Fugue Workshop 2012

Oracolo wrote:

Thank you

Perhaps for you, Oracle, these things are obvious; but I wrote it because I think they are not for everyone; besides, I would not see the point in being able to learn so much from the brilliant examples of those who consider others' considerations to be obvious.

A question for Altieri

Why does the subject in the second entry have a variation in the third note, which instead of being (Example in A minor: la do mi results in la do re) is it a way to vary?

CromaDiBrera wrote:

Perhaps for you, Oracle, these things are obvious; but I wrote it because I think they are not for everyone; besides, I would not see the point in being able to learn so much from the brilliant examples of those who deem others' considerations obvious.

Sorry, if I had told you to go to hell, what would you have written to me?

Do you know the meaning of the word thanks? I thanked you for your post, what did you want me to do... the can-can dance?

cristiank83 wrote:

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 that 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 the 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.

I think I've understood the catch: in your fugue, S and CS do not start offset as they do in 2-voice inventions; therefore, if you transform your first note into E (starting with A), then the CS loses its characteristic of "invertibility."

I didn't understand what the example of double sharp C, etc., and double counterpoint has to do with it.

raffaeleb wrote:

A question for Altieri

Why does the subject in the second entry have a variation in the third note which, instead of being (Example in A: A C E results in A C D) being a way to vary?

Great question!

It is certainly not an arbitrary choice.

Traditionally, subjects that move immediately from the I to the V degree* undergo a double mutation in the answer: see, for example, fugues no. 8, 17, and 22 from volume I of Bach's CBT and no. 7 from volume II. A I-V subject is answered with V-I in the answer, so that the first two intervals are modified.

Let's look at the fugue in D# minor from vol. I (transcribed in Eb in some editions): subject D# A# B#, etc., answer A# D# F#, etc.; thus the ascending 5th and ascending 2nd of the subject become the 4th and 3rd in the answer—in short, we have what I previously defined as "double mutation."

The reason that gave rise to this custom dates back to Renaissance polyphony, in which imitation between voices did not involve a change of key from tonic to dominant (as is commonly said in scholastic fugue), but only the passage of the melody from the authentic mode to the plagal or from the plagal to the authentic, remaining obligatorily in the same mode (by mode here one means protus or Dorian, deuterus or Phrygian, tritus or Lydian, tetrardus or Mixolydian, etc.). The I-V bipolarity clearly implied the underlying mode of the piece; therefore, a motive starting with D-A (authentic protus) was not answered with A-E (Aeolian?), but with A-D (plagal protus).

This same bipolarity passed into the Baroque fugue, so that the answer, while "modulating" to the key of the dominant, does not decisively shift the tonal center toward a new tonic, but keeps the two main poles of the underlying key firmly in place, so that the "key of the dominant" touched in the answer is perceived as a momentary tonicization and not as a true modulation. I hope I have been clear enough.

Now, in the subject of the fugue workshop, in reality, the I does not move immediately to the V, but passes through the III... and here doubts arise: can the III degree be considered a simple embellishment of the I, or can it be harmonized separately?

Fugues with these characteristics are not found in the CBT; there are only some subjects in which the initial tonic is embellished by a passing note before moving to the V degree: no. 2 from vol. I, no. 1 from vol. II. Bach, in both cases, respects the criterion of double mutation in the answer.

It should also be noted what happens in fugue no. 3 of vol. II (a fugue *sui generis*, which begins with a real stretto!): the I degree goes to the III, then returns to the I and thus rises to the V; here too Bach adopts the double mutation, considering the III degree as an embellishment of the I.

But the closest Bachian example to the incipit of our workshop subject, the first that came to mind, is that of the *Musical Offering*: subject (in C minor) C-Eb-G etc., answer G-Bb-C.

And it is especially thinking of that illustrious example that my answer to the lab subject was, without thinking more than 10 seconds, E-G-A.

*Note for Cristian

If you want to avoid being misunderstood, do not use feminine numeral pronouns (THE FIFTH, THE EIGHTH, THE THIRD) when referring to the degrees of the scale, but masculine ones (THE FIFTH [degree], THE EIGHTH [degree], THE THIRD [degree]). Instead, use the feminine when referring to intervals. You will see that no more misunderstandings will arise.

I understand.

So it is a matter of respecting the rule obtained from Bach studies...

Anyway, in my opinion, the contrast is felt more if you modulate to the V

I noticed that both frank and oracolo did the same "Pratica" that you did.

Anyway, listening to it every day, I am starting to understand other things.

In the meantime, I must say that I enjoyed your chromatic fugue with the instrumentation of o, x, cl, fag: more, much clearer compared to the sounds of the strings.

Anyway, my favorite for now is the one with a gozzo (small boat).

rstrauss wrote:

let's move on.

Regarding Roberto Altieri's fugue, I must say I liked it very much.

Formally solid, CS sufficiently different from the S ... but what I like most are the divertimenti and free sections, which are written with a great awareness of the fugue.

