Talk:Fugue

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Classical music This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles Music/Music genres task force Fugue is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardize music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the task force guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good article status.Music/Music genres task forceWikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forceTemplate:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forcemusic genre articles

This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 3 December 2009. Further details are available here.

While the Oxford Dictionary of Music is generally authoritative, in this instance it falls short. The definition fails to mention the fugue's imitative nature. It adds says the number of parts is "fixed," which is fine but unnecessary. And it altogether fails to define the term so as to exclude rounds, canons, and inventions. However, I'm hard-pressed to find a source with an altogether best definition, but a better definition can be found on page 45 in Bruce Benward's Music: In Theory and Practice (3rd Ed. Vol. 2), published 1977 by Wm. C. Brown Publishers:

"A fugue is a contrapuntal composition in two or more voices, built on a subject (theme) that is introduced at the beginning in imitation and recurs frequently in the course of the composition. In addition to the broad general contrapuntal design, certain formal characteristics are well established. A fugue usually has three sections: the exposition, development, and recapitulation."

I think it would be even better if it specified that the imitation of the theme begins at a different pitch than first iteration of the theme, but generally maintains the same intervalic relationships as the theme. --Jordan 17:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanotto (talk • contribs)

"Introduced at the beginning in imitation" is extremely unclear and unhelpful. There is no imitation until after the subject is introduced and many fugues do not repeat the subject in other voices right away (like a canon), though typically they do repeat the subject (often as an "answer") eventually. (For example Bach's WTC1 F minor fugue.)--Ericjs (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 paragraph immediately following this one 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 Wikipedia definition of a form.

--from a prior draft: 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 love that paragraph and think the last three sentences should be incorporated into the "perceptions and aesthetics" paragraph. I remember being practically mesmerised the first time I heard a fugue. Those 3 sentences go a long way toward describing the experience.

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

I changed that paragraph a bit and put it on the Counterpoint page where it really belongs. It's too cool to waste :) --Lament

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

Please allow my two cents on this topic. 1) What is "profound?" What does "profound" mean in a musical context. Can anyone find two published definitions that in some way agree with each other? I seriously doubt it and ambiguous language like this earns us musicians the ire of other scholarly disciplines. 2) The quote, "the fugues of Bach and Beethoven are great 'despite' the fact that they are fugues, not because they are fugues," seems down right erroneous to me. Simply stated: there is no single definition of fugue. Each generation of composers interpreted the name and form in a unique way. For every "rule" cited for fugual form there are exceptions that many of us can cite. How, then, can we make large-scale generalizations when we cannot agree on the terminology by which these generalizations are made? --[Crabby Canon] 9 October, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.168.210 (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)

I could give it a shot. Anyone know where I could download a score? -- Smerdis of Tlön 23:56, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Try [http://www.sheetmusicarchive.net/dlpage_new.cfm?composition_id=93] --Camembert

Alternative source: http://imslp.org/wiki/Well-Tempered_Clavier%2C_Book_1_Nos._13-24%2C_BWV_858-869_(Bach%2C_Johann_Sebastian)

I have put the C-minor WTC1 one as an example, there're others available on mutopiaproject.org (not the F# one, though). I think it would be nice to change each voice to a different instrument, though (or use a fugue that's already for separate instruments), so that people new to polyphony will be able to hear that it does indeed have three voices -- Lament

This is not a correct statement. Nor is the following: "In most of Bach's and Beethoven's fugues this structure is analogous to sonata-allegro or A-B-A form."

Yes, fugues are ternary in that they begin in a key, digress to other keys, and return. They are rarely ternary in the motivic sense--the exposition is repeated at the conclusion of the fugue. Perhaps what the writer was getting at was the fact that fugues are built upon the ritornello principle.

But sonata-allegro? A fugue is absolutely not! Sonata-allegro requires a second "subject," exposed in a related key, and recapitulated in the home key. This bears no resemblance to fugue.

---

I respect the previous writer's view. But it is A view. I also respect -- and find somewhat more convincing in the case of Bach and Beethoven -- the musicologist and music theorist Erwin Ratz's view that as a form of structural and harmonic organization the fugue does have important structural resemblance to sonata form, a view he went to some trouble to demonstrate in the case of fugues in the Well-Tempered Clavier. I don't have time to work on this now, but sometime soon I will rewrite the article to represent Ratz's view as a view and then mention the previous writer's view as a contrasting one. Jeremy J. Shapiro 03:43, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC).

