在赋格中消解外在形式与内在形式的张力——巴赫D小调赋格的比较分析

IF 0.4 2区 艺术学 0 MUSIC
S. Marlowe
{"title":"在赋格中消解外在形式与内在形式的张力——巴赫D小调赋格的比较分析","authors":"S. Marlowe","doi":"10.30535/MTO.26.3.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study offers a comparative analysis of J. S. Bach’s Fugue in D minor, from the Well-Tempered Clavier Book I (WTC I). Detailed examination of multiple divergent readings of the same musical excerpts raises important questions about Schenkerian theory and its application to fugal textures. I suggest that analytical discrepancies arise primarily when voice-leading concerns are not completely disentangled from our deeply rooted views of formal design in fugue. In the end, an over-reliance on the details of outer form risks blocking access to the fugue’s inner form. I identify and resolve significant differences that emerge at the foreground in these readings, later considering how a combined view of formal design (outer form) and tonal structure (inner form) resolves ambiguities and enhances our understanding of the work as a whole. Volume 26, Number 3, September 2020 Copyright © 2020 Society for Music Theory [1] For the past several decades, Schenkerian theorists have examined the interaction between formal design and tonal structure extensively, focusing primarily on repertoire from the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.(1) With few exceptions, the fugal genre is notably absent from this discussion.(2) Reasons for this absence are surely varied, but one notable cause is that fugal textures intensify issues of voice-leading at the foreground level. Baroque fugues in particular— with their dense textures and lack of predictable phrase groupings—prevent theorists from making any sort of prediction about the tonal structure (Gauldin 2013, 223; C. Smith 1996, 272; Renwick 1995a, 205), and place considerable demands on the analyst (Renwick 1995a, 205; Schachter [1973] 1999). These complications, although not insurmountable, are perhaps one reason why the fugal genre has received less a ention than later tonal styles in the Schenkerian literature. As my study will show, a careful examination of the interaction between details of outer form and inner form raises interesting questions about Schenkerian theory and its application to fugues.(3) [2] Laurence Dreyfus, an outspoken critic of Schenkerian theory, notes the avoidance of the fugal genre in the Schenkerian literature and makes two specific points that directly relate to this study: [First], a Schenkerian analysis of a fugue is also of particular interest because the fugue, with its self-conscious manipulations of counterpoint, might not seem an obvious candidate for an approach oriented toward long-range voice-leading. (1996, 171) [Second], even orthodox Schenkerians will sometimes concede that Schenker does not “work well” in explicitly contrapuntal music such as fugues. This a itude is troubling. For if Schenker’s ideas, self-referential as they are, can only be challenged when socalled surface voice-leading like imitation and double counterpoint gets in the way, what guarantees that Schenker has not duped his readers when he analyzes Beethoven symphonies? (187) To the first point, modern-day theorists will undoubtedly agree that the surface “manipulations of counterpoint” in Bach’s fugues are extraordinary and certainly worthy of study. Yet this fact should not prohibit analysts from also exploring the tonal underpinnings of a fugal subject or how various tonal segments are introduced and connected across the span of an entire composition. As Jason Hooper writes: “The image of Schenker as Formenlehre antihero should not prevent us from continuing to uncover and clarify these ‘hidden’ relationships between outer form . . . and voiceleading structure” (2011, 61). The fact that Bach’s fugue subjects project tonal progressions allows us to explore how they connect at deeper structural levels (Schenker [1926] 2014; Renwick 1991, Renwick 1995a, Renwick 1995b; Schachter [1973] 1999; Hooper 2017), and I suggest that this view does not hinder, but rather heightens our ability to admire his inventive manipulation of motives at the musical surface. [3] Dreyfus centers on the idea of “intentionalism,” of “encouraging analytic results that might have pleased composers if they were told about them” (1996, 171). From this viewpoint, he suggests that a Schenkerian view of fugue tells us li le about the way Bach composed, that such an approach is historically unjustified, and that “it will always be easy to concoct such a voice-leading structure, especially when one insists on finding it” (187). Dreyfus is correct that there are many relevant and interesting features to study in a fugue’s formal design, and observing these details is the first step in analyzing any new work. But just as it is a mistake to claim that mere identification of surface counterpoint is the end goal in formal analysis, it is similarly misleading to claim that “concocting a voice-leading structure” is the primary venture for Schenkerian analysis. And, as the aforementioned studies suggest, still other important insights can be gleaned from careful observation of both formal design and tonal structure. Peter H. Smith defines this combined view as dimensional counterpoint, the “total structure that emerges through . . . thematic design, key scheme, and tonal structure” (2005, 32).