Fugue Workshop 2013

Deep down, Bianca's fire attracts me, but I must say that indeed sometimes it is "degenerative"...

I like it too, if I hadn't found anything there I wouldn't have even replied...

I thank you. I would like to ask Geppino, if possible, to contextualize his suggestion, a bit like Frank and AbateFaria did for example, otherwise I wouldn't know how to make good use of it. Instead, I would like to ask Aspirante what he means by "degenerative", because I also consider it such in a certain sense. Thank you again.

Hello everyone and especially to Geppino, to whom I hadn't yet said welcome back

I must say that this round of fugues didn't blow me away, not in the sense that they aren't valid, but that in past fugue workshops I have found more "brilliance". It is probably just that the organ / fugue pairing is not ideal for my ears .....

It has been an intense period, so I only gave a superficial glance to the scores,

Strauss seemed more balanced than usual and I would only note that bars 21-25 have an unusual rhythmic density compared to the rest (which then disappears immediately, becoming a somewhat foreign element).

Geppino is unassailable as always, but I prefer him when he ventures into bolder sonorities.

Bianca, what can I say, I agree with Geppino, many ideas that are also good but result in a messy and incoherent outcome (as much as I find listening to a fugue like this more fun than a "canonical" one for organ). Also the fact that it is unclear whether it wants to be tonal, atonal, or both, creates a sense of confusion, a jumping back and forth depending on the intuitive spark of the moment. Instead, for the composer, intuition is important, but then one must also know how to work to give that intuition a more complete sense, often forced to cut new ideas that emerge but might disturb the previous one. In short, the eraser is as important as the pencil

bye

sorry raffaele but are you sure that the mp3 is okay?

AleGozzo wrote:

scusa raffaele ma sei sicuro che l'mp3 è a posto ?

It sounds a bit strange to me at the beginning too. Anyway, it's cute, even ironic at times in my opinion

Sorry, but I changed the way I convert the midi file :D

In my haste, I hadn't listened to it, what a laugh... Anyway, it sounded like a track by Gentle Giant

Raffaele, I must say it didn't particularly impress me... given your fugue 7 from the first LAB, you can certainly do better. In my opinion, you could have played the divertimenti better. Some are cute, but others are a bit too repetitive.

AleGozzo wrote:

In short, the eraser is as important as the pencil

Thank you for the comment. Could you indicate which points you would cut?

Bianca wrote:

[/size]

Thank you for the comment. Could you indicate which parts you would cut?

Rather than cutting specific elements, I would say that there is a lack of direction, and therefore it is difficult to say exactly what to cut (or rather, which element should be the pivot of the fugue) because one would first have to choose a direction and then, based on that, reconsider the variety of materials.

perhaps I can specify more clearly what I think creates confusion:

a tonal beginning, even if the chosen intervals are not those of "correct" counterpoint (you practically used unisons and fourths...)

the little group of 16ths should be an alien element that deconstructs? but even shortly before, the fugue has taken bizarre harmonic paths (see bass bars 8-10); furthermore, you repeat this figure once shortly after and then nothing until 24, and then it suddenly becomes a runaway train. In the meantime, the harmony has long since become a free element without a goal.

at bar 36, in my opinion, your fugue is already finished, in the sense that you then keep repeating the same pattern, while also inserting new elements like triplets and staccato.

So let's say that in 36 bars you started from tonal, moved to moderate atonality and to rather harsh atonality; you moved from a fairly contrapuntal writing (1-14) to one almost like a chorale (15-24) to one made of figures (28-36);

you moved from a subject with fairly wide values to a frantic run of 16ths.

In conclusion, the sensation I had was of a continuous piling up of very different solutions, without a common logic.

I hope I have explained myself a bit better, and anyway, the kaleidoscopic aspect is always fun and fascinating, but one must also know how to restrain oneself a little

AleGozzo wrote:

Rather than cutting specific elements, I would say there is a lack of direction, and therefore saying exactly what to cut (or rather, which element should be the pivot of the fugue) is difficult because one would first have to choose a direction and then, based on that, reconsider the variety of materials.

perhaps I can specify more clearly what I think creates confusion:

a tonal beginning, even if the chosen intervals are not those of "correct" counterpoint (you practically used unisons and fourths...)

the little group of 16ths should be an alien element that deconstructs it? but just before that, the fugue has already taken bizarre harmonic paths (see bass bars 8-10); furthermore, you repeat this figure once shortly after and then nothing until bar 24, and then it suddenly becomes a runaway train. In the meantime, the harmony has long since become a free element without a goal.

at bar 36, in my opinion, your fugue is already finished, in the sense that you then keep repeating the same pattern, while also inserting new elements like triplets and staccato.

So let's say that in 36 bars you started from tonal, moved to moderate atonality and to rather harsh atonality; you moved from a fairly contrapuntal writing (1-14) to one almost like a chorale (15-24) to one made of figures (28-36);

you moved from a subject with fairly wide values to a frantic run of 16ths.

In conclusion, the sensation I had was one of a continuous piling up of very different solutions, without a common logic.

I hope I have explained myself a bit better, and anyway, the kaleidoscopic aspect is always fun and fascinating, but one must also know how to restrain oneself a little.

