oes 20 Mair ring Perio nd Cain, Moret ale 1 Mars Prasi an Cite inesinaly complement ee h eleoan 6) (pdm easrLs 3. Anal gram om Eli Antal, The Music of Baa Bart p 185. ‘The net fer af these manpslstioe i that the wt pitch svete ofthe opening ofthis gue bas been di ‘laced by an coe The dapacement, hooves sored ‘withthe advent of lat fat in phantom fo inthe lower ors (ney 12, php tom. 38), then lel in the upper iin prs (ent 13, pchup tom. 48). By real pri Jie mas catia fo regu the lower Eb a 4 con timation ofthe ifs chai from Gh, andthe upee Boar ‘oninston of the phantom Bl; hte the wpwurd-moving ‘hain bas ended up in the lowest regis, and the dowmard ‘moving chan in the uppermost repster, The conection ‘made though new doting in he lover pare, ofthe sb jet on BYE, or rather there would behead i BB, Thad nor Been abetted for them. Now, Bhs are ally ‘adn place of phasor Eh; wheres jut a moment ear ls th Bh were themocles the phantom notes, This, 0 cridenceof stored balance. hdc ich Soson i fa tne Abo wor ahi eing Eon of ei ee ‘tcc nt tae pre eng ew in wi he deo te nj sa eee ‘ne ich ee ein pete Jpn! ne ‘empl pony May pert o he ptr ce brome rapper ripeen preerented ‘hello be oar af ey nd ore a ‘eal ee mol eat propo beface K aon : te i if fl : Yano i fos fm | 3 anne 2 the to . Savon] - ww Te fo te ej dye ie 88.8 sample 18, Fist half fue relation[CONFLICT AND ANOMALY IN BART AND WEBERN see meeenADoratn PeRADADOTALFAY WAT ARENEADADOTANT.AD Rrumpe Ze: Ants o the fgme mat syste = TACTA, “TA = INSERTADDTAILTAD, “yp MEMEADADOTAILT, AD, {Tp = BEMEADADDTAILT,. A) =T,2. ample 2e, Conan ofthe fugue subject% ome tanonysrecraun 35 (200) souanut 4, Masi Sing, Presi, Cle m8 1-56 ep)abc 8, Mus ring, Person ond Col mm. SE-B ap). sore stuctn deions the cosing of he stands in he Set son, and the carting of the lower rand in 8 Sepen- dent ooe with respect tothe upp "The meta of inverted ft prise fngments on C and iam 65-6, caved down though thre oct bepa- ning on C and, epesnts the nex ege inthe projec‘bars; the important celeste entry after 77 bars goes uncharted (were it after 76 bars it ‘would produce an additional Fibonacci division in Fig. 4a); finaly, there are 88 bars, ‘ot 89, in the movement. Lendvai’s footnoted explanation that the movement ‘must be completed by a whole-bar rest, in accordance with the Bilow analyses of Beet- hoven’ (1971: 28) is unconvincing, since in this movement the final bar, marked '} , contains only ten quaver beats to balance the anacrustic quaver at the start of ‘movement, forming a closed system. Thus four adjustments must be made to Fig. 4a ‘to make it exact as shown in Fig. 4b. Since anacruses in this movement (including that to b.1) belong musically with their following bars, numbers of completed bars in the diagram exclude any anacruses phrased over to the next bar; this also accords proportionally with the presence of an anacrusis to b. 1 and the missing last quaver in bar 88: ‘Fig. 4: Fugue from Music for Strings, Percussion and Celeste ——————__—=— ss 2 « fl ete Ja, [ao i od Helo ' roa fee et poh ab cA an Ep ae taal in me at Es rons Pineal vepced 77 vi aa, os (1973) and Kramer (1973) also identify these discrepancies, and Fennelly notes the opening four-bar sequences of the Fugue. Kramer concludes that the Fugue’s proportional tendencies are therefore ‘a less significant structural force than in other works . . .” (1973:120). Yet, as with the scheme seen in Fig. 3 above, the larity and force of this overall shape suggest the opposite, despite the inaccuracies. ‘Why the inaccuracies, then? ‘Two alternative methods of counting can be considered. First, because bar lengths vary constantly, the movement can be counted by quaver beats. These total 705, yielding a golden section of 436, which falls after the second quaver of b. 54. This is almost two bars away from the climax, whereas, counting by bars, golden section of £8 gives 54.4 — less than two-thirds of bar from the climax. Nor do the intermediate divisions produce more accurate proportions when counted by quavers. The second ‘method is applied by Solomon (1973:140-53). He observes Lendvai’s discrepancies B MUSIC ANALYSIS 2:1, 1983