(4) Whether or not a composer was fully aware of such connections should not restrict our ability as analysts to make those observations after the fact. To Dreyfus’s second point, I suggest that the theory can be applied successfully in fugal analysis, and I propose a more systematic approach where necessary. [4] The present study offers a comparative analysis of J. S. Bach’s Fugue in D minor, from the WellTempered Clavier Book I (WTC I). Through a detailed examination of published and unpublished sketches of this fugue, the first part of this paper identifies and resolves significant analytical differences that emerge at the foreground.(5) The second part of this paper considers how a combined view of formal design and tonal structure resolves ambiguities and enhances our understanding of the work as a whole. Because fugal analysis has not been thoroughly addressed in the Schenkerian literature, we do not currently have a systematic way for dealing with such dense, imitative textures.(6) This will become quite evident through the highly divergent readings of the same excerpts presented in this study. I suggest that these discrepancies arise primarily when voice-leading concerns are not completely disentangled from our deeply rooted views of formal design in fugue. In the end, an over-reliance on the details of outer form risks blocking access to the fugue’s inner form. Aspects of Foreground in J. S. Bach’s Fugue in D minor (WTC I) [5] The formal design of Bach’s Fugue in D minor (WTC I) is well documented. Numerous analysts have remarked on its two countersubject motives and have observed Bach’s frequent use of subject inversion and invertible counterpoint.(7) The fugue’s notable “rhyme” scheme—material that appears first in the key of the dominant in mm. 17–21 returns in the tonic at the end of the fugue in mm. 39–43—has led most analysts to view the fugue as a binary form.(8) Schenker, too, viewed the fugue in this way, as evident from the marginalia in his unpublished sketch, shown in Example 1. (9) The exposition’s subject entries are outlined in the upper left-hand corner of the page, and the bo om of the page outlines the fugue’s two-part design.(10) His formal analysis does not end there: Schenker also labels the subject (dux) and answer (comes) in his sketches. In Example 1, these markings appear between the first and second staves, third and fourth staves, and the fifth and sixth staves (circled); and the subject and answer are labeled throughout his published sketch from Free Composition ([1935] 1979), shown in Example 2. (Later appearances are labeled with the abbreviations “s” and “a” on the graph).(11) Schenker clearly saw the merits of identifying formal design features at the beginning stages of analysis, even if his final conclusions were drastically opposed to this viewpoint (Hooper 2011, 62). [6] Schenker’s, Peter Franck’s (2010), and Olli Väisälä’s (2011) middleground sketches of Bach’s Dminor Fugue contrast in several striking ways (Examples 2–4). In this article, I will focus on treatment of the fugue’s subject and answer (mm. 1–6), its modified and inverted subject entries (especially mm. 21–25), the rhyme scheme (mm. 17–21 and mm. 39–43), and select passages containing harmonic sequences (mm. 9–13, mm. 15–17, and mm. 28–34). There are certainly times when more than one plausible reading of the same work might result (Schachter [1990] 1999). The discrepancies here, however, seem to emerge not from different interpretations, but from a conflation of outer form and inner form constructs. The way these foreground details are analyzed has significant ramifications for the way we view the fugue’s large-scale structure.","PeriodicalId":44918,"journal":{"name":"Music Theory Online","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Resolving Tensions between Outer Form and Inner Form in Fugue: A Comparative Analysis of J. S. Bach’s Fugue in D minor (WTC I)\",\"authors\":\"S. Marlowe\",\"doi\":\"10.30535/MTO.26.3.5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study offers a comparative analysis of J. S. Bach’s Fugue in D minor, from the Well-Tempered Clavier Book I (WTC I). Detailed examination of multiple divergent readings of the same musical excerpts raises important questions about Schenkerian theory and its application to fugal textures. I suggest that analytical discrepancies arise primarily when voice-leading concerns are not completely disentangled from our deeply rooted views of formal design in fugue. In the end, an over-reliance on the details of outer form risks blocking access to the fugue’s inner form. I identify and resolve significant differences that emerge at the foreground in these readings, later considering how a combined view of formal design (outer form) and tonal structure (inner form) resolves ambiguities and enhances our understanding of the work as a whole. Volume 26, Number 3, September 2020 Copyright © 2020 Society for Music Theory [1] For the past several decades, Schenkerian theorists have examined the interaction between formal design and tonal structure extensively, focusing primarily on repertoire from the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.