Fugue Workshop 2014

Bianca wrote:

I don't know if Cristian wanted to write a fugue for voices, or if he used that type of instrumentation just for convenience; in any case, in my opinion, apart from the lack of text, the proposed subject does not adapt very well to a vocal ensemble.

Honestly, the criticism seems sterile to me,

mine is an 'academic tablature'; you can make it played by strings or woodwinds if you prefer.

Frank's, however, was excellent; the countersubject could have moved more.

I was expecting some criticism regarding the "meat" of the piece.

Mine, for example, are: 1. before the dominant pedal of my fugue, it needed to be lengthened because something is missing, and 2. having done too many transpositions and academic responses, in the end, I burned through the keys for the stretto.

Regarding Croma's fugue, I can only say that it is excellent.

You can see that it is original and personal, as a certain way of writing emerges from the composer that is not a conservatory "format" (like mine, which anyway had been designed to be exactly that).

A great work of art without too many constraints and quite a few surprises that work very well (in my opinion, it's only the ear that wants its share, never the paper).

CONGRATULATIONS!

Tall fugues should be like this because I maintain—though perhaps someone might disagree—that all the school-style fugues produced by those studying composition have little to do with the true art of composing.

Teaching helps, but in the long run, it often risks clipping the wings of personal impulses and locking everything into schemes and formulas from which it then becomes difficult to break free.

Probably the next work I post will be personal (time and school permitting), as there is no longer any sense in writing things "of the past"; there are those who have already done so their whole lives and were certainly better than us.

x Frank:

It would also be curious to have a workshop where one writes the ideas for pieces instead of the piece itself, to evaluate the creativity of composers, their preferred languages, etc. (so far, in my opinion, this has only happened with choral pieces since only the text is provided).

By doing workshops with subjects drawn from history, it is obvious that, having to respect them, we consequently find ourselves constrained to a certain type of language.

cristiank83 wrote:

I was expecting some criticism regarding the "fat" [substance/thickness] of the piece.

I'm watching it, then I'll arrive

cristiank83 wrote:

x Frank:

It would also be curious to have a workshop where prompts for pieces are written instead of the piece itself, in order to evaluate the creativity of composers, their preferred languages, etc. (so far, in my opinion, this has only happened in choral pieces since only the text is provided).

By conducting workshops with subjects drawn from history, it is obvious that, having to respect them, we consequently find ourselves constrained to a certain type of language.

Continue here

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/528-sondaggioproposta/

cristiank83 wrote:

Honestly, the criticism seems sterile to me,

mine is an academic tablature; you can make it played by strings or woodwinds if you prefer.

Sorry if I expressed myself poorly, but mine was not intended to be a criticism at all. I was only referring to the previous discussion (by Frank, I believe). For example, I find it more convenient to write on separate staves even when I am writing for piano, and not just because of the tablature. Of course you can have it performed by whichever instruments you want, and in fact you used strings, not voices.

And for what it's worth, I confirm my very positive judgment of your work.

Perhaps I didn't write it clearly, regarding the discussion on new proposals and laboratory content, please continue here

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/528-sondaggioproposta/

CromaDiBrera wrote:

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 windows open simultaneously (or to place them side-by-side), I, in turn, 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 from this "fiddling around"

- 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).

Thank you. Last night I tried the organ: damn, but you can't read a thing about the stops! I had to go by trial and error! Maybe that's also why I couldn't get anything out of it except for some lifeless notes that are barely perceptible.

Instead, I found this

https://sites.google.com/site/savirtualorgans/home/barton-theatre-organ/barton-3-6-for-haupwerk

which seems a bit more "full-bodied" to me, even though I have never heard the original. We'll see.

RStrauss, I find you much improved on this subject. You pull a lot of sound out, the use of embellishments that you often do is excellent and suits the genre and the instrument.

Just a tiny bit tired around the second minute.

I still need to check the score, but this time you seemed more convincing than usual

Bianca wrote:

darn, but you can't read a thing on the stops! I had to go by trial and error! Maybe that's also why I couldn't get anything out of them, just these feeble little notes that are barely perceptible.

Instead, I found this:

https://sites.google.com/site/savirtualorgans/home/barton-theatre-organ/barton-3-6-for-haupwerk

which seems a bit more "full-bodied" to me, even though I've never heard the original. We'll see.

