1

C.P.E. Bach and the Early Sonata Form

Siavash Sabetrohani

Conservatorium van Amsterdam

Sample Paper

November 2014

Introduction

Much ink has been spilt on different ways of analyzing formal aspects of music from the Classical

period. Most notably, in the span of less than 10 years, the world of music theory witnessed the

appearance of three influential theories on classical form, namely those by William Caplin (1998), James

Hepokoski and Warren Darcy (2006), and Robert Gjerdingen (2007). 1 Surprisingly though, none of these

authors seem to show any particular interest in tracing the development of the sonata form in the music

of the composer who has often been called the father of sonata form 2, Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach (1714-

1788). Caplin’s theory limits itself to the music of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven; Hepokosksi / Darcy

mention a few examples by Bach 3, while they include many more examples by his younger half-brother

Johann Christian Bach; and Gjerdingen’s book, despite its emphasis on the “Galant Style” (and thus

1
William Caplin. Classical Form: A Theory of Formal Functions for the Instrumental Music of Haydn, Mozart, and
Beethoven. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998). James Hepokoski and Warren Darcy, Elements of Sonata
Theory: Norms, Types, and Deformations in the Late-Eighteenth-Century Sonata. (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2006). Robert O. Gjerdingen, Music in the Galant Style. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007).
Gjerdingen’s study is not a theory of formal function per se, but rather a theory of schemata.
2
Dino Sincero in his 1898 article “La ‘Sonata’ di Filippo Emanuele Bach” terms him the father of the sonata; quoted
in Doris Bosworth Powers, C.P.E. Bach: A Guide to Research. (London: Routledge, 2013),172. William Newman
rd
reiterated this idea more than half a century later. William S. Newman. The Sonata in the Classic Period. 3 ed.
(New York: W.W. Norton, 1983), 16.
3
For practical purposes, in my paper all references to Bach mean C.P.E. Bach and references to other Bachs are
either with their initials or their full names.
 2

showing an interest in earlier styles of the Classical period), provides just one example of the application

of galant schemata in Bach’s works 4. The reason, as I see it, is that the sudden turns and changes in his

music do not lend themselves easily to analysis. Leonard Ratner, author of the book Classic Music, wrote

that “C.P.E. Bach was the principal representative of this style [Empfindsamkeit]. His keyboard music has

rapid changes in mood, broken figures, interrupted continuity, elaborate ornamentation, pregnant

pauses, shifting, uncertain, often dissonant harmony —all qualities suggesting intense personal

involvement, forerunners of romantic expression, and directly opposed to the statuesque unity of

baroque music.” 5 Charles Rosen even went so far to describe Bach’s music as “violent, expressive,

brilliant, continuously surprising, and often incoherent”. 6

By way of exploring possible connections between these competing theories and Bach’s music,

this study will take a two-prong approach. It first utilizes Hepokoski and Darcy’s “continuous exposition,”

to examine a select number of sonatas written during Bach’s tenure at the Berlin Hofkapelle. It then

takes one of these sonatas, the Sonata in E Major H.83, Wq.65/29 composed in 1755 7, as a testing

ground for Caplin’s theory of formal functions, Gjerdingen’s galant schemata theory, and what is

believed to have been the method used by composers of that period, namely figured bass.

The reputation of the second surviving son of J.S. Bach by far surpassed that of his father in the

latter part of the eighteenth century. 8 Charles Burney, the famous English historian who visited Bach in

Hamburg in 1772 and heard him play there wrote that “his playing today reaffirmed my thought, that I

had gotten from his works, that he is not only the greatest composer for keyboard instruments who has

4
Strictly speaking, of course, Bach’s work is associated with the Empfindsam style and not so much with the Galant
style. See David Schulenberg, “Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach,” in Eighteenth Century Keyboard Music, ed. Robert
Marshall (New York: Routledge, 2003), 174-176
5
Leonard G. Ratner: Classic Music: Expression, Form, and Style (New York: Schirmer, 1980), 22
6
Charles Rosen: The Classical Style: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven (New York: Norton, 1997), 44
7
From here on I will use the H. (Helm) numbers as opposed to the Wq. (Worquenne) numbers as the latter is
somewhat outdated and is not always chronological.
8
Most of the historical information is taken from Siegbert Rampe’s book Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach und seine Zeit.
(Laaber, 2014)
 3

ever lived, but also, with regard to expression, the best player.” 9 His influence on Haydn, Mozart and

