My favorite contrapunctus. I wish I was a better pianist so I could play this. Much respect for playing the trill at the entrance of the third voice which I noticed a lot of recording leave out.
I think the F-sharp minor fugue in WTC 2 is comparable as both are triple fugues in three voices. You may try that first since it is much shorter. (But to play that fugue one would have to be able to play most of the WTC. I'm afraid there's no shortcut here!)
Brava! I really love this and the 9th fugue from the set. Have you ever played the six-voice ricercar from the Musical Offering? I'd love to see your take on it some day. It's always been one of my favorite of Bach's late works. Intricate, powerful, and yet still sublime in it's voicing. So much drama!
@@RuoshiSun I'm thrilled to listen today when I'm home! Your artistry has always been matched only by your depth of detail in conveying understanding. Thank you for reaching out personally. I'm honored.
I see you stopped marking all the BACH sequences after a while, but in my opinion the one at 5:10 (bar 180) is perhaps the most striking one in all of the piece, since it starts the concluding sequence and stands out more than the others.
Bach was way ahead of his time, when people in his time just found out how to make harmony, he was already experimenting with post romantic period atonality.
I tend to agree with the commenter who wrote "Nonsense", though, I wouldn't go quite so far. On the one hand, people do seem to regard Bach in something of a "mystical" light. My sense is that (JS) Bach is a particularly important composer in the history of 'Western' music. But, one aspect of this importance is his role as a sort of "nexus". He explored music extremely thoroughly within the constraints of his life / time. He was incredibly prolific - including in trying out anything he came across in the works of others, and also in experimenting rather freely and directly. He organized, compiled, wrote and rewrote, etc., extensively - especially music, but, for example, the "Bach family history" also comes to mind... I think, when it comes to fugues, in particular, he was extremely "mastery-oriented" - and, this makes a lot of sense to me. Trying to write fugues is so incredibly instructive across fundamentals of harmonization, tonality, time signature choice and interplay with voice leading and various types of phrasing ... I suspect you could put together a very complete 'basic' curriculum in tonal Western music in which all _exercises_ in each chapter (past the very basic) would involve a student writing or finishing or modifying a bit of fugal music. Fugal music seems to make an especially useful ... crucible, work bench, lab ... something along those lines ... for learning and experimentation. For example, as stated by the other commenter, certain forms of seemingly surprising harmony / harmonization arise out of the form / structure of the fugue itself. The more constrained set of options for 'what comes next'. So, you need to be somewhat creative and risk-taking (in some ways) ... you get forced to think maybe a bit more flexibly about what CAN work, since you're usually quite a bit more constrained than in most other forms. This can help you find 'tricks', 'hacks', even 'rules' &/ 'heuristics' and the like that you otherwise probably wouldn't. I could undoubtedly keep going, but, doubt that would be of much value to anyone, probably. I'll just try to summarize and tie this off, though. Bach was a GREAT composer - an absolutely essential composer. Some of the ways in which this is true are, I think, somewhat more nuanced than what people often seem to think - including myself. When I was younger, and studying jazz (in particular), I was surprised at how I was finding what seemed to be snippets of 'jazz music' in Bach's works. Of course, some famous jazz musicians have made statements about how Bach is, in some sense, 'everything'. Something to that effect. Depending on how you take that, it's either an overstatement, or quite accurate. Bach was a 'nexus' bringing together all sorts of different information, creating more of a 'knowledge-base' out of it (for himself & ultimately others) - establishing a lot of fundamentals and 'bits and pieces' that others had put together in something like a more fragmentary form, usually ... he really established, I think, a very solid base for music and musicians going forward. Others did as well, more or less independently - people like Mozart. And yet, even though someone like Mozart may not have encountered Bach's music directly at any significant level for years (AFAIK), almost certainly the environment he was brought up in was influenced, in various indirect ways, by Bach ... just as they were all influenced by environment overall ... 'enlightenment'-style thinking and ideas etc. Very remarkable people, left us all a great legacy, ... generally, I find nowadays, in ways that, to me, are frequently MORE impressive than the ... say, veneer of 'mystic' ... in ways where I can really appreciate what they did and accomplished.