(1) With few exceptions, the fugal genre is notably absent from this discussion.(2) Reasons for this absence are surely varied, but one notable cause is that fugal textures intensify issues of voice-leading at the foreground level. Baroque fugues in particular— with their dense textures and lack of predictable phrase groupings—prevent theorists from making any sort of prediction about the tonal structure (Gauldin 2013, 223; C. Smith 1996, 272; Renwick 1995a, 205), and place considerable demands on the analyst (Renwick 1995a, 205; Schachter [1973] 1999). These complications, although not insurmountable, are perhaps one reason why the fugal genre has received less a ention than later tonal styles in the Schenkerian literature. As my study will show, a careful examination of the interaction between details of outer form and inner form raises interesting questions about Schenkerian theory and its application to fugues.(3) [2] Laurence Dreyfus, an outspoken critic of Schenkerian theory, notes the avoidance of the fugal genre in the Schenkerian literature and makes two specific points that directly relate to this study: [First], a Schenkerian analysis of a fugue is also of particular interest because the fugue, with its self-conscious manipulations of counterpoint, might not seem an obvious candidate for an approach oriented toward long-range voice-leading. (1996, 171) [Second], even orthodox Schenkerians will sometimes concede that Schenker does not “work well” in explicitly contrapuntal music such as fugues. This a itude is troubling. For if Schenker’s ideas, self-referential as they are, can only be challenged when socalled surface voice-leading like imitation and double counterpoint gets in the way, what guarantees that Schenker has not duped his readers when he analyzes Beethoven symphonies? (187) To the first point, modern-day theorists will undoubtedly agree that the surface “manipulations of counterpoint” in Bach’s fugues are extraordinary and certainly worthy of study. Yet this fact should not prohibit analysts from also exploring the tonal underpinnings of a fugal subject or how various tonal segments are introduced and connected across the span of an entire composition. As Jason Hooper writes: “The image of Schenker as Formenlehre antihero should not prevent us from continuing to uncover and clarify these ‘hidden’ relationships between outer form . . . and voiceleading structure” (2011, 61). The fact that Bach’s fugue subjects project tonal progressions allows us to explore how they connect at deeper structural levels (Schenker [1926] 2014; Renwick 1991, Renwick 1995a, Renwick 1995b; Schachter [1973] 1999; Hooper 2017), and I suggest that this view does not hinder, but rather heightens our ability to admire his inventive manipulation of motives at the musical surface. [3] Dreyfus centers on the idea of “intentionalism,” of “encouraging analytic results that might have pleased composers if they were told about them” (1996, 171). From this viewpoint, he suggests that a Schenkerian view of fugue tells us li le about the way Bach composed, that such an approach is historically unjustified, and that “it will always be easy to concoct such a voice-leading structure, especially when one insists on finding it” (187). Dreyfus is correct that there are many relevant and interesting features to study in a fugue’s formal design, and observing these details is the first step in analyzing any new work. But just as it is a mistake to claim that mere identification of surface counterpoint is the end goal in formal analysis, it is similarly misleading to claim that “concocting a voice-leading structure” is the primary venture for Schenkerian analysis. And, as the aforementioned studies suggest, still other important insights can be gleaned from careful observation of both formal design and tonal structure. Peter H. Smith defines this combined view as dimensional counterpoint, the “total structure that emerges through . . . thematic design, key scheme, and tonal structure” (2005, 32).(4) Whether or not a composer was fully aware of such connections should not restrict our ability as analysts to make those observations after the fact. To Dreyfus’s second point, I suggest that the theory can be applied successfully in fugal analysis, and I propose a more systematic approach where necessary. [4] The present study offers a comparative analysis of J. S. Bach’s Fugue in D minor, from the WellTempered Clavier Book I (WTC I). Through a detailed examination of published and unpublished sketches of this fugue, the first part of this paper identifies and resolves significant analytical differences that emerge at the foreground.