The window can be enlarged a little by going into the "view" menu, then "piston toolbar" and "main console piston toolbar"; or, you can view Hauptwerk full screen ("show ... full screen", also in "view"); but, if necessary, almost all organs offer the possibility to show only the stop groups (right panel, left panel, etc.), so they can be read better.

As for the volume, however, you can turn it up by going into the "large floating control panels" menu (also in "view") and selecting "audio, midi and performance"; there you have both the volume and the trim volume (which is at -10 dB by default). However, even by default, the volume is not extremely low; it's possible that if you loaded the St. Anne Moseley (the "standard" one included in the program), the "pp" stop (pianissimo, indeed) is selected.

What you linked is an American-style theater electric organ. It's a bit "sui generis" for a fugue, but... why not? Only it is dry (meaning without any reverb) and it seems to me that even its stops are difficult to read... no?

P.S. A while ago I opened a discussion on Hauptwerk. Before Frank loses patience, I invite him to redirect the topic here: http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/1698-ho-trovato-la-configurazione-sibeliushauptwerk/?hl=hauptwerk

CromaDiBrera wrote:

What you linked is an American-style electric theater organ. It's a bit sui generis for a fugue, but... why not? It's just that it is dry (meaning without any reverb) and it seems to me that even its stops are difficult to read... no?

The fugue I am presenting is also sui generis, you will see

Anyway, in general, I don't love that type of organ; I'll see if there is something else or if I can make the one from Velesovo work, whose sound I like quite a lot.

@RStrauss I just listened to your fugue and I must say that upon first listen I liked it, especially the modulation to A from 42 onwards. Furthermore, it comforts me that you also assigned the pedal to one voice, even if with my organist she will have to sweat a little more

Bianca wrote:

@RStrauss I just listened to your fugue and I must say that upon first listen I liked it, especially the modulation to A from 42 onwards. Furthermore, it comforts me that you also assigned the pedal to one voice, even if with my organist she will have to sweat a little more

Even though I am a pianist who also plays the organ, I have learned a bit of pedal as well ... just the bare minimum and I still find that this is a resource to be exploited as well.

The modulation to A major is made specifically to give a little light to two keys that have little light, namely E minor and E minor .

AbateFaria wrote:

RStrauss, I find you much improved on the subject. You pull a lot of listening [attention], great use of the embellishments that you often do which suit the genre and the instrument.

Just a tiny bit tired around the second minute.

I still need to check the score, but this time you seemed more convincing than usual

Even though it is not my favorite form, I am learning.

@Cristian

I also took a look at your fugue. We have already discussed the CS [Counter-Subject] and the orchestration.

In terms of structure, I don't find any major problems. The first exposition is good, as is the reprise in the stretto by varying the entry order.

There should be some reflection on the exposition of the related subjects, in the sense that you give the subject back to voices that have sung it more recently. At least for the entry at 37, I would have thought more of the tenor. Furthermore, I would have better prepared the entry of the subject at 30, by making the bass go silent, even if only briefly, beforehand. When the soprano re-exposes the subject at 37, it does so after a bit (perhaps too much) of waiting; but this is the underlying concept and indeed the idea of going to 3 voices is good (and was often used), but I would reserve it for the episodes [divertimenti], which are always better to lighten, rather than the expositions. In fact, afterwards, until the stretti, there is no pause.

Also regarding structure, as far as the stretti are concerned, I would have liked to hear something more driving. At this stage, one should make the listener feel anxious and not tend towards dilation. The head of the subject and the progressive scheme of the central part are a godsend for this technique.

On a harmonic level, it doesn't seem to flow.

In terms of part-writing, I would have articulated the harmonic pedals better, especially since at 60 the tenor is treading on the bass's toes; perhaps it was worth making at least octave leaps to give it depth.

On a rhythmic level, in my opinion, you have somewhat abused the dotted quarter note, eighth note figure. You could have played a nice game between that figure and a quarter note, an eighth rest, and an eighth note. No change in substance, but greater variety. The ideal place could have been the CS, as we were saying.

In some episodes, perhaps the episodes [divertimenti] lapse into being schematic. If you are thinking of a schematicism potentially inherited from the "school," in my opinion, you are off track; I also went to school and my episodes back then were more elaborate in the sense that I took more care in hiding the structure... because even Bach's have a structure, it's just that it isn't seen or heard. Let's just say there is still room for improvement.

