Fuges

[Bernard S. Greenberg]

Kilshard wrote:

> I'm writing a few bach-style fuges. I'm wondering, were fuges supposed
> to have a prelude before them, or a chorale?

> Please reply be e-mail. Thanks.

I'd like to write some Shakespeare-style plays. I'm wondering,
did he write mainly in English, or in Latin?

If you don't know the answer to the question you pose,
you clearly lack the requisite familiarity with Bach
to know what "Bach-style" means.

I would suggest you familiarize yourself with the literature
you seek to emulate. Try mounting a humbler endeavor.

Bernie

--
Remove the spamblocks from my address above to reply to me. I apologize
for the need to obfuscate my address to suppress junk email ("spam").
Help stop junk email from killing our INTERNET-see http://www.cauce.org
-bsg

[Kilshard]

[Dave J.G.]

> Before this thread goes any father, could we please use the correct spelling
> of the term: FUGUES!

'Fuge' is 'fugue' in another language as is 'fuga'. I have a G. Henle Verlag score
of Bach's 'Chromatische Fantasie und Fuge'.

Oh yeah. The correct spelling of the term: FATHER is FURTHER ;-)

Dave

[Ben Crick]

In article <344038DF...@basistech.dontspamme.com>, "Bernard S.

Greenberg" <spamme...@basistech.dontspamme.com> wrote:
> I'd like to write some Shakespeare-style plays. I'm wondering,
> did he write mainly in English, or in Latin?

Neither! in German!

Tatsächlich, mein lieber Bernhardt, haben die Schriftsteller Schlegel und
Tieck die Schauspiele des so-genannten –William Shakespear• auf Deutsch
geschrieben; besonders die Welt-berühmte Auszug

–Sein oder Nichtsein: das ist hier die Frage;
Ob's edler im Gemüt die Pfeil' and Schleudern
des wütenden Geschicks zu erdulden,
oder, sich waffnend gegen eine See von Plagen,
durch Widerstand zu sinken.
Sinken; sterben; sterben, schlafen;
vielleicht auch träumen? Ja, da liegt's....• usw.

...very clumsily put into English by Francis Bacon as

”To be or not to be; that is the question...• etc.

You know the rest... (shades of Ossian by James Macpherson).

And yes, who /really/ wrote the Prelude & Fugue in d minor? We've
established that Gottfried Heinrich Stölzel wrote /Bist du bei mir./
Nothing is safe; nothing is holy! Plagiarise; plagiarise! (Victor Borge).

--
Ben Crick <ben....@argonet.co.uk> ZFC S
Acorn RiscPC 700, 37 MB, not yet StrongArm, USR 14.4
Coming to you from Birchington near Margate in Kent.

[Bernard S. Greenberg]

Ben Crick wrote:

> In article <344038DF...@basistech.dontspamme.com>, "Bernard S.
> Greenberg" <spamme...@basistech.dontspamme.com> wrote:
> > I'd like to write some Shakespeare-style plays. I'm wondering,
> > did he write mainly in English, or in Latin?
>
> Neither! in German!
>
> Tatsächlich, mein lieber Bernhardt, haben die Schriftsteller Schlegel
> und
> Tieck die Schauspiele des so-genannten –William Shakespear• auf
> Deutsch
> geschrieben; besonders die Welt-berühmte Auszug
>
> –Sein oder Nichtsein: das ist hier die Frage;
> Ob's edler im Gemüt die Pfeil' and Schleudern
> des wütenden Geschicks zu erdulden,

[ usw]

Das ist ja herrlich; man kann kaum ja begreifen, daß die obige nicht
ursprünglich auf Deutsch geschrieben wurden. Schlegel
war ein wahres Genie.

[Bernard S. Greenberg]

Brookemail wrote:

> A quick answer to your question would be a prelude. . . However I feel
> that the public response (on this list) to such a wonderful question
> (and, of course, the idea that someone is writing fugues and
> willingly letting the world know about
> it) has been needlessly negative. The talk has been very squibblish,
> as opposed to supportive: Fuges, Fugues, Fughettas, etceteras, and is
> much below the grandeur of the fountainhead of such
> ideas. We ought to fight for the meat, not the bone. Deliberating
> over terms can be left for Juliard students with nothing better to
> to...
>
> All of my support is up for you, Kilshard.

No, I'm sorry, I'm not a priggish pedant or a squib. I've written
some fugues in my life, and studied (and daily used) Baroque
counterpoint and the -many- "styles of Bach" for many decades at this
point, an ever ongoing project, and I know something about what I speak.

