Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
The concept of fugue or fuga had a number of different meanings, therefore there isn’t one definition that can fit all periods of history.
During medieval times, the term fuga was used to designate a canon. It is only after 1500 that the imitative counterpoint started to develop and became eventually the prevalent technique to write polyphonic pieces at the expense of the canon.
In the second half of the 17th century, the fugue as a separate identified piece started to develop, mainly in central Germany with some characteristics akin to a form. The form model always remained fairly loose apart from the initial exposition. Therefore, that late and final model was just another type of composition, distinct from the freer model used previously, but which combined some formal characteristics with compositional techniques.
Do you guys think that late version, as examplified by some Bach pieces, as a separate form of music ?
What I was taught at University (undergraduate form and analysis and counterpoint classes - with the same teacher) is that fugue was not considered a form during the Baroque period. Then, during the late 19th century it began to be considered a 3 part form. That idea went out of style in favor of fugue as a way of writing music, a contrapuntal approach. The term fugue form has no exact meaning. Some fugues do have a form, usually ABA form.
I agree with that, I think. Fugue is a contrapuntal technique, not a form.
What I was taught at University (undergraduate form and analysis and counterpoint classes - with the same teacher) is that fugue was not considered a form during the Baroque period. Then, during the late 19th century it began to be considered a 3 part form. That idea went out of style in favor of fugue as a way of writing music, a contrapuntal approach. The term fugue form has no exact meaning. Some fugues do have a form, usually ABA form.
I agree with that, I think. Fugue is a contrapuntal technique, not a form.
Sam
I would agree - HOWEVER the following article muddies the issue:
What I was taught at University (undergraduate form and analysis and counterpoint classes - with the same teacher) is that fugue was not considered a form during the Baroque period. Then, during the late 19th century it began to be considered a 3 part form. That idea went out of style in favor of fugue as a way of writing music, a contrapuntal approach. The term fugue form has no exact meaning. Some fugues do have a form, usually ABA form.
I agree with that, I think. Fugue is a contrapuntal technique, not a form.
Sam
I would agree - HOWEVER the following article muddies the issue:
The model described by this article is indeed something that is being taught in conservatories. The main issue is that it is a theoretical model which was developed in the 19th century. I think many people analyze Bach fugue against that model as it gives them a reference point but really his works dont follow any particular model. Some of his fugues dont have any episode, or stretto and others like the B flat major book 2 are close to a baroque sonata form.
But in the same time, the late fugues of the 18th century have a more formal character than before which is all organized around the treatment of the main subject and his complementary secondary subjects and countersubjects through imitative technics. When originally the fugue was just a section using imitative technique, but which could be followed by a free composition, the late fugue is more organic and is organized around a focused set of imitative devices (inversion, augmentation, ....) applied to a fixed set of thematic material.
What I was taught at University (undergraduate form and analysis and counterpoint classes - with the same teacher) is that fugue was not considered a form during the Baroque period. Then, during the late 19th century it began to be considered a 3 part form. That idea went out of style in favor of fugue as a way of writing music, a contrapuntal approach. The term fugue form has no exact meaning. Some fugues do have a form, usually ABA form.
I agree with that, I think. Fugue is a contrapuntal technique, not a form.
Sam
I would agree - HOWEVER the following article muddies the issue:
As far as I can see. the article clearly states that fugue is a form and even describes the form of a fugue in the section called "The Basic Structure of a Fugue". I think the real problem is that there is no clear cut distinction between form and technique, and different people use or think of those terms in different ways.
What I was taught at University (undergraduate form and analysis and counterpoint classes - with the same teacher) is that fugue was not considered a form during the Baroque period. Then, during the late 19th century it began to be considered a 3 part form. That idea went out of style in favor of fugue as a way of writing music, a contrapuntal approach. The term fugue form has no exact meaning. Some fugues do have a form, usually ABA form.
I agree with that, I think. Fugue is a contrapuntal technique, not a form.
Sam
I would agree - HOWEVER the following article muddies the issue:
The model described by this article is indeed something that is being taught in conservatories. The main issue is that it is a theoretical model which was developed in the 19th century. I think many people analyze Bach fugue against that model as it gives them a reference point but really his works dont follow any particular model. Some of his fugues dont have any episode, or stretto and others like the B flat major book 2 are close to a baroque sonata form.
But in the same time, the late fugues of the 18th century have a more formal character than before which is all organized around the treatment of the main subject and his complementary secondary subjects and countersubjects through imitative technics. When originally the fugue was just a section using imitative technique, but which could be followed by a free composition, the late fugue is more organic and is organized around a focused set of imitative devices (inversion, augmentation, ....) applied to a fixed set of thematic material.
I don't think it's so critical that some fugues don't follow the precise form described in the article. Isn't that also true for some rondos or sonatas that don't follow as rigid a sonata allegro form that is found in most Mozart Sonatas?
That's a good explanation of form. Can you give a similar explanation of what you consider "technique"?
Sure. A form is dealing with macro level organization but it does not specify how the music itself should be written. So in a rondo ABACA, the A can be a number of things depending on the style of the composer.
