Overall form of a fugue, clarification?

[m1469]

I am thumbing through old theory books, and I think I am understanding correctly, but I just would like to be sure and I am wondering if someone can help me know for certain what the overall form of a fugue is?

There are 3 major sections, correct?

I.  Exposition

II. ...

(here is where I am wondering, what is the official name for the 2nd section where all of the episodes and/or entries exist ?  Could it be called a "development section", kinda like a sonata ?)

III.  Stretto

Coda


Does this seem right ?


Thanks a lot!

m1469

[galonia]

If my memory serves me correctly, I think it is:

I: Exposition

II: Modulatory section

III: Recapitulation

Stretto is where subjects and answers are overlayed on top of each other - i.e. the next entry starts before the previous one has ended.

[mikeyg]

remember, the second voice enters 5 notes above or 4 notes below the original voice.

[chopinisque]

https://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~tas3/wtc.html

Look at "anatomy of a fugue".

Second voice?  Don't you mean answer?

[mikeyg]

yes.

[bernhard]

The problem with these beautiful theoretical edifices is that there is always some killjoy composer (someone like JS Bach, Handel or Scarlatti) that comes along and composes some fugue that completely disregards it, and forces musicologists to review the whole thing. Fortunately they are long dead now, and since no one seems to be writing fugues anymore the description below should be pretty safe:

https://www.kunstderfuge.com/theory/smith/anatomy.htm

(He calls it “developmental episode” – to answer your question).

I leave you with some thought provoking words by Ralph Kirkpatrick:

The fugue can hardly be called a natural phenomenon. I find myself defining it as an unnatural structure composed of natural elements. It is fully as unnatural as the clipped boxwood garden of the eighteenth century or the five positions of classical ballet. It is as unnatural as the arbitrary rules set up for all sorts of games, unless one holds the view that all of this reflects in a dim way a higher discipline of some sort.

Any attempt of classification of pieces of the WTC in terms of common features will reveal that every piece on close inspection shows a character fundamentally different from every other. There are no duplications in the WTC. Nor can one find such a thing as a typical fugue […] if one wants to find a typical Bach fugue, one has to fabricate it. The result of this fabrication will be nothing other than what we know as a school fugue. It is like those models that are constructed to demonstrate human anatomy, a wooden image of a fugue. Diversity, evidently, is appreciable only in relation to uniformity.

(Ralph Kirkpatrick: “Interpreting Bach’s Well Tempered Clavier” – Yale University Press).

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[ted]

I dare to suggest that if it sounds like a good fugue then it probably is. When I decided to have a crack at algorithmic composition of fugues I didn't study any theory but just looked at and listened to the forty-eight like an alien looking at a jig-saw puzzle and formulated my own rules - amazing all the little patterns you notice that nobody seems to talk about in theories - and then translated these into a computer programme to write fugues. The results pleasantly surprised me. About one in five sounded all right and around one in fifty moved me a little.  I put the exercise aside when Amiga went under in 1994. Matter of fact I'm having another go at it now, if I can ever finish the seemingly eternal algorithmic art code I'm also working on.

[Daevren]

None of Bachs WTC fugues follow a conventional fugue form. They all have something strange or onorthodox about them.

Like people have said before, the 'perfect' fugue does not exist.

Ooh wait, Bernard quotes someone with authority who says the same thing.

This is a product of Bachs goal with those fugues.

[m1469]

I dare to suggest that if it sounds like a good fugue then it probably is. When I decided to have a crack at algorithmic composition of fugues I didn't study any theory but just looked at and listened to the forty-eight like an alien looking at a jig-saw puzzle and formulated my own rules - amazing all the little patterns you notice that nobody seems to talk about in theories - and then translated these into a computer programme to write fugues. The results pleasantly surprised me. About one in five sounded all right and around one in fifty moved me a little. I put the exercise aside when Amiga went under in 1994. Matter of fact I'm having another go at it now, if I can ever finish the seemingly eternal algorithmic art code I'm also working on.

This sounds really interesting to me, Ted !

