How do I know if a teacher is good at teaching Bach Fugue?

[raindropshome]

Looking for a teacher who can teach me fugue. Want to know what are the questions I should ask during consultation and what are the things I should look for during trial lessons? Thank you!

[j_menz]

Just look for their eyes to light up at the idea!

[raindropshome]

Let me be more specific.

I've met with different teachers. Some told me the fugue I'm learning only has three ways of articulating the subject; some said there's only one way.I think one should never limit the student with only one way or two ways, but hear what the student has for the articulation and decide if that's musically right or wrong or how to improve musically. I respect rules, but rules are meant to be broken in some cases.

Some said all the long notes(8th or quarter) should be played at their full time value; some said it is the baroque style that all long notes should be played as if they are 16th notes. I think 8th notes or 16th notes, that depends on the context or the musical requirement of the piece. That is different from the subject consistency.

One teacher said you should think vertically while playing a fugue. Well, I've heard a Bach specialist say you should think horizontally.

All of the above teachers are either conservatory trained and/or have a harpsichord degree, or some international piano competition winner. I'm no one to judge a professional and I don't think every teacher should specialize in fugue, but those that I have met give me a feeling that they don't really like fugue. I want to find someone who like fugue and can teach me not only the rules, but most importantly  the music itself. As an amateur, I don't know what questions to ask and who is indeed delighted in teaching a fugue?

[lazyfingers]

Some said all the long notes(8th or quarter) should be played at their full time value; some said it is the baroque style that all long notes should be played as if they are 16th notes. I think 8th notes or 16th notes, that depends on the context or the musical requirement of the piece. That is different from the subject consistency.

I had two teachers telling me differently. However, the first who championed the detached approach only recommended it on very limited situations depending on context and not mindlessly apply to every case. Those who do claim that detaching made it sound more like a harpsichord, and that the harpsichord is incapable of sustaining long notes. But this is probably not true.

My present teacher is the "full value" variety and I agree with her.

One teacher said you should think vertically while playing a fugue. Well, I've heard a Bach specialist say you should think horizontally.

Should be horizontal as in subject/countersubject (or canon) going against each other.
Vertical was a classical invention, with Beethoven as its supreme master.

I want to find someone who like fugue and can teach me not only the rules, but most importantly  the music itself. As an amateur, I don't know what questions to ask and who is indeed delighted in teaching a fugue?

Great question. Can't offer an answer as you will never know where a teacher truly stands on an issue/subject until you get in past the early stage of learning anything. My experience is that the early stages just focuses on notes and technique. And the questions on musicality you are asking comes much later once those are sufficiently addressed.

[lostinidlewonder]

Although Bach's music is very clear as to what notes has to be played he leaves the pianist with a freedom as how to play it. However this also can be applied to other music too, that we are open to interpretation. However Bach wrote pretty much on Clavichord, Harpsichord and Organ. Could he really imagine the modern piano of today? As exponents of the modern piano we have to make intelligent decisions as to how to musically express Bach.

Let me paraphrase 48 Prelude and Fugues (Tovey and Sameul)
"..One thing is certain, before anything "pianistic" is attempted the student should have thoroughly mastered Bach's exact part-writing as written, should be able to express its climaxes distinctly without adding or altering a note.

... our appreciation of Bach loses more than it gains from the occasional bursts of pianistic effectiveness accidentally possible in passages which may not be climaxes at all.

JS Bach is fond crowding all the harmony he could into both hands; not until we have learnt to achieve Bach's part-writing with our fingers can we venture to translate him into any pianoforte style which produces volume at the expense of part-writing.

... it may be taken as an axiom that when a phrasing or touch represents a "pianistic" mannerism that would sound ugly on the harpsichord, that phrasing will misconstrue Bach's language and tell us nothing interesting about the pianoforte. If players think it "natural" they are mistaken, however habitually they may do it. They are merely applying a small part of the pianoforte technique of 1806 to the clavichord and harpsichord music of 1730.

There are very simple ways of detecting what is unnatural in the interpretation of most of Bach's themes; and, if the test sometimes fails to answer directly, it certainly never misleads. It is summed up in two words, Sing it.

If the phrase proves singable at all, the attempt to sing it will almost certainly reveal natural types of expression easily perfectible on the pianoforte and incomparably better than any result of the natural behavior of the pianists hands. Even in matters that at first seem to be merely instrumental, the vocal test reveals much.

Organists who play fugues more often than most people, do not find it necessary, when the subject enters in the inner parts, to pick it out with the thumb or another manual. They and their listeners enjoy the polyphony because the inner parts can neither stick out nor fail to balance within the harmony, so long as the notes are played at all. On the pianoforte however constant care is needed to prevent failure of tone, and certainly the subject of a fugue should not be liable to such failure. But never should the counterpoints, indeed the less heard clearly (e.g: the clinching third countersubject of the F minor Fugues in Bk1) Most of Bach's counterpoint actually sounds best when the parts are evenly balanced. It is never a mere combinations of melodies, but always a mass of harmony stated in terms of a combination of melodies.

