It was suggested that I post my new piece here as opposed to my blog. I had challenged myself to write a Fugue but I'm not entirely sure if I've done it properly. Any input?
The bit of your statement that I've made bold could apply and does apply to many works does it not? For example, any of Debussy's preludes.
Isn't the essence of sonata form in general also more a way approaching the musical material than a strict structure or 'mould'? Isn't form and content inseparable in all good works?
Fugue is a very particular arrangement of interacting independent voices. You can recognise a fugue by it's trademark treatment of it's material.
Oh, and by the way the Quantum mechanical view of it would be , I suppose : 'It is both a fugue and a non-fugue until I hear it. LOL.
Kristofer Emerig said:
You've hit on a crucial point, Jonathan, one which has given rise to the hotly debated question,"is fugue a form, or a texture"? My answer to that question is that it is precisely neither and both, simultaneously. The product of the fugal process, ideally, is a musical object in which content and form are inextricably woven, ie, wherein form is a direct consequence of the shape and character of the subject material.
I'd liken the differences between organic (fugal) development and sectional, formal constructs to those which distinguish relativistic physics and Newtonian physics. In the Newtonian system, we are given objects, mass and energy, which interact on or within the space-time continuum. There is very much a pristine distinction between "stuff", and the space it occupies. Sectional form is a bit like this, with ideas being packaged within predictable spaces. Relativistic thinking shattered this object-spacial perspective by imagining the space-time continuum not merely as pristine container, but an interactive object itself. Fugue is similar to me in this respect; Subject material, rather than merely being imbedded within a formal container, actually engenders the "space" -metre, texture, phrasing through the force of its own propensities.
The fugal process weds content and container in an endlessly recursive circle. It's no wonder the discipline has captured the attention of mathematicians throughout history.
Perhaps your way of thinking about the nature of fugue is justifiable but can you point to any examples from the Baroque to the present where a piece is either entitled fugue or generally accepted as being a fugue or even a fugato and which doesn't contain at least two independent voices treated contrapuntally?
Kristofer Emerig said:
Agreed, which is why I made a point to characterize fugal, organic, sectional, etc as vanishing points, rather than exact locations. All conceptual things are a continuum, but sometimes we must momentarily pretend that they are discreet and delineated in order to discuss them; it's the semantic paradox.
I certainly agree that all real musical objects are to some relative degree organic and to some sectional.
I do, however, strongly disagree with your third paragraph. It's the very antithesis of my view of what the discipline of fugue is about, but I won't reiterate what I've said above. Certainly a quasi-formal, somewhat cliche "fugue" evolved by the close of the Baroque, but the entire discipline, with all of it's possibilities, need not be shoehorned into that narrow paradigm.
The physics analogy was just me getting carried away.
Michael Tauben said:
The bit of your statement that I've made bold could apply and does apply to many works does it not? For example, any of Debussy's preludes.
Isn't the essence of sonata form in general also more a way approaching the musical material than a strict structure or 'mould'? Isn't form and content inseparable in all good works?
Fugue is a very particular arrangement of interacting independent voices. You can recognise a fugue by it's trademark treatment of it's material.
Oh, and by the way the Quantum mechanical view of it would be , I suppose : 'It is both a fugue and a non-fugue until I hear it. LOL.
Kristofer Emerig said:
You've hit on a crucial point, Jonathan, one which has given rise to the hotly debated question,"is fugue a form, or a texture"? My answer to that question is that it is precisely neither and both, simultaneously. The product of the fugal process, ideally, is a musical object in which content and form are inextricably woven, ie, wherein form is a direct consequence of the shape and character of the subject material.
I'd liken the differences between organic (fugal) development and sectional, formal constructs to those which distinguish relativistic physics and Newtonian physics. In the Newtonian system, we are given objects, mass and energy, which interact on or within the space-time continuum. There is very much a pristine distinction between "stuff", and the space it occupies. Sectional form is a bit like this, with ideas being packaged within predictable spaces. Relativistic thinking shattered this object-spacial perspective by imagining the space-time continuum not merely as pristine container, but an interactive object itself. Fugue is similar to me in this respect; Subject material, rather than merely being imbedded within a formal container, actually engenders the "space" -metre, texture, phrasing through the force of its own propensities.
The fugal process weds content and container in an endlessly recursive circle. It's no wonder the discipline has captured the attention of mathematicians throughout history.
So let me see if I've got this right, a relatively untrained composer writes a piece that's homophonic for the most part and calls it a fugue. Then she asks if it is a fugue and a group of composers of various levels of training cannot come up with a definition. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic (yes I'm being deliberately trollish).
