A Crash-Course In Writing Fugues

No, I never have. I tend not to revise pieces once I deem them finished, rather allowing them to serve as a evidence of who I was as a composer at that particular point in time - warts and all. I'm going to look more closely at your comment when I get home, and perhaps just for the sake of edification, I may try to re-write the bass entrance; it's the only thing marring an otherwise satisfying movement. I would still want to end up at the same place for the pedal point because I rather like the tension built up and resolved there, but with a quick modulation, that's likely quite possible.

If you do decide to re-write the fugato, I would be interested in hearing it. No one else has commented on it in this thread, but I think it may serve as part of the instruction in fuges. I'm still not seeing how the Dominant(key) establishes the tonality, besides it being (like the Subdominant) of the same nature (major or minor) as the tonic.

I started a short little fuge recently - nothing earth shattering, on a Tonic-SubMediant-Tonic-Submediant exposition plan. It's different - and if it's not a fuge simply because it doesn't follow what's commonly done on that one point, I'd like to know exactly what it is.

I may post it later when I finish it if your interested.

I'm glad! I decided not to post the whole Mass here because YC people don't really pay much attention to choral music, for whatever reason, and also because this is a rather personal religious expression.

I love choral music - only wish more of it was in English. I don't remember all the Latin. I've recently ordered the scores for Bach's B minor Mass and Mozart's Mass in Cminor - K 427 for study.

I don't know if you're familiar with Mozart's early Masses written in Salzburg, but this Missa Brevis is built on that model. The Archbishop was a rather secular clergyman and didn't like to spend much time saying Mass, so he gave directions to Mozart that his settings for the Canon of the Mass should in their entirety take up no more than "a quarter of an hour." They're also scored for relatively modest forces, though festively arrayed: mixed chorus with soloists, 2 trumpets, timpani, 2 violins and continuo - also the scoring of my piece. Mine differs from Mozart's primarily in that I have not set the Credo , on account of it not being liturgically feasible nowadays; I was trying for a setting at once artistic and viable liturgically.

I know you can recommend a good biography in book form. Classical music changed my life, and Mozart's in particular - although I've never bothered to look in depth into the history. I watch the movie at least twice a year though - I know it's probably inaccurate - but I enjoy it every time.

If you do decide to re-write the fugato, I would be interested in hearing it. No one else has commented on it in this thread, but I think it may serve as part of the instruction in fuges. I'm still not seeing how the Dominant(key) establishes the tonality, besides it being (like the Subdominant) of the same nature (major or minor) as the tonic.

I should clarify that entrances at the sub-dominant (fourth) and octave are also acceptable, but the arrangement of tonic-dominant-tonic-dominant is by far the most common. I can find very few examples of tonal fugues of less than 5 voices where this is not the case.

In his "The Study of Fugue," Alfred Mann quotes Giambattista Martini (Mozart's counterpont teacher) from his Esemplare o sia saggio fondamentale prattico di contrappunto fugato as follows, commenting on a very fine six-part fugue by Claudio Montiverdi: "The composer introduces in this Agnus Dei a subject in the second tenor...which is answered in the bass...Since the tenor uses the skip of a descending fifth from d to g and the bass uses a skip of a descending fourth from g to d, a tonal fugue arises...the [1st] tenor takes up the opening statement at the unison, and...the second soprano takes up the answer at the upper octave...the alto and the first soprano answer at the third of the fifth degree [sub-mediant] and at the third of the first degree [mediant], respectively, rather than at the first or fifth degrees proper, as the other parts did. The license of letting these two parts answer differently from the other four parts has been justly adopted by the great masters, for whenever four parts, which in themselves can constitute a full harmony, have served this purpose, the parts which exceed the number of four may answer at any interval which is convenient and which will produce a good sound. Nevertheless, later in the fugue, the first soprano takes up the subject at the fifth degree...and the alto takes up the subject at the octave...Thus even these parts eventually follow the strict rule of the answer at the fifth or octave."