Musical technique deals with how the music is written at "micro" level. So typically a couple of examples:
The canon is a musical imitative technique which is a way of writing that consists in imitating (usually strictly) one melody in one voice in other voices with a certain delay. Of course inside that general category there are a number of sorts of canon. For example one can change the delay for entering the imitation. Kirnberger wrote a circular canon for 4 voices (at the end it returns at the beginning) where each voice enters a bar apart modulating at the fifth of the previous voice until the canon has achieved all 12 major keys.
In a theme and variations, there are different techniques to write the variations; for example changing the rythmic structure of the melody or creating diminutions. The form does not depend on the techniques being used.
In a fugue there are different techniques to write imitative counterpoint, for example using an inverted subject, or augmenting the subject, ....
A very old technique that was invented in the 14th century is the Isorythm based on the colors and the talea. A number of motets were written using this technique (the most famous is the Kyrie in the mass Notre Dame by Machaut): a given melody in a voice (often the tenor) is split into rythmic sections of X notes according to the talea model. In later motets, Dufay generalized the technique by applying a different talea to different melody in each voice creating a complex interaction between voices entirely driven by the choice of the different melodies and the rythmic pattern chosen for each talea.
A piece may incorporate a fugato section as part of its overall form, so a fugue certainly is a contrapuntal technique.
As a stand-alone composition, a fugue has form, but I think that form varies from composer to composer.
If you trace the development of the fugue from the simple modal fugues of Palestrina to the unlabeled but de facto fugato sections of Sweelinck's Fantasies, to the fugues of Frescobaldi, Froberger, Buxtehude, Pachelbel, Handel, and JS Bach, you will not find a single form, but an evolution.
I think Frescobaldi probably composed the earliest fugues that meet our modern standard of a stand-alone fugue. An example:
We often think of a fugue as preceded by a prelude or toccata in terms of overall form, but a significant number of chorale preludes are in the form of a fugue-- they are short pieces, and often are described as a fughette when fughal form is used. As a short chorale prelude, the fughette will not have the full overall form we think of when contemplating the form of a stand-alone fugue, and instead of the fugue having a prelude, the fugue is serving as a prelude for a chorale. Here is an example by Johann Christoff Bach, played by a young organist:
Reading Piano World with Javascript turned off (no logins, no ads, fast response times). I will receive PMs.
I think Frescobaldi probably composed the earliest fugues that meet our modern standard of a stand-alone fugue. An example:
We often think of a fugue as preceded by a prelude or toccata in terms of overall form, but a significant number of chorale preludes are in the form of a fugue-- they are short pieces, and often are described as a fughette when fughal form is used. As a short chorale prelude, the fughette will not have the full overall form we think of when contemplating the form of a stand-alone fugue, and instead of the fugue having a prelude, the fugue is serving as a prelude for a chorale. Here is an example by Johann Christoff Bach, played by a young organist:
Unhapilly this particular composition is spurious. Frescobaldi never composed any piece named fughe. All his compositions for keyboard would be Toccate, Canzoni, Ricercari, ....The piece above is from a much later period, late baroque most likely given the style, obviously not modal anymore, and I would venture probably german/austrian origin (does not sound like french nor italien and very often german composers would use the term fugue to designate their compositions).
The association of a prelude and a fugue into one piece is very typical of german composers like Buxtehude. Italien composers would use forms like Fantasia or Ricercar even though sometimes it is difficult to sort out any difference.
Probably one of the earliest piece which has some characteristics of what we would designate as a modern fugue (ie JS Bach) would be Andrea Gabrieli in his 3rd book of Ricercar, the Ricercar del Primo Tono (obviously modal in Dorian one flat) published 1596. That one is a monothematic one with several repetitions of the subject very much like a stretto.
It is interesting that the referenced piece was not composed by Frescobaldi. That aside, I do not consider the fugue label being used by the composer as the defining characteristic of a fugue.
Reading Piano World with Javascript turned off (no logins, no ads, fast response times). I will receive PMs.
It is interesting that the referenced piece was not composed by Frescobaldi. That aside, I do not consider the fugue label being used by the composer as the defining characteristic of a fugue.
I have done some search to try to find who composed that piece and I was lucky to find a clue in an article. I agree with your point, i was saying that the naming had also a certain connotation with the origin, at least in the 17th century.
So here it is (BTW Claudio Di Veroli is a great expert in temperaments):
For some reason, this thread reminds me of this lovely piece:
My apologies for going a bit OT here. Thanks for posting this video, Bennevis. Beautiful music and paintings to match. I had to listen to a bit of Vaughan Williams after that....
But it must have been a most untypical piece for Henry Cowell - I was unfamiliar with his name, so looked him up and he sounds like quite an unusual character!
Please pardon my interruption, back to the topic now!
It is interesting that the referenced piece was not composed by Frescobaldi. That aside, I do not consider the fugue label being used by the composer as the defining characteristic of a fugue.
I have done some search to try to find who composed that piece and I was lucky to find a clue in an article. I agree with your point, i was saying that the naming had also a certain connotation with the origin, at least in the 17th century.
So here it is (BTW Claudio Di Veroli is a great expert in temperaments):
Nice work sleuthing it out. Muffat apparently studied with Pasquini, who was a proponent of Frescobaldi. I suspect that Muffat used some unpublished material of Frescobaldi as a basis for the fugue, and the confusion resulted.
Reading Piano World with Javascript turned off (no logins, no ads, fast response times). I will receive PMs.