(5) The second part of this paper considers how a combined view of formal design and tonal structure resolves ambiguities and enhances our understanding of the work as a whole. Because fugal analysis has not been thoroughly addressed in the Schenkerian literature, we do not currently have a systematic way for dealing with such dense, imitative textures.(6) This will become quite evident through the highly divergent readings of the same excerpts presented in this study. I suggest that these discrepancies arise primarily when voice-leading concerns are not completely disentangled from our deeply rooted views of formal design in fugue. In the end, an over-reliance on the details of outer form risks blocking access to the fugue’s inner form. Aspects of Foreground in J. S. Bach’s Fugue in D minor (WTC I) [5] The formal design of Bach’s Fugue in D minor (WTC I) is well documented. Numerous analysts have remarked on its two countersubject motives and have observed Bach’s frequent use of subject inversion and invertible counterpoint.(7) The fugue’s notable “rhyme” scheme—material that appears first in the key of the dominant in mm. 17–21 returns in the tonic at the end of the fugue in mm. 39–43—has led most analysts to view the fugue as a binary form.(8) Schenker, too, viewed the fugue in this way, as evident from the marginalia in his unpublished sketch, shown in Example 1. (9) The exposition’s subject entries are outlined in the upper left-hand corner of the page, and the bo om of the page outlines the fugue’s two-part design.(10) His formal analysis does not end there: Schenker also labels the subject (dux) and answer (comes) in his sketches. In Example 1, these markings appear between the first and second staves, third and fourth staves, and the fifth and sixth staves (circled); and the subject and answer are labeled throughout his published sketch from Free Composition ([1935] 1979), shown in Example 2. (Later appearances are labeled with the abbreviations “s” and “a” on the graph).(11) Schenker clearly saw the merits of identifying formal design features at the beginning stages of analysis, even if his final conclusions were drastically opposed to this viewpoint (Hooper 2011, 62). [6] Schenker’s, Peter Franck’s (2010), and Olli Väisälä’s (2011) middleground sketches of Bach’s Dminor Fugue contrast in several striking ways (Examples 2–4). In this article, I will focus on treatment of the fugue’s subject and answer (mm. 1–6), its modified and inverted subject entries (especially mm. 21–25), the rhyme scheme (mm. 17–21 and mm. 39–43), and select passages containing harmonic sequences (mm. 9–13, mm. 15–17, and mm. 28–34). There are certainly times when more than one plausible reading of the same work might result (Schachter [1990] 1999). The discrepancies here, however, seem to emerge not from different interpretations, but from a conflation of outer form and inner form constructs. The way these foreground details are analyzed has significant ramifications for the way we view the fugue’s large-scale structure.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44918,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Music Theory Online\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Music Theory Online\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30535/MTO.26.3.5\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"艺术学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"MUSIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Music Theory Online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30535/MTO.26.3.5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"MUSIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

而且,正如上述研究所表明的,从对形式设计和音调结构的仔细观察中,还可以获得其他重要的见解。Peter H.Smith将这种组合观点定义为维度对位,即“通过……主题设计、关键方案和音调结构而出现的整体结构”(2005,32)。(4) 作曲家是否充分意识到这种联系,不应限制我们作为分析师在事后做出这些观察的能力。关于德雷福斯的第二点,我建议该理论可以成功地应用于逸度分析,并在必要时提出一种更系统的方法。[4] 本研究对巴赫的D小调赋格曲进行了比较分析,该赋格曲出自《康纳·克莱维尔第一册》(WTC I)。通过对这首赋格曲已发表和未发表的草图的详细检查,本文的第一部分确定并解决了前景中出现的重大分析差异。(5) 本文的第二部分考虑了形式设计和音调结构的结合观点如何解决歧义,并增强我们对整个作品的理解。由于逸度分析在申克学派的文献中没有得到彻底的解决,我们目前还没有一种系统的方法来处理这种密集的、模仿的纹理。(6) 通过对本研究中相同摘录的高度分歧的解读,这一点将变得非常明显。我认为,这些差异主要是当声音主导的关注点没有完全脱离我们对赋格曲中形式设计的根深蒂固的观点时产生的。最后,过分依赖外部形式的细节可能会阻碍人们进入赋格曲的内部形式。巴赫D小调赋格曲(WTC I)的前景[5]巴赫D小调赋(WTCⅠ)的形式设计有很好的记录。许多分析家对巴赫的两种主体反命题动机进行了评论,并观察到巴赫频繁使用主体倒置和可逆对位。(7) 这首赋格曲著名的“押韵”方案——以17-21毫米的主音在第39-43毫米的赋格曲结尾的主音中首先出现的材料——导致大多数分析人士将赋格曲视为一种二元形式。(8)申克也以这种方式看待赋格曲,从他未发表的素描中的边缘化可以明显看出,如例1所示。(9) 博览会的主题条目在页面的左上角概述,页面的博neneneea om概述了赋格曲的两部分设计。(10) 他的形式分析并没有就此结束:申克还在他的草图中标注了主题(dux)和答案(come)。在实施例1中,这些标记出现在第一和第二杆、第三和第四杆以及第五和第六杆之间(圈出);并且主题和答案在他出版的自由构图([1935]1979)的草图中被标记(如实例2所示)。(后面的外观在图上用缩写“s”和“a”标记)。(11) 申克清楚地看到了在分析的最初阶段识别正式设计特征的优点,即使他的最终结论与这一观点大相径庭(Hooper 2011,62)。[6] 申克(Schenker)、彼得·弗兰克(Peter Franck)(2010年)和奥利·Väisälä。在这篇文章中,我将重点处理赋格曲的主题和答案(毫米1-6),其修改和倒置的主题条目(尤其是毫米21-25),押韵方案(毫米17-21和毫米39-43),并选择包含和声序列的段落(毫米9-13、毫米15-17和毫米28-34)。当然,有时可能会对同一作品进行不止一次看似合理的解读(Schachter[1990]1999)。然而,这里的差异似乎不是来自不同的解释,而是来自外部形式和内部形式结构的融合。这些前景细节的分析方式对我们看待赋格曲大型结构的方式有着重要的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Resolving Tensions between Outer Form and Inner Form in Fugue: A Comparative Analysis of J. S. Bach’s Fugue in D minor (WTC I)
