Talk:The Art of Fugue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Art of Fugue is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, cleanup, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that aren't 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.
This article is supported by the Compositions task force.

It seems that several notes are missing from the theme. At least the page http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~tas3/introaof.html has several more, which I am tempted to regard as part of the theme too - but I am not in the least a musicologist. Neither am I able to create a .png file with the notes added, so I'm just pointing it out for people with the skills to set thing aright. Victor Gijsbers 19:14, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but since these are transformations of the main theme, their inclusion here is not really necessary. (JB)

This was a Tough one!!! Thanks so much for your "fiddles" hahahah very fitting in a Bach article----I wat to try your cheese there !!! Great editing--patrick--

Can a work be posthumous?

Yes. A posthumous work is one which is published after its author's death. --Camembert

I've removed the "This was the first (and only) time in his music that Johann Sebastian Bach ever used his own name.". J.S.B used the B.A.C.H motif in several other works, for example in the "Canonic Variations over Vom Himmel Hoch". Jarle fagerheim 00:25, Dec 25, 2003 (UTC)

Check out the Liszt Variations over the BACH theme they are also remarkable.

(Note to the curious: it's right at the end of the fourth variation --Camembert)

Also, check the numerological sinificances of movements in the Partitas for keyboard (825–830) (JB)


Im searching a video recording of the "Glenn Gould - Art of Fugue" on DVD. If anyone knows where tho find this please answer me.

   You can find some on You Tube, just search for Glenn Gould...


Contents

[edit] Changes to intro

Sorry, I put my edit summary here because the edit summary box isn't big enough for me to say what I wanted to say!

I agreed with the tenor of the introduction, that this work is a masterpiece containing awesome wonders, but this was all expressed with the "is considered" get-out (even further qualified as "is considered by many"). When I took this clause out the article's introduction simply claimed that this is among the most complex contrapuntal music ever (which if it's important requires demonstration - there is no other complex counterpoint mentioned in the article to allow comparison); in any case I think the marvel is not in the complexity itself, but in the musicality Bach retained in the face of such (self-imposed) complexity. It also claimed that it is among the greatest pieces of absolute music ever written, which seems to me impossible to back up in an encyclopedia article. I hope the changes I made improve matters. I think the claims are now meaningful and verifiable. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The Art of Fugue is one of the most complex works ever penned by Bach and is considered a crowning achievement of western art."[citation needed]"

I agree with the author of this entry at Wikipedia. It is an understatement to call this work merely 'awesome'.

Bach takes the same theme and writes 14 Fugues and 4 Canons using different musical intervals to achieve his aims.

It's like a musical/mathematical puzzle and yet at the time, it has super-musicality in the music. It is seriously difficult to appreciate and needs several listen-throughs to get to grips with the 'argument'.

I am enjoying the Grigory Sokolov (solo Piano) recording which needs to be considered for addition to the 'famed recordings' of this work. 82.31.140.174 (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I think the introduction is not very accurate. Recent studies suggest that the Art of Fugue was composed in the early 1740's. Actually the statement "A 1742 fair copy manuscript contains Contrapuncti I--III, V--IX, and XI--XIII, plus the octave and retrograde canons and an earlier version of Contrapunctus X" in "The sources" contradicts the introduction. Cheers--Riccardo (preceding unsigned comment by 140.105.16.2 (talk • contribs) 9 November 2005)

[edit] Translation from the German Wikipedia

There is a discussion of the single fugues in the German Wikipedia. Could someone translate this?

[edit] i'm a young musician, freshmen in high school

hi i'm just itching to say how this music has touched my life. Bach was an excellent composer and i'm finally really understanding his music by playing these contrapuncti in my saxophone quartet...go alto part! ~kelly~

Sounds fun. Astrophil 05:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where is the subject

Where is the motto subject in Contrapunctus VIII? Does it appear? Astrophil 05:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • After reading your comment, I had a very superficial scan through the score (using only a rubbishy PDF version, since I left my proper bound score in the church) of Contrapunctus VIII and the first place the subject jumped out at me was in Bar 183, which is only a few bars from the end, where it is stated in the bass in an inversion of the form is is stated in at the beginning of Contrapunctus XI. I'm sure it has to be somewhere else, so I'll have a look and maybe a play through as soon as I get my hands on my score again. — Doshea3 00:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Bar 94 Probably. helohe (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Key

Ummm... About the key that the theme is in. The article claims it to be in the key of D minor, then shows a piece of music in the key signature of C, no sharps or flats. Last time I checked, the relative minor of C is A minor. D minor is written in the key signature of F, one flat. Does the article get the key wrong, or is the key signature out of whack? Could someone please clear this up?Amphion 21:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed written in D minor. The image of the theme omits the key signature. Strad 14:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Is there any way to fix this?Amphion 17:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The first three notes form a d-minor chord. That is clear. Music is the sound, not the symbols on paper.--68.195.44.150 04:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
True enough, but to omit the key signature from the theme exemplar is sort of "ungrammatical", to put it loosely; it ought to be fixed. Does anyone know how musical samples are assembled for Wikipedia? I could whip something up using Lilypond, but I'd prefer to do it in the customary way (if any). BrianTung (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Very minor

This is just a very minor thought. Is 'musicality' really a word? Fephisto 06:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Noun derived from musical, as stated in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary. [1] Matt.kaner 14:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Musicality is the natural gift (talent) of creating or performing good music with little effort. This was indeed true for Bach, he was a born composer. He could immediately write whole pages of fugue if given a few tones for a starter motif. He did this often to entertain his friends in the pub. 91.83.12.110 (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't define it that way, and it isn't used that way in this article. It can be "defined" as that quality of a piece of music that is musical—a somewhat unsatisfying definition, but probably sufficient for its use in this article. When applied to a person, it usually (in my experience) means something like the lyrical quality of a person's performance (or possibly composition), and not how preternatural their talent may be. The Old Bach was indeed a marvelous improviser, if we are to go by contemporary accounts, but I wouldn't call that "musicality". BrianTung (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of permutation matrix

Looks like the picture of the permutation matrix is a one-to-one copy from the Zoltán Göncz edition of "Contrapunctus 14". The text is also very similar.

--helohe (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion seems lifted from a CD booklet

At one point in the discussion of the 'unfinished' fugue the text says 'in this recording the piece is left unfinished' - it is totally unclear what 'this recording' refers to!!

This is a telltale sign that a lot of the material was lifted wholesale from an essay meant to accompany a recording - i.e. a CD booklet - without checking if it still makes any sense. --Tdent 12:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Much of the "Background" section is lifted from CD booklets - compare with [2], for example. Sho Uemura 17:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Instrumentation

It isn't mentioned in the article that Bach never specified the instrumentation for this piece - although it was part of his Clavier-Ubung collection. This explains why we see all kinds of arrangements. Gautam Discuss 03:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I remember playing a couple of the parts of the piece in a state honors band way back when. They were untransposed because they're in a key that a normal concert band could handle. --Grev (talk) 07:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bach's Portrait in the page

I think Bach's portrait at the top of the page is a fake. Well, I'm almost sure. It should be replaced by the ones by Hausmann (1748).

The author of this site argues that the "Volbach portrait" is genuine, based (in part) on comparison of the faces in different portraits. Strad 19:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)