Fugue Workshop 2012

TheSimon wrote:

Congratulations to everyone for the magnificent works... I particularly appreciated Raffaele's and Frank's fugue.

Thank you TheSimon

pianista65 wrote:

Beautiful initiative. As a new member, my most sincere compliments to the composers who have taken part in this initiative.

Thank you

Frank wrote:

Comment on the Organist's Fugue:

- The answer is ok, you saw and interpreted the mutations correctly

- The CS [Counter-Subject] is not bad, it could be further improved

- Entries: the last one in the Cello is a bit forced (at 11), in the sense that it is barely perceptible as a true entry due to the transposition of the first note of the answer

- The only true divertimento is not bad, but perhaps with a little less it could have adhered more to the S [Subject] or CS material

However, I find the general flow good; the dominant pedal works well, considering that the 2 voices increase a certain type of difficulty

The part I find weakest is precisely the final one, not so much because the stretto is missing... but because it is a bit short and loses character; you could perhaps add a divertimento before the final "rhythmic aggravation" or play with the tonic pedal where you could play a bit with the head of the S for diminution... or some other idea

Thanks Frank, my organ teacher had also made notes similar to yours... although he corrected more than one point. I was too worried about fifths and octaves, whereas there are other wide margins for improvement. The suggestions given to others also come in handy.

How wonderful it is to participate! Until next time, and let's hope more fugues arrive; in the meantime, I have printed out the two topics...

Raffaele, I also find your work much more conscious compared to the previous one

looking through your fugue a bit, I noticed a constant tendency to resolve the sensitive [note] as one pleases. I don't know if it is intentional or not, but given the context, it seems somewhat incorrect to me.

another aspect to work on is the structure. In addition to the things pointed out by Frank, I would like to note:

after the exposition, there doesn't seem to be a divertimento, but rather a new entry of the subject in A minor.

then divertimento, then response in E minor

then a new entry of the subj. in A-

then a long section begins (until the end) of stretto [sections] (but initially, are they stretti or divertimenti?)

alongside the "school" structure, which one might not even want to use, it seems to me that there is a lack of that play of tonalities (subject in rel. major; in subdominant, etc.) that provides a great burst of variety

Thanks frank and The simon. and Alessandro gozzo.

One of my Divertimenti is a bit contaminated by the forum on the theme of atonal music... Remember?

Let's see who finds it.

I was still expecting someone to notice in Fugue 7 bis the final chromatic scale of the piece when the canon of the finale begins to build up.

No one noticed that I did a walking bass with the chromatic subject. I say this to mean that I try to put things inside the fugue that definitely come from another context, but since no one noticed, it means they are well hidden

AleGozzo wrote:

Raffaele, I also find your work much more conscious compared to the previous one

looking through your fugue a bit, I noticed a constant tendency to resolve the sensitive note as one pleases. I don't know if it is intentional or not, but given the context, it seems somewhat incorrect to me.

another aspect to work on is the structure. In addition to the things pointed out by Frank, I would like to point out:

after the exposition, there doesn't seem to be a divertimento, but rather a new entry of the subject in A minor.

then divertimento, then response in E minor

then a new entry of the subj. in A-

then a long section begins (until the end) of stretto (but initially, are they stretti or divertimenti?)

alongside the "school" structure, which one might not even want to use, it seems to me that there is a lack of that play of tonalities (subject in rel. major; in subdominant, etc.) that gives a great burst of variety

You are right, I don't have a complete idea of what "school" [style] is.

However, by admiring your work, I have learned a lot.

It is true that I neglected to vary the tonalities... I forgot.

Anyway, you are right, but I follow you little because I haven't absorbed the terminology yet.

I didn't respond to the organist either because I didn't understand what he wanted to ask me.

great organist! not only for your pleasant little fugue (writing for 2 voices seems easier only in appearance, after all...), but also for your enthusiasm!!

I don't have much to add to what Frank said, who made very appropriate observations, except that I found the chromaticism reb/do/si at bar 17 very "unpleasant."

In my opinion, it didn't belong there at all.

I wanted to report that the forum time is messed up again, still on the old time

Whoever has the possibility to fix it, please do so

raffaeleb wrote:

One of my amusements is a bit contaminated by the forum on the theme of atonal music... Remember?

is it perhaps in bars 40/42 ?

but I don't see much of a connection

a couple more little questions for frank:

i noticed a tendency to harmonize with the II / I connection, even not in false pedal point (e.g., at bar 20). Can you tell me something about this choice?

and if you have time, explain your scheme of the stretto to me as well, because from bar 50, where the 2nd stretto begins after a little diversion, I can't seem to understand it.

ps

special prize for the bass at bar 35, a great "zampata" [sudden leap/strike] that introduces the pedal perfectly!