Had Kilshard said, "I'd like to write a fugue. Where should I turn?"
Or "I'd like to try writing a fugue. What Bach examples do you
think I should look at?" or "I'd like to write a fugue. In what
ways did Bach use this form?" I would have been glad to offer
suggestions and information.

But the essence of Kilshard's question said, "I'm writing a fugue
IN THE STYLE OF BACH, but I haven't even listened to enough Bach
to know that fugues usually follow preludes."

To me, that means that Kilshard must think that "the style of Bach"
means "no electric guitars are involved (although... I know JSBX)"
or "has sixteenth notes", or nothing at all when appended to
"I'm writing a fugue". In other words, it trivializes the notion
of "the style of Bach" to a powdered wig with the word
"fugue" on it. No one who has really met Bach would speak that way.

Rather than saying "I don't know much about Bach and his fugues.
Did they usually come after preludes, chorales, or what?", which
would have been a fine question, s/he said, "I'm ALREADY IN
THE MIDDLE of writing a `fug[u]e in the style of Bach', yet
I don't know the first thing about Bach."

This is an arrogant trivialization of "Bach" 'up with which
I will not put' without airing my vociferous disapproval.

No one who has not studied Bach enough to know the answer to
the question s/he asked is in a position to write fugues.
No one who doesn't know (at least the) WTC can say "I am writing
a fugue in the style of Bach" and evade ridicule. No one who
has heard the WTC at least once, LET ALONE STUDIED IT, doesn't
know what usually precedes a fugue in Bach keyboard works.

I stand with my original answer: learn the repertoire you
are trying to emulate, and take a few steps down in humility.

[Tord Kallqvist Romstad]

In article <01bcd6d3$f29006e0$c995e5cf@dave>, Dave J.G. wrote:
>> Before this thread goes any father, could we please use the correct spelling
>> of the term: FUGUES!
>
>'Fuge' is 'fugue' in another language as is 'fuga'. I have a G. Henle Verlag score
>of Bach's 'Chromatische Fantasie und Fuge'.

You are right, 'Fuge' is the word 'Fugue' in German (and in Norwegian, by the
way). However, I don't know any language which uses the plural form 'fuges'.
In German, the plural is 'Fugen' (I think); in Norwegian, it is 'fuger'.

Tord

[ja...@hotmail.com]

I am appalled and saddened that someone with clearly so much valuable
information to share finds it necessary to belittle and insult newcomers
to the list and perhaps, newcomers to Bach, as well.

They may not meet your personal intellectual criteria for someone who
should be taken seriously. If you're not interested in helping, then
don't. But I see no reason to lash out with this kind of cruelty.

Regards,

Jan Hanford
The J.S. Bach Home Page
http://www.jsbach.org

In article <34420891...@basistech.dontspamme.com>,

"Bernard S. Greenberg" <spamme...@basistech.dontspamme.com> wrote:

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

[Brookemail]

--------------999D246C4FD1F21FA7BA2C24
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Kilshard wrote:

> I'm writing a few bach-style fuges. I'm wondering, were fuges supposed to have
> a prelude before them, or a chorale?
>
> Please reply be e-mail. Thanks.

I will respond privately to your request, with whatever help I might be able to
muster.

A quick answer to your question would be a prelude. . . However I feel that the
public
response (on this list) to such a wonderful question (and, of course, the idea
that
someone is writing fugues and willingly letting the world know about it) has been
needlessly negative. The talk has been very squibblish, as opposed to supportive:
Fuges,
Fugues, Fughettas, etceteras, and is much below the grandeur of the fountainhead
of such
ideas. We ought to fight for the meat, not the bone. Deliberating over terms can
be left

for Juliard students with nothing better to do...

All of my support is up for you, Kilshard.

Here's some more support. Lyrical accompaniment to a fine (er, funny) score by
Glenn Gould:

"So You Want To Write A Fugue?

So you want to write a fugue?
You've got the urge to write a fugue,
You've got the nerve to write a fugue,
So go ahead and write a fugue that we can sing!

Pay no heed to what we've told you,
Give no mind to what we've told you,
Just forget all that we've told you,
And the theory that you've read.
For the only way to write one,
Is just to plunge right in and write one.
So just forget the rules and write one,
Have a try, yes, try to write a fuge.*

So just ignore the rules and try,
And the fun of it will get you,
And the joy of it will get you,
It's pleasure that is bound to satisfy.
So why not have a try?
You'll decide that John Sebastian,
Must have been a very personable guy.

But never be clever for the sake of being clever,
For a canon in inversion is a dangerous diversion
And a bit of augmentation is a serious temptation,
While a stretto diminution is an obvious solution.
Never be clever for the sake of being clever,
For the sake of showing off!

