Fugue Workshop 2013

AleGozzo wrote:

ah ragazzi, ma siete proprio dei parrucconi dediti solo alla classica ..... Dave Brubeck ..... Take Five !!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmDDOFXSgAs

mmmmm parruccone però mi devi concedere il frac o lo smoking

Open content (youtube)

Frank wrote:

Listening to Bianca's piece, I feel a lot of syntax notes (which are rules of others)... I don't know with how much awareness you place them together

With "algorithmic" awareness, Frank

Mine was a general consideration, not referring to my two pieces, which I am sorry bored you. But my purpose was not to avoid boring you, but to avoid boring myself while writing them

Also, I didn't want to start any controversy with Ale; on the contrary, I thank him for the clarifications. Then, as he himself says

... the kaleidoscopic aspect is always fun and fascinating, but one must also know how to restrain oneself a bit ...

which perhaps doesn't have much to do with boredom....

Like This

Quote

Multi-quote

Bianca, I assure you that in the world there is much more boring art music than your track

AleGozzo wrote:

hey guys, are you really just stuffy traditionalists dedicated only to classical music

In effect, the risk of ministerial programs is that they make people believe that the fugue is only that of Bach

Frank wrote:

In effect, the risk of ministerial programs is that of making people believe that the fugue is only that of Bach

let's not forget your "namesake" and Schumann at least

Bianca wrote:

but not to bore myself while writing them

In my opinion, this is an important point; one must feel pleasure while writing... otherwise, what's the point?

antares86 wrote:

don't forget your "namesake"

My bad luck is that he doesn't just have one extra "c" in his name (or rather, surname)

... anyway, escapes are always being written about and have always been written about.

Frank wrote:

... anyway, fugues have always been written and are constantly being written.

In effect, thinking about it carefully, the fugues from this workshop... are fugues... and let's face it, yours and Ale's are repertoire material!

AbateFaria wrote:

In my opinion, this is an important point; while writing, one must experience pleasure... otherwise, what's the point.

Look, I am the first to agree. However, music perhaps has a further aspect ... : ...the listener. Which is probably what often happens that many forget (I'm not talking about Bianca obviously... those who have ears to understand... understand) and it ends up that one writes music only for the one they see in the mirror...

antares86 wrote:

don't forget your "namesake" and Schumann at least

A nice listen to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGBXA1tBiLw

...you have it in the photo

Open content (youtube)

Frank wrote:

My bad luck is that he doesn't just have one extra "c" in his name (or rather, surname)

... anyway, stories of escapes are always being written and have always been written.

ops I forgot the "c" pardon...... well, there's always time to improve!!

To be less stuffy

Bill Conti - Rocky's Reward (Rocky)

Open content (youtube)

Or else

Open content (youtube)

So I quote Frank... it depends on where one looks, there are escapes galore...

rstrauss wrote:

the sections of a piece must be one the consequence of the other

I fully agree. However, I wonder, how do you determine if a "section" is a "consequence" of another or not?

Furthermore, expanding the discussion, for those who try to eliminate "narrativity" (a misleading and inaccurate term in my opinion) from music, how can they be reconciled with this principle?

Bianca wrote:

However, I wonder, how do you determine if a "section" is a "consequence" of another or not?

The "how" comes from experience... in my opinion, the principle is that of the coherence of the elements at play.

Bianca wrote:

Furthermore, expanding the discussion, how can someone who tries to eliminate "narrativity" (a misleading and inaccurate term in my opinion) from music be compared to this principle?

A part that no one seeks to eliminate anymore today. They have already tried and have justly "paid" for it... since, in my opinion, coherence is an important thing... I don't think it has anything to do with narrativity. One can tell nothing and still be coherent. You perceive it immediately. Mixing languages is not a symptom of coherence... if you want to write atonally, do it. If you want to write tonally, do it. If you mix things... well, the consequence is that coherence suffers. I'll tell you more, if you write tonally you cannot remove narrativity, because it is innate in that "aesthetic"... this weakens it even further...

Bianca wrote:

I fully agree. However, I wonder, how do you determine if a "section" is a "consequence" of another or not?

as difficult as it may be to encode something like this ... let's pretend we have a piece structured in rondo form, we have written several in these workshops and the next one will be at the end of July; you will have a 1st theme and a 2nd theme that should normally be contrasted with the 1st ... regardless of the order in which you present them ... you should be able to perceive that the 2 themes are linked by something, a repetition of notes, a rhythmic fragment, tonality, a modulation etc. ... just to quote Frank (in one of the analyses of one of my pieces) the 2 themes should somehow be "related".

Bianca wrote:

I fully agree. However, I wonder, how do you determine if a "section" is a "consequence" of another or not?

Furthermore, expanding the discussion, how can someone who tries to eliminate "narrativity" (a misleading and inaccurate term in my opinion) from music be compared with this principle?

As often happens with Bianca, good questions...

Frank wrote:

As often happens with Bianca, good questions...

It is truly a shame to "lose them", I opened this topic

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/2504-elaborazione-narrativita-e-conseguenzialita-nella-musica/

Ludovica wrote:

The how is determined by the craft... in my opinion, the principle is that of the coherence of the elements at play

There are more systems on earth that respect "consequence" and are not coherent than there are stars in the sky. Aside from this, even interpreting your answer in the best possible way, it is not an answer. The concept of consequence is not built upon that of coherence.