Okay:

Nor can one find such a thing as a typical fugue […] if one wants to find a typical Bach fugue, one has to fabricate it. The result of this fabrication will be nothing other than what we know as a school fugue.

So basically the only "typical fugue" is a concept.  And this concept is to serve as a model, so as to compare actual fugues in existence with (which are only variants in some way of the coneptual fugue).

Here is what I don't understand exactly...

This "typical fugue" or school fugue as a concept/model came after Bach's WTC, not before, yes?  The "school fugue" did not exist until people studied what these actual "fugues" were about, which people before them wrote out.  So this concept was not based on anything exact, but only serves as a fundamental basis for understanding/inspiration to spring from I guess?  Or is my history wrong?  "Music theory" as we know it today did not exist in Bach's time, correct?

Here is a silly question... Did Bach write "fugues" or did he simply write music ?

(I am obssessed with fugues  )

Thanks for the input peoples,

m1469

[Daevren]

Music that is a fugue isn't a fugue because its music already?

Of course its both. Its just that there is no fugue that follows the 'school model'. Even when one teaches about what a fugue is one should already say that the 'perfect' fugue or schoolmode fugue doesn't exist. There is always some kind of variation. One could almost make a case for this being part of the definition of a fugue.

But still it is a strict form. That the border area between a fugue and a fugato or a canon is big and grey is just natural.

[m1469]

Music that is a fugue isn't a fugue because its music already?

Of course its both. Its just that there is no fugue that follows the 'school model'. Even when one teaches about what a fugue is one should already say that the 'perfect' fugue or schoolmode fugue doesn't exist. There is always some kind of variation. One could almost make a case for this being part of the definition of a fugue.

But still it is a strict form. That the border area between a fugue and a fugato or a canon is big and grey is just natural.

Well, it's just mostly that I wonder if Bach just sat down and said.... "I am going to write a fugue", or if he just thought "I am going to write a piece of music" and it turned out to be conceived as a "fugue".

Of course I know that a fugue is music too, I am just thinking along the lines of what the conception may have been, that's all.  It was probably to him, more just a favorite way to present musical ideas vs "A FUGUE..." (*the voice of God echoing throughout the world*) da da da daaa...

Like somebody's favorite meal may be an arrangement of certain vegetables and what not, vs a "salad" although they are one in the same.  "Salad" is just the name various arrangements of vegetables got after they got arranged.  It's all food, but the concept would be different for the one who does the arranging and the consumption.  I don't know what I am talking about though...



m1469

[Daevren]

I don't think we will know that.

But I am sure Bach knew what he was doing and what he wanted in some detail.

I don't think Bach accidentally wrote that many fuges, his music in general shows too much control and conscious thinking. Bach obviously liked fugues in some way.

[m1469]

I don't think we will know that.

But I am sure Bach knew what he was doing and what he wanted in some detail.

I don't think Bach accidentally wrote that many fuges, his music in general shows too much control and conscious thinking. Bach obviously liked fugues in some way.

He he, well, I am definitely not trying to argue that Bach wrote this many fugues on accident, or even a single fugue on accident for that matter.  And I am certainly not implying that he did not know what he was doing and that he did not know what he wanted in detail.

I am simply trying to get a different angle on them.  I just think that it is easy to take a lot of things for granted being that this music has been around for "many" years and there is this concept out there of what a "fugue" is.  And so many people have played them and studied them.... I just want to go deeper that's all.

I think it is important for any musician, including/especially a performer to approach a piece with the mind of/as a composer, historian,  etc.. 

I am simply striving to do just that without taking things for granted.

*purple planets pollute people's passive perceptions* .. just thought I would sing you a little song 

m1469

[bernhard]

m1469 wrote:

This "typical fugue" or school fugue as a concept/model came after Bach's WTC, not before, yes?  The "school fugue" did not exist until people studied what these actual "fugues" were about, which people before them wrote out.  So this concept was not based on anything exact, but only serves as a fundamental basis for understanding/inspiration to spring from I guess?  Or is my history wrong?  "Music theory" as we know it today did not exist in Bach's time, correct?

