Fugue Workshop 2012

Frank wrote:

Since you always say it, either I am improving or you are usually lying. Jokes aside, thank you

I don't make comparisons, partly because the pieces written in laboratories are very different from each other.

I simply consider yours to be excellent pieces.

Here we go, R. Strauss

Compared to the only previous fugue I heard, I would say we are growing in this area, or at least it is more focused as a work.

Given that I listened to it many times because I wanted to identify areas for improvement, I don't know if I will be able to explain myself in words.

Starting from the fact that it is a nest of ideas, one could write 10 fugues with the material you have added. I would be more economical (... it is something you often fall into, and not just in the fugue).

I couldn't find the snag; do you know what your piece suffers from? Little strategy was used in utilizing the elements offered by the material. The substantial addition of other material amplifies the effect, but even if we analyze only the fragments presented, they are used homogeneously in the piece more like magma than as characterizing elements. This diminishes the rhetoric of the musical discourse and the evocative effect disappears. Once the exposition is over, it is as if a page has been turned, despite the recognizability of certain fragments on paper.

I don't know, I managed to explain what effectively doesn't add up to me; a continuous development works, but perhaps the discourse should also be kept alive with other devices to be re-verified in the different sections.

The CS (Subdominant) could have been improved slightly, and the management of the mixed Answer—sol yes or sol#—I had also hypothesized it, but then I found the doors opened harmonically by the sol# (and the respective la) to be more interesting. However, mine was just a choice based on what I had in mind.

Anyway, it definitely gives more variety than the simple re-presentation of the transposition of the subject's arpeggio.

The closing seems ineffective to me; I am talking about the penultimate long big chord. Perhaps evoking the trill would help remove the premature sense of a stop, as there is another chord of equal duration after it.

Would you describe the harmonic path of measures 6 and 7 for me?

Considering that this isn't your genre... I recognize the effort

I know AleGozzo and R.Strauss would kill me, but it would be nice to see a second processing of all participants in light of the comparison with the other works.

And we have never done it as a block... whoever wrote in multiple voices presents a new fugue for 2 and vice versa

I had missed this

cristiank83 wrote:

The initial 'la' in the left hand is stolen from two-voice inventions. I put it there because actually my countersubject enters with the third which, if I am not mistaken, is academically incorrect since the first note should be the octave and normally the fifth.

...but no, who tells you these things? The fifth nullifies double counterpoint.

For the octave ok, but if you shift the same movement by a quarter, you will see that it already changes. In my opinion, it is not very interesting to have tonic S and CS and then with simultaneous start and on a somewhat empty interval. Which invention are you referring to?

cristiank83 wrote:

I curiously noticed that in the exposition, the entries of all the elaborations are somewhat cyclic every 3 measures.

Could it be an option to do some diversions in between or to widen them to avoid having all the entries at the same distance? Would this improve the elaborations?

Absolutely yes, but it has nothing to do with improving the elaborations... because improvement will depend on how you make the connection.

I often do it, but adding more is not in my way of seeing the development, and here I didn't have this need because I didn't want to burn through the few characteristic elements of the S to reserve them for the diversions... and the recapitulation.

In my opinion, there is nothing that works or doesn't work in an absolute sense; you'll think about it during the next development.

I didn't dislike R. Strauss's, perhaps a bit heavy in some parts, but it's clear you are not a beginner.

Great idea to hear you all writing 2-voice fugues now

Me at 4 NO!!!!!!!!

Renewing the compliments to everyone, I haven't had much time lately but I have listened to all of them and it is nice to see variety in the compositions even with similar study paths

I also like the cross-pollinations. Great LAB!

Frank wrote:

Here we are, R. Strauss

Compared to the only previous fugue I heard, I would say we are growing in this area, or at least it is more focused as a work.

Given that I listened to it many times because I wanted to identify areas for improvement, I don't know if I will be able to explain myself in words.

Starting from the fact that it is a hotbed of ideas, one could write 10 fugues with the material you have added. I would be more economical (... it is something you often fall into, and not just in the fugue).

