# Does true comprehension of complex polyphony/fugal music require training?



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

By "true comprehension" I really just mean the ability to distinguish voices within the first few hearings of something. For instance my approach to fugues has always been to just listen to them 100 times in a row (probably no exaggeration there) until I can make sense of what's happening, and while I enjoy the process I've realized that, while usually enough to make me like the music, it's not always enough to increase my comprehension. 

I slowed down some of my WTC recordings and noticed that my brain's "map" of my favorite fugues is only occasionally of intertwining melodies, and is more often a strip of one melody followed by a strip of another, the perception and enjoyment of each individual strip often coming at the expense of the other strips happening at that moment. I've noticed that these gaps in understanding usually occur when melodies stop, drop out of my working memory, and then resume. Maybe it's an issue with my inability to distinguish octaves in keyboard music because string quartet transcriptions tend to be a little easier for me to perceive (and if anyone knows of a complete recording of WTC book 2 for string quartet let me know!). 

I have the most difficulty with renaissance era composers and Bach. Choral music especially is always like trying to distinguish one cloud of mist from three others directly behind it. 

Is some kind of ear training required? Knowledge of the score? Is this kind of music more clear when heard live? Does anyone else experience difficulty with this kind of music?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

It helps but the great Johann Sebastian Bach's music proves otherwise.


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

Just relax. Quit trying so hard to understand, unravel, etc. Just marvel at the beautiful sounds.

That's my recommendation anyway.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Andolink said:


> Just relax. Quit trying so hard to understand, unravel, etc. Just marvel at the beautiful sounds.
> 
> That's my recommendation anyway.


Right answer :tiphat:


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

Exactly. In fact, as amateurs we can not "fully comprehense" any of such complex works, unless we gain solid knowledge on harmony, counterpoint and structure. For example, in a fugue, the melody line is often continuous rather than periodic. So, without finding out the implied cadance in the harmony, we can hardly know where the piece moves into a new section (of course some one can sense it naturally, but it is not the accurate way). Also, without knowing counterpoint, we can not understand how the composer works out a counter-subject, and whether it is well-written.

But the problem mentioned in your post is relatively easier to solve for us. In WTC, fugues always begin with the subject stated in one voice, then it is imitated (answered) in another voice while the first voice plays a countersubject. The same thing goes on again and again, until the subject is stated in each of the voices. This section is the exposition, and we can sense it without much difficulty. Then the piece will elaborate on materials of the subject with several re-entry of the subject during the course. 

So, although we don't know how it works exactly, we can still sense and follow it to some extent. This general understanding can help us to enjoy it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

"True comprehension" is a loaded term. Can we "truly comprehend" a Beethoven symphony without a thorough grounding in sonata form, voice leading, key relationships, and so forth? Probably not, but we can certainly enjoy it!

As for fugues, that granddaddy of popular fugues, Bach's T&F in D minor, was rediscovered by Mendelssohn ca. 1830 and has been popular ever since. My father loved the segment in Fantasia using this fugue, and he didn't know poop about counterpoint!


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

By the way, Renaissance era music is generally easier to follow, because it is composed without a strict design on the harmony progression, and it takes only the intervals of voices into consideration. Sometimes it can be quite casual.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> By "true comprehension" I really just mean the ability to distinguish voices within the first few hearings of something. For instance my approach to fugues has always been to just listen to them 100 times in a row (probably no exaggeration there) until I can make sense of what's happening, and while I enjoy the process I've realized that, while usually enough to make me like the music, it's not always enough to increase my comprehension.
> 
> I slowed down some of my WTC recordings and noticed that my brain's "map" of my favorite fugues is only occasionally of intertwining melodies, and is more often a strip of one melody followed by a strip of another, the perception and enjoyment of each individual strip often coming at the expense of the other strips happening at that moment. I've noticed that these gaps in understanding usually occur when melodies stop, drop out of my working memory, and then resume. Maybe it's an issue with my inability to distinguish octaves in keyboard music because string quartet transcriptions tend to be a little easier for me to perceive (and if anyone knows of a complete recording of WTC book 2 for string quartet let me know!).
> 
> ...


Your problems might have something to do with having created the habit of listening to this music in a certain way that isn't very ideal. Personally I have the habit of quickly changing focus or straining to hear, so I can keep at least two voices in my mind at once. I think it's ultimately about changing focus quickly, and because of this a slower tempo will make the music easier to follow, because you have more time to scan the polyphonic landscape.

I'd also recommend searching for recordings that are more polyphonically clear, because there are differences both minor and significant, especially in Renaissance music (the Hilliard Ensemble and the Clerks Group tend to be better than average). I also think that the harpsichord has more contrapuntal clarity than the modern piano.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> I slowed down some of my WTC recordings and noticed that my brain's "map" of my favorite fugues is only occasionally of intertwining melodies, and is more often a strip of one melody followed by a strip of another, the perception and enjoyment of each individual strip often coming at the expense of the other strips happening at that moment.


That "slowing down" is a problem in that it tells me that whatever your motivation, you are not intent on enjoying the music presented to you.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

If only people wouldn't reject the synthesizer as tasteless cheese none of this would be a problem. All the voices can have their own timbre and articulation, even the inner ones, and with pretty good stereo separation so that it becomes easy to focus on one voice or two. More than that seems impractical regardless, but subsequent listens allow focus on two other voices, etc.