@@garrghhhOk, try to translate this with the youtube translate. Estoy a tiempo de conocer la música no occidental? ¿Qué ejemplos tienes claros de los que yo podría investigar? Hay algún plan o comienzo por donde podría integrarme a la música no-occidental sin sugestionarme a tal cambio repentino? Yo solo conozco la existencia de la música China, India, Egipcia y Hebrea
In his time Bach was considered 'old fashioned' for using older forms and complex polyphonic music instead of writing in the 'new' galant, transparant and light style that would characterize the later Viennese school. But... he experimented a lot harmonically. His Contrapunctus 11 or Ricercar a6 e.g. are so full of extreme chromaticism, suspensions/appogiaturas, augmented/diminished 'chords' and constant modulations that it is sometimes very difficult to perceive a harmonic stability. Sometimes it almost sounds like Wagner yet, but it is absolutely not atonal. It is a paradox that these harmonies were absolutely new, radical and unheard for the 18th century but still considered 'passé' due to the shift in taste. The romantics of the 19th century recaptured and amplified this chromaticism again to express their complex and deep sentiments/feeelings in music. It is this shift that brought them back to the complex harmonies and dissonances of JS Bach. Suddenly old Bach came back to life and musicians/music lovers started to realize more and more how experimental Bach was.
I can tell you very surely that my music history professor would not approve of your comment. He has gone wild for much less crazy statements. But don't worry, Bach is much more impressive than just a "guy ahead of it's time".
Ruoshi, I am sorry for my inadequate English. Please dont destroy Bach’s number symbolism! From the very beginning - the 14 first notes is the fugue subject, but the next five doesn’t belongs to the fugue subjec, they should be black. The second subject is his name, and the third fugue subject also consist of 14 notes.
I appreciate your comment. I'll divide my reply into two parts. First, on the three subjects themselves, I agree with your analysis. [Subject 1] The part that I labeled as red contains 14 + 8 notes. After the exposition, the 8-note fragment is used in only one entry (b.129), and half of it (4-note fragment with modified rhythm) is used in a few more entries (b.151, 156, 174 - notice how it leads to the sequence in bb.175-177), so strictly speaking the first 14 notes should be subject 1. I originally planned to label how the last 8 notes are used in the piece (e.g. bb.7-8 is based on this motif). But if I labeled everything at such a level of detail, it would make the score too complicated to read. This is one example of what I was alluding to in the description. [Subject 2] We are in full agreement - I labeled the BACH motif (HCAB in inversion) in the score. I didn't label every single instance because there are too many. [Subject 3] This is due to my typo because I forgot to switch the color back to black in bb.98-99. (I use LilyPond for typesetting. It requires an explicit command to change the color.) I agree that it should just be 14 notes. Second, on the notion of "Bach's number symbolism." This is something that I had come across before. My personal inclination is that the "number symbolism" is more likely attached by later generations, since there is a lack of evidence that it is indeed Bach's intention. As I do not wish to turn this into a debate on numerology, I just want to say two things. (1) The observations that Bach used 14 notes as the subject in many contrapuncti and that No. 14 may very likely be the crowning fugue (a quadruple fugue was unprecedented) give some credence to the notion that B+A+C+H=14 plays an important role. (2) For small integers one can easily come up with "formulas" to basically get any number you want. A notable example is, in trying to justify the number 84 written on the manuscript of Patrem Omnipotentum from the Mass in B minor, people have come up with such "formulas" as 84 = 14 x 6 = BACH x (number of days of creation). This is the kind of numerology that I refuse to believe, unless Bach explicitly documented it elsewhere, which I am not aware of. In summary, I admit I mislabeled parts of the subject. I don't rely on number symbolism in my analysis, but I am open to it if more historical/biographical evidence surfaces.
My English is not good so I hope that the translation program gives a good enough result. When it comes to number symbolism, it can go too far, yes. If I get an idea of a number, and I look, but I can’t find it, then it also a result, a negative result. Why I think the number 14 is relevant in BWV 1080, is because we find it quite a bit. The opening 12-tone fugue subject will also be 14 in fugues 5, 6 and 7. (and the second fugue subject in the «quadruple fugue» consist of 41 notes) As far as I can remember, I found only one 14-notes fugue subject in the WTC, the first one. You mentioned the quadruple fugue. I wrote a completin, but now I think like several others that Contrapunctus was meant as a triple fugue.
@@geiryvindeskeland7208 The English translation is totally understandable! Congratulations on your wonderful completion of 14. I saw some of the comments on that video. My opinion is that, since none of us is Bach, we should have an open mind toward the completion of 14, and I greatly applaud your contrapuntal mastery!
![The Art of Fugue, BWV 1080: Contrapunctus XI [with analysis]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/a9qH66t2MZc/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Art of Fugue, BWV 1080: Contrapunctus XI [with analysis]](/img/tr.png)
1:16 measure 44-45, it has not only the BACH cryptogram motif, but also the Eb D G (SDG, Soli Deo Gloria) cryptogram motif
My favorite contrapunctus. I wish I was a better pianist so I could play this. Much respect for playing the trill at the entrance of the third voice which I noticed a lot of recording leave out.
