Fugue Workshop 2014

Frank wrote:

In reality, the structure was certainly there, but it has been so "manipulated" and processed that it was difficult to truly understand which were the supporting fragments (which had generated that enjoyment) and which were the filler ones.

Perfect, that is exactly what happened in my case: when I started to "color," I realized that the continuous manipulation, the desire to constantly file down and correct, had left ruins that needed to be restored to regain meaning. From now on, one writes in color!

Do you know another forum user who writes in color? Gozzo. You are in good company. Blessed ctrl-j and children.

... you will see that you will also save time and be more aware during the processing. Let's say that in a contrapuntal style it is very helpful. Then, craftsmanship compensates a lot, so except for pieces of great complexity, once you have framed the issue, you can even do without it... unless, of course, it is for didactic purposes (perhaps you have to explain your fugue to someone, so you can do it more quickly even for an audience of neophytes)

It's not a bad intention, it is certainly a way to visualize the structure of a sentence very quickly, and recognize it (as you wrote) during the development of the piece.

CromaDiBrera wrote:

Since I am not very happy with what I have done (I never am) and it seems to me that there are several things to correct, in my spare time I am reworking my fugue and having fun with a little novelty that I am finding very useful (at least for myself): assigning different colors to all the incises and phrase members of the expositions, in order to force myself to ask where each of those I used in the subsequent developments comes from. In this way, I realized that just a few touch-ups are enough to make certain passages more explicit, tracing their pieces back to the members already made to be heard (and whose logic, having woven it myself, I took for granted even for another's ear). Come to think of it, I would have done it from the beginning, during the composition phase, because I am sure that something very different and, probably, more effective would have resulted.

I don't know if the procedure interests you, but perhaps I will post my second version (a color fugue!) when I have finished it.

I find it useful, even though I don't use colors but another method, since it is not easy to use colors with the finale.

Bianca wrote:

or else

even more tightrope-walking ones can be found

anyway, as I said, it is not very practical at playback speed.

Given that I haven't looked at your fugue yet, in the second video there are no leaps and if you notice it is mostly games between black and white pedals, always close positions and even the descents always occur while anticipating minimal movements. This doesn't mean they shouldn't be studied, on the contrary. But it is certainly a practicable virtuosity.

In the first video, where does the little old lady (@Croma) have her hands during the most demanding pedaling? And note that there is never a crossing and the distances and movements are, although fast, measured.

Anyway, after RStrauss's, I will also take a look at your Bianca, just to understand how truly unplayable it is

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

Bianca wrote:

I find it useful, even if I don't use colors but another method, since using colors isn't easy with the finale.

And what other method? You're not telling us? Do you want to keep it all to yourself?

That lady playing "Flight of the Bumblebee" on the pedalboard reminds me of that archer who, in an attempt to catch the sovereign's attention, showed him how he could hit a pea with an arrow shot from 30 meters away. When the sovereign saw this, he had him killed, claiming as his motivation that someone who wastes their life practicing such a useless thing does not deserve to continue living.......it is useless to mangle a piece that was not born for a certain instrument and even if one succeeds, the result will still be questionable, as in this case. On YouTube I saw a guy playing Charlie Parker's "Donna Lee" on the bassoon, with the result that one could only hear the noise of keys and pads and there was none of the fluidity that the piece requires, a bit like in this case, and who knows how many hours of practice were needed to achieve this result......

Frank wrote:

Given that I haven't looked at your fugue yet, in the second video there are no leaps and if you notice it is mostly playing between black and white keys, always close positions, and even the descents always occur with minimal movement planned. This doesn't mean they shouldn't be studied, on the contrary. However, it is certainly a practicable virtuosity.

In the first video, where does the little old lady (@Croma) have her hands during the most demanding pedal passages? And note that there is never a crossing and the distances and movements are, although fast, measured.

Anyway, after RStrauss's, I will also take a look at your Bianca, just to see how truly unplayable it is.

Of course, they were just two curious examples that I found. As I said before publishing it, there are passages in mine that, with the pedal, are difficult, to say the least. As you may have seen, I published the score only for manuals, which is the most orthodox way, and it is playable (maybe it's not very easy, but still...). The three-stave notation does not stem from the fact that I intended a priori to assign one of them to the pedal, but simply from the fact that, as I told Cristian, I find it more convenient to write the voices of a fugue on separate staves.

CromaDiBrera wrote:

And what other method? You're not telling us? Do you want to keep it all to yourself?

eheh

no, it's not that it's a great method, basically I try to make do. In essence, I use square brackets to mark the phrases and an alphanumeric code to indicate the identifier of the phrase itself, its function, its relationships with other phrases, etc...

What I would find convenient, but which I haven't yet understood if it can be done with Finale, would be being able to have bookmarks and cross-reference links.

In general, such coding can also precede the actual writing of the notes and serve as a schema for the piece.

I don't know if I explained myself clearly

geppino12575 wrote:

That lady playing "Flight of the Bumblebee" on the pedalboard reminds me of that archer who, in an attempt to catch the sovereign's attention, showed him how he could hit a pea with an arrow shot from 30 meters away. When the sovereign saw this, he had him killed, claiming as his motivation that someone who wastes their life practicing such a useless thing does not deserve to continue living.......it is useless to mangle a piece that was not born for a certain instrument and even if one succeeds, the result will still be questionable, as in this case. On YouTube I saw a guy playing Charlie Parker's "Donna Lee" on the bassoon, with the result being that one could only hear the noise of keys and pads and there was none of the fluidity the piece requires, a bit like in this case, and who knows how many hours of practice were needed to achieve this result......

true, besides, she also makes some mistakes...

