LDV38.1

25 CÉDRIC PESCIA Since you’ve just mentioned improvisation, do you sense that it is an element in his style? Obviously; it’s essential. I’m sure some of the preludes were composed very quickly – who knows, maybe in just twenty or thirty minutes! He didn't have time to linger. His manuscripts, without any crossings-out, show there can be no doubt in that respect. Do you discern an evolution in Bach’s style between the First and Second Books, and within the two large-scale cycles themselves? In the First Book, the unity of the whole seems tome to be an acknowledged fact. Bach was about to take up his duties in Leipzig and he probably needed to show that he mastered his art to perfection. The first prelude, in C major, the most famous of all, is emblematic: it’s an accompaniment without a melody. In total contrast to this prelude, the last fugue in the volume, the one in Bminor, is inmy opinion themostmoving, and itsmelody is one of the most beautiful he ever composed. Thus the performer moves from the most distilled, most resolutely diatonic universe to a moment of unprecedented chromatic refinement. This striking stylistic contrast is not reproduced in the Second Book, whose gestation was much longer. The demonstrative dimension is less perceptible there. In the Fugue in F major, for example, the theme doesn’t appear at all for five lines, which Bach would probably never have done in the First Book. With time, he allowed himself to take a few liberties.