 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: wjk
Date: 2005-10-25 13:22
The fugue is endlessly fascinating; what are your favorite examples? Were composers such as Bach very conscious of fugue structure when they were composing or was it a more intuitive compositional process?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2005-10-25 13:56
We are currently [learning how to] play [in concert band], the Schwanda Polka [Weinberger {no relative I know of !!}], but not the Fugue, at least yet. I requested our local classical FM station to find it? and play it, which they did, and I marveled at the complexity I heard in the F. Sounded real tough !! Comments ? Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetist04
Date: 2005-10-25 14:33
If you're interested in the Fugue that much and are willing to spend considerable time studying its complexity, I would highly encourage a meander through Douglas Hofstadter's "Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid." It's a very difficult book to read because of the complexity he illustrates between the relationships of Escher's paintings, Godel's mathematical and scientific discoveries, and Bach's fugues. It's a fascinating book.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2005-10-25 15:45
Hi,
I heard the Symphony Band at U. of Michigan perform Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor last Saturday at the Band-o-Rama and then heard the same piece performed on a wonderful pipe organ the next day. Both were amazingly played but the edge goes to the organ as the performer was visible and really into it!
It boggles the mind that Bach used to compose these and his wonderful cantatas as well as improvise on figured bass notations almost at the drop of a hat (OK, not that quickly).
Don, if your band can perform the Weinberger with a pipe organ, it would be a real event. Listen to the Dallas Winds recording for a thrill.
HRL
PS There is an outstanding arrangement of the Little Fugue in G minor that most competent wind ensembles can pretty easily sight-read.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: RodRubber
Date: 2005-10-25 15:56
The Funny thing about the Bach Tocatta and Fugue in D Minor, is that it's probably not by bach! Could actually be by Mendelssohn. If you think about Bach's Works, it really doesn't sound a lot alike. And considering the fugue, the answer is in the subdominant, which is Extremely atypical of bach's fugal style.
I love the Numerous fugues in the B Minor Mass, perhaps the greatest work of music ever composed.
Best
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2005-10-25 16:11
RodRubber wrote:
> The Funny thing about the Bach Tocatta and Fugue in D Minor, is
> that it's probably not by bach! Could actually be by
> Mendelssohn.
What's you're reference for Mendelssohn supposition?
BWV 565 was played in the 59 years between Bach's death and Mendelssohn's birth ....
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: RodRubber
Date: 2005-10-25 16:36
Mark,
I got that supposition from my history professor at Peabody, Dr. Ray Sprenkle. I am not an expert on this topic, but my ear leads me to believe that it could possibly be the case. Is there a record of the work being played in the 59 yr period your mentioned?
Mendelssohn zealously "Discovered" many of bachs works, including oratorios which he said were found in a butcher's shop, the manuscript being used to wrap meat.
Thanks Mark C
Best -
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2005-10-25 16:41
If Wikipedia is to be believed, the oldest known manuscript of the Toccata and Fugue is in the handwriting of one Johann Ringk (1717-1778).
Felix Mendelssohn was born in 1809.
-----------
If there are so many people on this board unwilling or unable to have a civil and balanced discussion about important issues, then I shan't bother to post here any more.
To the great relief of many of you, no doubt.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: RodRubber
Date: 2005-10-25 16:45
I will consult with the aforementioned professor, and try to get back to you with the basis of his hypothesis. Would you agree, and as Peacham has definately read in the Wikipedia source, that BWV 565 is not congruent with the stylistic norms established by Bach? I think one's ear can recognize this, especially comparing even with the other Toccata and Fugue in D minor "Dorian"
Best -
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2005-10-25 17:01
RodRubber wrote:
> I will consult with the aforementioned professor, and try to
> get back to you with the basis of his hypothesis. Would you
> agree, and as Peacham has definately read in the Wikipedia
> source, that BWV 565 is not congruent with the stylistic norms
> established by Bach?
Possibly for organ pieces, as the article (which is the ONLY reference online, translated into multiple languages, origin unknown, which I had read initially) states. The Wikipedia source itself may be spurious, considering the lack of supporting sources - the exact article is the only one available on the Web, and has been translated to/from English (we cannot be sure, since there's no authorship evident in the article). The one article and one book the article discusses which supports the hypothesis of Bach possibly not being the author, or that the work may not have originally been for organ but written by Bach for a different instrument, do exist - I can find outside references.
There's a lot more homework to do before jumping to any conclusion, one way or another. There is not, by any means, a consensus.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2005-10-25 18:05
Looking in my Larousse Ency., Ringk is not listed, but of the 6 refs. to fugue, 3 are for Bach, which I will, and [hopefully] some of you can, read. Has anyone consulted Groves on this momentous question ? Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2005-10-25 18:26
The controversy about the authorship of BWV 565 (by Ringk?) is not a new revelation and has given fodder to articles and diatribes by musicologists.
However, none have been proven beyond just speculation.
Until the autograph is found these theories will always be just theories.
Some people also believe we never walked on the moon ![[wink]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie3.gif) ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2005-10-25 18:32
GBK, you wrote: "Until the autograph is found these theories will always be just theories."
But suppose the Ringk manuscript is the autograph? Is there any firm proof that it is not?
-----------
If there are so many people on this board unwilling or unable to have a civil and balanced discussion about important issues, then I shan't bother to post here any more.
To the great relief of many of you, no doubt.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2005-10-26 07:42
Oh, the joys of music history, and history in general for that matter. Delighting in my oddball bogus theories is what got me through Medieval/Renaissance class last semester. Heck, it's what gets me through most of my history classes.
Among my favorites is this little piece I wrote on the origins of illuminated manuscripts:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/mostlydifferent/4558.html
Because, really, we don't know. All we have is stuff that was written down, that we presume to be written by someone important. For all we know, Bach may have written throny atonal music late in his life that he never performed publicly and Mendelssohn burned. Crucial treatises on music could have been written by hack journalists trying to earn a buck while the real musicians saw no need to write on such petty topics. Schumann may have feigned breaking his hands to evade the Viennese mafia. Violinists may have had horrid technique and orchestras sounded awful, or they may have sounded better than anything we have today. Guido d'Arezzi may have been a time-traveling 25th-century musicologist upset that his peers disproved his theory on the origins of solfege.
We have documents, we have stuff, and we have stories/traditions. About all we can know for certain is what some people's handwriting (perhaps it's Bach's, or perhaps Bach had a copyist and the copyist decided to pass off some of his own stuff as Bach's) looked like and what instruments somebody (whether a master or a hack) built. Everything else is based on some (albeit often small, we think) degree of supposition.
You would get 20 different accounts on how my database fundamentals lecture occurred THIS MORNING, and even if it included video there is an enormous amount of other stuff going on, plus contextual, dialectical, and technical factors that no amount of historical recording would give a historian 100 years from now an incredibly accurate picture of. And that's if we were TRYING to keep track of it. Imagine, now, how accurate our presumptions of something that occurred 500 years ago without anyone trying to keep much record of it are. It's fun!
Watch movies made 50 years ago about the 1800s. "Wow, those silly 1950s people and their weird notions of the 1800s" you'll probably say. And they were 50 years closer to when it happened.
Heck, I often give completely false accounts of how some of the music I write came about. If I tell myself a piece inspired by diarrhea stemmed from a grand ideal, I might begin to believe it myself.
If the originals are not well publicized, it only takes ONE person to declare "These are Bach's manuscripts" after outliving everyone who says "You're an idiot jerk liar turd," and WHEEE, history is inaccurate. Granted, back then people were probably less likely to try to sabotage history, but who knows!
I particularly like the episode of Futurama where the characters, in the year 3000, visit a grossly inaccurate museum of the 20th century. Caveman robots banging clubs in an automobile assembly line and such.
</tangent>
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2005-10-27 22:24
Back to the original posting:
My favourite fugue is difficult to pin down as there are so many sublime examples (especially Bach's). But the final fugue in Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra (Britten) is up on the top of my list.
Without music, the world would be grey, very grey.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