When Bach combines melodies, the combination forms full harmony as soon as two parts are present. (Even a solitary part will be a melody which is its own bass.) Each additional part adds new harmonic meaning, as well as its own melody and rhythm, and all are in transparent contrast with each other at every point. No part needs bringing out at the expense of others, but on the pianoforte care is most needed for that part which is most in danger of failure of tone.

[j_menz]

Perhaps the most useful thing to do then would be to ask them what fugues they have played that are not by Bach and what ones are not even baroque.

There are plenty that are not, and anyone with any degree of "expertise" in fugues will know that and relish in it.

[nyiregyhazi]

Vertical was a classical invention, with Beethoven as its supreme master.

Ahem. Unless you're suggesting everything was monodic, it certainly wasn't a new invention. Harmony is vertical in its very existence. Bach didn't write atonal fugues where vertical combinations were left to end up as whatever a purely horizontal scheme would cause. He wrote tonal ones- in which voices were deliberately made to coverage on specific vertical harmonies with only occasional dissonances to add harmonic interest. Intervals in voices regularly have to be adjusted and "corrected" to keep motifs in line with the scheme for vertical harmonies. But harmonic dissonance too  exists vertically, when allowed to arise. It's a poor pianist who has no awareness of interesting vertical intervals, whenever they arise- be it a fugue or a romantic song.

It would be rather odd to only emphasis vertical issues without reference to horizontal ones, but anything that doesn't give plenty of attention to both is a woefully incomplete picture of a fugue. In fact, the ease of horizontal movement was greatly aided when I began to pay more attention to vertical accumulations. With every step on the journey, a pianist should be equally aware of every note being played on a vertical level. I like to go ultra slow and be extra sure that I haven't forgotten long held notes- by looking at every voice equally, whether it's a newly depressed note or a long held one. It's very easy to miss some of the details unless you're rigorous and it's actually the horizontal lines that suffer the most- when you don't make a series of vertical checklists throughout the journey, in addition to thinking of how things move onwards. Voicing is also a vertical issue. A pianist who has no vertical control has no control over which voices are given prominence in the texture- which will mean that soprano subjects will be heard and inner voice subjects will not. To speak as if horizontal playing can be separated from vertical issues is simply a nonsense. Both play a constant role in any meaningful whole.

You might as well argue about whether the length or breadth of a square is most important. It's just one whole that exists as it is- with both dimensions as an integral part of what it is. Why would anyone feel a need to downplay either?

[j_menz]

voices were deliberately made to coverage on specific vertical harmonies with only occasional dissonances to add harmonic interest.

I believe you mean converge.

And it's not so much that voices are altered to converge on specific harmonies as altered to avoid accidental vertical disharmonies. I would, however, be most interested if you have an example of the former.

[nyiregyhazi]

I believe you mean converge.

And it's not so much that voices are altered to converge on specific harmonies as altered to avoid accidental vertical disharmonies. I would, however, be most interested if you have an example of the former.

Yes, I was typing on SwiftKey. It's great for correcting erratically misjudged finger strokes but sometimes corrects to something else altogether.

I don't particularly follow how the idea could be proved or disproved, in such a specific form, by singular example. What would be inherent to that one example that would definitively point to a deliberate harmony or one that just evolved? What can be said with certainty though, more broadly speaking, is that harmonies are not merely the product of voice leading plus corrections, with no bigger scheme. Correcting to random harmonically consonant sounds would make no more structural sense than random dissonance without corrections.

By nature, a fugue interweaves horizontal and vertical. It's not random chance that fugues are loaded with cadences. The simple fact that we see so many cadences alone proves that it is an outright fallacy to assume that everything is based on horizontal issues. And it's sillier still to think horizontal issues define a modulation. We can only speculate about the exact balance of how Bach composed and to precisely what extent voices generated harmony or harmony dictated the guideline of what could occur in voices. The balance probably tipped around considerably in the moment, but it was always a balance. what we can say for certain is that it is objectively an error to assert that it's all about horizontal and that vertical issues weren't of huge importance.

[j_menz]

Correcting to random harmonically consonant sounds would make no more structural sense than random dissonance without corrections.

Beethoven certainly agreed, and chose the latter. Bach, however, tended to favour consonant harmonies to a greater extend and would modify a line to achieve it.

I suggest you read up on how fugues are actually structured formally to see how the horizontal element works. What you say is no doubt true of the free counterpoint elements of a fugue, but not so much for the treatment and development of subjects.

[nyiregyhazi]

Beethoven certainly agreed, and chose the latter. Bach, however, tended to favour consonant harmonies to a greater extend and would modify a line to achieve it.

I suggest you read up on how fugues are actually structured formally to see how the horizontal element works. What you say is no doubt true of the free counterpoint elements of a fugue, but not so much for the treatment and development of subjects.

