Fugue Workshop 2013

Aside from complimenting the excellent work done by the 2 forum members, I find that the Subject is traceable at measure 59, first bassoon entry.

On one hand the rhythmic diminution to 6/8 with a flourish of repeated notes, on the other hand the contrary motion. Dindica Faria has the contrary motion version of this element ... which is therefore more similar to the original.

I need to see it better, I certainly didn't see it well, thanks for the clarification.

I must say that I liked both RStrauss's fugue and Bianca's improvisation. Among other things, I find Bianca's to be very unique but it maintains its pleasantness.

I am asking Bianca if it is possible to release the score... I struggle to do an analysis by ear.

Thank you and compliments, upon first listen I find it pleasant.

RSrauss's also seems pleasant to me, perhaps a bit static at the beginning and indeed I could hear from ALe/Frank that Bach and Corelli might have been better to start with CS first. Bianca, in my opinion, did well if she used a brisk tempo.

Question for RStrauss, I was analyzing the CS, but am I mistaken or are there some fourths and sixths? Given the stylistic context, perhaps they should have been avoided... no?

I find Bianca's [performance/piece] quite likable, especially for the very fast part shortly after the beginning; afterwards it becomes "sick" (usually I mean pieces that go where you don't expect them),

it would require a real performance with a certain agogics to highlight the various strategic passages; taking care of this aspect would also improve the perception of details, whereas

totally it seems both regular and confusing, but I am used to these things

Organista94 wrote:

Question for RStrauss, I was analyzing the CS, but am I mistaken or are there some fourths and sixths? Given the stylistic context, perhaps they should have been avoided... no?

yes there are ... it's just that finding a countersubject that worked was already hard, especially because of that octave leap in the subject which creates several problems ... if I had to take into account

the stylistic context ... bye !!!!!

For Zaccaria.

You are perfectly right, it would have been better to let the CS enter sooner, but due to the well-known problems I preferred not to complicate my life.

rstrauss wrote:

... if I had to take the stylistic context into account ... bye !!!!!

Sorry RStrauss... it seemed to me that it sounded Baroque

Organista94 wrote:

Scusa RStrauss...mi sembrava suonasse Barocca

given the origin of the theme, it is obvious that it sounds Baroque ... it's just that since the fugue is not my favorite form (my composition teacher must be laughing

belly laugh from beyond) I encountered great difficulties in writing it and I consciously neglected the stylistic aspect ... maybe in two or three fugues I will think about it, the divertimenti

will be more articulated, the CS will arrive sooner, the modulations will be less abrupt etc. ...

this theme, on a level of personal taste, I don't like very much, but after having written a few for our workshops, I have learned to work even on themes that

I do not like and that put me in difficulty ... and this is decidedly positive and fully hits the purpose of the workshops as they were conceived.

At least in terms of playability and listening it works and is already a positive result.

rstrauss wrote:

At least in terms of playability and listening, it works, and that is already a positive result.

True, I wouldn't be so hard on myself... in the end it flows, something done professionally. Now, I wouldn't know about it for an exam... but it is very easy to listen to until the end

Oracolo wrote:

True, I wouldn't beat myself up that much... in the end it flows, a professional thing. Now, I wouldn't know about for an exam... but it is very pleasant to listen to until the end

Don't worry ... I won't beat myself up ... on the contrary, it's a challenge to write another one during the next lab.

For an exam it wouldn't pass ... as organista94 rightly noted, there are some things out of style, if we look at the theme.

But here we are not under examination and therefore we must take some liberties.

Pleasant piece Bianca, a bit crazy though... score?

Thank you all. I know, the score is missing; I will do my best to make it presentable as soon as possible. In the meantime, I can provide some indications in words.

First of all, as noted, it's a bit "crazy," partly because it is more of an improvisation. Frank left plenty of freedom, and perhaps I took a little too much. There are three voices (there should be three, but at least one is a bit "drunk"). The first answer to the subject arrives without a countersubject, while the second answer is actually anticipated. The free part is also in three voices and is taken up in retrograde before the coda. I believe the recapitulation is the least "decipherable" and perhaps it is what Piccinesco calls "sick." In effect, it is nothing more than the three lines repeating themselves in real time, but overlapping—meaning they are anticipated by just over a bar (the score would actually help here)—which practically makes the subject disappear. As for the tempo presto, as Zaccaria noted, I did it a bit also to try and make the subject sound a little less baroque, as RStrauss said, somewhat to get it onto the forum sooner

Bianca's writing is modern. I like it very much, compliments. In effect, the fugue form is not very clear; it seems very free, indeed. Indeed, the premise of "Improvisation" is appropriate.

