There's no answer we can give! That a slow movement was intended is clear because a) concertos normally had 3 movements, where a Slow movt was framed by two quick movts, and b) the "missing" movement would have to have been in E minor (perfectly normal for concertos in G, and defined as a key by the surviving 2-chord phrygian cadence).

But whatever must have been intended could not have been in any way completely "made up". It would have involved a 10-part string ensemble + continuo player (as specified for the outer movements, and for the 2-chord intermediary cadence). It is, of course, possible that the principal players of each section might have provided an ad libitum decoration against the two written chords (having agreed in advance what their intentions were).

Perhaps (despite the authority of the surviving MS) it may yet miraculously turn up - such things still happen! But I must implore that it had nothing at all to do with aleatoricism.

Baz

The 4-movt pattern of Brandenburg 1 is quite unusual in Bach's output (do you know of any other Bach concertos with 4 movements?). What works by Telemann (or Corelli or Handel) simply insert a half-close E-minor cadence between two perfectly normal movements in G major?

I cannot see what these two chords contribute to the piece as they stand. By all means let's do what countless other unquestioning folks have done - just play what is there. But we still have to ask the ultimately intelligent question: what is the purpose of inserting just two chords, both in the completely wrong key, between two otherwise perfectly good movements in G major (unless, of course, the idea was to make the work a 3-movt one)?

Baz

Without wanting to quibble about how wrong a "wrong" key can be, it is still not clear what the musical function could be of inserting two straight chords (a 6/4 of A minor, followed by a 5/3 of B major, yielding a stereotypical half-close in the relative minor key of E minor) between a quick movement that ends on a tonic chord of G major, and another quick movement that begins on the same tonic chord of G major, even to the extent of marking them (as Bach does) Adagio.

There are, of course, many examples of such link cadences in concertos; but these are normally a way of linking a (usually slow) movement in the relative minor key with an ensuing quick movement in the tonic major. This does not happen here. Why not?

Baz

Perfectly normal martle - indeed the standard Baroque way of linking a movt in the relative minor back to a movt in the tonic major.

But what Ollie is positing here (and I have to admit the MS evidence fully supports his view) is the following eccentricity (by "normal" Baroque standards - including the entire remainder of Bach's own output): a) this was a Concerto specifically devised for two quick movements alone, both in the same key; b) it was unique in being a Baroque concerto (even by Bach!) that did not include anywhere a slow movement; c) both of the two movements (which are both quick movements) were written in one and the same key; and d) it was necessary (apparently) to make a join between two movements in G major by inserting a half-close cadence in E minor!

To Ollie this seems routine, while to me it seems highly unusual (and probably unique). To the former, a performance "as is" raises no questions of style, form or ethos; to the latter it presents a complete conundrum.

Baz

OK Ian - my terms of reference were unintentionally ungenerous. I should modify them as follows: those who simply perform the 2 chords as they are are not necessarily all unquestioning, but will also include those who - having asked the right questions - declare that their inability to find an appropriate answer in no way stops them playing all that remains.

Perhaps we should explore a little further some of the questions to be answered? The passage concerned appears as follows:



Questions to be addressed

a) Why do the two chords appear in the MS as though they were actually part of the first movement? (Note, there is a thin double bar before them, and a thick one only after them.)

b) Why does the end of what we normally think of as the first movement not end with a complete bar? (Note, its apparently "final" bar is deficient by a quaver.)

c) If this quaver deficiency is simply because the opening of the whole movement begins (as it does) with an upbeat quaver, is there perhaps some implication that the opening material (at least in some form) is to be repeated? (Note, the notation as it stands is musically illiterate!)

d) If something like the opening is to be repeated, by whom and how should this be accomplished (as a possible precedent to arriving eventually at the two "Adagio" chords that, apparently, stand visually in musical isolation from the rest of the piece - even though notationally they seem linked more to the first movement than to the one that follows)?

In my view, each performance that merely plays the notation as it stands FAILS to address these questions in an intelligent manner. But (I hasten to add) no slur is here intended against those who have decided on the soft option of a) failing to ask the questions, or the harder option of b) failing to answer them. I do not believe there is - as yet - a credible answer anyway!

Baz

I shall be replying to Ollie tomorrow - it's too late now (and it will take me some time to work out how to embed my replies without the message becoming too long).

Baz

I seem to remember a Sonata from the CPE Bach collections that includes a transition from the first to the second movement. However, the transition NEITHER prepares the key of the second movement properly, NOR could be seen to constitute an elaboration of or re-emphasis upon the closing cadence of the first. So perhaps there is something not entirely unique going on here.

The first movement is a 3/8 piece in D major with two or three excursions into 5/16, great stuff!

Edit: I remembered it wrong -- the first movement stands in D major. After the concluding cadence, a semi-cadence in A minor (ending E major, by definition) prepares the second movement in A minor.
Then the third movement is in D major again. Still vaguely relevant?

It doesn't matter that much, as you say. But just a few points to tidy up I think. The "incomplete" bar (arising from the opening upbeat of the movement) is a procedure studiously adhered to by Bach (inter alia). My point about its presentation here was only the way it then appears to proceed to the 2-chord bar, with only a thin double barline. (I haven't consulted the original MS, but the extract I gave was from the Bach-Gesellschaft edition which is still mostly reliable in matters of transmission). While the barline suggests a connection with the first movement, the (customarily) incomplete bar argues against this (suggesting that it is not a "coda" to the first). The extract you have given is what period-style performances usually (but not always) do - drag out the two chords with some ornamentation in the keyboard continuo. While the two chords cannot really be considered to constitute a "movement", they do at the very least present a structural cadence. As such, it would have been perfectly normal to have applied some ornamentation, even if only a trill on the keyboard. Only performing the two chords as they stand sounds (to me) merely like performing a Schenkerian analysis. Apart from importing a suitable slow movement from another work (which The Consort of London do on their CD by importing the Adagio from the Trio Sonata in G, BWV 1048) the only thing is to play the two chords. The question remaining is how (exactly as written, or with some ornamentation)? The piece indeed does - however unusual - seem like an incipiently monotonal "2-movement" conception, though one where the composer's instinct was still for something "slow" (however short) and "relative-minor-ish" to be placed between these two movements.

Baz