• CRID: 1571417126951349632
• NII論文ID: 110004872528
• NII書誌ID: AN1006594X
• ISSN: 09148787
• 本文言語コード: ja
• データソース種別:
  • CiNii Articles