It's rather awesome, isn't it?
And when you've finished writing it,
I think you'll find great joy in it (hope so). . .
Well, nothing ventured nothing gained they say. . .
But still it is rather hard to start.
Let us try.

Right now?
We're going to write a fugue right now!"

"So You Want To Write a Fugue?"
Copyright (C) 1964 G. Schirmer Inc.

*Here, in a released, published booklet of this work, Fugue was spelled
(misspelled?
who cares?) as Fuge. Gee, it's an awfully lucky thing I knew what he was talking
about, hmm? : ^ )

Let us try!

-Will

--------------999D246C4FD1F21FA7BA2C24
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML>
&nbsp;

<P>Kilshard wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>I'm writing a few bach-style fuges. I'm wondering,

were fuges supposed to have

<BR>&nbsp;a prelude before them, or a chorale?

<P>Please reply be e-mail. Thanks.</BLOCKQUOTE>
I will respond privately to your request, with whatever help I might be
able to muster.

<P>A quick answer to your question would be a prelude. . . However I feel
that the public
<BR>response (on this list)&nbsp; to such a wonderful question (and, of
course, the idea that
<BR>someone is writing fugues and willingly letting the world know about
it) has been
<BR>needlessly negative.&nbsp; The talk has been very squibblish, as opposed
to supportive: Fuges,
<BR>Fugues, Fughettas, etceteras, and is much below the grandeur of the
fountainhead of such
<BR>ideas. We ought to fight for the meat, not the bone.&nbsp; Deliberating

over terms can be left

<BR>for Juliard students with nothing better to do...

<P>All of my support is up for you, Kilshard.

<P>Here's some more support. Lyrical accompaniment to a fine (er, funny)
score by Glenn Gould:

<P>"So You Want To Write A Fugue?

<P>So you want to write a fugue?
<BR>You've got the urge to write a fugue,
<BR>You've got the nerve to write a fugue,
<BR>So go ahead and write a fugue that we can sing!

<P>Pay no heed to what we've told you,
<BR>Give no mind to what we've told you,
<BR>Just forget all that we've told you,
<BR>And the theory that you've read.
<BR>For the only way to write one,
<BR>Is just to plunge right in and write one.
<BR>So just forget the rules and write one,
<BR>Have a try, yes, try to write a fuge.*

<P>So just ignore the rules and try,
<BR>And the fun of it will get you,
<BR>And the joy of it will get you,
<BR>It's pleasure that is bound to satisfy.
<BR>So why not have a try?
<BR>You'll decide that John Sebastian,
<BR>Must have been a very personable guy.

<P>But never be clever for the sake of being clever,
<BR>For a canon in inversion is a dangerous diversion
<BR>And a bit of augmentation is a serious temptation,
<BR>While a stretto diminution is an obvious solution.
<BR>Never be clever for the sake of being clever,
<BR>For the sake of showing off!

<P>It's rather awesome, isn't it?
<BR>And when you've finished writing it,
<BR>I think you'll find great joy in it (hope so). . .
<BR>Well, nothing ventured nothing gained they say. . .
<BR>But still it is rather hard to start.
<BR>Let us try.

<P>Right now?
<BR>We're going to write a fugue right now!"
<BR>&nbsp;
<BR>&nbsp;

<P><I>"So You Want To Write a Fugue?"</I>
<BR><I>Copyright (C) 1964 G. Schirmer Inc.</I>
<BR>&nbsp;

<P>*Here, in a released, published booklet of this work, Fugue was spelled
(misspelled?
<BR>who cares?) as Fuge. Gee, it's an awfully lucky thing I knew what he
was talking
<BR>about, hmm? : ^ )&nbsp;

<P>Let us try!

<P>-Will</HTML>

--------------999D246C4FD1F21FA7BA2C24--

[BasFawlty]

Jan Hanford (ja...@hotmail.com) writes:

>I am appalled and saddened that someone with clearly so much valuable
>information to share finds it necessary to belittle and insult newcomers
>to the list and perhaps, newcomers to Bach, as well.
>
>They may not meet your personal intellectual criteria for someone who
>should be taken seriously. If you're not interested in helping, then
>don't. But I see no reason to lash out with this kind of cruelty.

As someone who has had to "put away" his share of "childish
things" (to borrow St. Paul's phrase), may I interject a comment
or two?

I have been in a similar position to "kilshard," the original poster,
many times. My whole childhood and adolescence (and even
later) was taken up with grand projects like his. Sometimes
others let me know the extent of my artistic ignorance, and I
was hurt for a while; many more times, I had to find out for
myself, through further study, just how far I fell short.