---

As a form of structural and harmonic organization, the fugue resembles every other tonal form. This harmonic structure underlies all tonal music. Were one to restrict the comparison to structural and harmonic organization (as opposed to thematic content), the fugue resembles most any song form, lied, sonata-rondo, etc. etc. Ratz is referring to the "fundamental structure" (Shenkerian Ursatz) that undergirds all tonal music. For an explanation of this structure in a fugue, see Smith's analysis of the Ab fugue from WTC 1 at http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~tas3/wtc/i17.html

But fugue and sonata-allegro also have a motivic and thematic component. And it is this component that sets them apart. Whereas sonata-allegro must have at least two themes, the second of which must recapitulate in a prescribed way, most fugues are monothematic. Even in the case of a double fugue, the tonal region(s) of the 2nd subject are not prescriptive as in the case of sonata-allegro.

While the likening of fugue to sonata-allegro can be criticized on thematic grounds, it also fails the historical test. Sonata-allegro evolved from the two-reprise binary, an essentially secular idiom associated with the dance and folk music. By contrast, progenetors of fugue were the motet and music of the church.

Another reason NOT to liken the fugue to sonata-allegro is that the latter is a form and the former is not. Fugue is not a form but a texture. It is not essential, for example, that a sonata-allegro be written, like a fugue, for a specific number of voices. This is because the purpose of the fugue is to contrast these voices with each other. It does this by means of counterpoint, without which it is impossible to construct a fugue. Alternatively, the main idea of sonata-allegro is to contrast sections with different themes and structural purposes with each other. Sonata-allegro can accomplish its purpose, and normally does, without much recourse to counterpoint.

The likening of fugue to sonata-allegro is most uncomfortable in works, like the sonatas of Beethoven's late period, that employ fugato, or even in some cases full-blown fugues. Does the analogy imply that these are sonata-allegros within sonata-allegros? How much better it is to think of them sonata-allegros, portions of which have been written "in fugue" (that is, in a fugal texture).

So, to say that fugue is like sonata-allegro is true only as it pertains to its tonal architecture and the fact that both forms involve development of one or more themes. Fugue and sonata-allegro are unlike each other in their historical roots, texture, and form. In terms of form, sonata-allegro is prescriptive whereas the fugue (with the exception of its exposition) is not. The implication of this comparison will create untold difficulties for amateurs who may interpret it literally and begin looking to the fugue for a recapitulation of a subordinate theme in a related key--the sine qua non of sonata-allegro but nonexistent in fugue. JSB 31 Oct 2003 .

From the article: "Fugal writing is found in works such as fantasias, ricercares and canzonas." Isn't ricercar just another word for fugue? -- Lament

No. Bach used the word in that way in The Musical Offering, but previously it had been used to label various pieces which, while often having some contrapuntally imitative element, were not always fugal. --Camembert

My understanding is that ricercar is the older word; and that a ricercar always has a single theme (i.e. no countersubjects or second subjects), and that very generally, a ricercar typically is a slower piece that will usually be reminiscent of the pre-Baroque, Palestrinan style of counterpoint. You can have fugues done in gigue rhythms and other dance forms; a ricercar gigue is hard to imagine. -- Smerdis of Tlön 21:25, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Then, wouldn't it be better to have the caption of the image at the beginning of the article "A six-part fugue from The Musical Offering" changed to "A six-part fugue - called Ricercar a 6 by Bach in the first print - from..."? What is written in German above the autograph is clearly not by Bach himself (perhaps a Berlin librarian or former owner of the autograph), as 1. he would never have used the term "original handwriting", 2. this is not Bach's hand which wrote these words, 3. Bach carefully used the term Ricercar (for both fugues in said work) as an acronym for "Regis Iussu Cantio Et Reliqua Canonica Arte Resoluta". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.138.35.9 (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If no one will be bent out of shape, I'd like to undertake some cuts. It's not so much a matter of the text being wordy (though one could argue that it is) as being outright contradictory. We're told that the fugue is not a form, then we're told that it has an exposition, development (episode sequence), and recapitulation. The "recapitulation" is also called a "coda" without any effort to resolve the contradiction.

So unless someone gives reasons to the contrary, or does it first, I will shortly try a limited trim-back of the "anatomy" section to a more modest, non-self-contradictory text. --Opus33 19:14, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Looks good! --Camembert

Not sure what the 20th century section means when it says that the first movement of Bartok: Music for Strings, Percussion, & Celeste is a fugue based on the tritone instead of the fifth. The second entry is a fifth above the first entry, the third is a fifth below the first entry, and so on, with even numbered entries rising by a fifth and odd numbered entries falling by a fifth until they meet a tritone away from the first entry.

