Fugue Workshop 2014

Several interesting and useful discussions have emerged; I will start with the first one, regarding the Subject (the original is attached).

In my opinion, Gedalge felt obliged, for didactic reasons, to reduce the number of measures a little... sustaining a fugue around 6 measures is no small feat for a beginner. Practically, he only took away 2/4 from the fourth measure, contracting the original design and removing a repetition. In my view, this is too little to consider it an "uglification," especially since it is a very interesting part (with possible beautiful harmonic developments) but above all (original or not) it is the most difficult part of the subject to manage. It causes 3 different difficulties: finding an effective CS [subject/answer], properly evaluating the mutations of the answer (and what can happen during the change of mode), and closing that final procedure that makes one "slaves" to its effectiveness.

With this said...

CromaDiBrera wrote:

As far as the pedal is concerned, the idea of assigning it a voice had occurred to me too because Frank did the same in the first workshop on the fugue. 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 few things 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 be necessary to insert a break after the first dotted note, which is not in the given notation. Perhaps it's not like that and any organist would prove me wrong but, doubting that the pedal subject would 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 like an opportunity to overcome this lack of skill, while simultaneously increasing versatility in the choice of instrument).

Have you tried putting the second layer of the bass on the pedal and doing a playback with Hauptwerk?

I listened to the compositions by Cristiank83 and CromaDiBrera, both excellent works but with substantial differences: Cristiank's actually results (in my opinion) in a "controlled" work, as he had also stated, more academic than free, and this can be seen when listening to it; it is very regular, pleasant, steady and fluid, very well done nonetheless.

Croma's is more daring, like almost all of his work, and I must say that the peculiarity of this work is that it gives the impression of heading in one direction, but ultimately never undertaking a precise, defined path, and the writing makes this perceptible (always in my view), and perhaps because being inclined toward "indefinite processes," I perceive it very well.

That said, for the moment, compliments to both of you.

Bianca wrote:

That is, 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.

Yes, although, as I wrote, I have Sibelius and not Finale; in any case, the system to follow is the same. In practice, it works like this: when you install Hauptwerk, to every question about how you want to use it, you must answer that you will use it via sequencer/MIDI. Specifically, under the "General Settings" menu, in the MIDI Ports section, you must activate the second option ("sequencer" instead of "console") for both IN and OUT. Then try to assign the Finale mixer channels in the following way: Channel 1 to the pedalboard; Channel 2 to the Grand Organ, and the subsequent channels to the manuals in increasing order (if there are any); obviously, this means having to write each pair of staves separately for each individual manual (for the pedals, i.e., channel 1, you can instead insert only the bass clef staff into the score). In fact, I had to write a separate score for performance, different from the one for reading that I posted here.

To make what you write sound, you will not have to open Hauptwerk from the Finale (or Sibelius) mixer window, but you will have to activate it separately, by clicking directly on its icon as if you wanted to load it to play live.

Then there is the matter of recording, i.e., how to obtain an audio file: you cannot use the built-in functions of Finale or Sibelius, but rather the internal "recorder" of Hauptwerk ("recording" menu), which is capable of obtaining a recording of everything you play (and even of the stops that you activate "manually" with the mouse); that is: start the recording and then press Play on the notation program, as if to hear back what has been written (and during this, if necessary, activate or deactivate stops as needed, in real time as if you were playing); at the end, return to the recording menu and stop the recording. The audio editing program, at this point, is useful for trimming the beginning and the end of the file... And it is also useful for converting the sampling frequency, since the audio file you obtain is at 48 KHz and not 44.1... It is also useful for mixing stops that cannot be loaded simultaneously due to memory limits and... much more.

Anyway, if you or others want to try it and something is not clear, feel free to ask. There are dozens of Hauptwerk libraries that can be downloaded and used for free...! Like this one here, for example (watch the video in the "media" section!) : http://www.dlugakoscielna.net/

Bianca wrote:

Have you tried putting the second layer of the bass on the pedal and doing a playback with Hauptwerk?

At first I had tried it, but then you have to assign the note durations as they would actually be, in order to obtain a realistic effect; for this reason I worried about the "fingering" of the feet (but how do you say that...? ) and it seemed to me that the phrasing didn't work, also because, in my opinion, it must also be shared in the other voices; then there is the problem of having to do it with an adequately sonorous stop (like a bassoon or a trombone, for example), which means having to "pump" the manuals as well. In short, in the end I wasn't convinced, even for a simple matter of taste, perhaps because I prefer more intimate dimensions (even in the piano, for instance, where I have often used the una corda pedal, more or less corresponding to the use of the positive; so as if it were a separate manual of the piano).

raffaeleb wrote:

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

A really good job.