I couldn't find the snag; do you know what your piece suffers from? Little strategy was used in utilizing the elements offered by the material. The substantial addition of other material amplifies the effect, but even if we analyze only the fragments presented, they are used homogeneously in the piece more like magma than as characterizing elements. This diminishes the rhetoric of the musical discourse and the evocative effect disappears. Once the exposition is over, it is as if a page has been turned, despite the recognizability of certain fragments on paper.

I don't know, I managed to explain what effectively doesn't add up; a continuous development works, but perhaps the discourse needs to be kept alive also with other devices to be re-verified in the different sections.

The CS [Subject/Counter-subject] could have been improved slightly, and the management of the mixed Answer—yes G or G#—I had also hypothesized it, but then I found the doors opened to me harmonically by the G# (and the respective A) more interesting. However, mine was just a choice based on what I had in mind.

Anyway, it definitely gives more variety than simply re-presenting the transposition of the subject's arpeggio.

It's true ... I often fall into this abundance of ideas that I could use for other pieces ... but I assure you it is not easy ... it always feels to me like I am putting in too little.

In the piece for piano, I should have partially resolved it.

Frank wrote:

The closing seems ineffective to me; I'm talking about the penultimate long big chord. Perhaps evoking the trill would help remove the premature sense of a stop; after that, there is another chord of equal duration.

I had some doubts here about what to do ... repeating the trill seemed repetitive to me, and it also seemed equally repetitive to cite the head of the S or CS again.

I added this bar in D minor later ... in the end, I preferred to insert something definitive with the IV-I cadence.

Frank wrote:

Could you describe the harmonic progression of measures 6 and 7?

- beats 1 and 2: A minor IV° of E minor

- beats 3 and 4: E minor I°

- beats 1 and 2: B major V°

- beats 3 and 4: E minor I°

perhaps at 7 the leading tone D# is not immediately heard, but it arrives immediately.

Frank wrote:

Considering this isn't your genre ... I recognize the effort

Thank you, this comforts me especially in relation to the effort I put into writing it.

rstrauss wrote:

- beats 1 and 2: E minor IV°

- beats 3 and 4: E minor I°

- beats 1 and 2: B major V°

- beats 3 and 4: E minor I°

perhaps at 7 the leading tone re# is not immediately heard, but it arrives immediately.

Perhaps fa# is a fourth and indeed it seems that the B is a suspension, but not in a harmonic placement of the point (perhaps more modal).

Then short note tied to long note is strange, try a B in the soprano, because it seems like an imitation of a G in the alto

...but no, who tells you these things? The fifth voids double counterpoint.

You and I have some serious communication problems.

The fifth, not understood as an interval but as a scale degree.

All 2-voice inventions start following these rules (when one voice enters). The same applies to those with 3 voices, except for... the one in D minor that starts with the third note of the scale.

I have read your entire fugue in "baroque coherence."

I notice you don't much like the V - VI cadence.

I even found a suspension that resolves the dissonance by ascending (if I recall correctly, it was a delayed D# rising to E). Was the ascending suspension in use during the Baroque?

As soon as I can, I will read all the fugues and gradually perform a more in-depth analysis.

Ludovica wrote:

Perhaps F# is a fourth and it indeed seems that the B is a suspension, but not in a harmonic placement of the point (perhaps more modal).

Phenomenon of a short note tied to a long note is strange; try a B in the soprano, as it seems like an imitation of a G in the alto

it is not a harmonic suspension.

I saw it as an anticipation of the B, even if it is common to both chords.

In the last quatrain of the CS, a 6 could have been E eighth notes re-do sixteenths, but it would have been too similar to the S.

Since the subject is obbligato, it could only go from G to F# ... making it go to D# (keeping the B tied) the mutation would have been too evident and incorrect, and in any case, it would have created problems with the CS where there was already a D#.

cristiank83 wrote:

You and I have serious communication problems

The fifth, not understood as an interval but as a note of the scale.

Ok, if you are in A minor and the note A is in the melody, you are referring to E as the fifth of the scale.