I have to conclude that, speaking for myself alone, I would
rather know where I fall short than NOT know. It is painful
to have one's limitations pointed out, but it is even more
painful to discover them after a great deal of wasted effort.
Nor can I think of a way in which such pointing out can be
rendered painless, since creative types tend to identify
strongly with what they have created. (Even the most
tactful critiques have fallen like bricks in my experience.)

I have now come to the point where I know a few things
about music, and have written quite a few things, but I
still make stupid mistakes of part-writing and voice
leading all the time. There are one or two on this
newsgroup whom I have dealt with, who can write
contrapuntal rings around me and/or have given me
helpful advice.

I'm not sure if "kilshard" internalizes criticism as
much as I do; maybe he/she is able to maintain distance
from it better than I. Whether or not that is so, I would
advise him/her to take any criticism or advice, get through
the heartache of finding out what he/she doesn't know,
and then run with it to get to a point of further knowledge.

Don't forget: even Shakespeare was a bungling playwright
at one time. (Just look at all the dangling threads in *Two
Gentlemen of Verona*! ;) ) Only by accepting what we
don't know can we truly learn.

***********************************************
* "Knowledge is of two kinds; we know a *
* subject ourselves, or we know where *
* we can find information upon it." *
* --Dr. Samuel Johnson *
* *
* T.L. Hubeart Jr. *
* BasF...@aol.com *
* http://members.aol.com/basfawlty *
***********************************************

[Bernard S. Greenberg]

Darren Heaviside wrote:

> I carn't believe how pretentious you are being because of the wording
> of
> a news article.
>
> This person has clearly turned to this newsgroup for advice on a
> simple
> matter of which form usually appeared before a Bach fugue and you give
> her a severe dressing down.

I can't believe how pretentious the poster was being in saying
he is in the middle of creating art in the style of a great artist,
but seems to have not even the familiarity with that artist
that most -listeners- have. One does not attempt to write
until one learns to read. One does not attempt to sing
until one has heard much singing. One does not beget children
until, hopefully, one is finished growing up.

Had he said, "what usually precedes a Bach fugue, a prelude
or a chorale?" I would have been glad to answer. But the
overwhelming pretense of asking this question in the context of
"I'm trying to write fug[u]es in the style of Bach" is
a bit over the "wacky" line AFAIAC.

Not every utterance deserves respect.

I have no issue with the "wording" of his posting -- I have
an issue with what he said!

> I think classical music is on its knees at the momment because people
> think it unfashionable and I think its people like you that help to
> enforce this misconception.

Unfashionable?

> I think just because you have studied Bach and consider someone to
> have
> less knowledge than yourself you feel you have the right to chastise
> them like a child.

Only a child would say "I am creating work in the style of this artist,
but I need some basic facts about his art." Not even
I would -like- to, or I -seek- to, but I'm -in-the-middle-of-.

Try to write simple fugues if you want, after reading a few dozen
books on counterpoint (see http://www.basistech.com/bach/ctpt.htm),
but tread carefully before you say "in the style of Bach."

Some humility before great art is called for.

> Why not try sharing your knowledge instead of being patronising with
> it.

I have written a massive FAQ in which I do and continue to so
(http://www.basistech.com/bach). As I have posted to Jan,
I -did- share my knowledge, that my knowledge of Bach's forms
and techniques came not from asking quickie newsgroup questions,
but from years of diligent listening and study of his scores.
That -is- my knowledge of the best way to understand "the style of
Bach", and I share it again.

> Darren >:-(

Bernie :-|

[Bill Baldwin]

Darren Heaviside wrote:

> I carn't believe how pretentious you are being because of the wording of
> a news article.

[rest of rebuke snipped]

Eh, I've got to side with Mr. Greenberg on this one. Certainly he might
have been more polite and patient. But the question was shocking in its
combination of ignorance and presumption, so he responded as one who was
shocked. It's the presumption that is troubling. Ignorance of Bach is no
vice. I for one couldn't have answered the original poster's question. I
listen to and enjoy Bach, but I haven't taken the time to learn the names
of all the musical forms he employs. But then I wouldn't sit down to write
a fugue in the style of Bach and casually reveal that I'm clueless as to
how to go about it. In fact, I don't contribute to this group much at all
because I don't know much (about the subject). I lurk and learn.

If Greenberg had replied more patiently, that would have been commendable I
suppose, but his reply would have boiled down to the same thing: Are you
out of your mind?! You don't know the first thing about Bach and you're
currently writing a piece that you claim to be in his style?!?!?

