Leaderboard

Yes the title is parenthesis. It intends to present something unspeakable and speechless. I had other intentions at first but do not dare to speak it out. The piece is composed 10 years ago when I was a naive teen. The structure is simpler in a ternary structure. The recording is also recorded 2012 by myself in my school’s music room. You can hear the school alarm sound at the near end!! It’s also full of slips and wrong notes. But I cannot find or produce a better recording. This recording is so honest and pure. Even now I can play it much better in terms of technique, I can never produce that honesty anymore, so I will just retain it here. Without @Omicronrg9’s encouragement, I would not post the piece, thank you Daniel! Hope you enjoy the piece, and I welcome commentaries and comments on it. Thank you and have a nice day! P.S. I have provided the YT link here in case some one loves to visit my channel!

A somewhat shorter fugue when compared to most others within production, though still of good quality I hope. Enjoy! Little Fugue in D minor. - YouTube

This is a very delightful piece. I love some of your harmonic choices. Aside from some minor score appearance issues (the trill notations, for instance), I really don't have much else to say about it -particularly since you played this YOURSELF!?!?!!? Good work!

It's in good quality as usual! Great contrapuntal skills as always. I think some episodes can have 1 voice reduced, or at least having some rest or imitations between voices to have a breath for the players, also thus emphasizing the moments the subject appear. I am just afraid some sections are too wide for the two hands to play in a piano: bar 17 beat 2 and 3, bar 26 beat 4, bar 27 beat 1 and 2, bar 34 beat 1 and 2. I think playability is also very important, since without it the piece cannot make sense of the otherwise great counterpoint!

Intro is very, very good, you hook the listener in right away with the main theme. Your key changing definitely helps keep the listener engaged. Was your use of parallel 5ths a conscious choice? Not sure how I feel about those, however, I think parallel 5ths with sustain would make my ears happier. That's just my preference though! Very strong ending too. I almost felt like you changed styles from a somewhat modern classical-esque style nocturne to a neo romantic ending. Very good stuff there. Some other critiques though would be your audio. When you get to the forte section it is really too loud, and that's when you start to hear the shortcomings of your samples. I also feel like your non sustain sections sound too synthesized. The sustain samples are much better though, but this is a common problem with piano unfortunately. But overall it is a fun piece to listen to, and most importantly, consistent!

I'm honored that you went to great depths to show that you do have countersubjects -even when showing score examples. I'm a bit perplexed at your interpretation of my comments. I did not say that you had no countersubjects. I did say that there appears to be a few intervallic sequences that you repeat with their inverted and retrograde inverted formats. These weren't my main points though. My main point was that it didn't quite provide enough variety to create the right kind of tension that I come to expect from fugal textures -particularly as it relates to my expectations of your subject. Your piece, as I said, does take segments of your subject and expands upon them to create its contrapuntal nature -which is an awesome technique employed by countless composers since time immemorial. But that doesn't necessarily make this a countersubject in the strictest sense of the term. From the Collins English Dictionary: Is this a bad thing that you don't use a countersubject in its strictest sense? Absolutely not. The takeaway that I want you to have is not necessarily on your treatment of a countersubject. Particularly since we both said that you use material in inversion (and retrograde inversion) as a countersubject. My main concern, and I'll state it again, is that I did not perceive enough variety to make the right kind of tension in relation to your subject. Where did I make mention of a cadenza!?! Did I miss something here? What I was referring to had nothing to do with a cadenza, its usage in the repertoire, and certainly not even a 'toccata-like' passage. Are you referring to this comment of mine? All that said, I did like this work. I'm taken aback by your response to my review though -particularly that you took my comments completely in the wrong direction. Hopefully this clears it up?

I'm a tad confused by your perception that there are no countersubjects when there are actually three of them appearing in almost all entries of the subject in invertible counterpoint, did you check the score? I'll provide a few images of them for further context. In blue: 1st countersubject. In green: 2nd countersubject. In red: 3rd countersubject. In magenta: subject. Occasionally, the 3rd subject drops out due to its simplicity, but the configuration is reiterated like this in almost every episode: 1st episode (3rd countersubject missing: 2nd episode (answer of the one just before): 3rd episode (3rd countersubject replaced by free counterpoint): 4th episode (the subject head gets slightly modified, one voice drops out for the stretto entry and the other one does free counterpoint for a while): 5th and final episode (reexposition after the cadenza): Lastly, in regards to the cadenza itself, there are at least some standalone fugues or fugato passages by Bach that do include a cadenza or toccata-like passage, for instance, BWV 948 (Bach - Fugue in d-minor for harpsichord - BWV 948 - YouTube). So it really isn't so much of a novelty as to go as far as Beethoven for examples. Thank you very much for your criticism and feedback though!