Formal Analysis of J.S. Bach's Two-Part Invention No.8

 J.S. Bach's Two-Part Invention No.8 is in F major, and in 3/4 time.  The piece contains 34 measures.  The range is from C2 to C6.  There are only 3 dynamic markings in the entire piece: forte in measure 1, piano in measure 12, and crescendo in measure 19.  The structure is strictly two-voice counterpoint - the only chord, F Major, appears in the final bar of the piece.  

The structure of the first 11 bars is a classic example of Shoenberg's "musical sentence." It begins with the presentation.  The first 2 measures contain the basic idea as the F major chord is outlined.  This is followed by 2 measures of its varied repetition, which outlines a first inversion F major chord.  Throughout this presentation, the voices create an imitative canon as each measure-long phrase is repeated successively between the two clefs. (For example, in measure 1 the right hand has F-A-F-C-F, and in measure 2, the left hand has the same pattern of F-A-F-C-F, with identical rhythms, one octave lower.)   Then, in the 5th measure, the two voices meet up rhythmically, and remain a 14th apart for two bars.  This second phrase can be called the continuation.  It, however, lasts for 7 bars.  In 4 bars it drives the music to a temporary, and imperfect cadence; in beat 1 of measure 9, the piece reaches F major again, with A in the soprano.  The sentence is henceforth lengthened with 3 measures of harmonic acceleration that drives the piece to a G Major chord (the secondary dominant of C) and a modulation into the dominant key of C Major.  This is an elision cadence.  It simultaneously marks the end of the exposition and the beginning of the development.

The development begins in measure twelve.  It begins with the same imitative pattern as in measure one, except completely reversed - the key is C instead of F, the dynamic marking is piano instead of forte, and the leading voice begins in the left hand, rather than in the right. The basic canon is expanded upon in the development.   In the first 11 bars, each one bar phrase is repeated immediately and successively in the opposite hand.  However, in many cases (m14-15, 18-20, 21-23, 24-25) the phrases in each voice are expanded into 2 bar or 3 bar phrases, which are not always repeated exactly in the opposite hand.  In these situations, the melodic idea is furthered.  In measure 15 a "pedal A" motif is introduced, and repeated in other keys, in both hands, throughout the development.  This can be considered a variation on a previously introduced motif.  In measure 5, the right hand plays F-A-G-A-F-A-G-A-F-A-G-A; in measure 15, the right hand plays C-Bflat-C-A-C-A-Bflat-A-C-A-A-A.  The pattern has been altered but it retains the idea of returning to one note, on the up beat.  Another expansive idea is the descending arpeggio pattern, introduced in measure 21.   This can be considered a variation on the ascending arpeggio pattern that exists throughout the piece until this point.  The new pattern remains in the left hand for 3 bars, then the right for 2 bars, and finally the left for 1 more bar.  In the last bar of descending arpeggios, the motif from the continuation in measure 5 is reintroduced.  This can be called the recapitulation.  The remainder of the piece, m26-34 is identical to m4-12 in rhythm and pattern.  The only way in which it is varied is the tonality.  The first occurrence of this pattern drove the piece to the dominant, however, this instance functions to drive the piece to the tonic, and to the final perfect authentic cadence.

META-CRITIQUE

 My insecurity about the chord structures takes away from the critique, as I don't offer any information about exact progressions.  Additionally, at times when writing the critique, I found myself unsure of how to convey exactly what I wanted to say.  This can be attributed to my own personal level of knowledge, and how many musical terms I am acquainted with.  For example, I was not sure if I could use the sonata form terms (exposition, development, and recapitulation) to describe J.S. Bach's 34 bar invention.  Instances like this may have left my critique feeling a little messy and unclear.

The critique may not be completely objective.  This, again, can be accredited to my uncertainty in how to use terms and what terms to use.  I may have used terms that convey my feelings about the piece instead of 100% pure syntactical fact.  Also, I was unsure whether or not I was supposed to have access to the sheet music of the piece.  Perhaps then, my meta-critique is that I, the author, am a student who is still in the process of learning how to structure a formal analysis.