Reread his replies. He's not objecting to the question but to the
presumption behind it. If you think this is a strange reaction, try posting
the following question to a science newsgroup:

I'm in the process of building my own nuclear reactor. Can you tell me what
makes an element radioactive?

[Darren Heaviside]

Bernard S. Greenberg wrote:

>
> Brookemail wrote:
>
> > Kilshard wrote:
> >
> > > I'm writing a few bach-style fuges. I'm wondering, were fuges
> > > supposed to have
> > > a prelude before them, or a chorale?
> > >
>

> No one who has not studied Bach enough to know the answer to
> the question s/he asked is in a position to write fugues.
> No one who doesn't know (at least the) WTC can say "I am writing
> a fugue in the style of Bach" and evade ridicule. No one who
> has heard the WTC at least once, LET ALONE STUDIED IT, doesn't
> know what usually precedes a fugue in Bach keyboard works.
>

> Bernie
>

I carn't believe how pretentious you are being because of the wording of
a news article.

This person has clearly turned to this newsgroup for advice on a simple

matter of which form usually appeared before a Bach fugue and you give
her a severe dressing down.

I think classical music is on its knees at the momment because people

think it unfashionable and I think its people like you that help to
enforce this misconception.

I think just because you have studied Bach and consider someone to have

less knowledge than yourself you feel you have the right to chastise
them like a child.

Why not try sharing your knowledge instead of being patronising with it.

Darren >:-(

[Bernard S. Greenberg]

ja...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> I am appalled and saddened that someone with clearly so much valuable
> information to share finds it necessary to belittle and insult
> newcomers to the list and perhaps, newcomers to Bach, as well.

I am appalled that someone (the original poster) who knows very
little about a great artist would come a newsgroup whose
subject is that artist saying, "I'm in the middle of creating
art in the style of this artist. Can you tell me some basic
facts about this art form?"

Jan, it seems you have not read what I wrote, but only reacted
to its indignant tone, behind which I fully stand. As in
the previous case where you were appalled at my disgust
with not ignorance but foolishness ("Did Bach write the
C Major prelude such [Gounod's] -Ave-Maria- could be fit to it?"),
I do not think that ignorance excuses stupidity. I hope
ever to be humble in my ignorance of things I have not yet learned,
but never ever to be thought stupid. There is a difference.

As Ol'Timer just accurately posted,

I'm going to write some sonnets like Shakespear's.
Can anyone tell me what rhyming pattern he used?

I do not believe that such a question posed in such a form
can be meaningfully answered. If you are not familiar with
the Shakespeare sonnets, someone should talk you down
from the idea that you are able to write them but for
knowing what rhyme scheme he used, and anyone
who appreciated Shakespeare would be insulted by such a question.

My reaction to the original post was shock, disappointment,
a little bit of laughter, and, quite frankly, insult to
a high value of mine.

As to whether I regularly insult or belittle newcomers, I'll
let my record here and in my web-publications speak for itself.

> They may not meet your personal intellectual criteria for someone who
> should be taken seriously. If you're not interested in helping, then
> don't. But I see no reason to lash out with this kind of cruelty.

As I said, being ignorant of countless areas of life and living,
and still possessing massive ignorance of the areas of which
I claim to know more than the next guy, I have no truck with
ignorance. But I reserve no tolerance for stupidity.

Someone who says "I know nothing at all" should be taken seriously.
Someone who says "I know how to write fug[u]es in the style of Bach,
but I need to know what kind of movement precedes them" SHOULD NOT.

I find both your claims, that my reply was cruel and not helpful,
to be off the mark. I believe that my repeated response, that
the poster should familiarize him or herself with the literature
he or she is trying to emulate and come down a few steps,
to be the most helpful advice I, or anyone, can give. It is
certainly how acquired my knowledge of the area. As to
whether it was cruel, I just re-read it carefully, and I find
nothing cruel: If you consider telling someone seriously deluded
that they are deluded to be cruel, I hold the opposite view,
that not to do so is far crueler.

> Regards,
> Jan Hanford

Regards,
Bernie

[Darren Heaviside]

Bernard S. Greenberg wrote:
>
> Brookemail wrote:
>

> > Kilshard wrote:
> >
> > > I'm writing a few bach-style fuges. I'm wondering, were fuges
> > > supposed to have
> > > a prelude before them, or a chorale?
> > >
>

[Bernard S. Greenberg]

Darren Heaviside wrote:
>
> I feel a fairer reply to the persons question would have been: By your
> question you show an apparent lack of knowledge about Bach. Before
> attempting to right a fuge you may be better served by listerning to
> some.

