Oh yes. We’re wrapping up the section on the different kinds of countersubjects, but after that I’ll cover triple and quadruple counterpoint and then return to canon in order to talk about the different kinds of specialty strettos.
I really like the tonal voice leading video series, there are some videos that are not subtitled, hope you can finish it soon because I am not good at listening to English, thank you very much.
Good questions. The simple answer to the first one is that fugues need episodes because repeating the subject and answer incessantly would be very tiring on the ear. Many young composers ask, "is this a good fugue?" when they should first be asking, "is this good music?" Almost all music that successfully maintains a listener's interest strikes a balance between continuity and contrast, and the episodes of a fugue provide contrast and variety whenever the composition starts to get too repetitive or predictable. As for identifying episodes, any measure from a fugue that does not contain the subject or answer is a candidate for that label. Fugue is not really a form, like Sonata Form or Rondo or something. It was originally a technique for beginning a polyphonic composition, and so the only part of a fugue that has truly consistent formal expectations -- across history and across styles -- is the exposition. The middle and final "sections" of a fugue are much fuzzier in terms of formal expectations. The composer can modulate or not, include as many complete or incomplete entry groups as desired, and can interpolate episodes whenever they think it would be effective.
@@JacobGran Thanks a lot for responding! I agree completely about your statement, a good fugue is not a good fugue if it's not good music first and foremost. In fugues there are parts where there is an episode but there are some parts in which there is just a brief moment of free counterpoint. For example the fugue in BWV 846, it has no episodes. The thing is I've looked into this video ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-DuZUjmTxf28.html And it shows BWV 846 fugue and says "Dev.1, Dev.2, Dev.3" Meaning 3 sections of development. And all that without the fugue having any episode! Now that is really confusing to me. Why?
I'm not sure why that analysis uses that term either. It makes sense to break the form into those sections because of the strong cadences in mm.14 and 19 (and if I remember correctly others break the fugue into the same sections), but I don't really know why they would be labeled "Dev."
@@JacobGran Oh I see! Thank you a lot Jacob! Really that's very helpful now I really understand. It all lines up with what you said and what I read in this file.
I know I repeat myself under each of your videos I comment on because I lack linguistic virtuosity, but I can't stop praising how good your videos are! The way you present the topics and how you always bring another or complementary example at the end is really great! Although, at first I thought you would bring Mozart's "Kyrie Eleison" fugue as an example at the end, but Bach is always good too. I studied counterpoint in all its facets during my bachelor's degree, although it was geared towards film music. Once you have understood and internalised what fugues and canons are, what high art is behind them and what a joy it is to listen to them, you can't let go! My father, who was a music teacher before he retired, introduced me to the world of classical music (including baroque and earlier) and sparked a fascination for fugues in me at an early age. Therefore, in addition to my love of film music, I had no choice but to choose the right subsidiary subjects during my studies in order to dive deep into the subject matter. And yet, I still enjoy watching your videos and those of your RU-vid colleagues, because each of you explains everything a little differently, brings in new ways of thinking and uses different examples for fugues and other contrapuntal works. Sometimes I discover completely new things that I have either never come across before (in the sense that I have not yet heard/perceived those phenomena in pieces of music), or that I have not yet been able to name. The latter includes the so-called English cadence, in which the dominant has both the major and minor third. Usually successively: first minor third, then major third, but in different voices. This phenomenon is also determined by certain voice leading rules and has a wonderful effect. If then the dominant seventh is added, everything overlaps in the reverb of a church or cathedral and the voicing is right, an early form of the Jimi Hendrix chord (Dom7#9) is heard. The piece where I noticed this partly biting cadence first is "O sacrum convivium" by Thomas Tallis.
Maybe he didn't use the Kyrie Elison fugue from Mozart's Requiem because he wanted to save it for double fugues? Just a thought, as the Kyrie Elison fugue is a double fugue of the simultaneous exposition type.
Cater Carrots is correct, one of the next videos will be on double fugue which will just analyze three or maybe four fugues including the Kyrie. I have heard of the English cadence a long time ago but I should look up that Tallis piece; sounds interesting
The double counterpoint at 12th appears from bar 29-34. Bass has Subject 1 in Bb major and then Alto has its answer in F minor while Tenor and Bass have Subject 2 with Subject 1 keeps the same pitches, only alter D to Db!