That being said, it is solid work (I notice an improvement compared to the last lab); I have given you some input only to try to increase your level of sensitivity on certain issues related to the subject. Regardless, you will pass the exam (the themes I am bringing up in this post are from an advanced course)... let's just say it is only a matter of playing for the grade but, above all, taking home some tools of the trade.

... you should participate more often.

@Bianca

Before commenting, I need you to better contextualize your choice of playback tempo in relation to the tempo indication shown on the score (besides, you know that others have used it, but we will talk about that). To explain myself better, with Finale you could have pushed much further in speed, but you didn't... so deep down, what held you back in this, and what was the determining element that made you choose the tempo you proposed in the mp3?

The playback tempo is 80 / 90 (as I had initially indicated on the sheet music), but given the pedal, before posting it I deleted that indication and replaced it with what is read: "as fast as possible". Note that it is not even "quickly" but "fast". It wants to be a bit playful, like the character of the piece, for that matter. I said "given the pedal" because, although I have seen more daring things, I understand that it can be quite challenging, especially in some passages. I believe that any faster would not be possible and anyway the intended speed is exactly 80 / 90, if one can manage it.

I'm listening to Bianca's piece on the fly; the sounds are "sick," as I usually define those pieces that don't follow an "orthodox" pattern.

However, at first glance, the doubt regarding playability concerns the pedal part; at this tempo, I think the sixteenth notes, in particular, are almost impossible to execute,

not so much in the sixth jump at measure 14 (a-f), but in situations where, from measure 16 to 18, those little groups of sixteenth notes are encountered: if you think for a moment about measure 16, where the pedal starts with F natural and then F# before rising to A, how would you approach this passage if you were playing the organ?

You would have to cross your legs to play the F natural first, meaning playing it with the right foot, the F# with the left, and finding yourself without "getting tripped up" while playing the A with the right, but then you would face the inverse problem when playing the C natural; in short, I would be careful (rhythmically first of all) regarding the part assigned to the pedal.

You could nonetheless circumvent this if you specify in the score that the pedal part can be played by a separate organ with an 8' stop, because since you haven't specified which stop the performer should use, it remains implicit, also thanks to the listening, that it is an 8'.

And in these cases, Piccinesco, the instruction "as quickly as possible" comes in handy, so I would be justified in playing it at 40th notes.

Bianca's [playing] doesn't displease me at times, but in some points I think it is more about gimmicks than actual effects. One can be unorthodox and use effects without "excessing."

I really like it very much, especially the exposition (and a bit less the finale), even if I don't understand this somewhat "sketchy" stylistic imprint, which reminds me of that other piece of yours with the little monkeys.

Regarding the pedalboard, I truly agree with the others, but I had already written: in my opinion, this subject is not very comfortable on the pedalboard (especially since the scale is without accidentals) and I imagine that in reality the effect would be not very smooth; not to mention, then, that the larger pipes do not have the same rapid response as the manuals (have you tried listening only to the pedals with this sample?); but it would be interesting if some organist here gave their opinion.

P.S. I am proud that the program worked even with Finale: I think there are only two of us on this earthly orb who have managed to use it this way...!

I agree regarding the pedal. Performed on a computer maybe it works, but live certain passages are on the verge of being unplayable, more than anything due to physical problems with legroom.

Regarding the delay of the larger pipes, I confirm this here as well.

I tried playing it on the piano (manual only): a doubt arises... is it really written like this?

The two staves of the manual are both in treble clef, and if that were the case, practically the hands would always be touching or worse, one on top of the other. It couldn't be bass clef, because in measures 15 and 16 the notes wouldn't be there.

Bianca, can you clarify this for us?

At the tempo proposed by the PlayBack, Bianca's pedal passages are not executable, however, the score does not indicate a tempo but an attitude (which doesn't actually indicate much)... taking it at half the tempo proposed in the file might work, but I don't know if that is or isn't the desired effect. Perhaps it would be better to indicate something in parentheses. In any case, some parts are executable; frantic arpeggios on the pedals is not a very organistic gesture. Maybe a double bass.

But distributing the notes of the faster passages between the hands?