There is also the score, or even those scrolling videos with colored melody lines you can see on Youtube. They a quite helpful to those of us with a strong visual leaning.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Weston said:


> If only people wouldn't reject the synthesizer as tasteless cheese none of this would be a problem. All the voices can have their own timbre and articulation, even the inner ones, and with pretty good stereo separation so that it becomes easy to focus on one voice or two. More than that seems impractical regardless, but subsequent listens allow focus on two other voices, etc.
> 
> There is also the score, or even those scrolling videos with colored melody lines you can see on Youtube. They a quite helpful to those of us with a strong visual leaning.


I put Gombert's 6-voice "Media vita" into Sibelius, but it's a pain to balance properly because different instruments have different pans and become softer or louder when you change the pan, some instruments play louder when playing longer notes, and some play louder when they play higher, and so on.

But I've learned that you're definitely not supposed to follow the same two voices throughout the piece, because it seems that the most melodically interesting stuff occurs in different voices at different times, and harmonic support is given by different voices at different times, and there are even mindless "melodies" that sound like Gombert was just filling out a voice after having completed the other voices for that passage, i.e. pointless to listen to or focus on.

A lot of slower notes can be focused on only for a brief fraction of a second, then kept in the mind while taking in other stuff, and then when that voice plays a new slow note, focused on again for a brief while, and so on. Shifting focus in this manner allows you to get something like a big picture view.

Keep in mind that our eyes shift focus constantly when we're watching a movie or trying to get a complete idea of a picture. I believe the same should be done with respect to listening to polyphony.


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> my brain's "map" of my favorite fugues is only occasionally of intertwining melodies, and is more often a strip of one melody followed by a strip of another, the perception and enjoyment of each individual strip often coming at the expense of the other strips happening at that moment.


Performers work very hard to make fugues sound like this to you.
Most people find it more pleasant to listen to something that has a foreground and a background. The background contributes something to the picture, of course, it helps it to seem three-dimensional, and curious persons can peer at the background in detail and notice interesting stuff, but the foreground is what you notice first and that's how it should be.

In a fugue different elements are constantly moving from foreground to background and back again, or should be if the performer is doing it well.

The longer you listen to a piece the more background detail you'll notice; that's the fun of listening to a great piece repeatedly.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

hreichgott said:


> Performers work very hard to make fugues sound like this to you.
> Most people find it more pleasant to listen to something that has a foreground and a background. The background contributes something to the picture, of course, it helps it to seem three-dimensional, and curious persons can peer at the background in detail and notice interesting stuff, but the foreground is what you notice first and that's how it should be.
> 
> In a fugue different elements are constantly moving from foreground to background and back again, or should be if the performer is doing it well.
> ...


That's an ahistorical approach and wasn't possible on the harpsichord. It's most certainly not what Bach intended in his keyboard fugues. It's of course what most people do when they first start to listen to fugues, but it doesn't need to be how they listen to them for the rest of their life. Self-improvement and modifying your listening habits with regards to polyphonic music is entirely possible.

P.S. I have Colin Tilney's WTC 1 played on the clavichord. He plays Book 2 on the harpsichord, because according to current scholarship, it was composed for the harpsichord while the first book was composed for the clavichord. This already suggests that Bach conceived of harpsichord and clavichord performances as essentially similar: there was no "background and foreground" in harpsichord performances, and he didn't intend them for clavichord performances either.

The easiest way to listen to something isn't necessarily the best or intended way. I remember not wanting to listen to fugues because they sounded like chaos when I first started listening to classical music. It was only after I became comfortable with following more than one voice at a time and quickly changing focus to get a big picture of the music, it's only then that I started enjoying polyphonic music properly. This took a few years of listening practice, I should say only a few years, because compared with mastering many other skills, it was easy. It seems to me absurd to listen to polyphonic music as though it was "melody with an accompaniment". Surely that's not what you'd ideally want to do.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

KenOC said:


> As for fugues, that granddaddy of popular fugues, Bach's T&F in D minor, was rediscovered by Mendelssohn ca. 1830 and has been popular ever since. My father loved the segment in Fantasia using this fugue, and he didn't know poop about counterpoint!


I like that piece too, but there is no real counterpoint in it. (One of the reasons some people think it isn't really by Bach.)


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

Chordalrock said:


> That's an ahistorical approach and wasn't possible on the harpsichord.


Of course it is. Harpsichord players just have a different way of going about it (articulation, for one). Same for organ players.



> Self-improvement and modifying your listening habits with regards to polyphonic music is entirely possible.


Absolutely!!! One can easily become a more adept background-seer.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

hreichgott said:


> Performers work very hard to make fugues sound like this to you.
> Most people find it more pleasant to listen to something that has a foreground and a background. The background contributes something to the picture, of course, it helps it to seem three-dimensional, and curious persons can peer at the background in detail and notice interesting stuff, but the foreground is what you notice first and that's how it should be.


I love a lot of homophonic music but don't find it as interesting or enlightening as counterpoint/fugue. Using Bach as a prime example, there is a dual nature of independence of each musical line blended with their unity that I always find fascinating. With the foreground/background construction that you mention, the primary melody line must be treated as dominant for the musical pleasure to be maximized.


----------