Gebauer/Wulf "Mimesis"

Summary

This article explores the evolution of the concept of "mimesis".  It begins with a disection of the word mimesis and attempts to trace its roots.  An expansive range of meanings are found; most basically: imitation, representation, and expression.  The article brings up the interpretations of Else, Koller, and many others in exploring the earliest mentionings of mimesis, and concludes that "it is not possible to identify any clear aesthetic usage" of words like mimesis before Plato's time (29).

The article goes on to investigate Plato's concepts of mimesis before the Republic, in which "writing is not yet understood as mimesis and mimesis has not yet been restricted to questions of art"(31). Perhaps this is because Plato had not yet felt effects of the changing world (from an oral culture to a literal one).  Plato's work on mimesis is henceforth differentiated into 3 sections: mimesis as the "imitation of a concrete action" in which "a motive can be identified,"  mimesis in which "the persons imitated exist as models" and have ethical values that should be emulated, and mimesis used metaphorically"(31-32).  What is important here is the way in which Plato enforces mimesis, as opposed to the way he approaches the concept later, in the Republic.

"At issue is the education of members of the guardian class, with the goal of making them capable of fulfilling the duties they will be assigned by the state.  Since young people learn essentially through imitation, one of the most important tasks of education is the selection of objects to which they will be exposed.  Plato does not share the assumption that young people can become stronger by confronting negative models; his conception of mimesis suggests more that the effect would be unfavorable, leaving them weaker than before.  For that reason young people should be shielded from everything that might interfere with their ability to fulfill tasks later entrusted to them by the state"(33).  This paragraph from the article sums up Plato's basic views on mimesis and education.  He recognizes that children will inevitably learn by imitation, so therefore everything from poetry to music must be controlled; the children must not be exposed to anything untruthful.    Mimesis, in this sense, is "defined as the imitation of role models, whereby the goal is to become like the models.   The article goes on to describe all of the ways in which Plato wished to purify art for his community; that is, to expel all untrue art that could possibly "infect" someone and induce them to mimic the falseness, even against their will.

Finally, the article considers Plato's understanding that "painting and poetry are [in]capable of imitating the Ideas" and that "they produce only the phenomenal form of things"(37).  Plato describes how an artist creates an appearance in order to make available a phenomenon to the people.   "...the artist imitates God in the production of the world of appearance"(38).  An artist creates images, therefore, of things that do not really exist; he creates impressions of phenomenon.

Additionally throughout the section that focuses on the Republic, many interjections reveal Plato's discomfort with a move toward literacy: "Philosophy then takes over the significance for education that poetry had long possessed"(37).  Another good example is when the author states that in Plato's view, "poetry has inadequately fulfilled its pedagogical task in relation to young people"(33).   These statements are important to consider when one takes a review of Plato's concepts in his own  historical context.

Personal Reaction

While reading through the article, at many times I became confused as to whether it was Plato or Gebauer/Wulf I was reading.  Many times the authors would make statements, and I wasn't sure if I should attribute them to Plato, because so much of the article is focused on him.

Additionally, I was a bit thrown off (and confused) by the end of the article, when the authors started to make arguments: "If one does not want to be taken in by an illusionary mimesis purporting to imitate what it cannot possibly imitate, it is necessary to recognize this gap (between model and image)"(44).  This was slightly uncomfortable, since the rest of the article seemed more like an opinion-less, historical account.

One thing that I noticed throughout the article was Plato's obsession with doing right by the state.  "From early childhood on they should imitate only what will help them fulfill their tasks; everything else they should leave aside"(34).  This statement is very extreme and idealistic; yet, perhaps he is aware of that, and perhaps as he constantly mentions the "ideal state" he is only referring to something that he wants but does not expect to fully attain.  Additionally, in Plato's Greece the city-state and one's duty to the polas were central to life.  This must have guided his way of thinking.  However, it seems implausible and wildly inappropriate to suggest that one might breed children to be loyal a government or country, especially to today's audience.