Compliments Strauss. Fugue without a doubt. The stretto is also beautiful (in its brevity). Sophisticated, non-obvious harmonies.

Thank goodness you at least chose "Tradition", because Franck's ones had led me astray... Too complex and far from me. (Art is not water). I also stuck to tradition but I still have to finish

Comment on RStrauss's fugue.

I confess a certain embarrassment in making this comment because I have found quite a few things that do not work, and I only allow myself to comment because I hope they will be helpful to our friend RStrauss and I know he can appreciate it (I hope he is masochistic enough).

Observation of the exposition:

Absence of a CS [Closing Section/Cadential Structure]

Answer to the augmented fourth

Use of the I46

Virtually baroque syntax

I made this premise because the first problem I see in this fugue is the impossibility of giving it a connotation; such outdated syntax would not justify the use of the first inversion and an answer with the first note on the augmented fourth; the absence of a true CS is not a problem. So far, the premises are those of a piece that can have a good follow-up despite the presence of a high percentage of triads in the exposition itself.

Some little things that immediately catch the ear in this part:

Measure 9, critical. You link the F# between 9 and 10; a repetition [ribattuto] is quite out of place in my opinion; even a pause on the first F# of 10 would have been better; you could have used a G and made a deceptive cadence; it would have been beautiful to delay the first D of the contralto by putting an E as a tied eighth note to the last E of the previous measure.

The entry at 10 of the bass, in my opinion, should have been given to the pedal for the simple fact that the pedal enters at 14 and plays an insignificant part when it could have started with the Subject after 10 measures of silence; in particular, the pedal seems like a continuation of the left hand at 14... you might as well give dignity to the pedal and resolve on the perfect octave.

In general, I find it disorganized in its writing, in the sense that if the fugue starts with the contralto (or violin II, whatever it may be), it's better to go all out [legs down] and also graphically make it clear that at 14 the soprano enters (or violin I, whatever it may be).

And speaking of which, in some points it is simply not understood what is happening (see measure 52).

Returning to the connotation, I said to myself, how cool, an answer that begins on the augmented fourth... what purpose then if one does not make bold modulations? As I was saying to AleGozzo in the last Fugue Workshop, good ideas must be sustained... one waits for the surprise and nothing arrives; you might as well have made a plagal answer given the closing, where you interrupt the tonic pedal.

Precisely because of this, since nothing happens and it remains in a baroque context, the choices of the exposition become questionable.

I'll skip ahead to talk about other somewhat obvious things:

At measure 31, the motion of the bass is not very happy... by keeping the same harmonies, miracles could have been performed.

Two words on the final section, hypothetically stretto:

Zone 64: that second one in the bass and the other voices in the treble do not satisfy much, even if on the upbeat. Abandon the tenor and put a pause, and then on the upbeat at the end, a nice F# as an eighth note... or you decide...

At measure 69/70: why make the pedal that has the subject work so hard?... the pedal really

Regarding the Bianca escape, I can only say for now that the source material is always recognizable and more often than not replayed; I listened to 3 others on the tracks and I find myself agreeing with what their stylistic goals might be. Recognizability is always important in my opinion... obviously, for something more precise, I am waiting for a score.

I am glad that you jumped into the initiative right away

Frank wrote:

Commentary on RStrauss's fugue.

I confess a certain embarrassment in making this comment because I have encountered several things that do not work, and I only allow myself to comment because I hope they will be helpful to our friend RStrauss and I know he can appreciate it (I hope he is masochistic enough).

Observation of the exposition:

Absence of a CS [Codetta/Closing Section]

Answer to the augmented fourth

Use of the I46

Virtually baroque syntax

I made this premise because the first problem I see in this fugue is the impossibility of giving it a connotation; such an outdated syntax would not justify the use of the first inversion and an answer with the first note on the augmented fourth; the absence of a true CS is not a problem. So far, these are the premises of a piece that can have a good follow-up despite the presence of a high percentage of triads in the exposition itself.

say we could say that the CS would be the one starting at bar 5, even if it is not quite orthodox.

