Fugue Workshop 2014

AbateFaria wrote:

...even the best make mistakes, but where can I hear Mozart's version?!

let's be clear, "for me" it is not the best, I don't want to pass any judgment of merit, eh...

I must acknowledge that Frank has taken up an old idea of ours that we spoke about years ago, namely to collect for a lab an "attempt" at a study by Mozart on fugues. In any case, I maintain many doubts that the subject was an invention of Mozart. On the contrary, I remain convinced of the opposite. I would not be surprised if, in the effort exerted to elaborate a study on the fugue, he claimed authorship of the matter regardless of that of the subject.

In any case, regarding Paumgartner (director of the Mozarteum in Salzburg at the time of the publication I cite), it reads: "in 1788 Mozart transcribed for string quartet the important Fugue in C minor for two pianos K426 (November 1783) adding an introduction to it. Left unfinished were a fugue in G minor for four voices K401, a sonata in A minor for violin and piano in A minor K402, which then consists of a fugue preceded by an introduction in A major, ... . The large number of fragments and even the fully realized compositions demonstrate how Mozart did not go beyond the stage of attempt in this musical field. [...] All his attempts to unconditionally identify with the spirit of the great masters of the past always appear somewhat stalled by scholastic constraints."

And indeed, precisely, in my opinion, this subject is a scholastic constraint. But it is a matter of taste.

But seriously, the fugue? Did you like it...? no...? yes...? I don't know...? Should I have also written the guide notes, like Maestro Altieri?

Bianca wrote:

Beautiful organ, did you use Hauptwerk (or did you go to Slovenia)?

No no, I went to Slovenia! Anyway, the "trick" is using it with notation software.

Anyway, I don't want to deny the obvious, I was completely mistaken about Mozart.

It certainly makes quite an impression to hear the same subject by him...! If I had known this movement of his, I would never have been able to derive anything from it. The conditioning would have been too strong.

But what does Gedalge have to do with it?

CromaDiBrera wrote:

I also had to write the guide notes

It would be useful to me, I listened to it and I liked it, perhaps in some parts it seems a bit "tired" to me. Probably a limitation of mine.

I liked it too, as I was saying especially the organ version. I won't go into the merits of the form, but listening to it, I find it pleasant and interesting in some passages.

CromaDiBrera wrote:

No no, I went to Slovenia! Anyway, the "trick" is using it with notation software.

do you mean using hauptwerk directly from finale? are you using midiyoke?

CromaDiBrera wrote:

But then what does Gedalge have to do with it?

It is the quintessential manual for those studying the fugue, and in the appendix there are various subjects by Gedalge himself and by other authors (the same goes for Dubois). Practically speaking, the subject from the laboratory is also proposed in the appendix of the Gedalge.

Exactly, it was indeed Gedalge. Since I didn't know if the mystery could be revealed, I decided to only include the initial, that's all.

Oracolo wrote:

It is the quintessential manual for those studying the fugue, and in the appendix there are various subjects by Gedalge himself and by other authors (the same goes for Dubois). Practically, the subject from the laboratory is also proposed in the appendix of Gedalge

I have heard of it, but I haven't studied it. However, it is interesting to note that the subject is not exactly the same as Mozart's. Not that I want to partially justify myself, mind you, but the second part of the subject (which is different) was the one I liked the least, especially the last measure.

Dilettante wrote:

It would be useful to me, I listened to it and I liked it, perhaps in some parts it seems a bit "tired" to me. Probably a limitation of mine.

It is also true that, worried about the manual change (the pauses are frequent for this reason), perhaps I made it too slow. But perhaps it's not just about this and I would like to better understand what you mean by "tired"; is there any moment where you feel this aspect more?

I am sorry about the notes because, jokes aside, I had thought about including them, but then it seemed a bit too pretentious or self-referential to highlight a theme inversion or the double counterpoint of a phrase. Moreover, even if I have tried here, I am not good at harmonic analysis; I often tried to place augmented sixths because those are what I am currently trying to study...

Bianca wrote:

intendi usare hauptwerk direttamente da finale? usi midiyoke?

I don't use midiyoke (which I am not familiar with), but I don't use midi files either.

In practice, I use Hauptwerk like any VST platform with its own libraries (Kontakt, Play, Aria or others) directly from the notation program. The interesting thing is that this type of use is not intended, and there are even little programs running on the web that promise to allow it, but they are ineffective; instead, I found a way by assigning the right channels for the various manuals and setting up Hauptwerk so that it is "executed" by the notation program.

Hauptwerk is something of stratospheric quality and is a program designed for live performances with a dedicated console (consisting of manuals, pedals, etc.). Alternatively, you can import midi files, but obviously the result is mechanical. Instead, with a notation program (I have Sibelius 6, but Finale is the same) and any AUDIO editor (not midi!) like Audacity, Garageband or Reaper (which is the best and is practically free), one can avoid the console costing several thousand euros (in addition to having to know how to play the organ!). Naturally, you must know how to edit a realistic (i.e., expressive) performance directly in the notation program; and this is something I have dedicated a lot of time to, but which many neglect.

In short, apart from the notation program, everything else costs nothing. And it's free (I used the free version of Hauptwerk). The only library I have used that is external to Hauptwerk was the piano one, which is the Bosendorfer from East West.