First let me say Lori's piece is enjoyable, but it's not a fugue. Another poster suggested she call it a prelude, that sounds good to me since music history has no specific meaning for that term. A prelude doesn't have to actually be a prelude to something different. I believe Lori would be well served to change the name of her piece since knowledgable listeners may question her expertise or sanity upon hearing her piece and that she called it a fugue. Just call it a prelude and be done with the questioning.
I think the term fugue has come to have a specific meaning over the last three centuries. So I got out my trusty Harvard Dictionary of music and looked up fugue. Naturally, what's there is far too long for me to post here, but here's the first paragraph.
Fugue [Fr. fugue: Ger fuge: Lat., It., Sp., fuga]. (1) The most fully developed procedure for imitative counterpoint, in which the theme is stated successively in all voices of the polyphonic texture, tonally established, continuously expanded, opposed, and reestablished; also a work employing this procedure.
That's a lot of meaning in a few words, it doesn't say that the theme is monophonic, but it should (because knowledgable musicians would never question that). It should also say that the themes are typically expressed at the tonic and dominant degrees of the scale, however, some modern composers have composed fugues that do otherwise. Didn't Ives write a fugue in 4 keys? However, in reading this definition it seems to me that a fugue starts with an exposition in which the theme is stated in each of the voices in a polyphonic texture establishing a tonal center, this is followed by a development section that modulates and expands on the theme using various contrapuntal devices (sequence, stretto and episodes) and then recapitulates and reestablishes the tonic key to end the piece. I don't necessarily agree with all of that, but that's how I interpret the dictionary definition. Perhaps the most important term is polyphonic texture. I think the good people here should have done better, does no one else own a music dictionary???
Clearly I have not attended Harvard but I am pleased that you found my piece enjoyable. I enjoy it. I could care less if it's a fugue or not. The fact that it's been debatable for this long makes it disectable and heard. I should go to college and study music. I know I have potential. Thanks for your input.
a very interesting reading on the subject matter is in my opinion Walter Piston's COUNTERPOINT ...
it is NOT a treaty about counterpoint, but rather a discussion about music conveying a feeling of counterpoint even not being strictly speaking counterpointal music ...
my view is that the same applies to this discussion ...
the piece is NOT a scolastic fugue ...
I think that Lori wanted to convey the feeling of fugue ...
... that she succeeded and the piece is enjoyable to listen ...
I haven't attended Harvard either, but they publishes a music dictionary. I'm sure they publish many things. I bought it used at Half Price Books. Other universities publish music dictionaries including Oxford. If you go to college to study music you'll probably be required to buy one.
The real issue here is one of titling works. Many years back someone I respected suggested that if I wanted people to care about my music that titles such as sonata or fugue would only bore people. This person suggested that descriptive titles such as "A moonlight walk on the beach" or "How Jethro downed (in the cement pond)" were much more likely to grab peoples attention. I've never been able to go quite that far, preferring names like Spring Hop or In Such a Small Place. But I also have a prelude and fugue, though the prelude does have a subtitle. My initial point was to suggest you change the title. To my knowledge you haven't done that preferring to keep a modest bit of notoriety in this small place.
Finally, the degree of discussion here has centered less on your piece than on the definition of fugue. The reason is simple the cognitive dissonance caused by hearing a piece that's not a fugue titled as fugue. To me it doesn't even feel like a fugue. As I said it's a nice little piece, but that's all it is. I would never call it a fugue lest I run afoul of the title police. C'est la vie!
I suppose I should just go compose "How Jethro drowned."
Lori Sweeney said:
Clearly I have not attended Harvard but I am pleased that you found my piece enjoyable. I enjoy it. I could care less if it's a fugue or not. The fact that it's been debatable for this long makes it disectable and heard. I should go to college and study music. I know I have potential. Thanks for your input.
Replies
Lori Sweeney said:
The bit of your statement that I've made bold could apply and does apply to many works does it not? For example, any of Debussy's preludes.
Isn't the essence of sonata form in general also more a way approaching the musical material than a strict structure or 'mould'? Isn't form and content inseparable in all good works?
Fugue is a very particular arrangement of interacting independent voices. You can recognise a fugue by it's trademark treatment of it's material.
Oh, and by the way the Quantum mechanical view of it would be , I suppose : 'It is both a fugue and a non-fugue until I hear it. LOL.
