|
 Text
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
of terminology.
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
or interludes
-
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
|
|
|
|