What particular issues? What horizontal issues might the fact that I see both horizontal AND vertical imply I am grossly ignorant about and have urgent reading to do upon? I'm well aware that subjects are relatively narrow, but also that even they are not immune to intervallic corrections that exist directly to make them comply with vertical harmony- in direct contravention of the established horizontal logic. Even Bach's triple subject 5 voice fugue is remarkably harmonic. It doesn't turn atonal, because he's still aware of vertical harmonies and does not let horizontal independence run amok, without consideration of the fact that vertical associations between parts must make sense throughout. Horizontal and vertical go hand in hand and horizontal issues are never permitted to override harmonic sense. And the freer parts are as important as the subjects. Your argument would seem to ride on viewing them as completely unimportant filler. They are massively important. They are no mere harmonic filler- but horizontal lines which are tailor made to comply with/generate the specific harmonic scheme. There is no valid way to see these parts as having anything other than a dual role. For them to be reasonably downplayed as if they don't matter much would depend on thinking of them as being compositionally unimportant, which they are certainly not. A fugue that consists of subject alone is not a fugue. It's the fact that voices compete against others vertically that makes it a fugue. Whether they are developmental of the subject doesn't matter. Every voice in a fugue is an integral part of the whole. You can't just downplay the parts that blatantly contradict the idea that compliance with vertical harmony is any less than part and parcel of how voices in fugues work. All parts matter.

If I've implied in any way that fugues are not loaded with horizontal issues then by all means say where. The point is simply that horizontal issues are always having to be kept in check with vertical issues too (yes, "too", not "instead") . Please fill me in on whatever horizontal issues that might supposedly suggest that I need to read up on.

PS. I really don't think Beethoven chose "random" dissonance. Just because a composer allows chromatic intervals to arise, it doesn't mean he stopped caring about the harmonic progressions. There's always a balance- not a simplistic polarised decision to go with either deliberate vertical harmony or to allow any old harmony that horizontal movement should end up causing.  Even Bach allows some almighty collisions. The point is that he ALLOWS them as an active decision. He doesn't leave them to occur at random, based exclusively on voice-leading. That basis exists solely in experimental music such as Ives.

[lazyfingers]

Ahem. Unless you're suggesting everything was monodic, it certainly wasn't a new invention.

Nobody said that harmony was invented in the Classical period, nor that the classical period didn't have counterpoint. Only the ultra pedant will jump to that conclusion. And it escapes me why you would bring up monody. Also, I don't know why you would infer from my assertion about vertical in Baroque means that they didn't have harmony. Yes - there is harmony in Bach's fugues. Clearly he invented much of harmony. However, it is also clear that fugues are countrapuntal in nature.

I think you need to refer to the context of person who raised the term vertical/horizontal in the previous post. In that context, Baroque music is characterised by counterpoint, whilst Classical is characterised by homophony - in this context that means a melodic line supported by a chordal structure.

I have adopted the following definition of homophony:

hom·o·phon·ic  (hm-fnk, hm-)
adj.
1.  Having the same sound.

2.  Having or characterized by a single melodic line with accompaniment.

And this distinction between Baroque and Classical music was first noted by Charles Burney back in 1776. So, please don't read other words in those than what vertical/horizontal mean. You are again defining those terms in your way and attacking them, and clearly the OP and I didn't quite have the same definition as yours (ie. Vertical means no harmony!)

[nyiregyhazi]

Nobody said that harmony was invented in the Classical period, nor that the classical period didn't have counterpoint. Only the ultra pedant will jump to that conclusion. And it escapes me why you would bring up monody. Also, I don't know why you would infer from my assertion about vertical in Baroque means that they didn't have harmony. Yes - there is harmony in Bach's fugues. Clearly he invented much of harmony. However, it is also clear that fugues are countrapuntal in nature.

I think you need to refer to the context of person who raised the term vertical/horizontal in the previous post. In that context, Baroque music is characterised by counterpoint, whilst Classical is characterised by homophony - in this context that means a melodic line supported by a chordal structure.

I have adopted the following definition of homophony:

Harmony is vertical in nature. To say vertical issues didn't exist in Bach's time is to have a curious definition of what vertical means. Given that all harmony is vertical, to say that vertical issues didn't exist then is to say that harmony doesn't exist in Bach's fugues.

I appreciate that the word "vertical" has become a dirty word that is almost exclusively used with negative connotations. But accurate usage of it should not be killed off by this bastardisation. What it should accurately refer to within a contrapuntal whole (ie. harmony) is integral to what a fugue is. The term needs to be reclaimed from its bastardised usage, as a simplistic negative.

[lazyfingers]

Harmony is vertical in nature.

Please read my previous post. Nobody actually said that vertical does not have harmony. Or that harmony was the sole idea behind horizontal music.

You are making up your own definition, and then attacking that. Which would qualify as a strawman!

[nyiregyhazi]

Please read my previous post. Nobody actually said that vertical does not have harmony. Or that harmony was the sole idea behind horizontal music.

You are making up your own definition, and then attacking that. Which would qualify as a strawman!

I quote:

Vertical was a classical invention, with Beethoven as its supreme master.

It was no such thing. It always existed- ever since two notes first began sounding in combination.

I never attributed the fallacy:

vertical does not have harmony.

to you. I pointed out that to speak of vertical issues being invented after Bach is not accurate, given than harmony is vertical by nature. They have always existed and been important to all music that is not monody.

[lazyfingers]

It was no such thing. It always existed- ever since two notes first began sounding in combination.

You are referring to "harmony" and not "horizontal structure".

