Fugue Workshop 2014

Of course Piccinesco, there are shades of gray. On one hand, one cannot be as pedantic as Ferneyhough (although I know I am using a hyperbole and his writing is part of his aesthetic), but on the other hand, one cannot indicate nothing.

The fact is that if a piece is fundamentally based on characterization and the same is not described and contextualized, frankly it remains an idea that is not materialized.

Of course, if you write me a nineteenth-century romance, some things (as I was writing) are implicit. And indeed 2 centuries have passed, but remove all the markings from a score by Filidei, or go back a bit, from one by Messiaen? How would you know what is appropriate to do? What instruments would the performer have?

Frank wrote:

From my point of view, RStrauss is an alibi; we have all taken a look at the Schumann piece ( http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/3543-analisi-armonica-e-melodica/ ). It is infinitesimal in terms of what needs to be done, and we are talking about a language that today appears practically self-explanatory. And despite the fact that there was a parassi at the time, he indicates the pedal measure by measure, slurs, agogics, etc.

Note the crescendo/diminuendo on an eighth chord at measure 3. One could have followed it with a diminuendo until the last chord under the slur, but instead Schumann practically requires an accent on the "very weak" beat in the penultimate chord...

Thanks again Frank for the clarifications.

I must say, also in relation to Piccinesco's discussion, that in reality there aren't many aspects of my pieces that I intend to leave to the free interpretation of those who will perform them. The reason, as you know, is very simple: I don't expect anyone will ever perform one of my pieces. I believe this assumption has conditioned all my music so far, for better or for worse. For the worse because, obviously, my writings are almost never carefully prepared. I have a bunch of music that is almost indecipherable even to me, and unfortunately the only one who understands anything is... the blessed sequencer. For the better because, as I was saying, I actually try to imagine the result in every minute detail, and this is because, usually, I always have the piece performed by a virtual instrument. It's just that the markings are not those that interest a human eye, but those that interest the specific virtual instrument being used. For example, I don't know if you remember, but some time ago I published a score on which some strange little symbols had slipped through; someone asked me what they indicated and I replied that it was the sequencer's agogics. Or again, yesterday I went back to some wind scores and found them full of indications that, after a year, even I no longer know how to interpret, simply because when I indicated them, I had to make them up on the fly, not knowing the common practice (for instance, if I wanted an up-bend on a trumpet, I would associate the relative articulation with a certain note outside the trumpet's range; then, since there are dozens of articulations over time, it's easy to get lost...). Luckily for me, there are (though not always, unfortunately) playbacks that remind me what I intended to do at a certain point. Unfortunately, obviously, a virtual instrument never quite manages to achieve what I imagine, but it at least gets close (for a while now I've been using the finale function which is supposed to interpret the dynamics I write, but most of the time it's a torture and never does what I expect, I don't know if due to my lack or its own).
Coming to the fugue in question, what you pointed out is all correct. For example, the bizarre accidentals—I hadn't even noticed them, and if I told you the reason why they are there, you would start laughing. However, in the meantime, I discovered something new: that in finale I can and must set the note spelling criteria. As for the rest, I must say it was the first time I was writing for organ, so—what did I do?—I went to look at some scores and, with little time available, I formed a certain idea, probably an inadequate one. I had also chosen the timbres and they are even indicated in the score, but on an additional staff in the form of notes (keyswitches) which I then deleted during the printing phase. The chosen timbres are, obviously, those I deduced from the instrument I had available at that moment. However, unfortunately, I couldn't get it to play without a strange swing that it introduces on its own, so in the end, I diverted everything to what was proposed by Croma. Out of curiosity, if you're interested, I put both versions on YouTube where the video shows the changes in registers.
By the way, the desired registers would be:
principale,
+flauto from measure 6 on high manual
+viola gamba from measure 8 on low manual
+ottavino from measure 14 on high manual
+bombarda from measure 14 on low manual
principale from measure 15
+flauto from measure 20 on high manual
plenum from measure 31
+ottavino from measure 14 on low manual

From a structural point of view, it is a work that invents nothing new, and it was precisely in the ironic and somewhat lighthearted gesture that I intended to center the entire message, all the more so knowing the original theme. My intention was to show how even in a formally standard fugue, one could find with little effort a character that pieces of this kind usually do not show. Hence the title, which in itself provides all the context. Measure 14 should be seen as a sort of alarm bell, but it must, in my design, stay only there, because that is its function. If it had achieved its purpose, it would have been a work that could have said something about music, but unfortunately it failed, and this makes me understand the importance of what you are saying.
I am saying all this not to justify myself, but only to make it understood that I don't write like this just to spite someone, or perhaps out of a sort of snobbery (this was actually what I thought when you said that it is starting to become tiresome), but simply because of the situation I am in and due to my own shortcomings.

And all the more so, having said that, I wouldn't want anyone to stop pointing out where I fall short: on the contrary, it will please me even more, because for me you are a very important help in this as well.

I have read everything, I will dwell on the registration changes: I don't have the score in front of me right now, but I have doubts regarding whether they can be changed so quickly, especially considering the tempo of the piece. If you are performing a fast part (on both manuals, even without the additional difficulty of the pedal), for me it is not possible to change registration abruptly; I have the "feeling" that a minimum preparation is necessary, in this case I mean physically a reasonable amount of time lapse.