This study offers a comparative analysis of J. S. Bach’s Fugue in D minor, from the Well-Tempered Clavier Book I (WTC I). Detailed examination of multiple divergent readings of the same musical excerpts raises important questions about Schenkerian theory and its application to fugal textures. I suggest that analytical discrepancies arise primarily when voice-leading concerns are not completely disentangled from our deeply rooted views of formal design in fugue. In the end, an over-reliance on the details of outer form risks blocking access to the fugue’s inner form. I identify and resolve significant differences that emerge at the foreground in these readings, later considering how a combined view of formal design (outer form) and tonal structure (inner form) resolves ambiguities and enhances our understanding of the work as a whole. Volume 26, Number 3, September 2020 Copyright © 2020 Society for Music Theory [1] For the past several decades, Schenkerian theorists have examined the interaction between formal design and tonal structure extensively, focusing primarily on repertoire from the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.(1) With few exceptions, the fugal genre is notably absent from this discussion.(2) Reasons for this absence are surely varied, but one notable cause is that fugal textures intensify issues of voice-leading at the foreground level. Baroque fugues in particular— with their dense textures and lack of predictable phrase groupings—prevent theorists from making any sort of prediction about the tonal structure (Gauldin 2013, 223; C. Smith 1996, 272; Renwick 1995a, 205), and place considerable demands on the analyst (Renwick 1995a, 205; Schachter [1973] 1999). These complications, although not insurmountable, are perhaps one reason why the fugal genre has received less a ention than later tonal styles in the Schenkerian literature. As my study will show, a careful examination of the interaction between details of outer form and inner form raises interesting questions about Schenkerian theory and its application to fugues.(3) [2] Laurence Dreyfus, an outspoken critic of Schenkerian theory, notes the avoidance of the fugal genre in the Schenkerian literature and makes two specific points that directly relate to this study: [First], a Schenkerian analysis of a fugue is also of particular interest because the fugue, with its self-conscious manipulations of counterpoint, might not seem an obvious candidate for an approach oriented toward long-range voice-leading. (1996, 171) [Second], even orthodox Schenkerians will sometimes concede that Schenker does not “work well” in explicitly contrapuntal music such as fugues. This a itude is troubling. For if Schenker’s ideas, self-referential as they are, can only be challenged when socalled surface voice-leading like imitation and double counterpoint gets in the way, what guarantees that Schenker has not duped his readers when he analyzes Beethoven symphonies? (187) To the first point, modern-day theorists will undoubtedly agree that the surface “manipulations of counterpoint” in Bach’s fugues are extraordinary and certainly worthy of study. Yet this fact should not prohibit analysts from also exploring the tonal underpinnings of a fugal subject or how various tonal segments are introduced and connected across the span of an entire composition. As Jason Hooper writes: “The image of Schenker as Formenlehre antihero should not prevent us from continuing to uncover and clarify these ‘hidden’ relationships between outer form . . . and voiceleading structure” (2011, 61). The fact that Bach’s fugue subjects project tonal progressions allows us to explore how they connect at deeper structural levels (Schenker [1926] 2014; Renwick 1991, Renwick 1995a, Renwick 1995b; Schachter [1973] 1999; Hooper 2017), and I suggest that this view does not hinder, but rather heightens our ability to admire his inventive manipulation of motives at the musical surface. [3] Dreyfus centers on the idea of “intentionalism,” of “encouraging analytic results that might have pleased composers if they were told about them” (1996, 171). From this viewpoint, he suggests that a Schenkerian view of fugue tells us li le about the way Bach composed, that such an approach is historically unjustified, and that “it will always be easy to concoct such a voice-leading structure, especially when one insists on finding it” (187). Dreyfus is correct that there are many relevant and interesting features to study in a fugue’s formal design, and observing these details is the first step in analyzing any new work. But just as it is a mistake to claim that mere identification of surface counterpoint is the end goal in formal analysis, it is similarly misleading to claim that “concocting a voice-leading structure” is the primary venture for Schenkerian analysis. And, as the aforementioned studies suggest, still other important insights can be gleaned from careful observation of both formal design and tonal structure. Peter H. Smith defines this combined view as dimensional counterpoint, the “total structure that emerges through . . . thematic design, key scheme, and tonal structure” (2005, 32).