E-A is a fourth ... A-E is a fifth. It doesn't work in double counterpoint

cristiank83 wrote:

All two-voice inventions start following these rules (when one voice enters). The same applies to those with 3 voices except for... the one in D minor that starts with the third note of the scale.

and are the voice entries simultaneous?

cristiank83 wrote:

I have even read your fugue in "Baroque Coherence" from beginning to end.

I notice you don't much like the V - VI cadence

Better than the usual V - I, no? The deceptive cadence was used.

cristiank83 wrote:

I even found a suspension that resolves the dissonance by ascending (if I remember correctly, it was a delayed D# rising to E). Was the ascending suspension in use during the Baroque?

Of course, look at Michelangelo Rossi... the context and the harmonic detail

rstrauss wrote:

it is not a harmonic delay.

I saw it as an anticipation of the B, even if it is common to both chords.

A 6 in the last quartet of the CS could have been E eighth re-do sixteenths, but it would have been too similar to the S.

Since the subject is obbligato, it had to go from G to F# ... by making it go to D# (keeping the B tied), the mutation would have been too evident and incorrect, and in any case, it would have created problems with the CS where there was already a D#.

mmhm, the fourth interval on the downbeat ..., it would be a second inversion of the V degree, which is a bit "off-limit"

Frank wrote:

Sure, look at Michelangelo Rossi... the context and harmonic detail

MR is also that of the third degree, I had looked at it when you gave the tip to Melita... I suggest everyone take a look, excellent musician.

Guys, you know you're turning me into a chat addict ....

CromaDiBrera wrote:

One cannot help but agree with those who invite one to study without shortcuts, however I would like to point out a small detail (hoping it doesn't seem like a "provocation"): those who composed fugues during the Baroque period did not have books on which to study the genre: they developed it through taste, the sensibility of the time, and progressive customs (arising from the canon), which were only later codified into rules (and there are manuals that have collected and studied them). In practice, in my opinion, taking studies for granted, it is indispensable to listen to a lot of 17th-century music and truly make its "breath" your own; a fugue is not made only of rules and mechanisms.

Thank you

To answer somewhat indirectly.

I would like to say something that a forum member said some time ago (I think Frank).

Even if the form we have used is the same, between the fugues there are stylistic distances unique to each of us.

Why transgress the rules then, when they are not actually that restrictive?

Frank wrote:

mmhm, the fourth interval on the beat ..., it would be a second resolving from the V degree, which is a bit "off-limit"

The answer proposes F# so at this point I should have changed the CS (key signature).

Frank wrote:

I know AleGozzo and R.Strauss would kill me, but it would be nice to see a second processing from all participants in light of the comparison with the other works.

And we have never done it as a block... whoever wrote for multiple voices presents a new fugue for 2 voices and vice versa

In my opinion, you have a strong sadistic streak that permeates your person ...

i might even try to write a 2-voice fugue ... but can you imagine?

I already find it hard enough to fit everything into 4 voices, I dare not think about doing it with 2 ... after the first response I would already be in crisis due to the lack of free parts to fill :D :D

if I finish the piece for fortepiano soon...

Ok, if you are in A minor and the note A is in the melody, you are referring to E as the fifth of the scale. A-E is a fourth... A-E is a fifth. It doesn't work in double counterpoint

And laugh again.. you are still thinking about the interval...

Example Key: A minor. One voice starts with the note A and proceeds with the countersubject. The other, upon entry, has the option to repeat the subject exactly as it is in A (like 2-voice inventions) or to Answer to the dominant.

In the case where both voices begin respectively one with the subject and the other with the countersubject (possibly not both on downbeats), the countersubject itself must begin with the NOTE A or with the NOTE E. Cases of attack with a third NOTE, which would specifically be a C, are rare. For the more curious, take a look at the 3-voice invention in D major where J.S. transgresses.

Don't worry Frank, because I know that a C double sharp against an E flat doesn't work in double counterpoint!!! haha

So in the next fugue, the subject will be in C double sharp Major hahah