OK, I agree. Perhaps my first message was a bit too sarcastic,
but the basic import of it, and what you wrote above, are
indistiguishable, and equally critical of its recipient.

> This news group is one of the better ones with music as its content so
> while discord is the fuel of a good debate we should all try any
> respect
> each others views in the first place (and disprove them in the second
> :-) )

I don't believe in respecting all views. I don't respect the
Aztec religion that demands human sacrifice. I don't respect the
decision of the Chinese leadership to impose totalitarian measures
on their populace. I don't respect ther religious decision of
some parents to withhold medical treatments from their children.
I don't respect the evidence-free view, recently presented, that
perhaps Bach was a closet Enlightment Liberal rebel. Etc.

I respect all sincere questions, but I don't respect insincere
or foolish questions. Nor do I expect others to. And so on.

[David Earls]

Two observations:

Without a scintilla of precious scholarship
shared, an inquiring person has been summarily
dismissed from the group. Whatever the lack of
merit in the original posting, this poster has no
doubt been successfully redirected to writing
knockturns in the style of Shewburth or Shoeman,
or Alice in Chains. Whatever.

Second, no one has contributed more to this group
than Bernie. For God's sake, people, don't drive
him away too. Without worshipping Bernie's ground,
without even usually agreeing with him, I'll
defend his scholarship, his enormous work and
energy, his thinking and his willingness to share
the fruits of his labors. He has my respect
without once lifting a finger in its pursuit.

But then, you see, I have to respect poor
defenseless Kilshard, too, because he was curious.
Now, old JSB himself was no _Bach scholar_. He was
JSB, and this curious man produced all this music
we call Bach.

Curiously enough, the musical form of curiosity IS
the fugue....

Bernard S. Greenberg wrote:
>
> Michael P. Mossey wrote:
> >
> > Apparently you all missed that the original poster asked if a fugue is
> > "supposed" to be preceded by a prelude or chorale...to which the
> > answer is no, it's not supposed to be preceded by anything.
>
> > Mike M.
>
> No, I didn't miss the fact that question was ill-formed,
> ill-informed, and ill-performed.

>
> Bernie
>
> --
> Remove the spamblocks from my address above to reply to me. I apologize
> for the need to obfuscate my address to suppress junk email ("spam").
> Help stop junk email from killing our INTERNET-see http://www.cauce.org
> -bsg

--
David Earls
Not All There
Remove NOSPAM to reply by mail. Sorry about that.

[David Earls]

Responses follow.

Bernard S. Greenberg wrote:

>
> David Earls wrote:
> >
> > But then, you see, I have to respect poor
> > defenseless Kilshard, too, because he was curious.
> > Now, old JSB himself was no _Bach scholar_. He was
> > JSB, and this curious man produced all this music
> > we call Bach.
>

> From everything we know, "old JSB" was -profoundly- humble,
> and studied old scores left and right, and studied every
> bit of music he could get his hands on

_Scholar_. Not _Bach scholar_. This is curiosity,
no?

> instead of asking,
> "I'm writing some Credo's in the style of Palestrina.
> Is a Credo supposed to have a Gloria, or a Kyrie before it?".
> Kilshard might learn from that.
>
Yes, he might. But might we all not learn from
Kilshard, too?

How does one make oneself up when approaching the
elders? In youth does one not presume? Is true
humility not a product of years?

> Thanks for your kind remarks,
> Bernie

No, Bernie, thanks for YOUR kind deeds.

[Bernard S. Greenberg]

Michael P. Mossey wrote:
>
> Apparently you all missed that the original poster asked if a fugue is
> "supposed" to be preceded by a prelude or chorale...to which the
> answer is no, it's not supposed to be preceded by anything.

> Mike M.

No, I didn't miss the fact that question was ill-formed,
ill-informed, and ill-performed.

Bernie

--

[Michael P. Mossey]

[Bernard S. Greenberg]

David Earls wrote:
>
> But then, you see, I have to respect poor
> defenseless Kilshard, too, because he was curious.
> Now, old JSB himself was no _Bach scholar_. He was
> JSB, and this curious man produced all this music
> we call Bach.

From everything we know, "old JSB" was -profoundly- humble,
and studied old scores left and right, and studied every

bit of music he could get his hands on instead of asking,

"I'm writing some Credo's in the style of Palestrina.
Is a Credo supposed to have a Gloria, or a Kyrie before it?".
Kilshard might learn from that.

