Through the analysis of Mozart! s Fugue for two pianos K. 426, one could state that Mozart has achieved a simple, yet complex fugal style. Simple, because he does not use many different ideas (most of the piece is based on the theme and a single countersubject), but complex because so much goes on all at once contrapuntally to create interest. In the following discussion, I! ll be looking at the elements of Bach! s fugal style used by Mozart and how they are incorporated into this fugue. This fugue in many ways is very similar to a typical Bach fugue. It follows the typical fugal structure: exposition- episode and subsequent entries- final entry- codetta.
In the exposition (bars 1-17) the theme is introduced in the four voices as subject and answer following the usual pattern: tonic-dominant-tonic-dominant. The answers in the dominant are tonal, where the exact transposition of the subject is altered to maintain the tonic-dominant relationship. In this particular case, the drop down between the 2 nd and the 3 rd note is an interval of 5 th (dominant to tonic) in the main subject has changed in the answer to an interval of 4 th (tonic to dominant instead of tonic to sub-dominant).
A similar example is also apparent in the G minor (WTC II) and C minor (WTC I) fugues by Bach.
To end the exposition, an additional entry in the tonic key is restated. The episodes, as always, work as the! (R) linking! passages. In my opinion there are six episodes all built on similar material from parts of the subject and / or the countersubject, (as I have marked on the score).
The Term Paper on J.S. Bach’s Brandenburg Concerto No. 2, 2nd Movement
The second movement of J. S. Bach’s Brandenburg Concerto No. 2 in F major, BWV 1047 consists of sixty-five measures that take approximately four minutes to perform and is scored for solo flute (recorder), solo oboe, solo violin, cello, and harpsichord. The three high-pitched solo instruments generally use the middle and upper part of their registers. For example, the lowest pitch for the violin is ...
They are also sequential and modulating through various keys which is similar to Bach! s fugues, but the difference is that Mozart does not repeat his episodes as often as Bach does. Bach tends to explore variations on the initial episode and usually keeps the same episode throughout. For example, in his C minor fugue (WTC II), Bach repeats the first episode throughout the piece, but makes it interesting by inverting the counterpoint.
Mozart on the other hand has used new combinations of motifs for each episode except in the 2 nd and 5 th episodes where the same material is used. Between the episodes are the subsequent entries in different keys especially in the dominant (g minor).
This also is a typical pattern found in Bach! s fugal writing. These entries are made interesting by fugal techniques such as the use of stretto, invertible counterpoint and the inversion of the main subject. From the view of an observer, stretto would have to be Mozart! s most obsessively used technique in his fugal writing. Beginning at half way through bar 35 as a two-part stretto it develops into a climactic stretto in four parts at bar 91 and is still used at the beginning of the codetta.
Mozart may have gained this idea from Bach! s fugue in D major (WTC II), which relates directly to this fugue as it is also constructed by an extreme use of stretto. Although there is only one countersubject and variation between this and the subject is limited, there are a few happenings of invertible counterpoint. The original interval between the subject and the countersubject is a 3 rd (when reduced to close position).
The first occurrence of an invertible counterpoint is at bar 15 where the two outer voices create an interval of 6 th meaning that it has been inverted at the octave. The same takes place at bars 31 and 58 and is followed by an invertible counterpoint at 10 th (bars 74 and 78) and at 12 th (bars 78 and 80).
The Essay on Bach Melody Fugue Music
Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750) was unlike most other composers of his time. "He wrote music for the glory of God, and to satisfy his own burning curiosity, not for future fame." During the 1700 s, people knew him as a talented musician, not as a composer, as we do today. He never left his country to pursue bigger and better things. Bach was content as long as he could play music. Traditions ...
Bach! s G minor fugue (WTC II) is a good example of the use of invertible counterpoint at the various intervals.
Inversion of the main subject could also be noted as one of Mozart! s favourite fugal technique elements. Its first appearance at bar 35 as a stretto leads to many appearances. At bar 53, an inverted g minor subject is played against the original c minor subject as a stretto and is repeated a few times more in the same pattern through different keys. At bar 73, the original subject in c minor and its inversion are played simultaneously, creating an unusual, but characteristic effect that blends well together. This is a new approach to a fugal technique taken by Mozart, as Bach would probably have not used the idea in such a way. By the time the final appearance of the original theme is introduced, all of the contrapuntal interplay cease and become one, giving it a sense of unity.
The ending with the two pianos virtually in unison adds a touch of that delicate! (R) Mozart! feel to the fugue. In fact, personally I could have mistaken this work as one of Bach! s if the ending had not the features of typical Mozart as it has now. All in all, this work is a carefully structured fugue where Mozart explores the various fugal techniques adopted from Bach. It is agreeable to say that Mozart has taken these elements and used them with almost obsessive zeal to some extent, such as in his use of endless stretto. However many features of this work reflects a lot of the various fugues by Bach and it follows the typical layout of a fugue.
Bach tends to take a more spaced out approach to his fugues and uses many ideas whereas Mozart takes a compressed approach, but he keeps his ideas to a limit. However because Mozart has adopted these fugal ideas and techniques from Bach, it does make sense to say that their overall result is very similar; it is only the subtle difference between their individual style that creates a different effect.