Is this section truly necessary? Once you remove the not entirely accurate and POV statements about Bach -- "The construction of a fugue is based on taking advantage of 'contrapunctal devices' as J. S. Bach called them," Bach titled his fugues Contrapunctus XX because that is the Latin term, from Contra punctum, literally counter-point. The German term is Kontrapunkt. I doubt Bach would have used a doggerel of Latin and English to refer to bits of his fugues -- the rest is simply stating that the entries come in when they will sound good, which isn't really saying much of substance.Makemi 05:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - have removed it and made major changes to the whole "musical outline" section, giving examples etc, though it is by no means comprehensive, and could do with many more examples I think. Matt.kaner 23:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could one of you geniuses :+} take a moment and add some definitions of basic terms being bandied about in this article, please? I think this article could use definitions of things like "subject", "countersubject", "answer", "episode", etc. - or maybe these could just be hyperlinks within the fugue article to another short article about the term to be defined (for example: subject_fugue). We students will be eternally (or at least until our exam) grateful!!Dveej 19:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm currently attempting a major rewriting of the musical outline section, but what I have so far is offline. I don't think the terms you mention deserve separate articles, besides, things are explained more or less well already. Explaining the subject can be tricky because there's no strict definition (well, strict rules exist, but not all fugues follow these rules). I'm going to try to explain it here, maybe someone will come and correct me or add something.

Agree that definitions could be improved. Each seems to introduce a new term that for the non-music-theorist must then be chased down. E.g. A double-fugue is one in which the subject... (subject?) . For me, I'd first like to acknowledge the task is damned difficult -- writing these definitions -- and thank those working so hard on the article. Thank you. Second, I'd like to ask. Double fugue: Does that mean, say in a symphony that the strings are playing one fugue at the same time as the woodwinds are playing a fugue? Or just one movement that has, say, two fugues, one played after the other. Also, does "double-fugue" imply that the fugues are somehow intertwined? Or could they be completely independent --provided the harmonies don't clash. Note: implicitly, the definition of double fugue might not require mention of "subject" or of anything except the fugue itself. Just thinking out loud. Very grateful nonetheless for the article, ESPECIALLY the play-by-play example.

Ideally, the fugue starts with one of the voices stating a certain theme (Theme A), and when the second voice enters, it repeats the same theme while the first voice accompanies (accompaniment = Theme B). Theme A is called the fugue's subject, the repetition of Theme A in the second voice is called the answer. Two major exceptions:

• Sometimes the first voice first plays the subject, then plays some short melody in reduced note values, and only then the second voice enters. If said short melody is not repeated in most subject entries during the fugue, it is called a codetta. This is quite tricky because the short melody can be repeated in some entries, omitted in other entries, and so the definition of codetta is virtually non-existent. They do exist though :)
• Stretto fugues. In these, the second voice starts playing BEFORE Theme A is stated in full. In this case, the subject is best defined as the part of whatever the first voice is playing (Theme A + something else) which was repeated in the second voice. FOR instance (read the caption):

Now, back to Theme B. If Theme B is used consistently during the course of the fugue to accompany subject entries, then Theme B is called a counter-subject. If Theme B is developed in a fugal fashion and is not only used to accompany subject entries, then Theme B may be the second subject of the fugue (making the whole piece a type of a double fugue).

Episodes are merely parts of the fugue that do not have any subject entries, or parts of the fugue that do not have any material based on the subject.

Hope this helps. Jashiin 19:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i believe in a fugue they are called subjects, not themes

I've added some information about Haydn's use of counterpoint, based on some recent research on his symphonies. Please feel free to revert to the original form if you feel it's superfluous. I'm new to Wiki, and am enjoying reading the discussion. BlueAngel06 00:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Nice work; I've just wikilinked the symphonies. Graham87 04:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love Haydn but compared to Beethoven, who used counterpoint in a completely essential stylistic way throughout his life, and in particular in his late-middle to late period (we already have a giant fugue in the Op. 35 variations), it is not justified to say Haydn was the master of classical counterpoint. I am quite familiar with the Haydn oeuvre and his counterpoint is both formal and tame, and mostly incidental. This is not a criticism of Haydn, who was of course a great master - for reasons that are inscrutable, no one other than Bach and Beethoven had all of these; technical, thematic, and above all emotional and spiritual mastery of fugal writing. Antimatter33 (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second the above comment that the sentence: " Béla Bartók opened his Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta with a fugue in which the tritone, rather than the fifth, is the main structural interval." is at best confusing. While the large-scale organisation of the movement involves the trip from A to E-flat and back, the entrances are organised in ascending and descending cycles of 5ths. Certainly the piece should be cited in some way, however.

