Letters

To Evil Kramer,

While your depiction of the fugue was certainly colorful, as a theorist, I feel an uncontrollable urge to point out (and rub your nose in) some of the many errors discovered in your column.

First, and most importantly, what you described is simple ternary form - not a fugue. Simple ternary can be illustrated thusly: (ed. note: thusly?)

|| A1 = Statement || B = digression || A2 = return (or reprise) ||

This idea, sans culinary references, is exactly what took you an entire column to articulate. And all it does is describe the formal characteristics of certain fugues, rather than the fugue itself. Yes, your example had fugal characteristics - such as the successive tonic and dominant entries of voices, but your claims that it was actually a fugue are highly dubious.

While a fugue can be be in the ternary form as per your characterization (and it often is), there are very few hard and fast rules to its construction, and even those are bent or broken on occasion. Rather than being any codified form (such as a rondo or sonata), a fugue is a process of composition, which is what creates its nearly limitless variety in form, style, and mood. You said that a fugue was "at once, explosive and expansive, yet contained and subtle", and all of that may be true in some individual cases. However, a fugue can still be a fugue while only possessing some, or even none of those traits.

Another error is the fact that you describe the second section of the fugue as a second exposition. A second exposition (or counter-exposition) is simply a restatement of the original entries, but in a different order. You were correct in stating that the second section of a fugue is often the most modulatory of the piece, but it is called the development section, not a second exposition. Just thought I'd clear that up for you.

Finally, I found your use of chord progressions as a means of delineating the different sections of the fugue to be disturbing. It would be appropriate in a discussion of simple ternary form, perhaps (which may have been your intent?), but not the fugue. One of the few constants in a fugue, in fact, is that it is polyphonic, which means a steady, repeated chord progression is hard to find - and more commonly not there at all.

I sincerely hope that this letter helps you in your understanding of the fugue. Cheers!
-Ken

Evil Kramer replies:

I was, after a few readings of your letter (can a fugue be be?), intrigued by your criticism of my explanation of the fugue. It is true that a fugue doesn’t Necessarily require an expansive or explosive nature, nor does it need to be contained or subtle but, for the purposes of my column, it seemed more than appropriate. It is my desire to inspire the budding composer by way of exposing he or she to possibility rather than repressive limitation. Perhaps referring to it as a fugue might have cleared things up a bit for you.

In regard to your points, I never stated that a fugue must be ternary, only that it is commonly so, which, it seems, you agree with anyway. The idea of the “developmental section” being referred to as a second exposition has been well documented in many a respectable publication and I suggest you take that subject up with the authors of these books.

Also, any attempt to imply that the composition that I created as an example to the reader is what I would consider the only thing fugal, is, equally, highly dubious. I merely wish the idea that the music that could spring forth from this classic mode of creation to flourish in the novice composer’s creativity. You can’t really believe a simple

| A1 = Statement || B = digression || A2 = return (or reprise) ||

description would have intrigued the modest dabbler into trying a new way of approaching the craft of songwriting, can you? I merely provide the blueprint in which the house may be built. It is a hope that my suggestion of creating interesting melody lines over the simple chord progression would lead the reader into newer, more fugal, if you will, realms. In short, I used the most common idea of a fugue to allow the reader the opportunity to discover the more interesting ones.

As a theorist, as you call yourself, I am equally disturbed at your attempt to quell the desire to start simple and work outward into an ever expanding understanding of the oft confusing study that is western music (much in the same way one cannot learnedly prepare creme brule without first avoiding the temptation to over whip his cream). I can only say that I thank all my teachers of this craft for not being narrow-minded and reactionary and instilling in me the understanding that one must start simple if one is to expand to more complicated and mature ideas. Nevertheless, I thank you for your entertaining letter. Keep them coming, little guy.
-EK