Lesson with composerorganist (General Composition)

SSC -

This is a much more expanded version. Took your advice to prepare the entrance of the subject in g minor. Also, I edited and expanded the first sequence before the entrance of the 3rd entry of the subject (see mm 7 - 10) as I was unhappy with the original which was too slight and harmonically weak.

My main concern is getting back to the tonic. May be a good time for a stretto . I think I'll have to use the answer or a modified version of it as the subject itself is too problematic for a literal stretto. It should have a diminished chord or two before a little codetta and, of course, all of this will be after the subject is restated in the tonic.

Anyway, comments on strategy and any errors let me know. Thanks for having me do this. I like what I am writing now --- doesn't sound like an exercise anymore. It also has helped my compositions quite a bit - even if most of what I have written are drafts, sketches or pieces requiring expansion - they all sound tauter and more secure in their direction.

Hi. I'm still out of the country but I made some time to check your progress. :>

I think the new sections, hmm, need some touching up. It looks to me like you're writing with organ pedals in mind by the new section, when really it's VERY hard to play measures 27 28 29, for example. You need to balance your voices better there. Another thing to pay attention to is to avoid 4ths when you have pedals or held notes and your counterpoint is effectively reduced to 2 voices, like in measure 27. It's not necessary to correct this but you may want to think about it some more and see if maybe there are other options which fit it better.

There are other details which you should check. If you're going for "in style," for example, you must have that lower G in measure 34 (first chord) resolve down to F# (or F) but not to E. The 7th when in bass has the tendency to be resolved to the 3rd (if you're going A -> D) so that jump you're doing there isn't really so great. It's easily fixable by just forgoing that E and making the G longer till the F# comes. Then again, if you're going for "filler" you should actually use smaller note values (like you would when you improvise) so as not to throw off the resolution "feel" of the 7th there.

One of the hardest things about writing any sort of complex polyphony is trying to avoid writing "filler," and actually make each and every melodic line as best as it can be, not only in relation to the other voices but in relation to the line itself. In this context, it's typical that you see by beginners that they abuse 6ths and 3rds, specially in sequences, because it gives the impression of a "fuller" polyphonic construction, but the opposite is actually true. In instances where, for example, Bach used many consecutive 6ths or 3rds they were always shooting towards a specific style (like the Trio Sonata, or other such things) and they were used much like the bass octaves by later composers on piano.

Distinguishing between actual polyphonic complexity & elegance and effects to achieve more specific textures is something crucial.

Though 6ths and 3rds are easy intervals to link and use together, you should keep in mind that all intervals have their place in polyphony despite whichever hierarchy you're using. Use 2nds, dissonances to emphasize in your actual polyphony what points are harder, louder, or more aggressive, use "easy" consonances to emphasize which points are softer, more relaxed, etc. What you would do with dynamic, attempt to do with your actual writing and intervals. This is key when writing for instruments such as harpsichord (and organ to some degree.)

As for elegance and complexity, the same applies. You can have a very elegant single line (the theme from the musical offering, or Bach's chromatic fugue in D minor, etc) just by carefully considering what the intervals are and how you're handling them at a lineal level. Likewise, you can have very complex 2 voice counterpoint (Bach's duets, or his 2 voice fugues, etc) without really needing to go out of your way to use effects or any of that.

In fact, that's why before writing fugues it's recommended that you write inventions, since you can't "fall back" on using 6ths, 3rds, etc all the time or writing "filler" since it would be automatically obvious you're doing so. The more voices you have the more "room" you have to mess with but also it's much easier to develop bad habits.

Another thing to consider is if you want to keep a distinct "feel" to your polyphony such as how much jumping around you're doing as opposed to step motions or small intervals, etc etc. Obviously, it's never easy to keep a single "style" going all the time, it's something to keep in mind.

Well, I'll comment more on the actual thing later but I hope this was of some help.

SSC -

Well, I understand your point except for the playability of measures 27 - 29. Those measures are quite playable - especially non-legato - or at least for me.

Now the counterpoint, here is my response to your generous comments -

I agree 100% about measure 34, the E natural is unnecessary. Glad you caught it.

Measure 27, the bass is slowed down to keep a more 2 voiced feel for contrast and to tie into the earlier bars 23 - 25. So I think this may not be a balance problem unless I proceeded too long. My concern was to vary the texture between 2 voice and 3 voice polyphony AND take a break from all the scalar passagework. I will review that passage in lieu of what proceeds it - just looked it over for the third time and I realize it may be a mistake to thin out the texture when your great comments on thirds and sixths are considered.

Thinking over your comments (relating to mm 31 - 15) I see my intention for the 3rds and 6ths was the latter - to have it serve as a "octave-like" doubling to highlight the harmonic movement to the V of G minor AND the chromatic rising line and dramatic fall in the soprano (oh, on the fall to the C# I do follow your advice to emphasis the V/V of G minor with the tasty 2nd).