The term vertical vs horizontal structure seems to escape you. You seem unable to resist confounding "vertical" and "harmony", and then claim that harmony always existed, when that isn't even the question.

When discussing vertical versus horizontal music, it is not usual for the discussion to morph into discordant vs harmonic music. But there you are.

[nyiregyhazi]

You are referring to "harmony" and not "horizontal structure".

The term vertical vs horizontal structure seems to escape you. You seem unable to resist confounding "horizontal" and "harmony", and then claim that harmony always existed, when that isn't even the question.

Indeed, I am referring to harmony. Nobody used the term "horizontal structure". The existence of harmony is what proves that it's a nonsense to assert that the classical period "invented" the vertical in music. I have no idea what horizontal structure has to do with the point, or why you are accurately stating that I am referring to no such thing.

There is no vertical "vs" horizontal structure in a fugue. It's like saying width "vs" breadth in a square. Both dimensions are just there, as part of what it is. What is this "vs" all about? It's not a contest. Fugues are not one dimensional, either horizontally or vertically. They exist in both dimensions and must be compositionally put together by attention to both dimensions- otherwise they fail.

[j_menz]

What particular issues?

If I am writing a fugue and choose at a particular point to introduce the subject in inversion, a perfectly valid and not unusual case, the subject is given, so it's inversion is also given. From the point it starts, to the point it finishes (which depends on the length of the subject), the notes are set.  There are a variety of such compositional tools used in fugue writing, and they are used often.

What Bach (and others) do, however is then look at the harmonic result of the interaction of whatever such set episodes are in play, and make adjustments to one or more of them in the interest of harmonic improvement.

The dissonances in Beethoven are not random, they are simply a reflection of his "no adjustments" policy to the resultant interaction of particular subject treatment techniques.

The dissonances in Bach are in some respects more interesting, because he felt free to change things to make more consonant harmonies, he also can be taken to have chosen which dissonances to remain.

It is also the case that certain harmonically important focal points exist in Bach's fugues, and he appears to have tailored both his choice of compositional techniques, and modified the results in order to arrive at these points. His ability to do this so successfully is one of the things that make his mastery of the form stand out.

[lazyfingers]

Indeed, I am referring to harmony. Nobody used the term "horizontal structure".

Okay then - make up your own definition then. The original post I responded to asked the question:

One teacher said you should think vertically while playing a fugue. Well, I've heard a Bach specialist say you should think horizontally.

The poster never mentioned harmony. I think you are off on a tangent and not following the conversation, but somehow felt free to chant in with your own definition.

The existence of harmony is what proves that it's a nonsense to assert that the classical period "invented" the vertical in music. I have no idea what horizontal structure has to do with the point, or why you are accurately stating that I am referring to no such thing.

You keep trying to attack this through the term "harmony", when the context of the conversation does not even refer to this. Both vertical and horizontal music employ harmony. It is purely your construction that only one of those structures employ harmony.

[nyiregyhazi]

If I am writing a fugue and choose at a particular point to introduce the subject in inversion, a perfectly valid and not unusual case, the subject is given, so it's inversion is also given. From the point it starts, to the point it finishes (which depends on the length of the subject), the notes are set.  There are a variety of such compositional tools used in fugue writing, and they are used often.

What Bach (and others) do, however is then look at the harmonic result of the interaction of whatever such set episodes are in play, and make adjustments to one or more of them in the interest of harmonic improvement.

You're preaching to the choir (although I must stress that inversions too are often imperfect in terms of the exact intervals- which shows that they are made to fit a scheme of vertical harmonies that would seem to have been given greater priority than full  horizontal logic!). How is any of this in conflict with the idea that horizontal and vertical matters are both incredibly important? Where did anything I said suggest I'm ignorant of these issues and where do they expose a particular hole in any argument I made?

The dissonances in Beethoven are not random, they are simply a reflection of his "no adjustments" policy to the resultant interaction of particular subject treatment techniques.

I'm not convinced. I'd have to explore in more depth, but I seem to recall that the op. 110 fugue has plenty of intervallic tweaking in countersubjects. I wouldn't deny that he was willing to allow clashes based on literal transpositions of intervals, but I'm not at all convinced by a no adjustments policy in general.

It is also the case that certain harmonically important focal points exist in Bach's fugues, and he appears to have tailored both his choice of compositional techniques, and modified the results in order to arrive at these points. His ability to do this so successfully is one of the things that make his mastery of the form stand out.

Indeed- and why it's such a nonsense to downplay the relevance of vertical issues in fugue, when these harmonic arrivals are vertical events that horizontal issues are forced to comply with. Either a solely horizontal or vertical viewpoint of a two dimensional reality is meaningless.

[nyiregyhazi]

question:The poster never mentioned harmony. I think you are off on a tangent and not following the conversation, but somehow felt free to chant in with your own definition.

Harmony is vertical. If you claim vertical was a classical invention (which by extension means that vertical didn't exist in Bach), you have a fallacious definition of what vertical means. Bach had harmony, thus Bach's music contains vertical issues. Thus vertical was not a classical invention, as you claimed. It's not complex logic.