Piccinesco wrote:

I have read everything, I will dwell on the changes of registration: I don't have the score in front of me right now, but I have doubts regarding whether they can be changed so quickly, especially considering the tempo of the piece. If you are playing a fast part (on both manuals, even without the additional difficulty of the pedal), for me it is not possible to change registration abruptly; I have the "feeling" that a minimum preparation is necessary, in this case I mean physically a reasonable amount of time.

could someone who changes registrations help?

Yes, of course I had thought about it, but one has to see if the organ itself has an immediate "attack" or if it suffers from a certain delay in the emission of the new stop.

there are register changes just like page turners: two of the most infamous jobs in the field of music. Regarding the lack of markings, I partly agree with Frank and partly do not. If it had been a romance or a piano prelude, I might also have agreed with the alibi, but here we are talking about an organ fugue. The premise I started from is that this fugue can be performed on most organs present, which means thinking of the 18th-century organ, without expression pedals and with few stops, and the modern organ (where I usually play) with many stops, expression pedals, crescendos, etc. If I had thought of the fugue exclusively for a modern organ, then there certainly would have been dynamic markings and there would also have been register changes at various points, but just this once I wanted to leave it blank. The purpose of this: I would like to have two or three organists play it and see what comes out... it happened to me last year with a piece for pf and flute where the central part marked by me "Più lento" was instead performed much faster, totally distorting the character of the piece. I didn't expect it and I didn't like it at all... but in this case, I know it from the start and the experiment could be useful to understand what those who read the score think.

In effect, RStrauss can be a stratagem to search for ideas

Dlet's say that to define the details of a composition, barring experience, it is good practice to phase with the instrumentalists to try out one's own ideas and understand if they actually work not just on paper.

Just one detail, the organ can have all the stops in the world, but if there isn't time to change them, the risk is that the performer won't change them. In your RStrauss Fugue there are cadences and anyway points where this can happen; in Bianca's, I didn't find any in the points she indicated. The concept is that if a key is down, no stop change will help... it could be an effect to add a stop while playing, but then I would expect it to become a characterizing feature of the composition.

Bianca wrote:

in reality, in my pieces there are generally not many aspects that I intend to leave to the free interpretation of whoever has to perform them. The reason, as you know, is very simple: I don't expect that anyone will ever perform one of my pieces. I believe this assumption has conditioned all my music so far, for better or for worse.

This sentence strikes me quite a bit. So, is composition just a pastime for you? I imagine then that the sequencer is an indispensable tool. To make a comparison, I might think of some 19th-century amateur who composed out of passion but never dreamed of publishing their works, and played them at home on the piano... does that hold up as an analogy?

Given that it seems like a very beautiful and intelligent hobby to me, I see the sequencer as a great resource, but also as a significant limitation. Personally, I can tell you that some of the best lessons I've had were from the musicians who played my pieces: especially when things weren't working! So, even at a pastime level, I would suggest you don't give up on interaction. In my opinion, it is an easy problem to resolve: without going too far, I am sure that if you write a piece for piano, someone in this forum will be found to play it. You probably wouldn't even have much difficulty finding an organist for your Fugue. I'm not talking about having the piece performed in concert, obviously, but about having practical feedback. If you start from the perspective of presenting a piece to someone who has to play it for you, you will probably begin to reflect on many aspects that you have overlooked until now.

This is true, but let's not forget (I am speaking based on experiences I've had) that often (and it indeed depends on who you are dealing with) many people coming "from the scene" do not look kindly upon someone presenting a piece to them; sometimes they don't even look at it (so prejudice sometimes comes from some of the people who have undergone formal studies). It has happened to me both with Simone, who recorded a piece for me without even knowing me, and with a harpsichordist who first wanted to know what I intended to do with the recording, only to then decline the request because she says she didn't understand (to me, this is an excuse given how things went) the pieces, but in reality, she doesn't want to risk "ruining" her image by playing pieces that are stylistically inconsistent. However, for me, Bianca didn't say this just because "she does it just for the sake of doing it"; there is a difference between doing it this way and thinking that they cannot be played by someone. Obviously, the sequencer is both a help but above all a means that, conversely, does not help to understand and internalize the comprehension of certain compositional processes, delegating the result we imagine to the "reproducer," but in this way, it is more prone to random mode. It is equally true that knowing that one's own composition could be played by someone would, in part, further stimulate the composer to be more vigilant and aware of their work. I have only provided some examples

Piccinesco wrote:

In my case, I had Simone, who recorded a piece for me without even knowing me,

Well then, I would say you got extremely lucky!!!

RedScharlach wrote:

This sentence strikes me quite a bit. So, is composing just a hobby for you?

Piccinesco wrote:

However, for me, Bianca didn't say this because "she's just doing it for the sake of doing it",

well, unfortunately I don't have much time, and so dedicating myself to music involves significant sacrifices, but I do it not as a hobby, but because it is a way of being for my person, and even if I cannot do it as I would like, I cannot give it up.