Bianca wrote:

i find it more convenient to write the voices of a fugue on separate staves.

I understand, but then the notation must take into account the performer and, in your case, the eventual organ orchestration. For example, a staff dedicated to the pedals is not mandatory but advisable (even in an orchestra) if it provides clarity in reading the part. Furthermore, you can make the indications regarding the stops more explicit. In short, writing always serves to clarify one's own project, which must become a piece of music. The more you write, the more precise it will be; the less you write, the more approximate the result will be. For example, the need for an independent stop to be assigned to the pedalboard is not at all a minor detail; therefore, it is always better to decide on its instrumentation beforehand and, obviously, respect it.

Frank wrote:

For example, a staff dedicated to the pedal is not mandatory but advisable (even in an orchestra) in case it provides clarity in reading the part.

this is obscure to me, can you clarify it better because I am interested?

>Furthermore, you can also make the indications regarding the stops more explicit.

In short, writing always serves to clarify one's own project which must become a piece of music. The more you write, the more precise it will be; the less you write, the more approximate the result will be. For example, the need for an independent register to be assigned to the pedalboard is not at all a detail; therefore, it is always better to decide on its instrumentation beforehand and obviously respect it.

as usual, I agree. Regarding the stops, which I had also started with the idea of including once I decided to use the organ, I looked at some literature and noticed that almost no one included them (especially Bach, who sometimes used Oberwerk if I'm not mistaken to indicate the plenum), as well as phrasing, slurs, and dynamics (which are moreover limited on organs).

As for deciding on the instrumentation beforehand, I agree, but only in some cases (perhaps even the majority) but not always.

In the case of the Funky fugue, from my point of view, various ensembles or instruments can be used (obviously with the necessary precautions and arrangements) and as I already said a few messages ago, I could also see it played well by a band

@RStrauss

Clear structure, the most fugal of those of yours I have heard so far, material certainly better dosed than previously; furthermore, I recognize RStrauss, so this work has its merits.

I will make a few small reflections in case they might be useful:

In the subject coda, at measure 5 the last note is a D#; it was just heard halfway through the measure and is a bit weak, perhaps it is worth considering a small modification; even a "B" would not be bad.

Systematically, the # is missing from the F in the answer, is this intentional?

The pedal part at 29, perhaps it wouldn't have been bad to consider starting it with a more significant part; when the subject arrives at 35, it enunciates it without much breathing room and it is a pity that it is only the coda of that moment.

The arrival of the dominant pedal at 63 can be improved; on one hand, at 63 it suggests more a German sixth than a diminished chord, given the resolution to V46; however, the most relevant thing is the fact that there is a chromaticism that finds its ideal stopping point precisely in the dominant pedal; it's a pity those arpeggios were inserted at the end of the run.

In itself, there is nothing wrong with it, but that line has what it takes to work better...

Evaluating what comes after (harmonically), at 68 I would not have deprived myself of the opportunity to strike a nice G# in the alto. Aside from being more harmonically effective, above all the melodic aspect would benefit, since it is then the Subject

Can you clarify the harmony at measure 83?

That said, I enjoyed listening to your work; you seem to have definitely improved on the subject of the fugue.

I can't quote ...

Bar. 5

you are right and the same thing happened in bar 8 with the F#-D# which has given me something to think about.

the F#

to tell the truth, I've thought about it and I know that harmonically it wouldn't be quite correct, but without the # I like it better.

the pedal at 29

sincerely, I had thought about putting the head of the subject at the pedal combined with the fragment of the countersubject from the manuals, but it seemed to me

that I was putting "too much" and I opted for a simple harmonic support with delay. Perhaps a pause before the subject would improve the entry.

Pedal at 63

To tell the truth, I hadn't thought of this as a pedal, but simply as a connecting episode, and perhaps that is exactly why it is one of the things

that works the least.

Bar. 68

I made the variation to stay in harmony, so you say to maintain the subject. This was something about which I had a technical doubt as to which

of the two solutions to use.

Bar. 83

beats 1 and 2: II degree 1* rev. of the melodic minor scale.

Beats 3 and 4: dominant seventh.

The previous bar uses the natural minor scale

By dint of writing and taking the forum's advice to heart, results are coming.

Thanks as always for the analysis.

rstrauss wrote:

il fa# to tell the truth I've thought about it and I know that harmonically it wouldn't be quite correct, but without the # I like it more.

It is not incorrect, it is a second lowered (the Neapolitan scale present?). From my point of view, it is enough to take it into account during the harmonization. However, the reflection opens up on the meaning of the response in relation to the subject.

right.

academically the F# should be there, but in terms of final performance it might not belong. What to choose?

Frank wrote:

For example, a line dedicated to the pedal is not mandatory but advisable (even in an orchestra) if it provides clarity in reading the part. Furthermore, you can also make the indications regarding registers more explicit.

when you can, can you explain this better to me, maybe with a little example? Do you mean a bass for the harmonic indication that is then not performed?

The matter was a bit long, which is why I didn't develop it and perhaps it deserves an ad hoc topic. Now I am evaluating what to do.

Frank wrote:

The issue was a bit long, which is why I didn't develop it and perhaps it deserves an ad hoc topic. Now I am evaluating what to do.

ok, no problem