Loesser's "Fugue for Tinhorns" really doesn't belong in the article, since the piece itself, title aside, isn't a fugue at all, but rather a round. (unless one wants to include a note of the common use of "fugue" to describe all imitative counterpoint.) Turangalila (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've really been working hard at the musical outline and opening sections, and added many examples etc - basically given them a complete rewrite. But I need help with the history section, of present it is completely without citations and I think I may get very depressed without any help sorting it out! Matt.kaner 01:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is well written, clear, and very interesting for a musical novice like myself. However, I'm not sure that the final paragraph is necessary; it is not NPOV for a kick off:

The fugue is perceived, then, not merely as itself, but in relation to the idea of the fugue, and the greatest of examples from the Baroque era forward. As a musical idea with a history, which includes its use in liturgical music of Christianity, a device in teaching composition, a favored form by one of the greatest, if not the greatest, composer of classical music, and as a form which can be thought of as distinctly antique - there are a whole range of expectations brought to bear on any piece of music labelled "fugue".

When talking about Bach as a composer, specifically to do with the Fugue, it is clearly not NPOV to say how great he is. Who said it? Is it demonstrably provable or true in any definitive sence in any way other than personal taste? I think that most, if not all of the above can be cut without loosing anything from the article. The nonsence written in the first sentence of the para is awful stuff, and does not belong in the encyclopedia.

I will delete the paragraph accordingly. It seems merely to be there as an attempt to round off the article with a flourish which is not needed.Major Bloodnok 21:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While Bach is certainly a great composer, who are we to say that he is the "greatest" composer of fugues (unless whoever wrote this has some solid sources or evidence supporting this claim)? Beethoven also used fugues extensively, and, of course, the fugues used by Beethoven in his Late period exhibit a much wider range of emotions and profoundness. Therefore, in accordance with the NPOV policy of Wikipedia, I think it's better to use "one of the greatest." Spartan

Why not just avoid judgement altogether? This should be neutral, informative article. And no one can substantiate even "one of the greatest" statements (according to whom, and what gives these individuals the authority to make such assertions?). Kemet 17:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Spartan

i added an "original research?" tag to the sentence where Sechter is referred to as a "limited musical artist" in the "Perceptions and Aesthetics" section, not because i care about defend his compositions, but because it implies that music within "the standard repertory" has made it there only because of its unlimited, eternal and supreme artistic integrity - an assumption, by the way, that a writer on fugues should have been more aware of, given Bach's reputation before Mendelssohn et al. if this "research" was Kivy's, as the beginning of the paragraph's is, this needs to be made more clear in the sentence itself. as someone decided to secretly write within the article itself: "Unless the author is very familiar with Sechter's actual fugues, instead of passing on opinions of someone who perhaps actually was, this violates so many of WP's NPOV rules as to begin to perhaps be amusing. This can be much better put." Hjijch 03:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I totally agree - To be honest I think the whole paragraph is rather biased. It was me who spent ages and ages overhauling the theory section of this page and I've just had enough, and haven't got round to fixing the rest! Someone else should do it, using recent and unbiased sources and get rid of these sorts of statements which are pretty much irrelevant to a general article on fugues. One could name many composers who supposedly fall into this category but it's got nothing to do with the general aethetics and perception of fugue writing.