RedScharlach wrote:

So, even on a hobby level, I would suggest you don't give up the exchange.

Of course, and that is why, as I have often repeated, I continue to write on this forum.

I have never been afraid to put myself out there, with all the risks that this entails.

I am well aware of the fact that direct human relationship is something else entirely, but it also requires resources that I do not have at this moment. Also because, as Piccinesco says, it's not just a matter of showing up to someone from the "scene" and saying, "here I am, try playing this piece..." Even if I arrived with an unknown piece by their favorite composer, the first thing to do would not be to convince them how beautiful it is, but to overcome their distrust. And this is something normal and natural, obviously, which however affects the consequences. The world has always worked in a certain way and it is right that it should be so: there are masters and there are students who will become masters in turn, and breaking the chain is an exception.

Bianca wrote:

Also because, as Piccinesco says, it's not just a matter of showing up to someone in the "scene" and saying, 'here, look, I've arrived, try playing this piece...'

Precisely for this reason I was suggesting, cautiously, not to go too far ("the scene"...), but to reach out directly to the other readers of this forum. Given the name Pianoconcerto, I imagine you will find someone who wants to try playing one of your pieces for piano and give you a minimum of feedback (after all, even Piccinesco found someone!). The very act of writing something that will be played will give you the motivation to seek solutions that perhaps you wouldn't have thought of.

From my point of view, considering the resources she has at her disposal, Bianca is already doing a good job but Red hit the nail on the head. Music is born to be heard; one must choose the medium. If acoustic instruments are planned, there will always be at least one performer (but even a piece written in Max MSP will need to provide usable interfaces), and writing something that requires this mediation from another person requires an additional effort and, on the other hand, with direct contact, it can become a further source of knowledge. The fact remains that writing a piece without awareness of the implications is always limiting.

In effect, in my comment, I tried on one hand to reveal the interpretative difficulties and on the other the first areas for improvement. After a certain level, it is enough to say where and not how; the composer will have to find the how... but knowing where something can be improved is already not bad.

Someone might ask, "areas for improvement" based on what?

Bianca introduces the Master/Student discussion. I say that apart from basic training, we are talking about a relationship between musicians with more or less experience, with more or less taste, with more or less pronounced musicality, more or less ability aimed at a musical result, etc. If we want to summarize the relationship between two musicians where one is more "expert" (as just mentioned) than the other, let's even say student and master. But everyone happens to learn new things (even Ivan Fedele, for instance), there are those who admit it and those who do so less... which is slightly different.

rstrauss wrote:

I partially agree with Frank and partially do not.

From my point of view, you can even disagree completely; the important thing is to take the best pages from the repertoire and see how they present themselves; better those of the great masters, present and past. This is enough to know what needs to be done. Therefore, do not stop at my words at all.

In fact, even aleatoric pages are extremely detailed (we all know what that means?), just take a score by Cage or Stockhausen.

So let us reflect on the subject and put ourselves in the mindset of learning from those who have more experience than us; and who more than Schumann? (to name one already mentioned?). But in our hearts, we are all already aware that wherever we turn, we will find scores curated in the smallest details. Then between us, if we want, let's try to tell it to each other.

RedScharlach wrote:

Precisely for this reason I was suggesting, cautiously, not to go so far ("the environment..."), but to turn directly to the other readers of this forum. Calling yourself Pianoconcerto, I imagine someone will be found who wants to try playing one of your piano pieces and give you a minimum of feedback (after all, even Piccinesco found someone!). The very fact of writing something that will be played will give you stimuli to seek solutions that perhaps you wouldn't have thought of.

in this sense, naturally, the invitation is open to everyone

For the one time things went well for me, one must count dozens of others where they didn't even want to listen or read, so the percentage relative to maximum distrust remains extremely high.

Bianca if you want I could do a piano piece that doesn't require months of preparation haha

Eagle wrote:

In effect, Rstrauss can be a stratagem to search for ideas

Dlet's say that to define the details of a composition, barring experience, it is good practice to phase with the instrumentalists to try out one's own ideas and understand if they actually work not just on paper.

In reality I wasn't looking for ideas; I could easily redo the score of the fugue indicating what I think should be done... even though I am a pianist, I have played on a 3-manual organ for 30 years, so I have enough experience to know what doesn't work, at least on modern organs... for ancient ones, I would need a little help.

But without overthinking it, simply for once I would like to see what comes out by leaving the performer free most of the time.

Piccinesco wrote:

For once that things went well for me, one must count dozens of others in which they didn't even want to listen or read, so the percentage relative to maximum distrust remains extremely high.

Tkeep in mind that there is a whole series of precautions that a professional composer must take into account, but it is good for the amateur composer to know them as well (amateur in the high, 18th-century sense of the term). For example, the care taken to present a score that does not contain errors of musical "orthography" or "grammar," that is clear, orderly, clean, well-laid out, essentially ready to be published by an editor. If you present a professionally packaged score to a musician (especially if you do not know them personally), you are already on the right track. Regardless of the musical content. It is a mechanism that applies, for better or worse, even to composition competitions. But I am going off topic...