Now I admit that I am still very much a student myself, and I have not read every word of Mann's book cover-to-cover, but I'm basing what I know of this practise on what I have read, the many examples Mann provides, the other examples I've studied, and quotations like this from a relatively modern pedagogue, as well as garden-variety definitions of fugue that I have read elsewhere. Perhaps at some point I shall have to acquire another source of fugue and/or counterpoint instruction to get a different point of view. Mann seems to favour the strict and traditional.

At some point, we need to differentiate between a fugue for the sake of study and a fugue for the sake of art. We are modern composers, after all, and while I choose to remain faithful to the stricter interpretations of an earlier time in my artistic applications in the interest of authenticity (now that I understand them), I don't see any reason why you may not do as you please in your own artistic applications. Nowadays I doubt anyone is going to object to your handling something that is obviously a fugue in your art music on the grounds that it doesn't adhere strictly to 18th Century practice and aesthetics. That said, I believe that for the sake of study, it might be best to observe and adopt tradition. The best learning happens in a controlled environment. I'm willing to allow that experimentation that runs contrary to tradition, as you are doing, might be a useful part of this process, especially since you appear fully to understand the tradition and are questioning its validity. I would still try treating the same subject twice, once in a conventional manner, and again in an unconventional manner - like a controlled experiment - and judge the results.

I started a short little fuge recently - nothing earth shattering, on a Tonic-SubMediant-Tonic-Submediant exposition plan. It's different - and if it's not a fuge simply because it doesn't follow what's commonly done on that one point, I'd like to know exactly what it is.

I may post it later when I finish it if your interested. [/b]

By all means! You may post it here if you like, but it might be better to post it in its own thread so that you can get comments from people who are not interested in the didactic nature of this thread. Be sure to draw my attention to it when you do post, because I do a great deal of skimming nowadays.

I know you can recommend a good biography in book form. Classical music changed my life, and Mozart's in particular - although I've never bothered to look in depth into the history. I watch the movie at least twice a year though - I know it's probably inaccurate - but I enjoy it every time.

Actually, I don't own a Mozart biography in the strictly narrative sense. I do have a book called "Mozart - His Character, His Work" by Alfred Einstein, which examines Mozart from the standpoint of who he was as a human being and how it affected his work; in the process, a great deal of biographical information is conveyed. The book is arranged in major sections titled The Man, The Musician, The Instrumental Works, The Vocal Works, and Opera, with subsections within each going into greater detail. I've found it fascinating and I recommend it.

The film "Amadeus" is famously inaccurate on historical details - Mozart had two surviving children, not one; he didn't die the night of the Die Zauberflote premiere, etc...to say nothing of the whole Salieri murder premise - but it is quite accurate in its depiction of Mozart as a person, right down to that ridiculous laugh. I understand that much study was done in this area in preparation for the filming. In my opinion it doesn't dwell enough on how heartfelt and warm a person Mozart could be at times, and it gives only glimpses of how cruel and unkind he could be ("when one hears such sounds, what can one say but 'Salieri'!"). Mozart was a complex man, and there was more to him than can be adequately portrayed in 2-1/2 hours; but it's a very vivid sketch.

I'm told that Einstein recounts Mozart having told his father that he cheated on a canonic exercise in order to meet a school requirement. Evidently, the fugue wasn't one of Mozart's strong suits, even though we have examples like his Kyrie that would suggest otherwise.

How does one write a subject line?

Maybe instead i should ask, what are some common properties of good subject lines?

When composing a fugue subject, one should utilize a I-IV-V-I (for example: C-F-G-C; a-d-E-a) bass line sequence contained within your subject. This sequence may outline the entire subject, or only part of it.

Most traditional fugue subjects are not more than two measures and very rarely more than four (this all depends on the meter too, of course).

Usually the most workable subjects begin after beat one of the first measure (the measure beginning with some kind of a rest). While this is not required, it is MUCH easier to treat these type of subjects when first learning fugue.