Matt.kaner 11:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must also agree - whole parts of this article read as though someone has lifted text from an opinionated source, or pasted in their own Musical BA thesis. Some of it probably make sence in that context, but not in a wikipedia article. An interesting topic ruined by bad writing, especially in the overuse of parentheses. Major Bloodnok 20:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Made a start on copyediting of the article, and where possible removing parentheses to tidy the text. I've been wondering whether the History section should go before the music theory section, so that the importance of the Fugue in musical development can be explained before the structure of fugues in general. What does the comminity think?Major Bloodnok 13:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The usual procedure in articles on fugue is to give a musical outline first. (see Oxford Dictionary of Music or Grove Music Online for example) Matt.kaner 16:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Please be careful with your copyedits, some of them have lead to ambiguities and inaccuracies. Matt.kaner 16:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have just looked at your edits - after leaving a message on your talkpage. Your new revisions all seem fair. One of the main inaccuracies was within caption for the Bach Fugue in G; I adjusted it because the previous version was confusing. Thanks for amending it so that it is correct! Major Bloodnok 21:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just had another look at the History section. I can see it needs a proper overhaul, but without access to good reference material, I'm not in a position to do anything about it currently. Merely copyediting the language is not enough, since the whole section is unreferenced and probably will change (it seems to be copied or lifted from a source, or am I being too suspicious?). The final two sections need work as well, although they seem to be about a controversy from the more specialised end of musical analysis, and are thus outside my area of knowledge. Is this debate a small academic spat, or does it reflect an actual, and major theoretical discussion? If it is a very minor part of Fugal theory, then I'd have to wonder why it should be included at all, especially as it might therefore fall foul of official policy, WP:NOT, as it is insignificant to the topic as a whole. Major Bloodnok 10:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is - sort of - a major area of controversy among music analysts and historians, but to be honest, I don't think that the section really adds anything at all. To do the topic justice would take pages and pages and at the moment it's really just a bunch of opinions thrown around without making any coherent statements. I think that for now it could really be deleted, and then when the history section is finished, or at least improved, it will become apparent whether or not this sort of thing needs to be mentioned. It is a major theoretical discussion, but the paragraph doesn't really reveal anything about what the discussion really is. No one talks about Sechter on a regular basis when discussing fugue for example. Matt.kaner 22:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is a major debate in the field, perhaps there is merit is cutting down the penultimate section radically so that it merely mentions the debate, and perhaps some of the major voices within it. That way, anyone interested it getting further information could go to the sources via the footnotes, and this very complex issue won't clog the page. Obviously once the academic discussion has come to a conclusion in the future then maybe the article can be updated. There is an argument for starting a new page specifically for the Fugue Texture / Technique debate of course, which might be an elegant solution.Major Bloodnok 13:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the German article we discussed the C-minor-Partita's opening Fugue as an example for an answer on the subdominant. As we are making use of the terms dux for the theme and comes for the answer, there are two possibilities to deal with this phenomenon: 1) The dux is the first entry of the theme in every case (so the answer in the example is in fact located on the subdominant) or 2) the comes is defined as the entry on the dominant. In the second case, the mentioned example begins with the comes (nevertheless leading to its own subdominant and thus preparing the entry of the dux on the tonic). As we cannot be sure which definition the reader assumes, the example seemed inappropriate to me. (I hope my explanation makes some sense, as I am not used to writing in English.) --87.171.48.130 20:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have misunderstood the use of these terms in this article. In English we do not use dux and comes as means of discussing fugal entry, it is too ambiguous. The use here refers to the episodic CANON that takes place in the C minor fugue from WTK bk 1, between the end of the exposition and first middle entry.Matt.kaner 12:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I referred to this sentence:

Sometimes the answer is the tonic or subdominant (see J.S.Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565, and the opening fugato of the Partita No 2 in C minor, BWV 826) – (bar 30ff of the first movement, am I right?)

and the following explanation about tonal answers. The BWV 826 fugato is not a good example as its theme modulates to its own subdominant – or it starts with its own dominant, modulating to its tonic. In any case, it does not match the description given in the article:

when subjects themselves modulate to the dominant, in which case, the answer begins in the subdominant, and subsequently modulates to the tonic

In relation to the tonic of C minor, the BWV 826 fugato in fact starts on the dominant. This technique is frequently used in Buxtehude's preludes and toccatas, for example, often in connection with a "tonal answer behaviour" of the first entry concerning dominant notes. (A Bach example for this would be Kunst der Fuge, Contrapunctus III, BWV 1080/3.) It clearly derives from the use of modes in the Renaissance counterpoint, where fugato-like structures may start in a plagal mode.

The definition of Comes as a term for the entry on the dominant exactly tries to deal with this. But you are totally right, because of the two possible definitions of Dux and Comes this terminology is not much more helpful.

