J. Lee Graham

I should clarify that entrances at the sub-dominant (fourth) and octave are also acceptable, but the arrangement of tonic-dominant-tonic-dominant is by far the most common. I can find very few examples of tonal fugues of less than 5 voices where this is not the case.

In his "The Study of Fugue," Alfred Mann quotes Giambattista Martini (Mozart's counterpont teacher) from his Esemplare o sia saggio fondamentale prattico di contrappunto fugato as follows, commenting on a very fine six-part fugue by Claudio Montiverdi: "The composer introduces in this Agnus Dei a subject in the second tenor...which is answered in the bass...Since the tenor uses the skip of a descending fifth from d to g and the bass uses a skip of a descending fourth from g to d, a tonal fugue arises...the [1st] tenor takes up the opening statement at the unison, and...the second soprano takes up the answer at the upper octave...the alto and the first soprano answer at the third of the fifth degree [sub-mediant] and at the third of the first degree [mediant], respectively, rather than at the first or fifth degrees proper, as the other parts did. The license of letting these two parts answer differently from the other four parts has been justly adopted by the great masters, for whenever four parts, which in themselves can constitute a full harmony, have served this purpose, the parts which exceed the number of four may answer at any interval which is convenient and which will produce a good sound. Nevertheless, later in the fugue, the first soprano takes up the subject at the fifth degree...and the alto takes up the subject at the octave...Thus even these parts eventually follow the strict rule of the answer at the fifth or octave."

Now I admit that I am still very much a student myself, and I have not read every word of Mann's book cover-to-cover, but I'm basing what I know of this practise on what I have read, the many examples Mann provides, the other examples I've studied, and quotations like this from a relatively modern pedagogue, as well as garden-variety definitions of fugue that I have read elsewhere. Perhaps at some point I shall have to acquire another source of fugue and/or counterpoint instruction to get a different point of view. Mann seems to favour the strict and traditional.

At some point, we need to differentiate between a fugue for the sake of study and a fugue for the sake of art. We are modern composers, after all, and while I choose to remain faithful to the stricter interpretations of an earlier time in my artistic applications in the interest of authenticity (now that I understand them), I don't see any reason why you may not do as you please in your own artistic applications. Nowadays I doubt anyone is going to object to your handling something that is obviously a fugue in your art music on the grounds that it doesn't adhere strictly to 18th Century practice and aesthetics. That said, I believe that for the sake of study, it might be best to observe and adopt tradition. The best learning happens in a controlled environment. I'm willing to allow that experimentation that runs contrary to tradition, as you are doing, might be a useful part of this process, especially since you appear fully to understand the tradition and are questioning its validity. I would still try treating the same subject twice, once in a conventional manner, and again in an unconventional manner - like a controlled experiment - and judge the results.

By all means! You may post it here if you like, but it might be better to post it in its own thread so that you can get comments from people who are not interested in the didactic nature of this thread. Be sure to draw my attention to it when you do post, because I do a great deal of skimming nowadays.

Actually, I don't own a Mozart biography in the strictly narrative sense. I do have a book called "Mozart - His Character, His Work" by Alfred Einstein, which examines Mozart from the standpoint of who he was as a human being and how it affected his work; in the process, a great deal of biographical information is conveyed. The book is arranged in major sections titled The Man, The Musician, The Instrumental Works, The Vocal Works, and Opera, with subsections within each going into greater detail. I've found it fascinating and I recommend it.

The film "Amadeus" is famously inaccurate on historical details - Mozart had two surviving children, not one; he didn't die the night of the Die Zauberflote premiere, etc...to say nothing of the whole Salieri murder premise - but it is quite accurate in its depiction of Mozart as a person, right down to that ridiculous laugh. I understand that much study was done in this area in preparation for the filming. In my opinion it doesn't dwell enough on how heartfelt and warm a person Mozart could be at times, and it gives only glimpses of how cruel and unkind he could be ("when one hears such sounds, what can one say but 'Salieri'!"). Mozart was a complex man, and there was more to him than can be adequately portrayed in 2-1/2 hours; but it's a very vivid sketch.