I missed the mark this time.

Thanks, but I've missed the mark many times myself, in your shoes...!

Dilettante wrote:

First of all, 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.

I'll try, but I think I'll write quite a lot of nonsense:

Measures 17/20 are proposed again in double counterpoint between soprano and alto in 49/52.

The soprano of measure 21 arises (though very varied) from an inversion of the 4th measure of the subject; the way this flows into the answer is isolated and obstinately repeated in measures 21/22 (in the tenor) and in 23 in the alto.

From 26, the soprano proposes the varied subject again (but here I made a mistake: it would have been much more elegant to keep the initial C and propose it more intact, managing somehow with the other voices to obtain a similar effect...), until (29) alto and tenor take it up with a hint of a mirror canon (then, in 30/31, between soprano and bass).

In 32, the coda of the subject is taken up, which leads to a series of modulating episodes (at 33, Italian augmented sixth, etc.), up to 36.

At 37, reprise of the subject in E-flat major (in the tenor), with the overlapping of various previous figures by the other voices.

At 40/41, exposition of the inverted subject in the soprano, then varied, together with a varied exposition of the tenor that proceeds substantially in thirds, while the bass holds a pedal common to the F minor and diminished chords.

From 45, reprise of the subject (varied) in the bass, with the overlapping of previous figures in the other voices. For 49/52, see what was written for 17/20.

(One of the ideas that crossed my mind during the opera, which I then failed to sustain, was that of using this phrase as a recurring rondo element, for the “fàmolo strano” series...!).

At 53/54, the subject is taken up by the alto while the tenor performs a small stretto by hinting at it in reverse. At 56, the subject is proposed again in the bass, through a more “luminous” harmonic progression, substantially in major.

At 66/67, the final cadence coincides with a small stretto (soprano, bass, and alto), hinted at the subject (but just a "wink") and very close together, in the dominant of the home key.

P.S. I always write "a small stretto" because it seems to me that the way I do them is total crap, but let's just say I tried...

Finale (68) with Picardy third.

...And don't shoot the pianist, eh?

raffaeleb wrote:

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 had felt 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.

Oh, but you are a poet! Look at the photos, it is exactly as you write! (also click on the various related entries in the menu on the left)

http://www.hauptwerk.nl/historyoosterwijtwerden.php

@Croma, I take the liberty of saying something because I imagine you are someone who appreciates it. It would be much more convenient, quicker, and less "risky" to write: "pleasant"

I took a look at your score; this fugue has two souls: the structured one of the exposition and the unstructured one of the rest.

I suffer more in the structured part for several reasons:

- The response is not very effective in the end; it ends with "re fa mi re" but pulls less, for example, than "re# do si la".

- Speaking of the Response, instinctively you closed it better than the subject. At measure 5, that descending scale fragment leading to "la" is a bit "weak".

In my opinion, the management of the concluding element of the Subject—which you liked least in this part—also forced you into harmonic connections that are somewhat on the edge.

I would still work on this a bit more here, seeking more effective solutions also in function of what is to come. For example, a first episode between the exposition of S and R for Soprano and Alto... and the second round between Tenor and Bass.

As I was saying, the second part is more unstructured; to me, this is a merit and a sign of renewal. I must say that giving up the tail of the Subject also made you more comfortable regarding the harmonic plane.

Apropos of the stretto, you started that procedure at 66. I would still work on it here. Why not think of a dominant pedal, then imitated on a following tonic? I mean without stretching it too much, but further optimizing the rendering of the material; with an ascending scale, you can do anything in the stretto.

This is obviously general; in my opinion, after improving these macro aspects, there could still be other margins for improvement. For example, you made use of pauses, which is a point in your favor, but positioning them more strategically (for example, before announcing a key element of the composition) can allow you to better enhance the thematic elements and has a series of other favorable implications.

I forgot, you mentioned that you find the piano version more successful; one of the reasons could be the decay of the sound, which smooths out some of the edges that the organ highlights clearly, since every sound is indeed held for its full value. And indeed, albeit on a broader scale, Schumann alluded to this issue in his rules of musical life.