Anyway, does anyone know another example for fugues with answers on the subdominant (that is, except for BWV 565)? I have found none, so far. --87.171.46.86 (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm you're right -- I don't know of any others and I don't know of any sources that give any better explanation than the one above (which was paraphrased from the source cited at that point in the text). BWV 565 is now severely doubted to even be one of JS Bach's compositions at all. Matt.kaner (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did some searches, and here's what I found in Joel Lester's Bach's Works for Solo Violin: Style, Structure, Performance, pp. 67-68 (available as a limited preview on books.google.com; Oxford University Press, 1999, ISBN 0195171446): there are just three fugues by Bach that use the subdominant answer, and these are

• Fugue in E-flat major from WTC Book 2
• Praeludium and Fuga in BWV 531
• Toccata and Fugue BWV 565

The WTC example doesn't really convince me, though. I haven't looked at BWV 531. The only example that sprung to my mind immediately is Anton Reicha's fugue no. 7 from 36 Fugues (D major, subject starts on the tonic, the first answer is at the subdominant. But then Reicha's theory of fugue composition advocated answers on any and all scale degrees, so the third statement of the subject is actually at the 2nd!). According to [1] (PDF), there's also a dozen of fugues by Sergei Slonimsky from his 24 Preludes and Fugues that use the subdominant answer. But I guess that both of these examples aren't exactly what is needed, eh?

I've seen the "answered on the fourth" line used a lot in descriptions of pre-Bach keyboard literature, but so far every time it was used to describe a piece which actually begins in the dominant key and proceeds in the way 87.171.46.86 described. Jashiin (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the main question is: does anyone know a fugue subject that begins (5-4-5 or 5-4-3) apart from BWV 565? I think that logically a subject starting that way would require an answer on the subdominant in any case, simply because a tonal answer on the dominant would be impossible (5-4-5-3 would become 4-4-4-3!) - although I suspect most composers would deliberately avoid starting their subjects that way...Matt.kaner (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims that 'most' fugues have middle-entries seperated by episodes of one form or another. Whilst this seems to be bandied around all over the place, having analysed the 48 I'm slightly baffled as to where this statement comes from. The middle-entries are essential developments (taking expositional material and then 'developing' them through rearrangement and all manner of mutation and transformation - canon, inversion etc. etc.) - yet approximately half of the Bach 48 seem to pass directly from from set of middle-entries to the next . . . why do episodes appear to be considered more important than the middle entries? Aren't they essentially extended transitions? CharlieRCD (talk • contribs) 10:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, but I'm not sure that is the case in this article. Episodes only gets a small paragraph.Matt.kaner (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really necessary? It doesn't seem to illustrate anything and the notation is close to unintelligible. If it is to be included it has to be notated properly. Matt.kaner (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least the statement should be corrected. The fugue is in 8 parts (some parts are doubled in octaves/thirds). 198.166.17.247 (talk) 06:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With further part, if you do count the part doubled in thirds/sixths then the fugue can be said to be in 8 parts. How about the other two voices doubles in octaves? Can those also be counted as parts? If so, then is it also correct to say the fugue is in 11 parts? Doesn't seem so. A music theorist here could certainly help this discussion. 198.166.22.74 (talk) 07:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally accepted that in tonal practice, a voice doubled at the octave is simply 'doubled' without creating a new voice. - That's one of the reasons that consecutive octaves is forbidden in contrapuntal textures - it's not part writing! CPE Bach, in his treatise advised players to double parts in octaves to bring them out - it's a strengthening device to add weight to a single voice, it doesn't introduce any new pitches... --Matt.kaner (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if they merit a mention (because the article is already big), but Reicha, who was a contemporary of Beethoven, did write fugues with up to 6 subjects, fugues in 5/8 time, and many other innovative things that Beethoven and Schumann considered "too innovative". See Anton Reicha and specifically 36 Fugues (Reicha). I can produce an illustration of any of the fugues in Sibelius 4, if it is decided that Reicha should be mentioned here. --Jashiin (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hopeless, and doesn't explain anything. A reader coming here to find out what a fugue is will leave none the wiser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.90.238 (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contrapunctus IV of Bach's Art of Fugue is cited as a counterfugue. When I listen to it, it sounds like its subject is the inversion of the Contrapunctus I subject, and its answer is a standard tonal answer. Is this correct? Does anyone know an example of a true counter-fugue? Cmelby (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's an error on the page. Contrapunctus V is among those contrapunctuses listed as counterfugues on the "Art of fugue" wikipedia page, and which seems to be a counter-fugue, as I have just listened to the