Thanks for your kind remarks,

[Bernard S. Greenberg]

David Earls wrote:
>
> Responses follow.
>
> Bernard S. Greenberg wrote:
> >

> > From everything we know, "old JSB" was -profoundly- humble,
> > and studied old scores left and right, and studied every
> > bit of music he could get his hands on
>

> _Scholar_. Not _Bach scholar_. This is curiosity,
> no?

-Learner-, -student-, not _scholar_. Bach was the eternal
student all his days, as far as we know: the increasing influence
of later styles on (much of) his music bears witness to that.

The attitude of the student ought be, "I'm learning", not
"I've got this business down pat except for some fundamental
detail I have to know."

> > instead of asking,
> > "I'm writing some Credo's in the style of Palestrina.
> > Is a Credo supposed to have a Gloria, or a Kyrie before it?".
> > Kilshard might learn from that.
> >

> Yes, he might. But might we all not learn from
> Kilshard, too?

Only by example of his/her arrogance. Bill Baldwin's analogy,
"I'm building some nuclear reactors. Can someone tell me what
makes an element radioactive?" or Ol'Timer's "I'm writing
some sonnets in the style of Shakespeare. What rhyme scheme
did he use?" are directly to the point.

Kilshard tells us that he or she knows so much about Bach that
he or she can -write-fug[u]e-s in his style, not a small accomplishment,
as a matter of fact, he or she has one or more in progress right
now, but apparently has never opened the Well-Tempered Clavier.

That is not the attitude of a student, a learner, or a beginner,
but a buffoon. It is not the attitude of a beginner coming here
to learn something, but that of a self-anointed know-it-all so
out of touch with reality that he or she is totally unaware
how foolish he or she appears by making such a preposterous statement.

It is offensive to me because s/he obviously does not know
the difference between a "fug[u]e in the style of Bach"
and one -not- in the style of Bach, i.e., "the style of Bach"
is a trivial footnote to "fug[u]e", (and -no- -sane- -person- who
tries to write fugues does so without studying Bach day and night
for years), and claiming to be "writing fug[u]es in the style
of Bach" in that case is an outrage.

No, I didn't drive away a humble learner who asked an innocent
question. He/She was not humble or a learner nor was his or her
question innocent.

> How does one make oneself up when approaching the
> elders? In youth does one not presume? Is true
> humility not a product of years?

There are degrees and levels of youthful foolishness. But if
you play the "youthful" card, i.e., the assumption that
Kilshard may be an adolescent, I am thereby 100% justified in acting
like an admonishing parent chastizing wacko behavior.

I get all kinds of questions from young people in my mailbox.
Most are ignorant, that's why they ask, and why I answer, but
few are arrogant. It's ok to be arrogant if you're Richard
Wagner, and you -really-are- the central cultural figure of
your continent as you claim. It is not okay to be arrogant
if you claim to be writing "fug[u]es in the style of Bach"
and you don't know what is "supposed to" precede them.

If s/he had said, "I'm writing some fug[u]es in the style of Bach.
When there is a stretto in inversion, is it ok to invert
appearances of the countersubject, or develop them in stretto
at the same time?" that would be one thing. Or if s/he said,
"I heard a bach fug[u]e I really liked. What is supposed
to precede them, a prelude or a chorale?" either would have been
a fine question. But not what we saw, the question of the
self-anointed grandmaster who isn't exactly sure how a Knight moves.

[john gallidakis]

Charles K. Moss wrote:

> > In article <01bcd6d3$f29006e0$c995e5cf@dave>, Dave J.G. wrote:
> > >> Before this thread goes any father, could we please use the correct spelling
> > >> of the term: FUGUES!
> > >
> > >'Fuge' is 'fugue' in another language as is 'fuga'. I have a G. Henle Verlag score
> > >of Bach's 'Chromatische Fantasie und Fuge'.
> >
> > You are right, 'Fuge' is the word 'Fugue' in German (and in Norwegian, by the
> > way). However, I don't know any language which uses the plural form 'fuges'.

Oh, there are plenty of them out there, believe me. For starters, the
origin of the word (Greek) allows for a plural degenerate form as in
"fuges". The original comes from the greek word "fyge" which means
"escape". In a sense because the Theme always escapes from itself (or
from the main score, whatever is more appropriate). Accordingly then,
"fyges" would be "escapes" which is perfectly allowed. And I doubt that
the English lanuage would ban degenerate forms, thus the two plurals
would be identical.