Argue the toss, if you will, but the classical period did not invent vertical in music. It existed since two notes sounded together. All but monody is both horizontal AND vertical.

[lazyfingers]

Harmony is vertical.

That is only your definition.

As I have said earlier (ad nauseum), is that the discussion is not about harmonic vs discordant music. A purely countrapuntal piece can also be in harmony. It is just that the 4 voices each have their own lines. And that is what we were discussing in terms of being horizontal.

You are creating a strawman:  ie harmony is vertical, and is not horizontal. That was not the question asked by raindropshome. Clearly, the poster did not mean to imply that one needs to think in terms of harmonic vs discordant terms when playing Bach's fugues. You need to refer back to the context and not make up your own strawman arguments.

And this distinction between Baroque and Classical was actually noted for the first time (in surviving print anyway) by Charles Burney back in 1776. Yes - that is actually in the Classical era by most people's definition of the Classical period.

[nyiregyhazi]

That is only your definition.

As I have said earlier (ad nauseum), is that the discussion is not about harmonic vs discordant music. A purely countrapuntal piece can also be in harmony. It is just that the 4 voices each have their own lines. And that is what we were discussing in terms of being horizontal.

If you cannot understand that a harmony objectively exists vertically (in the universally accepted defintion of simultaneous musical events, rather than those that occur side by side, over time), we have nothing to discuss.

You clearly didn't read any of what I actually wrote. I credited the horizontal. And I pointed out that it's not mere coincidence that vertical harmonies tend to arise with a lot of logic on the way (regularly by contradicting the consistency of horizontal logic). That proves that Bach considered both horizontal and vertical within a two dimensional process.

I don't know whose arse you plucked the idea that classical period composers invented the vertical from, but you should put it right back up there where it belongs.

[j_menz]

You're preaching to the choir. How is any of this in conflict with the idea that horizontal and vertical matters are both incredibly important? Where did anything I said suggest I'm ignorant of these issues and where do they expose a particular hole in any argument I made?

I'm not convinced. I'd have to explore in more depth, but I seem to recall that the op. 110 fugue has plenty of intervallic tweaking in countersubjects. I wouldn't deny that he was willing to allow clashes based on literal transpositions of intervals, but I'm not at all convinced by a no adjustments policy in general.

Indeed- and why it's such a nonsense to downplay the relevance of vertical issues in fugue, when these harmonic arrivals are vertical events that horizontal issues are forced to comply with. Either a solely horizontal or vertical viewpoint of a two dimensional reality is meaningless.

In your desire to highlight the harmonic considerations in fugue you tend to give the impression of dismissing the linear. I am pleased that this is not actually your intention.  

Bach is perhaps an interesting case here, though, as he has a better developed harmonic framework in mind in his fugues. Lesser lights really only seem to correct dissonances and engineer to reach a satisfactory finale, whereas Bach manages a rather more fully developed series of convergences.

As for Beethoven, he came to (writing) fugues generally rather late in his career, and the development of his "no adjustments" policy happened over time. It was really only fully implemented in his Grosse Fugue, though he came closer and closer to it as his use of the form developed.

[nyiregyhazi]

In your desire to highlight the harmonic considerations in fugue you tend to give the impression of dismissing the linear. I am pleased that this is not actually your intention.  

Bach is perhaps an interesting case here, though, as he has a better developed harmonic framework in mind in his fugues. Lesser lights really only seem to correct dissonances and engineer to reach a satisfactory finale, whereas Bach manages a rather more fully developed series of convergences.

As for Beethoven, he came to (writing) fugues generally rather late in his career, and the development of his "no adjustments" policy happened over time. It was really only fully implemented in his Grosse Fugue, though he came closer and closer to it as his use of the form developed.

This summary to my first post gives an impression of stressing one dimension over the other?


"You might as well argue about whether the length or breadth of a square is most important. It's just one whole that exists as it is- with both dimensions as an integral part of what it is. Why would anyone feel a need to downplay either?"

If that's not unambiguous enough, I don't know what it really takes to persuade a person that appreciating the mere existence of part of a whole doesn't mean denying other aspects. I've only ever heard people who stress horizontal lose all grasp of the vertical. I've never once heard a person say fugues are vertical, not horizontal. You hear the equally fallacious opposite claim all the time.

[lazyfingers]

If you cannot understand that a harmony objectively exists vertically (in the universally accepted defintion of simultaneous musical events, rather than those that occur side by side, over time), we have nothing to discuss.

We have nothing to discuss because you have created a strawman. You are claiming that the horizontal structure does not mean harmony. That is purely your invention, and an argument all of your own. Again, you have simply equated vertical=harmony, and then proceeded to attack that, when that isn't even the question.

I don't know whose arse you plucked the idea that classical period composers invented the vertical from, but you should put it right back up there where it belongs.

You are being rude. Right back at you.

[nyiregyhazi]

We have nothing to discuss because you have taken created a strawman. You are claiming that the vertical structure does not mean harmony.

That's your strawman. What I actually stated can be found in my last post. I neither claimed that nor said that you claimed it. I have not the slightest idea where that even came from. I am saying that any harmony IS a vertical structure. Do you assume that means I am attributing the opposite stance to you? I am not.