I understand the general sense of what you are saying. Initially, I didn't understand the specific references, but then I realized that you are referring to the first of the two, the one without a countersubject. However, even the second one has the same characteristics; in fact, I would have wanted them to be identical.

As stated, they are not fugues in the "canonical" sense, definitely not.

Regardless of whether the two are successful or not, however, I just want to say that in general I don't believe that music must necessarily be "canonical." I am convinced that music has and must have rules, even strict ones if you like, but that they shouldn't be those, or only those, if you prefer, of harmony and counterpoint manuals. Every piece is a game, i.e., a complete theory in itself, with its own rules: discovering them is the interest of the performer, creating them is the challenge of the builder.

With this, I don't mean at all that I have succeeded in putting it into practice in these two pieces, but it is the purpose that guides me every time. These considerations, however, are outside the current topic, but I just want to add that for me, music that is made and listened to (only) based on the rules of others is a game that risks becoming extremely boring...

I am also not satisfied, as I had previously stated, but I had little time and anyway, compared to the 7 bis, I wanted to write for guitar and clearly it doesn't turn out the same.

Thanks anyway for the comment, Abate

Bianca wrote:

... but I only want to add that for me, music that is made and listened to (alone) based solely on the rules of others, is a game that risks becoming extremely boring...

... which would be perfectly fair if we had done a free composition workshop.

It is clear that if we are within the scope of the fugue, the rules (of others), at least the basic ones, must be respected.

I agree with AleGozzo when he says that one must know how to limit oneself: the sections of a piece must be one consequence of the other, no matter in what order, and when there is too much

stuff with sections that are very different from each other, I don't know anything about it (true, Frank?), it doesn't work.

Everything good already said by the others remains valid regardless.

rstrauss wrote:

... which would be perfectly fair if we had done a free composition workshop.

In my opinion, however, composition remains free within the scope of the subject of fugue (at least this much)... in Bianca's piece, I see strong limits related to coherence and credibility. Therefore, regarding Bianca, I don't think it's a matter of whether or not one uses other people's rules... but there should be coherence within one's own rules.

Listening to Bianca's piece, I hear a lot of note syntax (which means other people's rules)... I don't know with how much awareness they are juxtaposed, which is why in my opinion one can speak of limits. There is no escaping AleGozzo's considerations if the scope is that of the piece I heard (I haven't read critiques regarding the canonicity or lack thereof of the elaboration; what reached me was something else entirely from Gozzo's message). Anyway, if the goal was not to bore, I don't know how much that was achieved, obviously speaking for myself; one thing is certain, it won't be syntax that determines it, but the composer's ability to make the musical discourse interesting, engaging, (sensual)... regardless of the language.

I'm just chipping in for a moment since, regarding the subject of fugues, I am not at all capable of expressing opinions that go beyond "the aesthetic," apart from their pedagogical usefulness or lack thereof, on which I won't comment since I haven't reached the fugue yet (I can barely compose an 8-bar period on a given theme, so imagine a whole fugue....). I find "canonical" fugues and counterpoint in general, even Renaissance counterpoint, very beautiful to hear, and from the little that I know, there are limitations on which chords can be used counterpointally, but they are much more flexible regarding so-called "harmonic errors."

Tutto questo per dire che trovo una fuga "canonica" tutt'altro che noiosa sorpassato o limitata alla sola didattica dato che oggigiorno non vengo praticamente più composte (vabbè è qualche secolo ma fa niente sono dettagli ahahah).

antares86 wrote:

these days I am practically no longer composed (well, it's been a few centuries but it doesn't matter, those are details ahahah).

For counterpoint, you can find some ideas here

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/2469-il-contrappunto-oggi

PS

Curiosity, do you know Dave Brubeck?

Frank wrote:

For counterpoint, you can find some ideas here

http://www.pianoconc...ntrappunto-oggi

PS

Curiosity, do you know Dave Brubeck?

never heard of him

ps. i was referring more to the "canonical" fugue now rather than counterpoint in general

Canonical techniques are numerous; the most recent fugue is by Danilo Lorenzini: "Fuga enigmatica"... from last year. Dave Brubeck, if I'm not mistaken, is a jazz musician who also wrote a fugue or closed one of his pieces with a fugue

I am reporting a significant post by Frank

Frank wrote:

In addition to the crab canon that is the subject of this topic, there are:

Spiral canon

Fan canon

Accompanied canon

Ninth canon

Fourth canon

Fifth canon

Second canon

Sixth canon

Seventh canon

Third canon

Mirror canon

Octave canon

Unison canon

Direct canon

Enigmatic canon

Finite canon

Infinite or perpetual canon

Canon by augmentation

Canon by diminution

Canon by contrary motion

Rhythmic canon

Canon without accompaniment

Many are treated in the text by Sarah Colombo

http://www.sarahcolo...bblicazioni.php

You can also find a lot of examples in the book "Canons through the centuries" published by Carrara and edited by Giorgio Ubaldi

http://www.edizionic...o-i-secoli-5166

ah guys, you're really just stuffy old men dedicated only to classical ..... Dave Brubeck ..... Take Five !!!!

Open content (youtube)