AleGozzo wrote:

is it perhaps in measures 40/42 ?

xò I don't see much of a connection

The connection is that the "Guide" notes of the given sequence have been harmonized and have become rhythmically compatible with some cells of the fugue theme.

Anyway, in E minor it seemed very strident to me, but at least it provides contrast, before connecting to the final stretto.

Frank wrote:

Commentary on Raffaele's fugue.

So, first of all, from your first [piece] I see significant growth; I could tell you many things, but I really appreciated the fact that you are trying to give your own approach to the discourse.

There are certainly points where it is very fluid, while in others you use solutions that are a bit too original.

The most immediate suggestion I permit myself to give you is to give more weight to the structure during the sketching phase.

F S CS

O - R CS

C - - S CS

B - - - R

Now, continuing the table and marking where the S or the R reappears, you will see where there is the greatest incidence of the elements of your fugue.

A couple of pointers: for the Bassoon: S at 17, R at 24 etc.

It is good that, in turns, all instruments have their moment of glory and play significant parts of the fugue... by pushing yourself to put S, R, and CS in other voices, the harmonic discourse will also be more varied.

Thinking about the complete structure right from the beginning is already a great area for improvement.

Honestly, your fugue does not justify the choice of treating the S tonally; it would have helped you a lot to use the correct answer.

I confirm that you are growing, if I think back to your first fugue.

I will try to understand and put your advice to good use.

Anyway, in polyphony, I have always thought that inevitably some voices are submerged by another as a normal consequence. Clearly, one can do more. Perhaps I chose subjects/countersubjects that were too intricate?

For Frank.

Don't forget to post the original, both the part and the mp3 file

AleGozzo wrote:

i noticed a tendency to harmonize with the II / I connection, even not in false pedal point (e.g., at measure 20). Can you tell me something about this choice?

It is one of the possibilities offered by the harmonic landscape of that Baroque period.

AleGozzo wrote:

and if you have time, explain to me also your scheme of the stretto sections, because from measure 50, where the 2nd stretto begins after a little diversion, I cannot understand it.

...scheme?

The Subject does not provide many prompts for the stretti and since mine is not a scholastic fugue, even though at the start I had made an effort to find all possible canons (there were nonetheless enough to make the usual stretto section), the stretti themselves did not allow for interesting harmonization and anyway a couple of stretti required too much modality which somewhat weakened the shamelessly tonal character of the first part. I even scrapped the strettoissimo; it's useless to keep it just to say... I found it.

Therefore, I maintained the proportions and at a certain point I played with fragments of the S, R, and CS... besides, that's how it happens in the repertoire; have you ever tried to look for a scheme of stretti in a Bach fugue?

Keep in mind that the scheme of the seventh is a convention; then (or if you are not interested) you can do whatever you like...

raffaeleb wrote:

For Frank.

Don't forget to post the original both part and mp3 file

There is no original, it is a didactic theme written in the baroque style for advanced students ... I had put it in pink to provide variety and then in the end everyone liked it.

I am working hard on the next round, so as to propose a Subject different from the previous ones and that perhaps opens up various possibilities for development.

Frank wrote:

Thank you Roberto for the prompt response. That your work is solid, well-conceived and well-conducted, I don't think there is a need to say it, but I think it feels good to hear it.

The question about tempo arises from the awareness of having used precisely two different approaches … you adapted the tempo to the project, I adapted the project to what I deemed, after some various second thoughts, to be the right tempo for that Subject.

In my opinion, your piece also has its own enjoyability and surely the richness of real instruments would complete your project. I like it when the second fugue arrives; I remember your previous fugue well and I also find some recurring situations … in short, one recognizes your hand

I am happy to have had the opportunity to get to know your approach to this somewhat "tricky" subject.

thanks, frank

i must confess that a little while ago I tried accelerating the metronome to 76 again and now I like it more this way

i would have also done well to lose a bit of time to better care for the dynamics and expression marks... maybe I'll try in these vacation days (too few for me! )

robertoaltieri wrote:

i must confess that a little while ago I tried accelerating the metronome to 76 again and now I like it better this way

i would have also done well to lose a little time to better care for the dynamics and expression marks... maybe I'll try that during these vacation days

A me la tua fuga è piaciuta molto, non sarebbe male poterla ascoltare anche con la nuova indicazione di metronomo

Organista94 wrote:

I liked your fugue very much, it wouldn't be bad to be able to listen to it also with the new metronome indication

thank you

then as soon as I have better arranged expression and dynamics, I will also insert the accelerated version

Organista94 wrote:

and let's hope more fugues arrive

Satisfied, there will be 2 others shortly: R. Strauss and an almost unpublished Cristiank83

Listening to the fugue in G major, I must consider it among the most "melodramatic" ones

Anyway, compliments truly. A beautiful harmony.