beginning of its exposition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.116.205 (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the score shows the above to be right. Contrapunctus IV is not a counterfugue, although its subject is inversion of the subject of Contrapunctus I. Contrapunctus V's answer is its subject inverted (and transposed, naturally). The score I have has a table of contents that says fugues 1-4 are "simple fugues" and 5-7 are "counterfugues". I don't have access to Grove so cannot check the citation given, but it is clearly wrong. I will see if I can figure out how to cite a score and edit the information. Pfly (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone who is not a random tagger sticking by the "citation needed" tags and templates attached to this article? I will remove them (perhaps with an attempt to attribute certain material more precisely) unless there are specific arguments. There has been no related discussion on this talk page since the templates were added. Outriggr (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a large section which does not cite any sources, according to its template, and there are a few citation needed tags. Hyacinth (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that answers my question. Do we need to call attention to it with templates? The original purpose of such templates was to deal with exceptional issues with articles. Outriggr (talk) 05:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that there's a particularly inordinate amount of "citation needed" tags in the History section of the article. It's used in places when the text declares that there's a fugue used in a certain movement of a piece. It seems rather ridiculous to have to provide a citation for something that you can easily find in a score, or even listen for during performance. If there are no objections, I'd advocate for the deletion of these tags.--Hilsa 08:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There must be a expansion of the section about fughettas, as they are also an important part in music. Yuan Lin (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is already very technical as it is, difficult for the uninitiated. A couple of samples would be very much in order, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.61.4 (talk) 11:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samples of what? Hyacinth (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I once saw a video of a string quartet describing one of one of the cannons of Bach's Goldberg Variations. They explained it not just by talking about it but by playing the theme one voice at a time, letting you hear it in its regular and inverted form (the cannon's second voice is inverted--it's one of the minor key ones, I can't remember the number offhand). Then they played the piece in full. Having played the subject and inverted answer first made it easier to hear the canon in full. I can imagine something similar being done for describing fugues. I spent the evening tonight listening to Beethoven's Große Fuge, a double fugue (and the some!). It's a particular impenetrable fugue, and I can see how it could help to be able to listen to sound files of the main fugue themes in isolation. And I could see sound files on this page helping one learn how to hear fugue voices. Maybe not the Große Fuge, my god--perhaps the main theme(s) from the The Art of Fugue. Contrapunctus 9 strikes me as a particularly clear double fugue. I could see sound files of the two subjects plus a full rendition being helpful for learning how to listen to fugues. Maybe someday, if I have the time, I could made sound files like this. Might take a long while though... Pfly (talk) 11:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, find that samples of audio from fugues to help provide an easier learning experience would be in good order. Double fugues are certainly a good target for something like this (and Contrapunctus 9 is an excellent example), but would you find it superfluous to provide something as basic as the individual parts of a generic fugue's exposition (subject, answer, counter-subject, etc.)? Perhaps it would help put newcomers at ease with this article.--Hilsa 08:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean as audio examples? I wouldn't find that superfluous at all. The musical notation examples already on this page are useful, but require basic music reading abilities and even then are more abstract than actual musical sound examples (unless you can read music and hear it in your head with clarity and accuracy--I mostly can't). A semi-related aside: The other day I came across one of those "music notation animation" videos--the ones showing "piano roll" type notes scrolling by, flashing white as notes play, and synced to a real performance (instead of a painfully rendered MIDI file)--for Beethoven's Große Fuge. That page has a link to it: here. While it doesn't highlight the subjects, answers, countersubjects, etc, the way it shows you the 4 quartet voices by color, among other things, made it much much easier to grasp this difficult fugue's structure and logic than I had been able to manage previously. I've been watching it with my 5 year old son and he seems to be grasping what it means for a piece to be a fugue, and must be one of the only 5 year olds (or anyone of any age) who loves and understands, to some degree, Beethoven's Große Fuge! Anyway, I'm not proposing anything in particular--just wondering aloud how this kind of "animated notation" could be used to help people learn about fugues and how to listen to them (hearing beyond the surface to the deeper structures). It's rather clear to me that these animated notation videos of fugues (there are others, mostly Bach fugues) are already a great way to learn more about fugues.