Beethoven has been written about extensively. 10 Mozart, in one of his most quoted sayings, uttered

after his meeting with Bach in Hamburg that “Bach is the father, we are the children.” 11

Despite all this though, Bach’s fame gradually waned, and apart from his treatise on keyboard

playing 12, his music generally fell into oblivion 13. Schenker was one of the first theorists who paid

attention to him and his works and even edited and analyzed several of his works 14. Surprisingly though,

Bach’s works have never really caught on in the world of music theory, despite extensive studies by a

few individuals 15. The lack of a systematic analytical approach to C.P.E. Bach’s music is the main

incentive to undertake this study, perhaps in the hope that this project would lead to a theory of form

and phrase structure in the early Classical era.

Bach wrote perhaps more keyboard sonatas than any other German composer of his time with

over 150 works to his name. One can only compare him perhaps to Domenico Scarlatti and his 555

keyboard sonatas; the difference between these two composers, though, is that Scarlatti’s sonatas are

9
“Sein heutiges Spielen bestärkte meine Meinung, dass er nämlich nicht nur der größte Komponist für
Klavierinstrumente ist, der je gelebt hat, sondern auch im Punkte des Ausdrucks der beste Spieler.”Charles Burney.
Carl Burneys der Musik Doktors Tagesbuch seiner Musikalischen Reisen, Dritter Band. 457.
10
Powers, C.P.E. Bach, 69, 103-124.
11
“Bach ist der Vater, wir sind die Buben.” Here Mozart refers to C.P.E. Bach and not his father, as some earlier
historians erroneously had thought.
12
Beethoven is known to have accepted Czerny as a student on the condition that he study Bach’s rules for playing
ornaments
13
Brahms was among the few exceptions, who appreciated and even edited some of his works. Indeed Doris
Powers, in his summary of Siegfried Mauser’s article Brahms und die vorklassische Instrumentalmusik writes:
“Brahms changed dynamics, articulation, and phrasing in C.P.E. Bach’s works… [The author] postulates that
Brahms’s concept of developing variation may well have been influenced by his study and editing.” Powers, C.P.E.
Bach, 69.
14
Schenker considered C.P.E. Bach as one of the twelve great composers of the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries ,edited two volumes of his keyboard music, and provides a manual for the performance of ornaments in
his keyboard works in his Ein Beitrag zur Ornamentik, analyzed works by Bach in his Der Tonwille, referred to
Bach’s Versuch throughout his life, and writes extensively about him in the famous chapter Die Kunst der
Improvisation in his book Das Meisterwerk in der Musik. Wayne C. Petty has written extensively on Schenkerian
analyses of Bach’s music.
15
Eugene Helm, Darrel M. Berg, Wayne C. Petty, and David Schulenberg are among the few individuals who have
written a lot on C.P.E. Bach’s music, from different perspectives.
 4

single movements, whereas Bach’s sonatas are mostly three movement pieces. Between 1738 and 1767

he served at the court of Frederick the Great in Berlin and during these years alone he wrote more than

106 keyboard sonatas. These sonatas exhibit elements of different styles in vogue at that time. His

position at the court involved writing music which would suit the taste of the courtiers and the king,

therefore they mostly incorporate galant idioms 16. The works he wrote for himself on the other hand

stay true to the empfindsamer Stil which allowed him much more freedom and creativity. 17

The continuous exposition as a variant of sonata form

In their 2006 book Elements of Sonata Theory, Hepokoski and Darcy devote a chapter to “the

continuous exposition” and postulate that Jens Peter Larsen was the first theorist to identify this format.