> > In German, the plural is 'Fugen' (I think); in Norwegian, it is 'fuger'.
> >
> > Tord

--
________________________________________________________________________
The differential of Bad Karma at any given moment,is: dBK/dt=2*t*e^(t^2)
with initial conditions BK(t_birth)=BK(previous lifetime span). Good
Karma accumulates at the rate of GK(n)=SUM(1/n) for each n-th good deed
you do. Your total Karma TK for a lifetime k is thus: TK(k)=SUM(1/n_k)
-e^(t_k^2). The sequence {TK(k)} (k in N) should be non-decreasing. If
it is not, you have no reason for existing and must be anihiliated.
________________________________________________________________________
<ftp://mirrors.aol.com//pub/info-mac/game/crd/soi-14.hqx>
<http://www.redbud.net/gallidakis/index.html>

[Jsb1441]

Hey people, "Kilshard", the original poster is all of 15 years old. Perhaps we
could cut him a little slack.

John

[Inotmark]

>–William Shakespear• auf Deutsch
> geschrieben; besonders die Welt-berühmte Auszug
>
> –Sein oder Nichtsein: das ist hier die Frage;
> Ob's edler im Gemüt die Pfeil' and Schleudern
> des wütenden Geschicks zu erdulden,

> oder, sich waffnend gegen eine See von Plagen,
> durch Widerstand zu sinken.
> Sinken; sterben; sterben, schlafen;
> vielleicht auch träumen? Ja, da liegt's....• usw.
>
> ...very clumsily put into English by Francis Bacon as
>
> ”To be or not to be; that is the question...• etc.

finally i can ask someone that question that has been burning in my blood all
these years...

what is a "fardel" (as in "who would fardels bear?")
in german? what could the Grosse Herr Professor
Doktor Kapellmeister Wilhelm have written to cause
Bacon to go scurrying after such an obscure word?

[Ben Crick]

In article <19971018000...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, inot...@aol.com

(Inotmark) wrote:
> what is a "fardel" (as in "who would fardels bear?")
> in german? what could the Grosse Herr Professor
> Doktor Kapellmeister Wilhelm have written to cause
> Bacon to go scurrying after such an obscure word?

"Fardel" from French /Fardeau;/ a bundle, a burden, a pack, or a cargo:
d.h. auf Deutsch eine Bündel, eine Bürde, ein Pack, oder ein Last.
Not having my trusty Schlegel u. Tieck mit, I have to guess it was one
of those. Bacon chose "fardel" for its romantic associations. I wonder
if Professor Doktor Gustav Leberwurst could shed any light on this
problem? [author of /Mörder Guss Reims,/ Eng trans by John Hulme,
/Mother Goose Rhymes/ ].

I guess Bürde. See the words of JSB's choral prelude –O Mensch bewein•:

O Mensch, bewein' dein' Sünde gross;
darum Christus sein's Vaters Schoos
aüssert, und kam auf Erden.
Von einer Jungfrau rein und zart
für uns er hie geboren ward,
er wollt' der Mittler werden.
Den Todten er das Leben gab,
und legt' dabei all' Krankheit ab,
bis sich die Zeit her drange,
dass er für uns geopfert würd',
trüg unsrer Sünden schwere *Bürd'*, <˜˜˜
wohl an dem Kreuze lange. [Matthäus-Passion, No 35]

It can also mean something "rolled-up" (furled): like a bedroll that a
back-packer carries on his back.

Who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life? "Bacon", /Hamlet,/ iii:1

Like a pedlar she went up and down:
For she had got a pretty handsome pack,
Which she had fardled neatly at her back. (Drayton, /The Muse's
Elysium,/ vii)
Meinerseits, allerdings...

[Inotmark]

><ben....@argonet.co.uk>
>Date: Sat, Oct 18, 1997 15:38 EDT

>In article
>(Inotmark) wrote:

on the significance of fardels:

what a versatile word, it boggles the mind
that no one has exploited its versatility
before.

i think i will fardel myself
with a couple of fardelled armenian sandwiches and
unfardel my score of the saint matthew passion
to hear about my sins being fardelled away on the cross.

thank you for your elegant discourse.

[Bernard S. Greenberg]

CHARLES MOSS wrote:
>
> GREENBERG FOR PRESIDENT IN 2000!
>
> Charles K. Moss

Interesting sentiment. Need a pipe organ in the White House first...
and a shrubbery, with a two-level hedge effect...
Mandatory classical music exposure in public schools!

Seriously, bear in mind that I and those who opined with me
about the original poster's (Kilshard?) brief note were all wrong, and
took the wrong stance, (although the original poster could
have been clearer about his approach) and we ticked him
off muchly and wrongly. Those who pummeled me for being too
mean too quickly called it right.

But thanks for your enthusiasm,