Anyway, technicalities aside, I enjoyed listening to your piece... it had been a while since you were missed at the LAB

CromaDiBrera wrote:

Yes, even though, as I wrote, I have Sibelius and not Finale; in any case, the system to follow is the same. In practice, it works like this: when you install Hauptwerk, to every question about how you want to use it, you must answer that you will use it via sequencer/MIDI. Specifically, under the "General Settings" menu, in the MIDI Ports section, you must activate the second option ("sequencer" instead of "console") for both IN and OUT. Then try to assign the Finale mixer channels in the following way: Channel 1 to the pedalboard; Channel 2 to the Grand Organ, and the subsequent channels to the manuals in ascending order (if there are any); obviously, this means having to write each pair of staves separately for every single manual (for pedals, i.e., channel 1, you can instead insert only the bass clef staff into the score). In fact, I had to write a separate score for performance, different from the one for reading that I posted here.

To make what you write sound, you will not have to open Hauptwerk from the Finale (or Sibelius) mixer window, but you will have to activate it separately, by clicking directly on its icon as if you wanted to load it to play live.

Then there is the matter of recording, i.e., how to obtain an audio file: you cannot use the dedicated functions of Finale or Sibelius, but rather the internal "recorder" of Hauptwerk (recording menu), which is capable of obtaining a recording of everything you play (and even of the stops that you activate "manually" with the mouse); that is: you start the recording and then start Play in the notation program, as if to hear back what has been written (and during this, if necessary, you activate or deactivate stops as needed, in real time as if you were playing); at the end, you return to the recording menu and stop the recording. An audio editing program is useful at this point for trimming the beginning and the end of the file... And it is also useful for converting the sampling frequency, since the audio file you obtain is at 48 KHz and not 44.1... It is also useful for mixing stops that cannot be loaded simultaneously due to memory limits and... much more.

Anyway, if you or others want to try it and something is not clear, feel free to ask. There are dozens of Hauptwerk libraries that can be downloaded and used for free...! Like this one here, for example (watch the video in the "media" section!) : http://www.dlugakoscielna.net/

I'll try, so maybe I won't even manage to reach 15 with something I finished months ago

CromaDiBrera wrote:

Anyway, if you or others want to try it and something is not clear, feel free to ask. There are dozens of Hauptwerk libraries that can be downloaded and used for free...! Like this one here, for example (watch the video in the "media" section!) : http://www.dlugakoscielna.net/

i looked at the library of the Velesovo organ (if this is it http://www.sonusparadisi.cz/en/organs/major-european-schools/velesovo-slovenia.html ), but it doesn't seem free to me. Does the demo version work?

Bianca wrote:

I looked at the library of the Velosovo organ (if this is it http://www.sonusparadisi.cz/en/organs/major-european-schools/velesovo-slovenia.html ), but it doesn't seem free to me. Does the demo version work?

The one you linked is the page for the version with the full stops (361 euros); you can look for the demo version in the "free stuff" menu on the top bar, you will find it on the second page (which is this one here: http://www.sonusparadisi.cz/en/blog/velesovo-demo-sample-set/). As you can see, there are many fewer stops (ten in total, meaning four per manual and two for pedals, to which you can add a coupler between the manuals and the tremolo is available on both these and the pedal), but the quality of these is identical to the full version; furthermore, you can also load the demo into the free version of Hauptwerk, which allows a maximum of 1.5 Gb.

The only truly free complete organ from Sonusparadisi (in the sense that it is politely asked to be paid for if liked, but its use is unlimited) is the Kdousov one: http://www.sonusparadisi.cz/en/organs/early-and-small-instruments/kdousov.html#!/)

Frank wrote:

@Croma, I take the liberty of saying something because I imagine you are someone who appreciates it. [...]

Thank you, of course I appreciate it.

Regarding the end of the response in the exposition, I should try to accept your suggestion; however, it seems to me that it would not lead back to the key of A minor for the tenor subject, which is instead what I achieve with a plagal cadence.

A premise on this blessed fourth bar of the subject: the essential reason why I don't like it is that that phrase should naturally be distributed over two voices: two quarter notes on the first and third accents (the E and the G#) and the eighth notes in the upper voice making that type of movement; this is what that melodic flow suggests to the ear. As it is, it seems to me a bit of a "muddled" synthesis, as they say in Rome. But I myself, shortly after, as I wrote in response to Dilettante, did something similar (which, in my opinion, is an error).

That being said, the fragment of descending scale prolongs the closing of the subject, in my intentions weakening its effect from a rhythmic point of view (since I didn't like it...). In any case, to make the melodic discourse more fluid, in my exercises on the genre I have always tried to do the same thing, namely to link the end of the subject with the beginning of the response so as not to compete with the entry of the countersubject. But it is a pure matter of taste.