For them, the continuous exposition is identified by “its lack of a clearly articulated medial caesura

followed by a successfully launched secondary theme. Instead of providing a TR [Transition] that leads to

a medial caesura and thence to an S [Secondary-theme zone], as with the two-part exposition, the

continuous exposition, especially in Haydn’s works, usually fills up most of the expositional space with

the relentlessly ongoing, expansive spinning-out (Fortspinnung) of an initial idea or its immediate

consequences.” As to where the second theme begins they add: “one should not try to determine where

the secondary theme (S) is located… If there is no medial caesura, there is no secondary theme.” Despite

the fact that they mention the use of this technique in Bach’s music, they do not seem to show

particular interest in its development in his works; relegating their insightful remark to a footnote. “In

C.P.E. Bach one often finds a similar format: an initial P-gesture [Primary theme zone]; a modulatory TR

FS [Fortspinnung modules] (typically sequential—and rarely very long) that proceeds to a PAC (the

EEC); and a (brief) “appendix” theme (C) at the end to solidify the new key. Because C.P.E. Bach’s

16
The presence of galant idioms in some of these pieces render them more apt for analysis using Gjerdingen’s
schemata theory.
17
Newman. The Sonata in the Classic Period, 422-424.
 5

textures often feature breaks and discontinuities, the caesura situation is sometimes difficult to

assess.” 18

A prime example of the continuous exposition as described by Hepokoski and Darcy occurs in

Bach’s Sonata in E major, H.83. The sonata starts off with six measures of descending third sequences.

After a brief cadential passage, there is a decisive half cadence at m.10, which could possibly lead to a

repeat of the opening gesture and this time finish off with a stronger cadence. Instead, Bach continues

with a passage of four measures on a dominant pedal, followed by a varied repeat of the same material

in a lower tessitura. One might expect a secondary theme in the dominant key here, but instead Bach

chooses to insert another passage, transitory in character, in E major. This passage leads relentlessly to

what Hepokoski / Darcy have called the EEC (Essential Exposition Closure) at m.36. The only temporary

halt in the momentum is on the downbeat of m.28, where one would expect a medial caesura in the

dominant key, but the music moves on immediately instead with what Hepokoski / Darcy term a CF

(caesura-fill). Hepokoski / Darcy describe this situation vividly: “the structural dominant may be touched

lightly and immediately rejected (as if hot) with a new burst of Fortspinnung that overrides (or writes

over) the normal tendency of the exposition to divide into two parts at this mid-expositional point.” 19

The rest of the exposition is based on a motive from the opening measures and concludes this closing

zone. The recapitulation incorporates similar material to the exposition for the most part, except that it

lacks the standing on the dominant section, and has a longer passage leading to, to use Hepokoski /

Darcy terminology again, the ESC (Essential Structural Closure). The movement thus, can be summarized

in the stages below:

18
Hepokoski and Darcy, Elements of Sonata Theory, 54n.
19
Hepokoski and Darcy, Elements of Sonata Theory, 54.
 6

Figure 1 – Sonata in E major H.83 – Analysis using Hepokoski / Darcy’s theory

• Exposition: P (Primary theme) ending on an HC – V A (an active V chord, which is not a new key) –

TRFS (Transition merges into Fortspinnung 20); modulating to B major; along the way there is a

hint at an MC, followed immediately by a CF leading again to more FS  EEC – C (closing zone).

• Development: P material – FS – V A – FS PAC – FS  RT (retransition back to E major)

• Recapitulation: P – TRFS – ESC – C

At first glance, then, Hepokoski / Darcy’s continuous exposition seems to be a good point of

departure for examining expositional structures in the music of Bach. Other examples using this scheme

include the Sonata in G major, H.56, the Sonata in g minor, H.118, the Sonata in G major, H.119, and the

Sonata in b minor, H.132. But beyond these examples, Bach’s use of sonata form manipulations is far

more diverse than one would assume. Such manipulations include the use of monothematic two-key

expositions (normally associated with Haydn); three-key expositions (as in Schubert); modulating

transitions (the later piano sonatas of Mozart); and second themes starting on a dominant pedal (like

Beethoven). In fact, Bach seems to have experimented with many formal possibilities well before any of

his successors did.