Frank wrote:

Some little things that immediately jump out to the ear in this part:

Bar 9, critical. You link the F# between 9 and 10; a repetition is quite out of place in my opinion; even a pause on the first F# of 10 would have been better; you could have used a G and made a deceptive cadence; it would have been beautiful to delay the first D of the contralto by putting an E as an eighth note tied to the last E of the previous bar.

The entry of the bass at 10, in my opinion, should have been given to the pedals for the simple fact that the pedal enters at 14 and plays an insignificant part when it could have started with the Subject after 10 bars of silence; in particular, the pedal seems like a continuation of the left hand at 14... it would have been worth giving dignity to the pedal and resolving on the perfect octave.

correct observations.

Frank wrote:

In general, I find it disorganized in its writing, in the sense that if the fugue starts with the contralto (or violin II, whatever it may be), it's better to have legs down [inverted notation/layout] and also graphically make it clear that the soprano enters at 14 (or violin I, whatever it may be).

In fact, I had done so, only then I found myself with the C in layer1 (final) which puts the legs up.

Frank wrote:

And regarding this, in some points it is really not understood what is happening (see bar 52)

Explanation: I had to return to the home key, and I didn't want to linger, so I used an ascending motion of the parts. It didn't turn out well.

Frank wrote:

Turning back to the connotation, I said to myself, how cool, an answer that starts on the augmented fourth... what purpose would it serve then not to make bold modulations? As I was saying to AleGozzo in the last Fugue Workshop, good ideas must be sustained... one waits for the surprise and nothing arrives; it would have been better to make a plagal answer given the closing, where you interrupt the tonic pedal.

Precisely because of this, since nothing happens and it remains in a baroque context, the choices of the exposition become questionable.

The strangest thing is that the first version was exactly as you are hoping for now. Then I changed it because it seemed a bit too modern to me and indeed, as always happens, the first one was the right one.

Frank wrote:

I'll skip ahead a bit to talk about other somewhat obvious things:
At bar 31 the motion of the bass is not very happy... keeping the same harmonies, miracles could have been done.

Two words on the final section, hypothetically of strettos
zone 64: that second one in the bass and the other voices in the treble satisfy [the ear] little, even if on the upbeat. Abandon the tenor and put a pause, and then on the upbeat at the end, a nice F# as an eighth note... or you decide...

considering that we are on the organ, perhaps adding a 16' register would have sounded better, and for the tenor, an upbeat with F#-B would have worked better.

I liked the E-F bass-tenor as a sonority.

Frank wrote:

A bar 69/70: why make the pedals work so hard when they have the subject?... the pedal really "muddies" the left hand. It's the last time the head of the subject is heard with flourish... let it be heard well. Pauses at the left mono or something else

consider that the pedal is an octave below.

Frank wrote:

...the final E# on the E of the pedal in the penultimate bar? It must be a typo, otherwise before the death of the fugue, you give it life again... it would have been better to make a bipartite coda, perhaps in the penultimate bar by adding an additional harmony to the last quarter of the bar.

Here too, in the first version, the coda was much longer with chords descending chromatically, but then I removed the material that I considered too modern.

Frank wrote:

These are precisely the macro things RStrauss... by improving these, other more fine-tuned requirements will arise; in the end, this fugue surprises me a bit, they are all trifles but they could have conferred more credibility to a work that is not bad.... it feels bad to write it, but I find too many ingenuities and"}

given the previous work, it sounds a bit strange to me.

Until next time

Thank you Frank for your observations, which as always, I find appropriate.

You knew that the work was not great, especially because the version released here is the third and, in hindsight, the first one was better.

Reworking on top of this fugue ... well ... I don't think I will do it; I will take the observations into account for the next one.

Hello guys, good to see you again, I am also trying to challenge myself with this fugue, I hope I'm still in time. This subject is quite difficult, I am sticking to the academic scheme of the fugue. Yesterday I wrote the exposition, in the coming days I will tackle the episodes. Stylistically I have remained tied to a Baroque context, the subject doesn't inspire much fantasy in me and then I felt like doing something "composed", "measured", "rigorous", not too daring....Anyway, I don't promise anything extraordinary, I hope to manage to write something correct in a short time, given the not-so-happy period I have gone through in recent months....

I downloaded the versions from other users but I haven't listened to them so as not to be influenced...