Pounders,
 
 
   Kay Davis has it all in his 1984 "Fugue and fresco: Structures in Pound's Cantos", esp. pp
71 ff. That chapter had been printed in PAIDEUMA 11/1 (1982) as "Fugue and Canto LXIII".
 
  My own opinion [esp. as active musician] is that it seems pretty easy to interpret almost
everything into the Canti, even a consciously executed fugal construction. From numerous
Pond statements however we know that he himself had no clear idea as to how the FORM/
STRUCTURE of the Cantos cd be defined, interpreted or whatever; and instead always
said something like "Wait till it's there".
 What I mean is that a FUGAL structure [which might, at best, be discovered in/between
Cantos I and II - and that's about all] wdn't really go with what Ekbert Faas and others have
defined as "open form" in modern poetry. All this sounds much like trying to define a Jackson
Pollock in terms of a Rembrandt. I. e. the voicings in the poem come much closer to some kind of
free jazz collective improvisation than to Bach's mathematically calculated Well-tempered Piano
or "Art of the Fugue" or whatever.
  BTW,  don't forget that EP used to call amost all Cantos-sections DRAFTS. He did this because
he cd NOT defintely say what wd come of it in terms of formin the end.
  The Cantos' only formal principle shd be seen in its FORMLESSNESS. That seems something
especially more traditional readers don't get along with too well. In my view the Cantos' "form"
perfectly reflects Pound's states of minds [how his brain WORKED] at any given times - nothing
more, nothing less.
 
alex