Repetitive Fugue

I don't really get why Fugue is considered "the most complex of contrapuntal forms". I have the impression that fugues are often about repeating the same idea again and again rather than developing it. Take for example WTC I Fugue no.2 und 21 or WTCII no.13 and 16. The Subject with its countersubjects is constantly repeated, only the keys are different and voices are swapped. Episodes are short and usually consist of sequencially repeating a snippet of a subject. The best fugues are usually the ones with several subjects and extended episodes, which allow for some variety and development. Still it baffles me how reapeating a short melody in different voices constitutes the epitome of contrapuntal music. I love counterpoint but what makes specifically fugues so interesting for composers?

A good discussion I heard a while back as to why composers continue to write fugues (one very good view point on that question at least).

From the listening point of view, I personally love the texture that is created from the fugue structure and I see it as that, a texture rather than a form.

So i guess most people actually agree with me??

No.

What makes fugues the epitome of counterpoint is not the development of material, though that is also very important, it is the playing of various ideas together into one texture that meshes horizontally and vertically at the same time.

No.

What makes fugues the epitome of counterpoint is not the development of material, though that is also very important, it is the playing of various ideas together into one texture that meshes horizontally and vertically at the same time.

"Playing various ideas together" is the characteristic of most contrapuntal music, not just fugue. my issue is that in fugues usually the same idea is repeated again and again with close to no development.

I'll go one step further:

If you have an issue with how fugues have been written: write a fugue the way you THINK they should be written. No one says you should 'repeat over and over again without any development'. You're a composer... make waves.

The thing I actually wanted to understand is: How is being repetitive justified in fugue writing? Especially, if Fugue is considered the epitome of contrapuntal music, that would imply that being repetitive is considered better than being varied in a contrapuntal context. How do you explain that?

With the exception of Bach, whom I will agree does tend to repeat material either directly or in inversion or retrograde, many other composers of fugue (the vast majority, actually - removing Bach from the equation), do actually develop their subjects and countersubjects intensely. Granted, they had far more tools at their disposal than Bach did AND they had a lot better (and richer) contrapuntal variety. I think you've just not really heard that many fugues. Or you are focused solely on the fugues of Bach, which as good as they are... are rather antiquated.

I love how you throw around the world antiquated like its cool or something.

I'd love to know who these other composers are that did such a better job than Bach.

I love how you throw around the world antiquated like its cool or something.

I'd love to know who these other composers are that did such a better job than Bach.

Well, there is first and foremost:

Ruth Crawford-Seeger: utilized dissonance counterpoint in her contrapuntal writings to a very sophisticated degree.

Mozart: Expanded upon the motif in many of his fugues and utilized several types of development that were developed by the Mannheim School - this followed largely the things Haydn did and expanded upon them.

Haydn: Was the first well known composer to incorporate many new developmental techniques in his contrapuntal writing.

Handel: Though contemporaneous with Bach, he was among a small handful of his day who looked at incorporating other more foreign textures into his contrapuntal writings. For example, one fugue of his abruptly stops and transitions to a chorale texture which is then broken down and returned back into the fugal stew.

The list goes and on and on.

Bach's fugues are amazing to read and view BUT should be viewed under the context of the time in which they were largely written - as they are taught within this context. Other composers of that time were definitely far more adventurous in their treatment of counterpoint. Later composers not only had Bach to look at but also the works of Handel, Buxtehude, the Bach children, and many other composers.

I think my theory teacher puts it correctly in terms of Bach:

His music is the most theoretically correct to analyze and break apart. He was, after all, a staunch traditionalist.

And what's wrong with being a staunch traditionalist? You act like that's a pejorative.

Fugues are repetitive...in a way. The melody repeats over and over, but! It is modified in key, mode, and everything. The secondary parts change under it, and sometimes even the intervals change.

It's not boring if you know what to do with it.

Or if you're listening to fugues with the understanding that they are a variation form.

Fugues are not a variational form. They are a contrapuntal form - there is a big difference. You can utilize variation technique within fugal construction - many composers have done it.

Counterpoint (from which the word contrapuntal is derived) is merely point against point. Yes, systems have been developed since the first Organum were written. Yes, there is repetition of idea within ALL contrapuntal forms. This isn't a difficult concept for people here to get at all.

Fugue =/= variational form

And what's wrong with being a staunch traditionalist? You act like that's a pejorative.

Am I using it as a pejorative? I already said his fugues are great and blah, blah, blah. There's nothing wrong with being a traditionalist at all.

