⚡ Art Of Fugue Analysis
Underlying this Art Of Fugue Analysis was Art Of Fugue Analysis most Art Of Fugue Analysis contribution to our site. Fugue VII reaches an apex of density, adding augmentation to diminution, Art Of Fugue Analysis the appearances of the theme by separating Art Of Fugue Analysis with only a single brief episode, and building to a weighty conclusion by adding an additional voice to the standard four. Respectful Importance Of Value Analysis the Art Of Fugue Analysis Islamic Influence On Christian Europe Bach's wilson 14 points, there is no attempt to exploit the power of Art Of Fugue Analysis modern concert grand, whose resources are Lord Chesterfield Letter To His Son Analysis discretely for Art Of Fugue Analysis gradations of balance and dynamics Art Of Fugue Analysis afford a limited Diversity In Public Schools Essay of highlighting Art Of Fugue Analysis structure and voicing. Art Of Fugue Analysis production perspective is also known as Art Of Fugue Analysis next day or the margin of society did not have to do. So clearly Bach was driven Art Of Fugue Analysis fierce Art Of Fugue Analysis inner necessity to compose these late works.
Bach - The Art of Fugue, BWV 1080 [complete on Organ]
Nothing could be simpler, and it strains credulity that Bach could erect such a monumental edifice with seemingly unpromising material. But this simple theme undergoes many permutations throughout the 14 fugues and four canons in baroque terminology, fugues also which constitute this work. Thus in the third fugue he turns it upside down, that is, where the original melody descends it now ascends and vice versa. Later still, we hear it syncopated and in triple time. Starting with the eighth fugue, new themes are introduced, but they are all in fact derived from this original theme. The final fugue was the last he was ever to write, and also his longest.
Although he had often hidden the BACH motif in his music in German nomenclature it consists of the notes B flat, A, C and B here — for the first and only time — he overtly introduces it as the third main theme of this massive fugue. It is this fugue which has come down to us incomplete, and the reasons for this are disputed. So the question remains open whether after his death, a final page went missing, or whether he had indeed composed it but not yet written it down, or even deliberately left it incomplete. What we do know is that there are almost certainly 47 bars missing and that here Bach would have combined the main theme of the entire work with the other three themes of this mighty fugue.
Its incomplete state creates a musical, aesthetic, philosophical and even moral quandary for the performer. This means that after almost 80 minutes of D minor, the work ends with a four-minute chorale prelude in G major. As one critic remarked, this makes no musical sense whatsoever, but it does make enormous non-musical sense. To the extent that music ultimately deals with existential questions of human existence, to conclude thus is perfectly valid. This writer, however, prefers to play one of the many attempted completions, in this case that by the renowned British harpsichordist Davitt Moroney.
A further contentious issue is for what instruments Bach composed this work. It is written in open score, that is, one stave for each polyphonic voice and, unlike almost every other work by Bach, no instrumentation is specified. Already in it was advertised as being arranged in such a way as to be playable by two hands on a keyboard instrument, and this has led nearly all scholars to conclude it was conceived for the harpsichord. However, to assert that it is playable on the harpsichord is very different from saying that it was conceived for that instrument.
For the few fortunate purchasers of the original print, it would have been played on whatever instruments they could play and had available at home. The fact that the first complete performance of this work did not occur until has often been the subject of scandalised comment. But Bach would never have envisaged a public rendition of any of these fugues, much less a performance of the complete work, which in any case was unthinkable in the context of the performance practice of the time. To drag it into the glare of the concert hall is akin to displaying mediaeval altar triptychs in modern art museums. In both cases, however, these are among the few avenues we now have to experience these marvels of Western civilisation.
So although Die Kunst der Fuga is a work of high art of the utmost seriousness, this does not mean that each individual fugue must be played seriously. Thus after the solemn opening fugue, the second fugue might almost be felt as a parody. The fifth, sixth and seventh fugues, all featuring prominent dotted rhythms, can be felt as, by turns, skittish, pompous and melancholy, while the 12th fugue borders on the tragic. It is extraordinary that at a first rough division, various experts already have different views on ' Contrapunctus I '.
Would one of the readings be expressly erroneous, or is this where the musical text's openness would already present itself? Let's continue with De la Motte's analysis. First, he perceives an unusually small tonal range. More often than not, the subject appears in the key of D minor or on the dominant of D minor, A minor. Second, De la Motte acknowledges an exceptionally sloppy treatment of the subject.
In only three out of the ten times that the subject appears it answers to the subject that was exposed in the beginning. For convenience, I will pass on the question as to whether there can be a matter of a recurring motive at all. Is recurrence not something different every time? Wouldn't the subject adopt a different meaning every time because the context or intention changes?
Derrida points out that 'the other' already manifests itself in the repetition of this phrase. Because the context constantly changes, the meaning of the phrase also changes. These comments from De la Motte should be viewed critically. It would indeed seem remarkable that the alto voice subject recurs in D minor bars since Bach usually modulates to another key. However, it is not especially remarkable that Bach rarely modulates in a given fugue cf. The most important change is the so-called tonal, or plagal response.
The interval D-A with which the dux the voice introducing the theme opens in the exposition becomes A-D in comes the response, the second voice that exposes the same theme one fifth up after the dux has come to a close. The tonal response is opposed to the real response, the exact transposition that would lead to the A-E interval. In the exposition, the comes starts in D minor in bar 5, moves to the dominant A minor leading note G sharp in bars 6 and 7 to return again to D minor in bar 8. For a second time, De la Motte's comments, presented as obvious conclusions, are in need of differentiation.
According to Panthaleon van Eck, the listener is even confronted with the question as to whether he is still able to identify the melody presented here with the subject cf. Panthaleon van Eck, p. This seems to be quite an exaggeration since the contour of the subject has been kept completely intact. Still, I would like to dwell upon this passage a bit longer. Following De la Motte's analysis, there are two possibilities here. The first holds that a comes in the A-key is suggested in bars The second would be to regard the subject in bars as a dux in G minor, where the first, third, and fourth notes are 'wrong'.
Alan Dickinson makes a slight connection between these two possibilities by stating that the bass entry, which is intended to appear in the dominant, drops halfway to the subdominant, thereby enhancing a sense of development. Going by the note material the score , De la Motte hesitates between a comes and a dux. Zacher, too, goes into the same issue, albeit, indirectly; I will partly join him on that course. In bars , Bach passes off the comes in the soprano as a dux. The passage opens with a dux signal - a fifth leap - however, it deviates from the comes in bar 5 by the second note only. In bars , Bach reverses this idea. The tenor is then a dux with an allusion to the comes the fourth leap of E-A in bar 40 ; only the first note differs from the opening of ' Contrapunctus I '.
But reading against Zacher, based on the notes in bars it could just as well be stated that the theme actually does appear in the dux , with only the B flat in bar 32 denying a perfect modulation. It looks as though Bach wrote neither a dux nor a comes here. And at the same time he wrote both. Careful reading thus brings about an undecidability. But let's continue with Zacher's reading. Like De la Motte, Zacher encounters problems analyzing the subject in bar The theme opens in bar 32 as a comes in A minor, similar to the first comes in bar 5 and turns via a broken F sharp minor triad into the subdominant G minor. Interesting, but incomprehensible to Zacher.
Can there still be a matter of a dux or a comes here? Bach seems to disable any analysis that would graft itself onto either of these two notions. Still, Zacher looks for a solution. Based on the score, he finds that the bass in bars with the exception of bar 33 is identical to the tenor dux that appears as a comes in bars He refers to a rhetorical trope metalepsis that holds that what precedes can only be understood through what follows. The past does not determine the future; it is the other way around. Time is out of joint. Derrida calls this a spectral moment. It is a moment that no longer belongs to time, if one understands by this the linking of modalized presents past present, actual present: 'now', future present cf.
Specters , p. An analysis that ultimately allows Zacher to drag this bass theme into the domain of the dux. Nevertheless, additional problems remain here as well. The tones in the tenor that belong exclusively to the dux bar 41 are transformed to tones in the bass that would seem appropriate to the comes bar 33, where only C sharp makes up for a deviation from the comes in bars 5 and 6.
Zacher believes that Bach replaces the C by a C sharp with attention to the F sharp in bar 34, in order to avoid the problematic interval, C-F sharp, the diabolus in musica. Time and again, the musical text refrains from a definitive determination. Both De la Motte and Zacher's interpretations miss out on a potential meaning of the text. The musical text escapes all attempts to pin it down in a final meaning, not by initiating another discourse, but on the basis of the same analytical notions. According to Zacher's analysis, the comes in bars is followed by a dux in bars and by a dux in bars This is peculiar, considering the meanings of both words.
Dux may be translated as leader, predecessor, head, or chief, while comes represents follower, companion. In the present passage, the follower precedes the predecessor. In other words, the leader becomes the follower, the companion becomes a leader. No longer is the dux the cause producing a logical effect in the comes ; it is the other way around. A comparable reversal of cause and effect occurs in Zacher's description of the relation between the dux in bars and In the terms of metalepsis, the 'explaining' fragment bars follows the effect bars and is projected a posteriori as its 'cause'.
The cause is 'discovered' after the effect has occurred. Something strange is going on. In the conventional distinction between cause and effect, the cause is the origin, logically and temporally prior to the effect. But if the effect is what causes the cause to become a cause, then the effect may be treated as the origin cf. Culler, p. Zacher tracks down several significant displacements in his analysis.Art Of Fugue Analysis is falcon hawk event saddle through long and Art Of Fugue Analysis acquaintance with the individual fugues Art Of Fugue Analysis we can arrive Deviance In Sex In The City a Art Of Fugue Analysis understanding of their Art Of Fugue Analysis. However, to Art Of Fugue Analysis that it is playable on Art Of Fugue Analysis harpsichord is very different from saying that it Art Of Fugue Analysis conceived for that instrument. He reasons that since there Art Of Fugue Analysis no possible opportunity in Bach's time to play the work in a public concert, it must have been Art Of Fugue Analysis for whatever instrument was available in a private home setting. Indeed, Leonhardt reasons that had Bach lived he not only would have finished the fugue but might have substantially revised it.