Given the large corpus of his keyboard sonata oeuvre, I will limit myself to a small selection of

his sonatas, namely the sonatas studied written during his Berlin tenure and to the sonatas found in the

three volume selection by Henle Verlag 21. Considering the limited scope of this paper, I will provide a

20
The term Fortspinnung, which seems to have been coined by Wilhelm Fischer in his 1915 article ‘Zur
Entwicklungsgeschichte des Wiener klassichen Stils’, is very problematic. It seems to be applied by theorists,
somewhat arbitrarily, to any phrase that does not fall into one of the known categories. Since Hepokoski / Darcy
employ it in their book, I have tried to use it in my discussion of the sonata using their theory.
21
Bach, Carl Philip Emanuel. Klaviersonaten Auswahl, Band I, II, III. Edited by Darrell M.Berg. München: G. Henle
Verlag.
 7

synopsis of my findings about the different guises under which sonata form appears in the sonatas

studied.

Table 1: Synopsis of different sonata form guises in the sonatas studied

Sonatas with two theme zones  Sonata in G major H.23 (1740)

 Sonata in b minor H.32.5 (1743, which features a very
interesting use of hemiola at the very beginning of the sonata)
 Sonata in C major H.41 (1744)
 Sonata in d minor H.53 (1747, clearly composed for a double-
manual instrument)
 Sonata in Eb major H.50 (1747)
 Sonata in d minor H.57 (1748)
 Sonata in Bb major H.78 (1754)
 Sonata in e minor H.106 (1756, which employs a transition
back to e minor at the end of the exposition)
 Sonata in Bb major H.116 (1757,the presentation part of the
second theme occurs on a dominant pedal)
 Sonata in A major H.133/135 (1758, with written-out
embellished repeats)
 Sonata in a minor H.131 (1758, with two themes in the
secondary theme zone)
 Sonata in C major H.150 (1760)
 Sonata in C major H.156 (1760)
 Sonata in C major H.157 (1760, these last three sonatas, all in C
major, have a lot in common, and perhaps were experiments
in a certain way?; in all of them, at least the beginning of the
second theme is very similar to the first (perhaps less so in the
third one, but still quite perceivable), but is not an exact
repetition of it; they may be categorized as monothematic
 Sonata in A major H.174 (1763)
 Sonata in D major H.177(1763)
 Sonata in C major H.178 (1763)
 Sonata in Eb major H.189 (1765)
 Sonata in Bb major H.211 (1766)
Sonatas with continuous  Sonata in b minor H.36 (1744, the sixth sonata from the
exposition Wuerttemberg sonatas)
 Sonata in f# minor H.37 (1744, peculiarly short theme in A
major, could perhaps be seen as a two-theme sonata?)
 Sonata in G major H.56 (1748)
 Sonata in g minor H.118 (1757)
 Sonata in G major H.119 (1757)
 Sonata in e minor H.129 (1758, although there is a substantial
section in G major, there is no actual dominant preparation for
the new key and the entire G major section sounds like a long
closing section)
 8

 Sonata in b minor H.132 (1758) contains two sections equal in

Sonatas with two keys but one
theme (monothematic)
Sonatas with three key areas
Other categories
length and embeds the development within the recapitulation
section
 Sonata in C major H.59 (1749)
 Sonata in f minor H.40 (1744, it appears to have either two
long transitions in Ab Major and c minor, both with cadences,
or three key areas in f minor, Ab major, and c minor 22)
 Sonata in c minor H.121 (1757, c minor, Eb major, and g minor
are the keys exploited in the exposition, and the first and third
theme are motivically related. He used only the first theme in
the development and only the third theme in the
recapitulation, perhaps under the influence of Domenico
Scarlatti’s keyboard sonatas)
 Sonata in g minor H.47 (1746, which is more of a fantasia than
a sonata, with frenzied flourishes, very bold harmonic turns,
and extensive octave passages

What can be inferred from Table 1 is the fact that although for Bach, the two-key exposition

with different themes was the norm; he never stopped experimenting with different forms throughout

his career. Within the sonatas with two themes, there are several other categories including those in

which there is a clear caesura before the second theme 23, or those in which the second theme does not

start with the tonic of the new key immediately 24. The study of all these tenets in Bach’s music could be

the subject of a more substantial paper.

Having looked at the Sonata H.83 using Hepokoski / Darcy’s analysis techniques, it is now worth

taking a closer look at the piece using both Caplin’s theory of formal functions and Gjerdingen’s galant

schemata; both of which deal with smaller segments than Hepokoski / Darcy do. I will also go further

into the movement to analyze the development and recapitulation.