I think the F-sharp minor fugue in WTC 2 is comparable as both are triple fugues in three voices. You may try that first since it is much shorter. (But to play that fugue one would have to be able to play most of the WTC. I'm afraid there's no shortcut here!)
@@RuoshiSun Thank you for the suggestion!
Thank you for the analysis Ruoshi.
Very enjoy your playing. Well done!
Well done Ruoshi. I'm not on the same level as you in understanding the structure, but I can still enjoy your playing.
Wow, that’s amazing !
Brava! I really love this and the 9th fugue from the set. Have you ever played the six-voice ricercar from the Musical Offering? I'd love to see your take on it some day. It's always been one of my favorite of Bach's late works. Intricate, powerful, and yet still sublime in it's voicing. So much drama!
I'm glad you like it! The Ricercar a 6 is definitely on my to-do list. :)
I'm pleased to inform you that the Ricercar a 6 is now available: th-cam.com/video/cCzW6ICNoLw/w-d-xo.html
@@RuoshiSun I'm thrilled to listen today when I'm home! Your artistry has always been matched only by your depth of detail in conveying understanding. Thank you for reaching out personally. I'm honored.
I see you stopped marking all the BACH sequences after a while, but in my opinion the one at 5:10 (bar 180) is perhaps the most striking one in all of the piece, since it starts the concluding sequence and stands out more than the others.
B = Bb, A = A, C = C, H = B natural. Period. Transpositions do NOT qualify.
Bach was way ahead of his time, when people in his time just found out how to make harmony, he was already experimenting with post romantic period atonality.
Nonsense. The "harmony" arises from the counterpoint.
I tend to agree with the commenter who wrote "Nonsense", though, I wouldn't go quite so far.
On the one hand, people do seem to regard Bach in something of a "mystical" light. My sense is that (JS) Bach is a particularly important composer in the history of 'Western' music. But, one aspect of this importance is his role as a sort of "nexus".
He explored music extremely thoroughly within the constraints of his life / time. He was incredibly prolific - including in trying out anything he came across in the works of others, and also in experimenting rather freely and directly. He organized, compiled, wrote and rewrote, etc., extensively - especially music, but, for example, the "Bach family history" also comes to mind...
I think, when it comes to fugues, in particular, he was extremely "mastery-oriented" - and, this makes a lot of sense to me. Trying to write fugues is so incredibly instructive across fundamentals of harmonization, tonality, time signature choice and interplay with voice leading and various types of phrasing ... I suspect you could put together a very complete 'basic' curriculum in tonal Western music in which all _exercises_ in each chapter (past the very basic) would involve a student writing or finishing or modifying a bit of fugal music. Fugal music seems to make an especially useful ... crucible, work bench, lab ... something along those lines ... for learning and experimentation.
For example, as stated by the other commenter, certain forms of seemingly surprising harmony / harmonization arise out of the form / structure of the fugue itself. The more constrained set of options for 'what comes next'. So, you need to be somewhat creative and risk-taking (in some ways) ... you get forced to think maybe a bit more flexibly about what CAN work, since you're usually quite a bit more constrained than in most other forms. This can help you find 'tricks', 'hacks', even 'rules' &/ 'heuristics' and the like that you otherwise probably wouldn't.
I could undoubtedly keep going, but, doubt that would be of much value to anyone, probably. I'll just try to summarize and tie this off, though.
Bach was a GREAT composer - an absolutely essential composer. Some of the ways in which this is true are, I think, somewhat more nuanced than what people often seem to think - including myself.
When I was younger, and studying jazz (in particular), I was surprised at how I was finding what seemed to be snippets of 'jazz music' in Bach's works. Of course, some famous jazz musicians have made statements about how Bach is, in some sense, 'everything'. Something to that effect. Depending on how you take that, it's either an overstatement, or quite accurate.
Bach was a 'nexus' bringing together all sorts of different information, creating more of a 'knowledge-base' out of it (for himself & ultimately others) - establishing a lot of fundamentals and 'bits and pieces' that others had put together in something like a more fragmentary form, usually ... he really established, I think, a very solid base for music and musicians going forward.
Others did as well, more or less independently - people like Mozart. And yet, even though someone like Mozart may not have encountered Bach's music directly at any significant level for years (AFAIK), almost certainly the environment he was brought up in was influenced, in various indirect ways, by Bach ... just as they were all influenced by environment overall ... 'enlightenment'-style thinking and ideas etc.
Very remarkable people, left us all a great legacy, ... generally, I find nowadays, in ways that, to me, are frequently MORE impressive than the ... say, veneer of 'mystic' ... in ways where I can really appreciate what they did and accomplished.