Kristofer Emerig said:
Perhaps your way of thinking about the nature of fugue is justifiable but can you point to any examples from the Baroque to the present where a piece is either entitled fugue or generally accepted as being a fugue or even a fugato and which doesn't contain at least two independent voices treated contrapuntally?
Kristofer Emerig said:
Would anyone please define fugue so this argument ends?
Is fugue a musical form? is fugue a thinking process regardless of its results?
Is everybody talking about the same concept here?
By the way here's my version of a 4 voice fugue with accompaniment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3IgDNhcCBg
Ariel Ramos said:
So let me see if I've got this right, a relatively untrained composer writes a piece that's homophonic for the most part and calls it a fugue. Then she asks if it is a fugue and a group of composers of various levels of training cannot come up with a definition. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic (yes I'm being deliberately trollish).
First let me say Lori's piece is enjoyable, but it's not a fugue. Another poster suggested she call it a prelude, that sounds good to me since music history has no specific meaning for that term. A prelude doesn't have to actually be a prelude to something different. I believe Lori would be well served to change the name of her piece since knowledgable listeners may question her expertise or sanity upon hearing her piece and that she called it a fugue. Just call it a prelude and be done with the questioning.
I think the term fugue has come to have a specific meaning over the last three centuries. So I got out my trusty Harvard Dictionary of music and looked up fugue. Naturally, what's there is far too long for me to post here, but here's the first paragraph.
Fugue [Fr. fugue: Ger fuge: Lat., It., Sp., fuga]. (1) The most fully developed procedure for imitative counterpoint, in which the theme is stated successively in all voices of the polyphonic texture, tonally established, continuously expanded, opposed, and reestablished; also a work employing this procedure.
That's a lot of meaning in a few words, it doesn't say that the theme is monophonic, but it should (because knowledgable musicians would never question that). It should also say that the themes are typically expressed at the tonic and dominant degrees of the scale, however, some modern composers have composed fugues that do otherwise. Didn't Ives write a fugue in 4 keys? However, in reading this definition it seems to me that a fugue starts with an exposition in which the theme is stated in each of the voices in a polyphonic texture establishing a tonal center, this is followed by a development section that modulates and expands on the theme using various contrapuntal devices (sequence, stretto and episodes) and then recapitulates and reestablishes the tonic key to end the piece. I don't necessarily agree with all of that, but that's how I interpret the dictionary definition. Perhaps the most important term is polyphonic texture. I think the good people here should have done better, does no one else own a music dictionary???
Steve Chandler
Clearly I have not attended Harvard but I am pleased that you found my piece enjoyable. I enjoy it. I could care less if it's a fugue or not. The fact that it's been debatable for this long makes it disectable and heard. I should go to college and study music. I know I have potential. Thanks for your input.
a very interesting reading on the subject matter is in my opinion Walter Piston's COUNTERPOINT ...
it is NOT a treaty about counterpoint, but rather a discussion about music conveying a feeling of counterpoint even not being strictly speaking counterpointal music ...
my view is that the same applies to this discussion ...
the piece is NOT a scolastic fugue ...
I think that Lori wanted to convey the feeling of fugue ...
... that she succeeded and the piece is enjoyable to listen ...
Lori,
I haven't attended Harvard either, but they publishes a music dictionary. I'm sure they publish many things. I bought it used at Half Price Books. Other universities publish music dictionaries including Oxford. If you go to college to study music you'll probably be required to buy one.
The real issue here is one of titling works. Many years back someone I respected suggested that if I wanted people to care about my music that titles such as sonata or fugue would only bore people. This person suggested that descriptive titles such as "A moonlight walk on the beach" or "How Jethro downed (in the cement pond)" were much more likely to grab peoples attention. I've never been able to go quite that far, preferring names like Spring Hop or In Such a Small Place. But I also have a prelude and fugue, though the prelude does have a subtitle. My initial point was to suggest you change the title. To my knowledge you haven't done that preferring to keep a modest bit of notoriety in this small place.
Finally, the degree of discussion here has centered less on your piece than on the definition of fugue. The reason is simple the cognitive dissonance caused by hearing a piece that's not a fugue titled as fugue. To me it doesn't even feel like a fugue. As I said it's a nice little piece, but that's all it is. I would never call it a fugue lest I run afoul of the title police. C'est la vie!
I suppose I should just go compose "How Jethro drowned."
Lori Sweeney said:
I suppose I should just go compose "How Jethro drowned."
I definitely look forward to hearing that Steve. I'll change my title eventually. Maybe due to this discussion I could title it "A Feud Ending in D".
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next