Some conservative theorists think the best fugue subjects contain one very distinct interval within them (for example, the dropping diminished seventh in Mozart's Kyrie from the Requiem [which is actually a double fugue]) while the rest of the countersubjects move in steps; seldom jumping. This is an attractive classical fugue technique, however, not particularly daring and somewhat rigid by modern standards.

Hope that helped. =)

Hope that helped. =)

Definetly :), thanks!

trip? :D

Though you're right - this is a great thread.

*Pinned*

I figure it's about time I posted this. I've been working on 3 fuges (this included) lately and some piano music besides. I think that amounts to musical hoedom but in any case I haven't given this the time I should have.

But that said, I still think it works.

This is a fuge on a Tonic,Mediant,Tonic,Mediant exposition format. The most unsatisfying moment imo is my harmonisation in 2 voices only - I had a real hard time doing that satisfactorily. It sounds..medieval. Other than that part of the exposition, I'm satisified with the rest.

Setting to Kyrie eleison.

Oh - at bar 20 I did a proper exposition (Tonic,Dominant,Tonic,Dominant) and followed that on to the end without looking back.

Fuge experts - if it isn't a fuge - please re-lable it and give your reasons why.

TMTMExpositionFuge.mid

This is like, one of the best things I've ever seen on this site :P It really helped me a lot understanding fugues and fugal compositions, and it certainly helped me compose fugues. I has also helped me play fugues easier, as I now notice more easily what each voice does and why :P It really really really was helpful, and thanks for providing the community with that ;)

On a quick note, another fugue - which is very famous, actually - which uses the sequence of tonic - subdominant -tonic etc. in the exposition is the fugue in Bach's G Minor Sonata for Solo Violin. While it's a fugue in a totally different league (after all, true polyphony on a violin is pretty much impossible) it is an example of a subject that strictly requires being answered in the subdominant. But even in the Well-Tempered Clavier, there are no fugues of this model, so the G Minor Sonata is somewhat an odd exception.

Furthermore, the question of why the sequence tonic - dominant - tonic actually establishes the tonic better than other sequences is because from a harmonic point of view, the dominant is the only scale degree leading to the tonic, and thereby creates a 'cadence' in the tonic. A perfect cadence is much more firm than a plagal one, as is easily heard by trying both out on a piano. Therefore, while I'm sure other sequences can work, they were not preferred by former fugue composers as tonality and harmony always came before polyphony, and the key had to be firmly established somehow.

On a quick note, another fugue - which is very famous, actually - which uses the sequence of tonic - subdominant -tonic etc. in the exposition is the fugue in Bach's G Minor Sonata for Solo Violin. While it's a fugue in a totally different league (after all, true polyphony on a violin is pretty much impossible) it is an example of a subject that strictly requires being answered in the subdominant. But even in the Well-Tempered Clavier, there are no fugues of this model, so the G Minor Sonata is somewhat an odd exception.

Furthermore, the question of why the sequence tonic - dominant - tonic actually establishes the tonic better than other sequences is because from a harmonic point of view, the dominant is the only scale degree leading to the tonic, and thereby creates a 'cadence' in the tonic. A perfect cadence is much more firm than a plagal one, as is easily heard by trying both out on a piano. Therefore, while I'm sure other sequences can work, they were not preferred by former fugue composers as tonality and harmony always came before polyphony, and the key had to be firmly established somehow.

Tonal answers, or the answer (or portion of) occurring a step below the customary dominant level occur when the 5th degree of the scale, or the dominant chord, occur early (within the beginning) in the subject. This is to avoid the abrupt harmonic change which occurs in the answer if it were a real transposition to the dominant (V of V chord in the case of the dominant being implied in the subject). Even when the 5th degree appears early and does not imply a dominant chord, it is customary to use a tonal answer. This is a practice which was carried over from the days of modal music where the imitation was to be kept within the range of the mode. The most famous example of a tonal answer is the BWV 565 Fugue in D minor of Bach (toccata and fugue in dm), where the 5th degree occurs so often throughout the whole subject, Bach gives it a fully tonal answer in other words completely in the subdominant key.

Hi, for some reason the pdf does not show.