Only doubt is the ending: perhaps because I like it, I would have held the pedal longer ... but this is an evaluation of a purely personal nature.

The initial tempo seems slow, but it is amply compensated for by the second part.

Compliments Roberto.

I had missed this intervention.

Thank you very much for the compliments.

And I fully share the criticism regarding the need to extend the final tonic pedal. After 3 bars of response gravitating around the dominant key, the return to the tonic would have needed a greater peroration than those 3 miserable concluding bars with a simple cadence and a plagal one. Imagine that originally I had written only the simple cadence; I added that IV-I on the tonic pedal later precisely because the ending seemed too abrupt to me.

I did not want to overdo it by adding more bars, because I felt that the fugue was already very long, but, judging by your observation, I would have been better off following my instinct without worrying about the length!

I listened to Alessandro Gozzo's 2 voices, in some parts there are fourths on the beat... just noting because the first part is more baroque-style.

Then the situation "degenerates", let's just say it seems less coherent to me than the first one...

you are right, the only slightly polished part (sic!) is the exposition.

side the 4th/5th [measures], I have highlighted them and attached them, so we can hear some other opinions since I am also in doubt.

those of the first 8 measures I think are justifiable as "transitus irregularis" (passing note on a strong beat), moreover on the second beat and therefore not fortissimo.

the one in bar 11 (and 16) I wouldn't quite know how to consider it: the D is a delay of the 3rd which however rises because it is substituted in the bass. probably an incorrect procedure ...

the one in bar 12 is truly brutal, but it is a sort of progression, so a bit stretched but perhaps it works

Oracolo wrote:

I think I've understood the snag: in your fugue, S and CS do not start offset as they do in 2-voice inventions; therefore, if you transform your first note into mi (starting with la), then the CS loses its characteristic of "invertibility."

I didn't understand what the example of double sharp C, etc., and double counterpoint has to do with it.

It was a mockery of Frank that confirmed an obviousity I already knew regarding double counterpoint at the octave (a fifth interval once inverted becomes a dissonant fourth interval). Don't worry, everything is fine; they were just misunderstandings.

X Ale:

This time you went too far even for me.

Beyond the fourths on the beat which, well... if you can fall on a consonant interval, you manage to avoid the harshness... you went completely off-topic, almost as if the central part of your fugue had little if anything to do with the subject.

I think that for your originality, it is much more convenient to write in more than 2 voices given the complex harmonic idea.

The two voices are very binding and limiting from this point of view, unless one starts arpeggiating entire chords.

Anyway, I would suggest you do something of your own in two voices in your characteristic style, but also writing the subject with your own taste.

I liked the "div." part very much. I would use it as inspiration.

You could write a piece for two voices, although I would avoid the harpsichord..... it felt very "Bach Gone Crazy"... If he had turned to alcohol and taken some hits to the head, Frank would probably write like this today.

In my opinion, you always remain very original. Exploit this in your pieces!

Comment on Roberto Altieri's fugue revision.

Dico solo che c'è chi un tempo ci ha riempito le tasche sul discorso del tempo giusto e a parte alcuni accorgimenti messi in campo, così come proposta trovo la tua fuga rinnovata

I quote frank

I like Altieri's fugue more at this speed.

I must say it seems like
an 'other thing'.

...despite last year I approached the genre and, together with some of you, dissected a fugue, if I am not mistaken by Altieri... I always feel distant. However, I listened to your pieces with great pleasure, all of them truly.

I still remain a bit surprised because I see in your work something truly difficult... perhaps not for everyone.

For marcello

To you, what is "for everyone" and "not for everyone"

Do you mean difficult to listen to or difficult to compose?

raffaeleb wrote:

For marcello

To you, what is "for everyone" and "not for everyone"

Do you mean difficult to listen to or difficult to construct?

Difficult as a job, therefore the composer's work.

AleGozzo wrote:

you are right, the only slightly well-cared-for (sic!) part is the exposition.

...in fact it seemed a bit too "free" to me

I re-listened to Roberto Altieri's fugue, it surprised me to hear so much difference for just a few metronome clicks ... I think my teacher is right when he says that when playing organ pieces, I always take them a little bit too slow

Frank wrote:

Comment on Roberto Altieri's fugue revision.

Dico solo che c'è chi un tempo ci ha riempito le tasche sul discorso del tempo giusto e a parte alcuni accorgimenti messi in campo, così come proposta trovo la tua fuga rinnovata

you're kidding, you're kidding!

a te non capita mai di cambiare idea?

robertoaltieri wrote:

mocking, mocking! does it never happen to you to change your mind?

...but what mocking, you know that I like reading 'La fuga' on paper, only on second thought I went to read 'Il tempo'... prompted by the mp3

Of course it happens to change one's mind, I told you that even I had a couple of strong indecisions regarding this Subject... let's hope for the next one.

In fact, I am already thinking about the one for 2013. That way if someone had time between summer and the Christmas holidays... they can participate without the obsession of the deadline.