22
It comes close to what Hepokoski / Darcy call a TMB, trimodular block. They define it as “an especially emphatic
type of multimodular structure in an exposition or recapitulation, always associated with the phenomenon of
apparent double medial caesuras.” The main however, is that the TMB occurs in a two-key exposition, whereas in
this sonata we witness the occurrence of three key areas. See Hepokoski and Darcy, Elements of Sonata Theory,
170-177.
23
H.23, H.131
24
H.23, H.53
 9

The initial phrase of the exposition is an example of a 10-bar sentence, which employs a two

measure basic idea (repeated twice), followed by a cadential passage leading to a half cadence. The

passage in mm.11 – 18, a typical example of standing on the dominant, involves two instances of a basic

idea followed by a contrasting idea 25, which are repeated, and lead to a long continuation phrase from

m.19. These measures eventually lead to the first PAC of the movement at m.36. However, there is an

intermediary stop at m.28 which could possibly function as a medial caesura but is defied by its brevity

and its immediate follow-up passage. 26 What is interesting in comparing this passage in the exposition

and the analogous one in the recapitulation is the fact that, in the recapitulation, Bach chooses to use

skips in the bass and thereby stays with a literal descending fifth sequence, whereas in the exposition he

continues with the bass line from the previous measure and creates chains of suspensions instead 27. If

one opts for a strict reading of Caplin’s definition of cadence, then m.29 has to be regarded as the

beginning of the cadential passage, as it is the only instance where a first inversion chord occurs in this

passage, but in my opinion the cadential expectation arises only at m.35, just before the cadence. The

rest of the movement is based on the initial motive and is a classic example of a sentence with a basic

idea (36-37), its varied repetition (37-38) and a continuation passage leading to a cadence.

The development section starts with the same motivic material as the exposition, and at first

seems to be an exact repetition in the dominant area, but soon it follows a different path with an

extensive descending fifth passage (52-62), that, if viewed from a Satzlehre point of view, is a sentence

consisting of a basic idea (52-53), its varied repetition (54-55) and a continuation to a half cadence in f#

minor. The next phrase (63-68) is analogous to the one at mm.11-18 (standing on the dominant). It leads

25
one can loosely draw an analogy between the rising figure and a question, and the descending one with an
answer
26
Caplin 2013 adopts Hepokoski / Darcy’s medial caesura but he restricts it to “those cases where there exists a
literal caesura created by a moment of silence, or also a fermata on the final sounding sonority of the transition.”
Caplin, Analyzing Classical Form, 310. Taking this definition into account, the HC at m.28 does not function as a
medial caesura.
27
In which the sevenths of the chords are always prepared in the bass and are resolved by step downward into the
next chord.
 10

to an intermediary close at m.70, which acts as a sort of half cadence but is in fact a diminished seventh

chord in second inversion. It is followed by a rather strong cadence at m.74, leading to another cadential

passage, this time ending with a caesura at m.79. The final section in the development section is a long

sentence consisting of a basic idea (80 with upbeat-81), its repetition (82 with upbeat-83), and a

continuation. At first, the continuation acts as another basic idea and its varied repeat, but is soon

turned into fragments that become cumulatively shorter until the cadential passage which ends on a

half cadence in E at m.91.

The recapitulation follows the model of the exposition quite closely. With the dominant pedal

part being absent here, the cadential passage at m.100 leads into the transitional falling fifth sequence

section (which obviously does not modulate to the dominant key here). The only other difference

between the rest of the recapitulation and the exposition is the longer sequential passage before the

PAC at m.122. A summary of the phrase structure of this movement is shown in table 2.