@@garrghhhOk, try to translate this with the youtube translate. Estoy a tiempo de conocer la música no occidental? ¿Qué ejemplos tienes claros de los que yo podría investigar? Hay algún plan o comienzo por donde podría integrarme a la música no-occidental sin sugestionarme a tal cambio repentino? Yo solo conozco la existencia de la música China, India, Egipcia y Hebrea
In his time Bach was considered 'old fashioned' for using older forms and complex polyphonic music instead of writing in the 'new' galant, transparant and light style that would characterize the later Viennese school. But... he experimented a lot harmonically. His Contrapunctus 11 or Ricercar a6 e.g. are so full of extreme chromaticism, suspensions/appogiaturas, augmented/diminished 'chords' and constant modulations that it is sometimes very difficult to perceive a harmonic stability. Sometimes it almost sounds like Wagner yet, but it is absolutely not atonal. It is a paradox that these harmonies were absolutely new, radical and unheard for the 18th century but still considered 'passé' due to the shift in taste. The romantics of the 19th century recaptured and amplified this chromaticism again to express their complex and deep sentiments/feeelings in music. It is this shift that brought them back to the complex harmonies and dissonances of JS Bach. Suddenly old Bach came back to life and musicians/music lovers started to realize more and more how experimental Bach was.
I can tell you very surely that my music history professor would not approve of your comment. He has gone wild for much less crazy statements.
But don't worry, Bach is much more impressive than just a "guy ahead of it's time".
Bravo
Tuning: 0c: A4 = 440Hz
2:40
Ruoshi, I am sorry for my inadequate English. Please dont destroy Bach’s number symbolism! From the very beginning - the 14 first notes is the fugue subject, but the next five doesn’t belongs to the fugue subjec, they should be black. The second subject is his name, and the third fugue subject also consist of 14 notes.
I appreciate your comment. I'll divide my reply into two parts.
First, on the three subjects themselves, I agree with your analysis.
[Subject 1] The part that I labeled as red contains 14 + 8 notes. After the exposition, the 8-note fragment is used in only one entry (b.129), and half of it (4-note fragment with modified rhythm) is used in a few more entries (b.151, 156, 174 - notice how it leads to the sequence in bb.175-177), so strictly speaking the first 14 notes should be subject 1. I originally planned to label how the last 8 notes are used in the piece (e.g. bb.7-8 is based on this motif). But if I labeled everything at such a level of detail, it would make the score too complicated to read. This is one example of what I was alluding to in the description.
[Subject 2] We are in full agreement - I labeled the BACH motif (HCAB in inversion) in the score. I didn't label every single instance because there are too many.
[Subject 3] This is due to my typo because I forgot to switch the color back to black in bb.98-99. (I use LilyPond for typesetting. It requires an explicit command to change the color.) I agree that it should just be 14 notes.
Second, on the notion of "Bach's number symbolism." This is something that I had come across before. My personal inclination is that the "number symbolism" is more likely attached by later generations, since there is a lack of evidence that it is indeed Bach's intention. As I do not wish to turn this into a debate on numerology, I just want to say two things. (1) The observations that Bach used 14 notes as the subject in many contrapuncti and that No. 14 may very likely be the crowning fugue (a quadruple fugue was unprecedented) give some credence to the notion that B+A+C+H=14 plays an important role. (2) For small integers one can easily come up with "formulas" to basically get any number you want. A notable example is, in trying to justify the number 84 written on the manuscript of Patrem Omnipotentum from the Mass in B minor, people have come up with such "formulas" as 84 = 14 x 6 = BACH x (number of days of creation). This is the kind of numerology that I refuse to believe, unless Bach explicitly documented it elsewhere, which I am not aware of.
In summary, I admit I mislabeled parts of the subject. I don't rely on number symbolism in my analysis, but I am open to it if more historical/biographical evidence surfaces.
My English is not good so I hope that the translation program gives a good enough result. When it comes to number symbolism, it can go too far, yes. If I get an idea of a number, and I look, but I can’t find it, then it also a result, a negative result. Why I think the number 14 is relevant in BWV 1080, is because we find it quite a bit. The opening 12-tone fugue subject will also be 14 in fugues 5, 6 and 7. (and the second fugue subject in the «quadruple fugue» consist of 41 notes) As far as I can remember, I found only one 14-notes fugue subject in the WTC, the first one. You mentioned the quadruple fugue. I wrote a completin, but now I think like several others that Contrapunctus was meant as a triple fugue.
@@geiryvindeskeland7208 The English translation is totally understandable! Congratulations on your wonderful completion of 14. I saw some of the comments on that video. My opinion is that, since none of us is Bach, we should have an open mind toward the completion of 14, and I greatly applaud your contrapuntal mastery!
not "harmonic planing"
solid playing but was not very convinced by the interpretation sadly