Fugalicious

I found it bland and harmonically uninteresting. Funny that, because the pieces I like on this site are usually commented on heavily about technical errors, whereas this seems to be universally acclaimed. But for me, it seems to be endless arpeggiation over harmonies that dont change very much, with heavy repeats. So my suggestion would be to change the harmony at least 2 times every bar, to go outside the I IV V I box, and to make sure that the themes are more melodic, instantly recognizable, perhaps with a definite rhythm. Bach also tends to make the voices more even - that is, each voice gets a decent crack at holding the main thematic interest - often throwing the theme or a motif from one voice to another and back.

There is something to be said on both sides. The way I think of it is that nobody before Bach wrote a Bachian Fugue (modulation was a poor affair before equal temperament), so what you have is an ever-growing "bag of tricks". These are best thought of as a series of guidelines rather than as an absolute. Most modern music would be "forbidden" by the early rules of dissonance. Moro Lasso was considered an abomination by many, with its odd harmonies and discords. But then there is the educational aspect - learning how historically it was done, and also, its hard to teach any topic without "rules". One can teach what a sonnet is, but its harder to teach prose. So schools love the rules, and this love/hate relationship is passed to the pupils who graduate from it, like army vets love to teach their kids discipline, order and how to shine shoes. "I had to learn it, so you can too!" Then there is the aspect that confining yourself to rules, no matter how arbitrary, enriches the result. Just because you are successfully making good music DESPITE the rules. Its far easier to write a Haiku if you dont care how many syllables you use. But the fact that you have limited yourself in this way makes the Haiku nicer to those who are Haiku aficionados. I think this is where many fugue nazis sit. I think the real challenge is for you to work out which "rules" provide better music for you. For instance, discords can propel music forwards by demanding resolution. Ultimately, Mozart made pretty tunes by abandoning most of the counterpoint and focusing on simplistic harmony. Was he wrong to abandon the old tight rules and games? Modern pop music is plain to my ear, but many seem to like it. So look at it as a series of tips and tricks, and I think you wont go far wrong. Look at it as a bible or a straightjacket and its probably not useful. Ultimately, its your choice. What is chromatic music, but a complete rejection of the rules of diatonic music? Here is an interesting question: How would Bach have rated a work by Hindemith? How would Ockeghem rate the final 5 minutes of the Art of Fugue by Bach? The last 5 minutes of Beethoven's 9th (the acapella just before the tutti return)? Would they all have felt the rules were being "followed"?

Personally, I think a great many people overstate the complexity of fugue writing. It is as simple or as complex as you want. The rules you choose to follow or not follow are up to you. There is a great difference between an atonal fugue and one by Bach, and indeed one by Bach and one by those who preceded him. Why not start by listening to "So you want to write a fugue" by Glenn Gould. I guess what I'm trying to say is that "fugue" means a great many things to a great many people. What it means to you is up to you. Essentially you have a melody coming back again and again, and thats it. Yeah, the opening is a little formulaic, but even then you can vary a great deal - the order of the voices, real or tonal answer, how soon the voices enter after one another, etc. So I would just dive in and see what you come up with. I've written quite nice fugues (I like them) early on that are way simple, probably break loads of rules, but as I learn more and more, it gets more and more complex. Early fugues had not much idea of harmonic progression, they were simply based on species counterpoint. Bach's fugues had a great mastery of harmonic progression, but also modulated all over the place thanks to the new well-temperament system that earlier composers didnt have access to. Some fugues use highly complex stretto and inversion - others dont. So in short, its as simple or as complex as you want it to be. So my best advice is "so you want to write a fugue, you have the urge to write a fugue, you have the nerve to write a fugue, so go ahead, just plunge right in and write one" You are not going to compete with Art of the Fugue on your first try - so dont try to. Just start.

I like it overall, but there are a few twists that make it sound non-Bachian in spots - that - I dont know how to say, inflection, around 3-4 seconds in. Somewhat modern. It's not bad per se to my ear, and if I had written it, I'd like it and be loathe to lose it. But as an outsider, it mars the symmetry, the bland perfection of it in some ways. Basically, the more boring it is, the more normal it sounds. The more interesting it is, the more it sticks out like something you want to hammer flat. If the inflections were more consistent, they would define the piece and sound fine. But as it is, they jar slightly against the perfection of the rest of it (I dont mean lack of mistakes, I mean the way it sounds professional). I'd be proud of it if I were you.