(4) Whether or not a composer was fully aware of such connections should not restrict our ability as analysts to make those observations after the fact. To Dreyfus’s second point, I suggest that the theory can be applied successfully in fugal analysis, and I propose a more systematic approach where necessary. [4] The present study offers a comparative analysis of J. S. Bach’s Fugue in D minor, from the WellTempered Clavier Book I (WTC I). Through a detailed examination of published and unpublished sketches of this fugue, the first part of this paper identifies and resolves significant analytical differences that emerge at the foreground.(5) The second part of this paper considers how a combined view of formal design and tonal structure resolves ambiguities and enhances our understanding of the work as a whole. Because fugal analysis has not been thoroughly addressed in the Schenkerian literature, we do not currently have a systematic way for dealing with such dense, imitative textures.(6) This will become quite evident through the highly divergent readings of the same excerpts presented in this study. I suggest that these discrepancies arise primarily when voice-leading concerns are not completely disentangled from our deeply rooted views of formal design in fugue. In the end, an over-reliance on the details of outer form risks blocking access to the fugue’s inner form. Aspects of Foreground in J. S. Bach’s Fugue in D minor (WTC I) [5] The formal design of Bach’s Fugue in D minor (WTC I) is well documented. Numerous analysts have remarked on its two countersubject motives and have observed Bach’s frequent use of subject inversion and invertible counterpoint.(7) The fugue’s notable “rhyme” scheme—material that appears first in the key of the dominant in mm. 17–21 returns in the tonic at the end of the fugue in mm. 39–43—has led most analysts to view the fugue as a binary form.(8) Schenker, too, viewed the fugue in this way, as evident from the marginalia in his unpublished sketch, shown in Example 1. (9) The exposition’s subject entries are outlined in the upper left-hand corner of the page, and the bo om of the page outlines the fugue’s two-part design.(10) His formal analysis does not end there: Schenker also labels the subject (dux) and answer (comes) in his sketches. In Example 1, these markings appear between the first and second staves, third and fourth staves, and the fifth and sixth staves (circled); and the subject and answer are labeled throughout his published sketch from Free Composition ([1935] 1979), shown in Example 2. (Later appearances are labeled with the abbreviations “s” and “a” on the graph).(11) Schenker clearly saw the merits of identifying formal design features at the beginning stages of analysis, even if his final conclusions were drastically opposed to this viewpoint (Hooper 2011, 62). [6] Schenker’s, Peter Franck’s (2010), and Olli Väisälä’s (2011) middleground sketches of Bach’s Dminor Fugue contrast in several striking ways (Examples 2–4). In this article, I will focus on treatment of the fugue’s subject and answer (mm. 1–6), its modified and inverted subject entries (especially mm. 21–25), the rhyme scheme (mm. 17–21 and mm. 39–43), and select passages containing harmonic sequences (mm. 9–13, mm. 15–17, and mm. 28–34). There are certainly times when more than one plausible reading of the same work might result (Schachter [1990] 1999). The discrepancies here, however, seem to emerge not from different interpretations, but from a conflation of outer form and inner form constructs. The way these foreground details are analyzed has significant ramifications for the way we view the fugue’s large-scale structure.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
25.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
42 weeks
期刊介绍: Music Theory Online is a journal of criticism, commentary, research and scholarship in music theory, music analysis, and related disciplines. The refereed open-access electronic journal of the Society for Music Theory, MTO has been in continuous publication since 1993. New issues are published four times per year and include articles, reviews, commentaries, and analytical essays. In addition, MTO publishes a list of job opportunities and abstracts of recently completed dissertations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信