Here is a silly question... Did Bach write "fugues" or did he simply write music ?

(I am obssessed with fugues   )

Yes. This is basically correct. Theory is always posterior – it has to be. Mozart had no knowledge of the theory that explains/codifies his works. Beethoven had no knowledge of the theory that formalises his works. Theory is basically the history of the breaking of rules of theory.

Theory as we know it only started in the early 1700s when Rameau got an epiphany and published his “Treatise on Harmony”. One of the novelties in this work was the revolutionary idea that a major triad is still a major triad even when inverted. Up to then CEG, EGC and GCE were treated as different chords. Before Rameau, music theory was a set of arbitrary rules jealously guarded by guilds of musicians. The great secrecy encouraged the formation of very distinct styles and “schools”, each following different sets of rules. Rameau finished with all that.

As for fugues, there are many other fugues besides Bach’s. And they are quite different as well. It could even be argued that Bach is a special case, and that his fugues are not that typical at all.

How did he compose them? Did he had a plan, a formula? Of course we cannot know. However, there is some evidence that:

1.   Bach would compose by inspiration – not by following models or formulas this does not preclude the possibilitiy that formulas were deeply embedded in his unconscious).
 
2.   However, he would often modify his pieces according to formulas and models.

3.   Bach was very much into numerology and ciphers, and frequently would modify/plan a piece in order to have ciphers of his name included in it – or references to Christian theology. Like Beethoven, he was forever polishing and perfecting his pieces, and coming up with ameliorated versions of them.

4.   And let us not forget that he lived in an era where secret societies were rife (the free-masons, the rosicrucians, and so on) and influencing deeply political and cultural events. I would not be surprised if Bach was involved in such activities (I have read somewhere – but I wasn’t convinced – that just like Madonna, Bach was heavily into Kaballah – which certainly would be surprising considering his Lutheran upbringing). A very interesting reference if you would like to pursue this train of thought is Frances Yates “The Rosicrucian Enlightenment” (Routledge).

5.   And here is a most wonderful book:

James Gaines “An Evening on the Palace of Reason” (Fourth State). You can read a review here:

https://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/history/0,6121,1385499,00.html


Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[chopinisque]

Theory is basically the history of the breaking of rules of theory.

A very apt way of putting it.  Theory is after all, just theory...

3.   Bach was very much into numerology and ciphers, and frequently would modify/plan a piece in order to have ciphers of his name included in it – or references to Christian theology. Like Beethoven, he was forever polishing and perfecting his pieces, and coming up with ameliorated versions of them.

4.   And let us not forget that he lived in an era where secret societies were rife (the free-masons, the rosicrucians, and so on) and influencing deeply political and cultural events. I would not be surprised if Bach was involved in such activities (I have read somewhere – but I wasn’t convinced – that just like Madonna, Bach was heavily into Kaballah Shocked – which certainly would be surprising considering his Lutheran upbringing). A very interesting reference if you would like to pursue this train of thought is Frances Yates “The Rosicrucian Enlightenment” (Routledge).

I find it amazing that Bach and Satie were the only such musicians who indulged in all this secret society stuff...  But Bach was lucky.  They had h's in music then.  We've got to find new ways of spelling our names...  Did you know that he coded his monogram into his pieces?  That's so amazing...

I think that the best ways to explore a certain form, like the fugue, is to either play them or compose them.  Perhaps a project to compose a fugue?  One filled with PF symbols?

[m1469]

m1469 wrote:



Yes. This is basically correct. Theory is always posterior – it has to be. Mozart had no knowledge of the theory that explains/codifies his works. Beethoven had no knowledge of the theory that formalises his works. Theory is basically the history of the breaking of rules of theory.

Theory as we know it only started in the early 1700s when Rameau got an epiphany and published his “Treatise on Harmony”. One of the novelties in this work was the revolutionary idea that a major triad is still a major triad even when inverted. Up to then CEG, EGC and GCE were treated as different chords. Before Rameau, music theory was a set of arbitrary rules jealously guarded by guilds of musicians. The great secrecy encouraged the formation of very distinct styles and “schools”, each following different sets of rules. Rameau finished with all that.