I am using that as a simple and straightforward proof that the vertical in music was NOT a classical invention, contrary to your fantastical assertion. That was utter nonsense. Anything with harmony has a vertical level. Even two voice counterpoint.

[lazyfingers]

I neither claimed that nor said that you claimed it. I have not the slightest idea where that even came from. I am saying that harmony IS a vertical structure.

Yes you did. You should refer to the original context brought up by raindropshome.

You are bringing up the term "harmony" as your argument, when the question about thinking in vertical vs horizontal terms isn't about harmonic vs discordant terms. Please read the original post again and then you will understand the context - hopefully.

Here is the original question again (ad nauseum)

One teacher said you should think vertically while playing a fugue. Well, I've heard a Bach specialist say you should think horizontally.

[nyiregyhazi]

Yes you did. You should refer to the original context brought up by raindropshome.

You are bringing up the term "harmony" as your argument, when the question about thinking in vertical vs horizontal terms isn't about harmonic vs discordant terms. Please read the original post again and then you will understand the context - hopefully.

Nope. I'm still bemused by such a baffling assertion sorry and nothing you are saying makes it any clearer. Harmony IS vertical. If you cannot understand that any music which contains harmony therefore has a vertical level (ie. Bach's does), you are not appreciating objective meanings.

If you want clarify what you meant then state what the assertion that the classical period "invented" the vertical is supposed to mean to anyone (given that Bach was not only using vertical harmonies but often sculpting horizontal parts to fit to them) .

You're back to this "vs" again- but a fugue is what it is. A fugue is not a competition to see whether harmony or voice leading should "win". It's a unified whole. If winning is to overlook the other aspect, then it's a resounding loss, not a victory.

[lazyfingers]

If you want clarify what you meant then state what the assertion that the classical period "invented" the vertical is supposed to mean to anyone (given that Bach was not only using vertical harmonies but often sculpting horizontal parts to fit to them) .

Your issue is that you keep staking the claim that harmony=vertical, and then attack that. Please refer to the original context of the question. The poster clearly did not mean that when he made the statement

Well, I've heard a Bach specialist say you should think horizontally.

that the Bach specialist say to think in discordant terms.

And furthermore, you will note the context and the definition I used, rather than your usual habit of making up your own context/definition:

Should be horizontal as in subject/countersubject (or canon) going against each other.

That is in response of how one should "think" about a Bach fugue. Clearly, that is the context.

I baffles me why you cannot accept the context the original post was made in, and then launch into a whole argument about harmony being vertical. Clearly, a 4 part canon is horizontal in nature even if they are sung in perfect harmony. But that is not the intent of the composer for one to think about such a piece.

And I have already given you a reference as to when people starting thinking in those terms when Charles Burney first described this in print in 1776.

[nyiregyhazi]

Your issue is that you keep staking the claim that harmony=vertical, and then attack that.

I am attacking that? What on earth are you on about? I am stating that is an inherent FACT that proves classical composers did not "invent" vertical. You think I'm "attacking" such a self evident truth? I'm certainly not. I am using it as a PROOF, not attacking it!!!! You're leaping to baffling assumptions that have nothing to do with that I am actually stating.

All of your points come back to the fallacy that a person can only think either horizontally or vertically. Well, Bach didn't do any such thing as a composer (as evidenced by his altering horizontal logic to fit vertical harmonic logic). So why are you basing everything on the fallacy that a performer can only think EITHER horizontally or vertically? If that were true, the performer could only think horizontally about one part anyway, because they wouldn't be aware of any vertical issues.

Clearly, a 4 part canon is horizontal in nature even if they are sung in perfect harmony. But that is not the intent of the composer for one to think about such a piece.

Actually, no. That is not clear at all. In fact my entire argument was about refuting such nonsense as the idea that voices are not supposed to have any relationship or awareness of the whole, outside of their own narrow horizontal path. A performer who doesn't appreciate where interest occurs vertically via harmonic clashes with other parts is a bad performer. A performer who belts out their part throughout, without knowing when to soften slightly in order to allow a more important part to carry through, is also a bad performer.

[lazyfingers]

I am stating that is an inherent FACT that proves classical composers did not "invent" vertical.

Who said anything about classical composers inventing vertical? You simply read more into my statement than I intended. If you read my post carefully, I said that thinking in terms of horizontal vs vertical terms is a classical invention. In fact first noted in print by Charles Burney in 1776 - which is in the classical period by accepted definitions. I say this again, the poster asked how one should "think" about Bach's fugues - either vertically or horizontally.

All of your points come back to the fallacy that a person can only think either horizontally or vertically.

Read the original post. The fallacy is one of your own construction. Nobody suggested that you cannot have simultaneous thoughts. Clearly the question is what the prime thought should be when considering the Fugue.

One teacher said you should think vertically while playing a fugue. Well, I've heard a Bach specialist say you should think horizontally.

Actually, no. That is not clear at all. In fact my entire argument was about refuting such nonsense as the idea that voices are not supposed to have any relationship or awareness of the whole, outside of their own narrow horizontal path.