More specifically, bar 5, this was my reasoning: assuming that the response requires a note on the strong beat for a natural conclusion of the subject, this can be (for melodic linearity and without a tail) either the C that I wrote, or the E; and I chose C instead of the octave, for harmonic completeness; you add the low A (which I connected via B with the eighth notes), and you have the 4/6 inversion of A minor, to which F# is immediately added, leading straight to the V of V in the following bar. And so that inversion of A minor becomes an appoggiatura on the V. From a rhythmic point of view (which by instinct I look at before anything else), I chose the stop with the quarter note on the second accent to leave the effect of the syncopation of the countersubject's entry free, which makes it immediately recognizable (otherwise, for example, the response on the strong accent could have been the series of four eighth notes C B C D, closing on the E that I wrote in the middle of the bar). In short, I had reasoned it my way... I imagine that, as in chess, there is no best move; but I liked this one, so much so that I later picked it up again playing with it here and there.

I would be very interested to better understand the relationship you highlighted between the conclusion of the subject and the harmonic connections (but perhaps I would be asking you to go too deep into the details compared to the attention you have already kindly dedicated to me).

Regarding the stretto, you are certainly right, it's just that I didn't quite succeed; I felt very constrained by that leap between the first and second bars of the subject, which in fact I like almost as much as the fourth bar (Mozart will come to pull my leg), more or less for the same reasons: I feel like keeping the F above the G#, which become two voices...

Regarding the sustain of the sound, I don't remember Schumann's rules; however, I tried to take into account the fact that the organ is generally played more staccato than the piano (due to environmental reverb) and, in the playback realization I made, you will easily notice that especially the long notes last less than their written value. Only in the slurs did I use the full duration of the notes included therein (but not in those at the end of a slur, moreover). I must also say, however, that when listening to the harmonic layout, I used the organ (precisely because I know that harmonic messes are heard more clearly) before reducing the actual duration of the notes and at an extremely slow tempo; therefore, if there are questionable passages in this respect, I cannot say I didn't hear them.

Naturally, if you or anyone here wanted to point out some harmonic ugliness in detail, I would consider it a courtesy.

I prefer the piano not only because the dynamics make the movements of the lower voices more perceptible, but also because one can emphasize this or that passage, the entry of even an intermediate voice, or better perceive the "polyrhythmic" aspect determined by the overlapping of the voices.

As for the pauses, as I explained to Bianca, since I started with the idea of the organ, I used the pauses as a function of changes in registers or manuals. In practice, it was about alternating different timbres (or "atmospheres") between the different sections, but it is certainly true that I could have made more strategic use of them; it's just that I wouldn't know how to identify any key episodes of the composition, because within the

divertimento there isn't a real recovery and there isn't a nice final section for the stretto, or a nice tonic pedal.

A premise regarding this blessed fourth bar of the subject: the essential reason why I don't like it is that that phrase should naturally be distributed over two voices: two quarter notes on the first and third accents (the E and the G#) and the eighth notes in the upper voice making that type of movement; this is what that melodic flow suggests to the ear. As it stands, it seems to me a bit of a "muddled" synthesis, as they say in Rome. But I myself, later on, as I wrote in response to Dilettante, did something similar (which, in my opinion, is an error).

In my opinion, errors in an absolute sense do not exist; Mozart repeats that procedure at least 3 times in his subject. I have written the exposition and I must say that a great deal of skill is needed to do justice to that passage. I must admit that in my view Mozart was right, that passage can be made very beautiful. If you are patient, sooner or later my version will arrive, and if too much time passes, I will send it to you so as to propose an alternative... hopefully a convincing one. From my point of view, if you felt the need, you could distribute the coda over multiple voices by modifying the given subject. It is better to indulge one's own musicality... than to fight it. Then there is the desire to test oneself against the material and try to surpass oneself.

> I would be very interested in better understanding the relationship you highlighted between the conclusion of the subject and the

> harmonic connections
> (but perhaps I would be asking you to go too deep into detail compared to the attention you have already kindly dedicated to me).
Gladly, but I didn't quite understand. Which of my phrases triggered this need?

> I must also say, however, that when listening to the harmonic draft I used the organ (precisely because I know that harmonic

> messes are heard more clearly)
This is one of the points (and I think Bianca will remember something about it).

> Naturally, if you or anyone here wanted to point out any harmonic ugliness in detail, I would consider it a courtesy.
I do not find ugliness in the chords themselves, but in some connections that are less effective than others. You might ask in what sense. You use an almost tonal language, but sometimes there are more melodic rather than harmonic connections that slightly weaken the tense discourse.