Bianca wrote:

I liked it too, as I was saying, especially the organ version. I won't go into the merits of the form, but listening to it, I find it pleasant and interesting in some passages.

Thank you. The organ, naturally (in the sense that it is so by its very nature), makes the highs more audible than the lows; it is a physical matter of air pressure. Therefore, it has the problem of somewhat masking the movement of the lower voices; for this reason, I tried to assign these, in the most salient moments and as compatible with the possibility of real performance, to the grand organ (and the upper ones, instead, to the positive). I used the pedal almost solely as a reinforcement of the timbre, without it intervening in the interplay of parts, because I saw that even Bach did so...

To my taste, however, the instrument that performs best is the piano. At least in this case of mine.

Even I hadn't realized it was by Mozart. I have my doubts... the last bar that resolves without the appoggiatura made me lean towards another composer from the same period. I would have said Hummel or Haydn, but definitely not Mozart.

However, I liked it very much and I wrote it for organ (just to continue the cycle) with fairly substantial stops and a pedal that has a life of its own.

rstrauss wrote:

Even I hadn't realized it was by Mozart. I have my doubts... the last bar that resolves without the appoggiatura made me lean towards another composer from the same period. I would have said Hummel or Haydn, but definitely not Mozart. However, I liked it very much and I wrote it for organ (just to continue the cycle) with fairly substantial stops and a pedal part that has a life of its own.

But, precisely, the last bar is not by Mozart (nor is the penultimate one). Evidently, it is the result of a "revision" by Gedalge.

As far as the pedal is concerned, the idea of assigning it a voice had occurred to me too because Frank, in the first workshop on the fugue, did the same. In fact, I had started fantasizing about the possibility of writing it for five voices... But then I raised the question of whether the subject was easy to perform and, after reading a bit and watching some videos on how to play the pedals, I concluded that with the most common technique (which consists of passing one foot behind the other) it would have been necessary to insert a staccato after the first dotted note, which is not in the given writing. Perhaps it's not like that and any organist could prove me wrong, but, doubting that the pedal subject might actually turn out a bit "forced," I preferred to do everything on the keyboard (also because I had never succeeded in writing a four-voice fugue playable with two hands, and it seemed to me like an opportunity to overcome this lack of skill, while simultaneously increasing versatility in the choice of instrument).

P.S. That bit about Bach, which I wrote above, was one bar; even if it were true (as it seems to me) that it wasn't customary to entrust a voice to the pedal for fugues, the fact remains that his three-part sonatas for organ demonstrate that there is no limit to assigning melodic lines to the pedalboard, except for the possibility of performing certain passages. Naturally, alternating ascending and descending notes is much easier than a scale of contiguous notes or an arpeggio on triads.

CromaDiBrera wrote:

I don't use midiyoke (which I am not familiar with), nor do I use midi files.

In practice, I use Hauptwerk like any VST platform with its own libraries (Kontakt, Play, Aria or others) directly from the notation software. The interesting thing is that this type of use is not intended, and there are even little programs on the web that promise to allow it, but they are ineffective; instead, I found a way by assigning the right channels for the various manuals and setting up Hauptwerk so that it is "executed" by the notation software.

Hauptwerk is something of stratospheric quality and is a program designed for live performances with a dedicated console (consisting of manuals, pedals, etc.). Alternatively, you can import midi files, but obviously the result is mechanical. Instead, with a notation program (I have Sibelius 6, but Finale is the same) and any AUDIO editor (not midi!) like Audacity, Garageband, or Reaper (which is the best and is practically free), you can avoid a console costing several thousand euros (in addition to having to know how to play the organ!). Naturally, one must know how to edit a realistic (i.e., expressive) performance directly in the notation software; and this is something I have dedicated a lot of time to, but which many neglect.

In short, apart from the notation software, everything else costs nothing. And it's free (I used the free version of Hauptwerk). The only library I have used that is external to Hauptwerk was the piano one, which is the East West Bosendorfer.

So you mean you can load Hauptwerk in Finale? I had tried it but it didn't work, I think, and as you say, with midi it became too mechanical.

Compliments to Croma di brera. I listened to all the versions and I must say I am truly impressed.

A really beautiful job.

I missed the mark this time.

The church bell is beautiful. It is very evocative. I imagine the scene. With the empty church in semi-darkness
with the lights off. A single light pierces the sheet music resting on the music stand. The light caresses the face of that musician who had secretly entered through the back of the church with sheet music hidden inside his jacket to fulfill his desire. To play
the organ of the little church of Sant'Ignazio. To secretly profane that
organ that had dared to play Alleluia or The Lord is my salvation.

<Finally music> said the organ to itself. It had been years since I heard it like this. The organ was cleaning itself of cobwebs. The pipes, never before used, finally emptied themselves of dust and cobwebs with the blast of air, while the musician sneezed, allergic to that stale dust he hated so much.

CromaDiBrera wrote:

I am sorry about the notes because, jokes aside, I had thought about including them, but then it seemed a bit too pretentious or self-referential to highlight an inversion of the theme or the double counterpoint of a phrase. Besides, even if I have tried here, I am not good at harmonic analysis; I often tried to place augmented sixths because those are what I am currently trying to study...

In the meantime, thank you. More than anything, aside from the entries of the Theme... if you have developed any particular fragment and at which measure. That's all. The harmony you use is already too advanced for me