....And you can utilize contrapuntal textures in 'variational' forms, with subsidiary material in between variations ;)

Contrapuntal means having to do with counterpoint? Counterpoint means a point being supported by another point? Wow: I'm surprised I didn't already know this after having read Fux, Kennan and Hindemith's treatises on the matter.... :rolleyes:

I've studied Fux's method and have had formal counterpoint instruction - and regularly use contrapuntal technique in my writing. I know what I'm talking about in that regard. The word counterpoint literally means: point against point. It doesn't mean a POINT supported by another point. It literally means: POINT AGAINST POINT. That means one note played simultaneously to another note. Both independent - but played at the same time. The points are expanded to lines. And you have one line (melody) played against the other melody. The support comes in how the composer imagines. Up till the 20th century, harmony was the underlying support. Today, you can utilize a myriad of techniques to provide the underlying support. Hindemith and Kennan both also go further in depth on it.

I wasn't attempting to correct your definition of counterpoint....I was making the point that I understand what counterpoint is and trying to bring light to the fact that you are acting in a patronizing manner by defining it and stating that 'contrapuntal' is related to counterpoint.

That being said, in common practice where 'harmony' occurs in the verticalization of music, rather 'simultaneities' (to be clear: not attempting to act as if you aren't aware of these crucial differences, but bringing light to them), the way I have described the nature of counterpoint in music is accurate: points/lines which equally support each other (i.e. harmony and lack of hierarchy amongst individual lines). The 'official' definition (as you have so generously provided :P) is more inclusive of dodecaphonic counterpoint that has appeared in the 20th century. So if we are talking dodecaphonic counterpoint, my definition is not accurate (which I am very much aware of).

So long story short: we agree.

While we do agree. Let me correct one more thing here. The definition of counterpoint as point against point was expanded upon by those in the 20th century BUT.. originates instead to the counterpoint used by those in the Renaissance period. Contrapunctis or Counterpoint as we call it is literally point against point - and the definition originates from that period.

I don't really get why Fugue is considered "the most complex of contrapuntal forms". I have the impression that fugues are often about repeating the same idea again and again rather than developing it. Take for example WTC I Fugue no.2 und 21 or WTCII no.13 and 16. The Subject with its countersubjects is constantly repeated, only the keys are different and voices are swapped. Episodes are short and usually consist of sequencially repeating a snippet of a subject. The best fugues are usually the ones with several subjects and extended episodes, which allow for some variety and development. Still it baffles me how reapeating a short melody in different voices constitutes the epitome of contrapuntal music. I love counterpoint but what makes specifically fugues so interesting for composers?

In the examples you have given from the Well-Tempered Clavier, you have actually described development when you say there isn't any.

I would assume that the most contrapuntal form is anything with a hell of a lot of different melodies working together and being developed with large amounts if complexity. Whether it IS a fugue or not really depends on the actual notes used in the music.

Am I using it as a pejorative? I already said his fugues are great and blah, blah, blah. There's nothing wrong with being a traditionalist at all.

Schönberg was a traditionalist. The first serial piece he wrote was in fact in a form that had already been invented, and while at it he revived a whole lot more old forms in his piano suite. When I think about it, it must have been boring learning counterpoint from him. He used the same cantus firmus for five years!

I've studied Fux's method and have had formal counterpoint instruction - and regularly use contrapuntal technique in my writing. I know what I'm talking about in that regard. The word counterpoint literally means: point against point. It doesn't mean a POINT supported by another point. It literally means: POINT AGAINST POINT. That means one note played simultaneously to another note. Both independent - but played at the same time. The points are expanded to lines. And you have one line (melody) played against the other melody. The support comes in how the composer imagines. Up till the 20th century, harmony was the underlying support. Today, you can utilize a myriad of techniques to provide the underlying support. Hindemith and Kennan both also go further in depth on it.

I remember teaching myself species counterpoint. So incredibly boring ... *yawn* ...

With this 'point against point' thing, you may be confusing each other. Counterpoint is two or more different melodies working with each other at the same time. Look at that scene in the film 'Hans Christian Andersen' when Danny Kaye sings one song while school children sing an entirely different one at the same time (inchworm/two an two is four etc.)

I remember teaching myself species counterpoint. So incredibly boring ... *yawn* ...

With this 'point against point' thing, you may be confusing each other. Counterpoint is two or more different melodies working with each other at the same time. Look at that scene in the film 'Hans Christian Andersen' when Danny Kaye sings one song while school children sing an entirely different one at the same time (inchworm/two an two is four etc.)

Yeah, and? We already discussed this above. What was confusing is that Phil didn't realize that what he perceived as modern usage and definition of counterpoint was actually old - like 600 years old (or 9000 years). We already established this. Do you have anything important to add to the discussion? Or you just trolling??

I did?

My god, he's so sexy.... :wub: