on fugue Tekst over fuga
|You can download the completet text as pdf:
De complete tekst kun je downloaden als pdf-bestand:
|I would recommend Dutch readers to primarily use the English
text, because it is (much) more complete - as it is newer -than
the old Dutch. The Dutch text you can use for example for the translation
Ik zou ook Nederlandstaligen willen aanraden primair de Engelse
tekst te gebruiken, want deze is (veel) completer - want nieuwer
- dan de oudere Nederlandse tekst. De Nederlandse tekst kun je bijvoorbeeld
gebruiken voor de vertaling van begrippen.
|For your information, I here quote the 'Intro' of the
new English version:
This text is an extended, and largely revised translation of
a text I wrote in Dutch on the same subject in 2009. Probably this text
will by no means be a final version: revision may be necessary, and it
is my intention to add more information after the text as it is now. So,
some chapters will follow later...
I will translate the text (back) to Dutch in the near future, as I believe
this new version offers better and more complete information than the Dutch
version of (almost) five years ago. I would like to advice my Dutch students
to mainly use this English text, and to use the old Dutch version eventually
adjacent (and then primarily because of the differences in terminology).
This is about what I want to add in the future:
Example(s) of analyses of complete fugues (perhaps together with:)
Example(s of harmonic analysis of fugue(s)
Example of a fugue in the Classical period (probably Mozart)
Fugue as part of another form, after Bach (for example: in a development
section) or with another 'aim' than contrapuntal elaboration as such (possible
examples: Beethoven String Quartet Op. 59.1, Piano Sonate Op. 110, Franck:
String Quartet, Reger: ? )
Fugue / counterpoint in the Twentieth century (Bartok, Hindemith, Shostakovich..)
When translating, I had to make a few decisions concerning terminology:
It seems that in the more recent textbooks in English the terms subject
and answer are preferred over dux and comes. Because I am convinced that
the terms dux and comes are convenient, and more appropriate when
describing (and understanding) fugal imitation technique, I stick to these.
In practice, I use dux and comes in order to make the precise distinction
between entrances in 'original' and transposed form, and subject in a more
general sense, to label any entrance of the subject. In the examples though,
I mostly mention the alternative lables subject and answer as well.
In many English texts no clear distinction is made between interludes and
episodes1 But: the non-thematic measures within groups of entrances of
the subject often clearly have a different function than sections without
the subject outside such groups. I therefore believe it makes prefect sense
to make a clear distinction:
a. Sections in which the subject is used should not be labeled episodes
b. Interludes stand within a group of entrances of the subject
c. Episodes stand after a group of entrances of the subject.
In most places where I mention the Well-Tempered Clavier, I use
the abbrevation WTC.
Please feel invited to observe errors and omissions in this text, to
suggest additions etc.!
Amsterdam, February 22, 2014