Actually, I think you should read what people mean by thinking in vertical or horizontal terms before you comment further. You are obsfucating the term to mean that horizontal music does not consider harmony and that harmony is the sole prerogative of vertical music. Unfortunately, that is not what people mean by horizontal and how to think about fugues. This is what Angela Hewitt wrote:

I began as I always do: carefully writing in a fingering that allowed me to distinguish the four lines of music, and shaping each voice in turn. It was a painstaking task. My hostess, an amateur pianist, was amazed at my thoroughness, thinking that an experienced player could perhaps dispense with such things. Over the months to come, I changed my mind many times, and went through several erasers, always notating everything carefully. It simply isn't possible to play this complex, horizontal music without the necessary discipline. Each voice must sing, and one voice often takes a breath in a different place from another.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/sep/19/angela-hewitt-battle-bach
Apparently, she can only think in terms of horizontal vs vertical, and not simultaneously. LOL!

[nyiregyhazi]

Who said anything about classical composers inventing vertical? You simply read more into my statement than I intended. If you read my post carefully, I said that thinking in terms of horizontal vs vertical terms is a classical invention.

No. This is what you said:

Vertical was a classical invention, with Beethoven as its supreme master.

Who invented what (the composer) Beethoven mastered, if not a classical composer? A classical non-musician?

I say this again, the poster asked how one should "think" about Bach's fugues - either vertically or horizontally.

The only correct answer is both ways. Likewise in even the most homophonic music. Anything else is missing the point altogether. Counterpoint has harmony and even homophonic writing will imply at least some movement of voices rather than undifferentiated slabs of tone that have no horizontal relationships. It amazes me that it's actually controversial to point out that fugues are two dimensional. Seeing only the horizontal is no better than seeing only the vertical. Either narrow viewpoint is flawed.

If you aren't assuming you can only answer one way, why is your answer exclusively about horizontal rather than based on the big picture? You don't think that shaping the harmony is part of a good performance?

[lazyfingers]

No. This is what you said:

Who invented what (the composer) Beethoven mastered, if not a classical composer? A classical non-musician?

Please read my post again. Beethoven clearly is a classical composer. I never said anything about him inventing vertical, but he thought in that way though, didn't he? And that is the difference between his sonatas and Bach's fugues. You argument relies on twisting other people's words and then attacking them.

The only correct answer is both ways. Blah, blah, .... Either narrow viewpoint is flawed.

Apparently, I'm in good company - please refer to Angela Hewitt's writings.

It simply isn't possible to play this complex, horizontal music without the necessary discipline. Each voice must sing, and one voice often takes a breath in a different place from another.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/sep/19/angela-hewitt-battle-bach

LOL.

[nyiregyhazi]

Please read my post again. Beethoven clearly is a classical composer. I never said anything about him inventing vertical, but he thought in that way though, didn't he? And that is the difference between his sonatas and Bach's fugues. You argument relies on twisting other people's words and then attacking them.

No, taking them exactly as stated. Which (now non-composer) in the classical period invented vertical? And how did it not exist for Bach?

If Hewitt could not listen both vertically and horizontally at once, she'd have to choose one voice in performance and only listen to that one or record by multitracking to get a performance. Sculpting more than one thing at a time (which is what she must do in performance) means vertical awareness too. Obviously it makes sense to listen to and play a single voice in practise. In performance you have four though. That means either simultaneous vertical and horizontal awareness, unless you pick only one voice to listen to. Her statement would only prove anything if proof of horizontal considerations meant disproof of any vertical ones. But that is an invalid premise, as people can and indeed must be aware of both aspects to succeed.

Sometimes I practise only playing the harmonic skeleton of a fugue. Presumably that would also prove that I only think vertically? A selective practise exercise is a selective practise exercise. Not a proof of a narrow-minded view.

[lazyfingers]

If Hewitt could not listen both vertically and horizontally at once, she'd have to choose one voice in performance and only listen to that one or record by multitracking to get a performance.

Whatever man! You are now taking to blasting Hewitt instead! Hmmm.... her inability to listen both vertically or horizontally?  Really?

[nyiregyhazi]

Whatever man! You are now taking to blasting Hewitt instead! Hmmm.... her inability to listen both vertically or horizontally?  Really?

No. To your fallacious suggestion that if she practises voices separately, it would be impossible to think that she might also be aware of vertical issues within her conceptions. That's fallacious logic and grossly disrespectful to her. If you think vertical issues shouldn't register in the whole, say so for yourself. Don't misrepresent someone else's statement to try make it say what you think, when it doesn't say that at all. And don't be so pathetic as to actively deflect the responsibility for your argument on to her personally. I'm arguing against points YOU made, which she did not.

I practise separate voices in fugues too. It's a completely standard practise technique. That doesn't mean I'm ignorant to vertical issues of harmony and neither does it mean that she is.

There's nothing desirable about seeing a two dimensional whole as if it had merely one dimension. Nothing in her words suggested she doesn't see the whole from both ends. If you want to glorify narrowminded thinking and limited perception of a big whole, do it for yourself. Don't appoint someone else and pretend that they share your view.