Has it been moved?

Hi, for some reason the pdf does not show.

Has it been moved?

The originator of the thread has left and apparently the files that were posted via his account went with him. With moderator permission, I'll post his lesson, since he made it publically available already - and has indicated in this thread that he had no problem with it being shared even outside this forum (with students etc)

How come he left? His compositions were easily the best here.

How come he left? His compositions were easily the best here.

That's unclear. J. Lee apparantly has acceptance issues. I thought he took things way too personally, especially regarding his music. It wasn't good enough that a many people here liked it. Maybe that's overstating things. But he does mention elsewhere that his feelings were hurt when people express disapproval for composing in the idioms of earlier eras. Why he needed to care that everyone agreed is beyond me.

I told him early on in a pm when he said he was contemplating leaving that I thought that insofar as music was concerned, he was an asset to the board and should stay.

That's unclear. J. Lee apparantly has acceptance issues. (...) his feelings were hurt when people express disapproval for composing in the idioms of earlier eras.

I for one disagree with those who think writing music in the style "of the past" is stupid.

I recently had a discussion with a teacher at the Conservatory who was regretting that Barber's Adagio for strings was written so late in time and not 50 - 60 years earlier. His argument was that it was "easier" to write this piece knowing what had been written before and so that there was less "inventiveness" in the piece.

I replied to him that I was viewing things completely differently: to me it was more important that this beautiful piece existed at all. I don't care if it was written at a "later time" in the overall music evolution history. I'm glad Samuel Barber found the inspiration to write this Adagio.

We had to agree on our disagreement, unfortunately, but that does not mean anyone is wrong. There is no truth in the matter. Music lives because there are composers writing music. If you think (as I do) that the style of the past is great and deserves to be used again, then by all means, follow your inclinations and beliefs.

The originator of the thread has left and apparently the files that were posted via his account went with him. With moderator permission, I'll post his lesson, since he made it publically available already - and has indicated in this thread that he had no problem with it being shared even outside this forum (with students etc)

That would be great.

Saying it's 'easier' to write in the styles of the past is clearly untrue. Anything people write now qualifies as music of the present. Music is made challenging by boundaries and restrictions, and composers of all ages have felt it necessary to imitate the past in order to 'prove' themselves due to the difficulty of convincing imitation, rather than to blindly barge on in furthering musical language.

Just think of all the fugues which composers since the Baroque era have felt compelled to include in their works!

For anyone previously seeking the original tutorial files, Mike has posted them back to Lee's original post :mellow:

Hi J. Lee.

Very impressive fugue and informative commentary - I was just wondering, has anybody put a post up about writing regular countersubjects in invertible counterpoint? Two terms ago we did fugue as one of our degree course modules, and it soon became clear that writing invertible counterpoint (and particularly triple invertible counterpoint as my tutor required) is probably the most difficult thing about writing Baroque fugue. If not, perhaps I'll put a few examples up...

J. Lee,

This is one of the most inspiring lessons in fugal writing I have encountered, and a truly remarkable fugue on a well-known theme. Thank you for this.

Yours,

Hane Htut Maung

I'd be interested to hear about invertible counterpoint please!

Isnt the counter-subject meant to become a main entry in the tonic?

First of all, that fugue lesson is damn awesome. I mean both the actual lesson---the way it's taught---and the fugue.

I have a somewhat dumb-sounding question (rather, maybe a few related questions): does the way that the subject is harmonized always have to be the same? If not/if so, is this related to your use of the phrase "harmonic statement of the subject" in any way?

Well, I suppose another question as well. When writing fugues that use fancy contrapuntal techniques like stretto, how often does one write a theme and later look for such possibilities, as opposed to planning out a subject so that such techniques are possible?

And a third question: when writing a fugue, how often is the form (er, rather, what keys you'll modulate to and such) planned out before getting into the exposition?

Thanks in advance for any answers.

J. Lee please indulge a long time musician but a newbie composer...just one question: In composing this did you sketch it out on paper or piece it together at the keyboard?