Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:24, 23 September 2003

There are four canons in the Art of Fugue, not "several."

Many fugues in the Hindemith and Shostakovich fugue sets are not tonally centered. It is therefore incorrect to say that each of these is a "cycle of fugues on all keys."

(cutting in) I only have a passing acquaintance with the Hindemith, so can't comment on that, but Shostakovich's opus 87 most definitely contains a prelude and fugue in each key. They come in relative major/minor pairs working their way round the circle of fifths, so the order is C major, A minor, G major, E minor, D major, B minor and so on, ending with D minor. --Camembert

The paragraphs following the asterisks is superfluous. Obviously the fugue is an abstract form and obviously there are good and bad examples of it. The same could be said, in music, for rondo, sonata-allegro, song form with trio etc. etc. One could apply the following paragraph in poetry to the virelei, or the sonnet. Indeed, any form is abstract and therefore subject to base as well as profound exemplification. I cannot see that this paragraph adds anything to the definition of fugue. If Maverick insists on retaining it, then he should add it to every other Misplaced Pages definition of a form.

Writing about fugues sometimes gives the impression that the mere fact that something is a fugue makes it great or profound. In reality, a fugue is just an abstract form and can be a purely academic exercise without much musical, aesthetic, or spiritual value. Indeed, of the major classical composers, only Bach and Beethoven wrote more than one or two fugues that are part of the standard repertory, whereas there are composers who have written hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of fugues without having attained any renown. As a musicologist observed, the fugues of Bach and Beethoven are great "despite" the fact that they are fugues, not because they are fugues. The appeal of fugues, and the fact that some of the greatest compositions by some of the greatest composers are fugues or have fugue-like passages, may reside not only in the human fascination with complexity and with the role of art in bringing complexity into some kind of order, but with the temporal nature of musical experience. In a fugue, each voice has its own time structure, and when one hears a fugue, one is actually hearing multiple time structures going on simultaneously, each with their own shape and organization. This bursts the bounds of most everyday time experience and enables the listener to inhabit temporarily an expanded consciousness that can encompass multiple time tracks or layers of temporal experience simultaneously.

I think this paragraph is questionable on several counts. I'm hoping to have a good look at the article over the weekend and try to improve it a bit (of course, if somebody else does something to it before me, that would be great). --Camembert

I put this in, and I won't be insulted if you wish to take it out. However, I disagree with the above point, because I have never seen any literature claiming that sonata-allegro form, rondo form, song form are inherently profound, whereas such claims or imputations are made in the way that fugues are discussed in various places ranging from concert programs and CD liner notes to books about music. That is why I put this remark here and not in discussions of any other forms. Perhaps it would help if I gave the reference for the assertion that Bach's and Beethoven's fugues are great despite the fact that they are fugues. I didn't because I put it in from memory, but I will be home soon and could find the reference. In any case, if the point seems contentious or one-sided, please take it out. Jeremy J. Shapiro 03:10, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree that it might be worth saying that fugues are sometimes thought of as being great simply because they are fugues, and then debunking that idea. My problem with the paragraph is more to do with this stuff about "expanded consciousness" and "multiple time structures going on simultaneously". The problem is that any music with a contrapuntal element will present different things going on at the same time - it's not something unique to fugues. I'm also not sure it's true to say that "only Bach and Beethoven wrote more than one or two fugues that are part of the standard repertory", though we may just have different ideas of what constitutes the "standard repertory" (there are plenty of examples by Bartók, for example). Anyway, as I say, I'm going to have a look at the whole article - I don't want to just remove anything, but I'm probably going to reword, restructure and add a fair bit. --Camembert

OK, I've rewritten it. It isn't perfect, of course, but I think it's better than it was. Feel free to hack it around further, everyone. If you could provide a reference for the "Beethoven's and Bach's are great despite being fugues, not because" quote, that would be good, I think - it's good to have in, but I do think it needs referencing, because it seems a pretty odd thing to say to me: it seems to suggest that a piece being a fugue makes it less likely to be great, which is just as silly and off-target as saying that it makes it more likely. --Camembert

It appears that the sample fugue I MIDIfied and and uploaded has won a non-fan. Actually, it was written as a school exercise, originally. My challenge to you is to see if you can identify the source of the subject, which I made the subject of the fugue as a joke. (Hint: I was in college in the early 1980s). -- Smerdis of Tlön 19:46, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Don't feel bad, Smerdis. Your fugue isn't on Bach's level, but most people can't write a fugue at all.

Since you're a MIDI expert, maybe you could produce an example from the WTC for the article? For example, F# major of Book I is really delightful and would be a nice introduction to the fugue for people who haven't heard one before.

--:Opus33 20:24, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)