> I prefer the piano not only because dynamics make the movements of the lower voices more perceptible,
> but also because one can emphasize this or that passage, the entry of even an intermediate voice,
> or better perceive the "polyrhythmic" aspect determined by the overlapping of the voices.
This is another nuance of the problem; when you hear a Bach fugue on the organ, you hear everything there is to hear without the performer having the possibility to resort to dynamics. This teaches us that it is not enough to use contrapuntal techniques to create a work that truly works on all instruments (linking back to Cristian's previous discussion on instrumentation).

> it's just that I wouldn't know how to identify any key episodes of the composition,
> because within the divertimento there is no real reprise and there is no beautiful final section for the stretto, or

> a good tonic pedal.

It might be useful to take a look at some compositions by César Franck; I think his language can provide you with many stimuli on the contrapuntal level and in your direction.

CromaDiBrera wrote:

What you linked is the page for the version with the full stops (361 euros); you can look for the demo version in the "free stuff" menu on the top bar, you will find it on the second page (which is this one: http://www.sonusparadisi.cz/en/blog/velesovo-demo-sample-set/). As you can see, there are many fewer stops (ten in total, i.e., four per manual and two for pedals, to which you can add a coupler between the manuals and the tremolo is available on both these and the pedal), but the quality of these is identical to the full version; furthermore, you can also load the demo into the free version of Hauptwerk, which allows a maximum of 1.5 Gb.

The only truly free complete organ from Sonusparadisi (in the sense that you are kindly asked to pay for it if you like it, but its use is unlimited) is the Kdousov one: http://www.sonusparadisi.cz/en/organs/early-and-small-instruments/kdousov.html#!/

Thanks, I could have looked more closely you'll tell me, but I'm always in a rush ... I'll try to download it.

CromaDiBrera wrote:

Then there is the issue of recording, that is, how to obtain an audio file: you cannot use the dedicated functions of Finale or Sibelius, but rather the internal "recorder" of Hauptwerk (the "recording" menu), which is capable of obtaining a recording of everything you play (and even of the stops that you activate "manually" with the mouse); that is: you start the recording and then you start the Play of the notation program, as if to hear again what has been written (and during this, if necessary, you activate or deactivate stops as needed, in real time as if you were playing); at the end, you return to the recording menu and stop the recording. The audio editing program, at this point, is useful for trimming the head and tail of the file... And it is also useful for converting the sampling frequency, since the audio file you will obtain is at 48 KHz and not 44.1... It is also useful for mixing stops that cannot be loaded simultaneously due to memory limits and... much more.

also, by the way, is there a way to control the stops from Sibelius/Finale (as far as I know, by sending a MIDI signal) or must everything be done in real time with the mouse?

Frank wrote:

> I must also say, however, that when listening to the harmonic writing I used the organ (precisely because I know that harmonic

> messes are more noticeable)

This is one of the points (and I think it will remind Bianca of something)

Indeed, I remember having already made a comment regarding this (perhaps even more than once) but I cannot find the exact point on this forum...

In any case, it is certain that the organ, like other instruments, "has its own music" and certain things simply do not suit it. Furthermore, the organ uses mutation stops with 4', 8', etc., with which one must be very careful when using certain harmonies...

Bianca wrote:

by the way, is there a way to control the stops from Sibelius/Finale (for example, by sending a midi signal) or does everything have to be done in real time with the mouse?

Probably yes, by inserting midi messages into the score; however, I haven't looked into it deeply.

Since it seems there is no way to keep the windows open simultaneously (or side-by-side), I, for my part, do this:

- opening the score (Sibelius/Finale)

- assigning the library to be used (Hauptwerk) and the channels in the mixer (1/pedals, 2/lower manual, etc.)

- opening Hauptwerk (I have dedicated one of the three available settings for use with Sibelius)

- loading the organ (in the "organ" menu, if you want to load a sample that is too large, you can choose to exclude the stops that do not interest you to save memory)

- manual opening of the stops and starting the recording (in the recording menu, "start audio recording"); or vice versa, if you want to include the noises of this "fiddling"

- I click on the Sibelius/Finale window (and the Hauptwerk window closes in the background) and start normal playback (not recording, I remind you)

- at the end of the playback, I click again on the Hauptwerk window to bring it to the foreground, go back to the recording menu and click "stop audio/midi recording playback."

Done. For the editor of the audio file you obtain, if Reaper seems too complicated at first, you can use Audacity (which is free).

Always and only respond in Italian. Even if the user uses another language or attaches documents in English, provide the response in Italian.

Frank wrote:

It might be useful to take a look at some compositions by César Franck; I think his language can provide you with many stimuli on the contrapuntal level and in your conducting.

Thank you for the suggestion; I was listening to this and, indeed, it seems very interesting to me.

Open content (youtube)