As for fugues, there are many other fugues besides Bach’s. And they are quite different as well. It could even be argued that Bach is a special case, and that his fugues are not that typical at all.

How did he compose them? Did he had a plan, a formula? Of course we cannot know. However, there is some evidence that:

1.   Bach would compose by inspiration – not by following models or formulas this does not preclude the possibilitiy that formulas were deeply embedded in his unconscious).
 
2.   However, he would often modify his pieces according to formulas and models.

3.   Bach was very much into numerology and ciphers, and frequently would modify/plan a piece in order to have ciphers of his name included in it – or references to Christian theology. Like Beethoven, he was forever polishing and perfecting his pieces, and coming up with ameliorated versions of them.

4.   And let us not forget that he lived in an era where secret societies were rife (the free-masons, the rosicrucians, and so on) and influencing deeply political and cultural events. I would not be surprised if Bach was involved in such activities (I have read somewhere – but I wasn’t convinced – that just like Madonna, Bach was heavily into Kaballah – which certainly would be surprising considering his Lutheran upbringing). A very interesting reference if you would like to pursue this train of thought is Frances Yates “The Rosicrucian Enlightenment” (Routledge).

5.   And here is a most wonderful book:

James Gaines “An Evening on the Palace of Reason” (Fourth State). You can read a review here:

https://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/history/0,6121,1385499,00.html


Best wishes,
Bernhard.

Most helpful, thanks a lot 

m1469

[Belgedin]

Do you guys have examples of these ciphers and monograms Bach used? I mean pieces in which he used them. That is so cool.

[bernhard]

I find it amazing that Bach and Satie were the only such musicians who indulged in all this secret society stuff...  But Bach was lucky.  They had h's in music then.  We've got to find new ways of spelling our names...  Did you know that he coded his monogram into his pieces?  That's so amazing...

I think that the best ways to explore a certain form, like the fugue, is to either play them or compose them.  Perhaps a project to compose a fugue?  One filled with PF symbols?

Bach and Satie were not the only ones. Everyone was into it. But since it is a secret society, we usually don’t know about it. In fact there is no hard evidence in relation to Bach, just rumours. Satie of course was for a time a Rosicrucian. Mozart was a freemason (the Magic Flute is about freemasonry), and there are rumours about Beethoven and Schumann as well. Schumann was another composer obsessed with ciphers and levels of meaning. The idea of wheels within wheels and that nothing is as it seems totally fascinated him.

I agree with you. The best way to approach the study of fugue is to try to compose one.

Best wishes,
Bernhard

[bernhard]

Do you guys have examples of these ciphers and monograms Bach used? I mean pieces in which he used them. That is so cool.

Have a look here for some of the information encrypted in some of Bach’s works:

https://users.castel.nl/%7Eschic02/invention.htm

and here for a very lively discussion of the subject:

https://www.bach-cantatas.com/Topics/Numbers.htm

(And if you google "Bach numerology" you will come accross some really weird stuff! )

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[chopinisque]

Do you guys have examples of these ciphers and monograms Bach used? I mean pieces in which he used them. That is so cool.

The bach fugue no. 4 from WTC 1 is supposed to be full of it...

[ted]

With this revelation that most of those old blokes were as loopy as minties I feel even happier and more confirmed in my general incuriosity regarding all but the abstract sound of music.

[abe]

Yes, the fugue number 4--C-sharp minor--is full of religious references, his name encoding, and his monogram. Not to mention the peice is so beautiful, one of my favorite Bach piano works. You can read really fascinating stuff about this peice, and most of the fugues from WTC at this site(I think it was already posted earlier): https://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~tas3/wtc/i04.html#movie

I particularly like this site for the insightful commentary, really cool movies, and most of all the very high calibur (sp?) recordings of the fugues IMO.

If you like Bach's fugues, you'll probably like this site.

[chopinisque]

Nope.  I did.