Another thing I've been thinking of doing is adding music notation snippets to the Art of Fugue page showing how the subjects are transformed and combined as the contrapunctusses progress (contrapunctii?? ;-) ), with perhaps a little more info on each fugue--something similar to the Goldberg Variations page. I can imagine including a little soundfile playing each of these subjects. It would be far from a full explanation/analysis, but a start anyway. ..as always with me, it could take me many months, if ever, to make something like this happen. Pfly (talk) 10:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

+1 A few pieces showing different characteristic and/or development would be much appreciated. Although the article help, without sample, it's like trying to explain a color or taste to someone that never experienced it, quite complicated. DynV (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to use the musical examples from Grosse Fuge if they are relevant. --Ravpapa (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fugue is listed in the Polyphonic category and states that it often ends with "leaving the fugal form, becoming just homophonic." I think it should state a little more clearly that it is polyphonic. I had to Ctrl-F and search for "phonic" to find those two sentences. It is a large article, and nowhere does it explicitly state that fugues are polyphonic. I suggest someone make that more clear somewhere, as it is - as far as I'm aware - part of the definition of a fugue. -- Charles Stover 02:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The very first sentence begins: "In music, a fugue (/fjuːɡ/ fewg) is a contrapuntal compositional technique". The words "contrapuntal" and "polyphonic" are largely synonymous, and in fact the situations in which they may be distinguished would leave fugue defined as contrapuntal but not polyphonic. However, this is a very specialized distinction. Is it really necessary to add "(=polyphonic)" after the word "contrapuntal"? That word is after all linked to the article counterpoint, which itself is defined in the opening sentence as "the relationship between voices that are interdependent harmonically (polyphony) yet independent in rhythm and contour".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent dominant? Isn't that redundant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:8500:982:D921:EC93:412E:4843 (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. (You do understand that "dominant" is the name given to the fifth scale degree, when that degree is a perfect fifth above the tonic, don't you?)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the dominant gets its name from plainsong, where the dominant of a mode is either the most common note in the chant (oldest meaning) or a center about which the chant seems to revolve. Still, we've come a long way since Pope Gregory, Bach essentially marks the ending of the modal period, and "dominant" is now just a name like "supertonic", so I have to concede your point.D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing: definition of "prolongation" and "diminution" (other synonyms are used, e.g. "augmentation"). These are covered under Canon (music) but are an important part of the structure of many fugues, e.g. Bach passim, Britten The Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra, last movement. D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"In music, a fugue (/fjuːɡ/ fewg) is a contrapuntal compositional technique in two or more voices, built on a subject (a musical theme) that is introduced at the beginning in imitation (repetition at different pitches) and which recurs frequently in the course of the composition."

What does "a subject [...] that is introduced at the beginning in imitation" mean?

"in imitation" of what? If it's at the beginning, there would seem to be no subject preceding it to imitate. Gwideman (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you did not notice that the words "subject" and "imitation" are displayed in blue. This means that you can link from them to articles that explain more about the terms. I think you will find there also the explanation of how a subject is introduced in imitation (it means there are at least two statements of the subjects, the second one in a different voice, "imitating" the first statement).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So your interpretation of my remarks is that I might not understand how hyperlinks work? Perhaps you didn't notice that the element I'm highlighting for scrutiny is that the intro's discussion claims that the subject at the beginning of the piece is already an imitation. How can that be? I get that a repetition of that subject could be an imitation, but I don't see how the very first iteration of the subject could be an imitation.Gwideman (talk) 08:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I think that Gwideman does have a point. I don't think that a reader should have to follow a bunch of links to other articles to understand the lead. I also think that the explanation that a fugue is not a fuguing tune does not belong in the lead, and perhaps not in the article at all - it certainly isn't central to the subject and is not discussed anywhere else in the article. And while I am at it, I think the article should explore more deeply the use of fugal writing not as a stand-alone movement or piece, but as an integral part of the compositional texture in otherwise non-contrapuntal works. I will take a shot at this later. Ravpapa (talk) 06:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like the lead has been fixed since Gwideman was confused by the wording, since it now reads "introduced at the beginning in imitation (repetition at different pitches)". Or is it not clear that the introduction of a subject may refer to more than one statement of it (in this case a double statement)?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It still says "introduced at the beginning in imitation". In imitation of what? Or does "in imitation" have some technical meaning, short for something like "in imitation style", or "as the start of an imitation pattern" or some such? In plain English it doesn't make sense. Gwideman (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is no such thing as an "imitation style" (in the sense of imitation meant here). Imitation is a contrapuntal device. It sounds to me like you are assuming "imitation" is not a technical musical term, but rather the ordinary English word meaning something along the lines of "counterfeit". I suppose the phrase could be re-written to say "introduced at the beginning using the contrapuntal device of imitation (repetition at different pitches)". This is a bit clunky, but at least it adds a third layer of explanation (in addition to the blue link and the phrase "repetition at different pitches", which is not actually a good definition of "imitation", which can be at the same pitch). Would that do the trick?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Mozart then set to writing fugues on his own, mimicking the Baroque style. These included the fugues for String Quartet, K. 405 (1782)" — This is incorrect. K. 405 is transcriptions from Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier Book II. See https://www.bach-cantatas.com/Arran/OT-Mozart-WA.htm. Doctroid (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

S 3n l. . Je 3. jours . 176.200.65.30 (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]