[j_menz]

If Hewitt could not listen both vertically and horizontally at once, she'd have to choose one voice in performance and only listen to that one or record by multitracking to get a performance. Sculpting more than one thing at a time (which is what she must do in performance) means vertical awareness too. Obviously it makes sense to listen to and play a single voice in practise. In performance you have four though. That means either simultaneous vertical and horizontal awareness, unless you pick only one voice to listen to.

Why couldn't she just listen to the (say) four voices purely horizontally? I'm not suggesting she does, or even that it is entirely possible to do so without also recognising the harmonic relationships (though I've played some fugues where those harmonic relationships have been not particularly enlightening), but why should she be limited to just being able to listen to one voice linearly?

[j_menz]

Beethoven clearly is a classical composer. I never said anything about him inventing vertical, but he thought in that way though, didn't he? And that is the difference between his sonatas and Bach's fugues.

Presumably you exclude those bits of his (later) sonatas that are actually Fugues (or fugal, if that makes a relevant difference).

[nyiregyhazi]

Why couldn't she just listen to the (say) four voices purely horizontally? I'm not suggesting she does, or even that it is entirely possible to do so without also recognising the harmonic relationships (though I've played some fugues where those harmonic relationships have been not particularly enlightening), but why should she be limited to just being able to listen to one voice linearly?

Who said she can't - when practising a solitary voice? The point is that the performance requires all four. At this point, there are vertical relationships. Anyone who is deaf to them is not a musician. She doesn't run four autopilots. She puts them into a whole. No amount of desire for things to be simple will change the fact that an evolved performance demands both horizontal phrasing and vertical associations. Whether in performance or composition, one dimensional thought is not superior to two dimensional awareness- not even when it's one dimensional horizontal thought.

[lostinidlewonder]

Learning a fugue will be INCREDIBLY!!!! helped with knowledge about vertical and horizontal.

You will gain insight to the art of fingering fugues so easily if you think UP and Down and LEFT AND RIGHT!!!!!!

You will be able to interpret pieces like a grand master of piano, amongst the greatest in the world if you can see Bach as Horizontal and Vertical. You should be encouraged to draw lines on your score to highlight these lines of wisdom.

All music universities in the world are starting to become aware of this breakthrough knowledge of Vertical and Horizontal realization of music. It will certainly change everything from now on.

[j_menz]

Who said she can't - when practising a solitary voice?

My point is that she can when playing more than one. Not on "autopilot" either.

[nyiregyhazi]

Presumably you exclude those bits of his (later) sonatas that are actually Fugues (or fugal, if that makes a relevant difference).

Indeed. The idea of even homophonic music being vertical is a nonsense to me. Homophonic writing implies at least one line and usually many more.  Would a single line melody be regarded as vertical? No, it would be shaped horizontally. The idea that music is vertical  OR horizontal is a nonsense to me in general. Aside from the fact that a single line has no vertical issues to consider by definition, all music with two or more notes sounding at once can only be meaningfully viewed both in terms of vertical and horizontal issues. Narrowing it down to one at the expense of the other is a really stupid piece of pseudo-intellectualism that merely gives the okay to lazy execution.

[j_menz]

Learning a fugue

You'll need this, you've dripped sarcasm over everything.

[nyiregyhazi]

My point is that she can when playing more than one. Not on "autopilot" either.

By compartmentalising her brain into four different parts? Impossible, on an objective level. We only have one set of ears for a start. You cannot separate awareness out altogether even if you want to, unless deaf. The brain cannot create four sub brains that only process hearing of one voice while perceiving nothing of the others, to reference with. We shouldn't be surprised at the fact that Bach players don't accidentally end up finishing one voice a bar ahead of another. It's because there's a single guiding mind that organises both horizontal and vertical associations. It's actually impossible to separate the issues altogether. It's just that you have the best awareness of both when you don't actively try to only see one point of view while trying to exclude the other from awareness.

[j_menz]

By compartmentalising her brain into four different parts?

No, by multitasking. Same as walking and chewing gum.

[lazyfingers]

Presumably you exclude those bits of his (later) sonatas that are actually Fugues (or fugal, if that makes a relevant difference).

I never did say that Fugues, nor horizontal thinking was dropped in the classical period.

[lazyfingers]

No. To your fallacious suggestion that if she practises voices separately, it would be impossible to think that she might also be aware of vertical issues within her conceptions.

Nobody said anything about her being unaware of vertical issue. That is another strawman construction of yours.

It is how she thinks about the whole piece that is highlighted here.

It simply isn't possible to play this complex, horizontal music without the necessary discipline.

Even she characterises the music as .... horizontal! Hmmm....

[lazyfingers]

The idea that music is vertical  OR horizontal is a nonsense to me in general.

Apparently, I am not the only one who use that characterisation. Gasp... even Angela Hewitt ... surely not!

[lazyfingers]

Why couldn't she just listen to the (say) four voices purely horizontally?

By compartmentalising her brain into four different parts? Impossible, on an objective level. We only have one set of ears for a start.

It is possible to hear more than one voice and melodic line at the same time. That is the point of contrapuntal music after all.

Oh... don't tell me you can't! Oh dear!...