Table 2 – Sonata in E major, H.83 – Summary of phrase structure according to Caplin’s theory

Exposition  1-10, sentence; two measure basic idea, two repeats of the basic idea, ending
on an HC
 11-14 standing on the dominant; basic idea, contrasting idea
 15-18 standing on the dominant; basic idea, contrasting idea
 19-28 sentence; two measure basic idea, repeated, continuation ending on a
weak HC (the last beat of this measure acts as a lead-in to the next phrase)
 29-36 sentence; two measure basic idea, repeated (on different bass notes),
cadential passage (strictly speaking not a cadential passage according to
Caplin’s theory) ending with a PAC
 36-43 sentence; basic idea, repeated, continuation reaching the end of the
exposition with a PAC
Development  44-62 sentence; similar start as the beginning of the sonata, but the cadential
passage leads to a very long sequential continuation which modulates and
ends on an HC in f# minor
 63-74 sentence; standing on the dominant; basic idea of one measure,
repeated and continued; repetition of the same but leads out of the dominant
pedal; continuation and cadential passage ending with a PAC in f# minor.
 74-79 sentence?; basic idea and its repeat? PAC in f#minor
 79-91 sentence; basic idea, repeated; another basic idea repeated;
fragmentation of the second basic idea till the cadence which is an HC in E
Recapitulation  92-101 sentence; two measure basic idea, two repeats of the basic idea,
 11

ending with an IAC 28?

 101-110 sentence; two measure basic idea, repeated, continuation ending on a
weak HC (the last beat of this measure acts as a lead-in to the next phrase)
 111-122 sentence; two measure basic idea, repeated (on different bass notes),
sequential passage, ending with a PAC in E major
 122-129 sentence; basic idea, repeated, continuation reaching the end of the
exposition with a PAC

Gjerdingen uses his schemata theory to analyze a few complete movements in his book. He does

so by annotating the score of the piece, sometimes together with a table and complementary remarks.

Here, I follow the same procedure, by providing the annotated score, preceded by a table and a few

remarks. Additionally, for the sake of space, I have figured the bass in the same score 29.

Table 3 – Sonata in E major, H.83 – Summary of schemata according to Gjerdingen’s theory

Section Schema Key

1st Half Romanesca / Falling thirds E major
Half cadence E major
Ponte E major
Mi-Re-Do (+extension) E major
Indugio (Pulcinella?) E major  B major
Cudworth, Converging B major
Indugio? B major
Complete cadence B major
Do-Re-Mi? (Re is not harmonized B major
with V)
Quiescenza B major
Falling 3rds with hemiola B major
Converging B major
2nd Half Romanesca / Falling thirds B major
Circle of fifths B dominant7E major - E
dominant7A major7d#
minor7g# minor7C#
major7f# minor
Half cadence f# minor
Ponte f# minor
(Cadence)? f# minor

28
Strictly speaking not a cadence, as there is no real cadential progression.
29
Admittedly, my use of figured bass here is anachronistic; instead of putting figures under each single bass note, I
sometimes put one figure which implies the overall harmony of a certain measure. Moreover, the sometimes thin
texture makes it hard to figure the bass according to the melody. In such cases I have either avoided figuring the
bass at all, or have put the implying voice between brackets.
 12

Grand cadence / Complete f# minor

Fonte b minorA major
Monte f# minorc# minor
Monte Romanesca c# minorE major
Cudworth / Converging E major
Romanesca / Falling thirds E major
Half (suggested) / Comma E major
(aborted)
Circle of fifths A majord# minor7g#
minorc# minor7f# minor
Indugio (Pulcinella?) E major
Cudworth, Converging E major
Indugio? E major
Circle of fifths B dominant7E dominant7A
major7D# dominant7G#
dominant7C# dominant7f#
minorB dominant6/5E
major
E major
Do-Re-Mi? (Same as above) E major
Quiescenza E major
Falling 3rds with hemiola E major
Converging
Figure 2 – Sonata in E major, H.83 – Analysis of schemata and figured bass 13
14
15
16
17
18
 19

A close look at table 3 and the annotated score in figure 2, reveal that in lines with the dynamic

character of the music, with the exception of Ponte and half cadences, all schemata used are those with

a strong driving power. Even a supposedly stationary schema as Quiescenza has been used in a dynamic

way, by way of using the ascending stage only. The change in the bass pattern from mm.19-22 in the

first half to the analogous spot in the second half at mm.101-104 can be seen as an example of ars

combinatora, as Gjerdingen discusses it in his book, after Riepel’s theory 30. Furthermore, the vigorous

circles of fifths in the work can be seen as a counterexample to Charles Rosen’s pejorative description of

circles of fifths in Bach’s music “…the cherished circle of fifth…is unhappily used by Philipp Emanuel Bach

in many expository passages for an illusion of motion.” 31 This observation is further reinforced by

examining the figured bass. Even though Bach can be very bold and daring in his harmonic language, in

this particular sonata, there is hardly any harmonic passage which is not straightforward and

conventional. Other than this however, the analysis of the figured bass does not reveal much

information pertaining to the structure and character of the piece.

The abundant use of sentences, as opposed to periods, in Bach’s music which is relentlessly

restless, resonates with Caplin’s remark about the difference between a sentence and a period. “…the

sentence and the period present differing aesthetic qualities. The sentence projects the character of

mobility and forward drive because of the open-ended nature of the presentation and the

destabilizations offered by the continuation. The period, on the contrary, projects the character of

balance and repose owing to the similar construction of the antecedent and consequent, both of which

bring a degree of cadential closure.” 32

30
“Mannerist galant”, according to Gjerdingen, might be a useful description of Bach’s flamboyant and willful
manipulations of galant conventions. See Gjerdingen, Music in the Galant Style, 99.
31
Rosen, The Classical Style, 49.
32
Caplin, Analyzing Classical Form, 93.
 20

While each of the theories discussed in the paper aims at different repertoire than C.P.E. Bach’s

keyboard sonatas, each of them displays a certain aspect of this music and thereby illuminates

something about how pieces written in this style function. At the same time however, none of them

seem to fully explain all the peculiarities of the music. As David Schulenberg, in his chapter on C.P.E.

Bach in the book Eighteenth Century Music has stated “Emanuel’s keyboard works represent a distinct

style best understood on their own terms, not those of an earlier or a later period.” 33 A comprehensive,

all-embracing analysis method or formal theory for the music of C.P.E. Bach, if there is such a thing at all,

is perhaps yet to be written.

33
Schulenberg, Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, 173
 21

Bibliography

Bach, Carl Philip Emanuel. Versuch über die wahre Art Clavier zu spielen, translated by William J.

Mitchell. New York: W.W. Norton, 1949.

Bent, Ian. “Heinrich Schenker, Chopin and Domenico Scarlatti” Music Analysis, Vol.5 No.2/3 (July-

October 1986): 131-149. www.jstor.org/stable/854183

Charles Burney. Carl Burney’s der Musik Doktors Tagesbuch seiner Musikalischen Reisen, Dritter

Band. Durch Böhmen, Sachsen, Brandenburg, Hamburg und Holland. Aus dem Englischen

übersetzt. Mit einigen Zusätzen und Anmerkungen zum zweyten und dritten Bande. Hamburg:

J.J.C. Bode,

1773. https://archive.org/download/CarlBurneysDerMusikDoctorsTagebuchSeinerMusikalischen

ReisenBd.3/BurneyTagebuchEinerMusikalischenReise3.pdf

Caplin, William E. Analyzing Classical Forms: An Approach for the Classroom. New York: Oxford

University Press, 2013.

———. Classical Form: A Theory of Formal Functions for the Instrumental Music of Haydn, Mozart,

and Beethoven. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Gjerdingen, Robert O. Music in the Galant Style. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Hepokoski, James, and Warren Darcy. Elements of Sonata Theory: Norms, Types, and Deformations

in the Late-Eighteenth-Century Sonata. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Lester, Joel. Compositional Theory in the Eighteenth Century. Cambridge: Boston University Press,

1992.

Newman, William S. The Sonata in the Classic Era, 3rd ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 1983.
 22

Powers, Doris Bosworth. C.P.E. Bach: A Guide to Research. London: Routledge, 2013.

Rampe, Siegbert. Carl Philip Emanuel Bach und seine Zeit. Laaber, 2014.

Ratner, Leonard G. Classic Music: Expression, Form, and Style. New York: Schirmer, 1980.

Rosen, Charles. The Classical Style: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven. 1971. Reprint, expanded ed., New

York: W.W. Norton, 1997

Schulenberg, David. “Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach.” in Eighteenth Century Keyboard Music, edited by

Robert L. Marshall, 172-208, New York: Routledge, 2003.