So I have a few questions

Are the thirds and sixths EXCESSIVE and therefore reduce the 3 part polyphony to 2 for too long in measures 31 - 35? Is it too harmonically static as is?

I may be listening this section with rose colored EARS! Plus, one of the hardest parts of fugue writing I find is to keep it interesting.

BTW - I realize the standards you ask me to meet have been getting tougher as we have proceeded. I love the rigor. Thanks!

SSC - been rereading your coments and had a great converstaion with another fugue expert - Ricarcare - old member who has come back (I think).

Anyway, taking into consideration your comments I revised mm 7 - 10 (don't know why i though I could dive into the next voice without it being the subject!) and I filled in the texture for mm 26 - 28 so it is a a truer, stricter 3 voice polyphony.

After 28, I will need to rewrite and save for later the material after mm 28 - that is why it sounds cut and paste like. To help me better understand what I wrote already I did an analysis. Here are a is a few observations:

1) I underestimated the complexity and richness of the subject. I think it is successful for these reasons - the upward leap of a 5th, followed by a downward leap of a 4 then balanced by a minor third filled out. The upward leap to a 4th and the lower auxillary mvmt before the big leap of a diminished 7th is good and ending with stepwise motion balances the prior activity. The success of the sequences of conjunct and similar motion is due to the nice contrast to the active subject. The overall harmony implied by the subject is i - V - ii - viio-i. So the area I plan to have multiple entries is in the supertonic - my prior plan to have several entries of the subject in more keys is unnecessary (though not ruling out a false entry or a stretto based doing this).

2) The leap of the diminished 7th offers room to use and abuse voice crossing - I did it fine with your guidance around mm 14 and got out of it in measure 17. In my earlier version not so well

3) Another entry in the dominant and more stepwise based sequences would be better before proceeding to some of the material I wrote - I rushed the development and pacing of the piece as I lost sense of the form. What I have is a somewhat traditional fugue (though the subject does enter slightly earlier than ine more common types) with an Exposition, sequence, Counter Exposition, a sequence based on the earlier one, and two middle entries in the dominant and then a mix of sequences and free material modulating to the supertonic. After measure 30, the material is unfocussed from too many ideas and a static harmony (despite all the hubub it stays in the V/ii area). I'll use the structure of the prior exposition/counterexposition as a guide to keep the form coherent. granted you say the fugue offers room for freedom after the exposition the one trap is to meander.

As for the playability, I guess that it depends on the tempo. I was thinking it was faster so my bad, it is pretty OK at slower speeds. But my concern really wasn't that but the distribution of the voices and where you're doing it though I think you understand it already so I won't repeat myself.

I don't think that you're using 6ths or 3rds excessively, no. I wrote what I wrote so that you would have reference and be mindful of when you use the intervals and how you use them.

And, well, I only expect from people what they're able to actually do. So if you see a rise in what I'm asking, it's only because I see progress. :>

As for your recent analysis and commentary, I should mention that what we're doing here isn't trying to reduce things to formulas but rather get those formulas "in the hand." I'd rather you write me 5 so so fugues than 1 single masterpiece if it means that you're learning more by writing those 5. The key is getting the details so they come out automatic. For this we don't need (and shouldn't) overthink details during the process of writing and instead opt to do it in aftermath (not with the objective to correct, but to learn.)

There's nothing worse than second guessing yourself at every step of the way, specially when what we want to achieve here is a fluidity in this specific language and a creative freedom that comes with its assimilation into the practical subconscious.

You have find a balance between careful consideration of what you're doing in terms of technique and how much "intuition" you put into it. The first we can work out in formulas and through analysis, the second is a thing of practice which is always different with everyone. There is no point in writing soul-less exercises as there is also no point in writing only from gut-feeling and intuition if we're trying to achieve a balance of both even if both have their place of equal importance in other areas of study.

As for your remarks on the subject you're using, well, it's not a simple subject to handle but the reason I didn't say anything like that was because 1: it's great exercise 2: it helps get across what you can expect from different subjects. Going back to the baroque affects, as I've written in other places already you should know that the subject should embody the affect of the key it is written in. In this case you did pretty well in this respect, regardless if by accident or intuitively. Some keys lend themselves to more complicated subjects (E minor, D minor, C minor (!!) and also to different characters. Keys that ask for chromatic movement, specific jumps (diminished 7th like in yours) etc are by default not easy to articulate or use and require a little more foresight.

But like I said, this is all a great exercise which, as I mentioned before and time and time again, is also an opportunity to work on your creative/etc process. Exercises are after all only tools to which the purpose is entirely definable and adjustable, some may have taken a similar exercise to be just mindless formula-reading and executing, but I rather work all sides I consider important when possible, as is the case here.

After all, this is about composition and not just theory.

As for keeping your form in check, you can simply plot it out with a flowchart (!) and it works rather wonderfully. You can plot what other options you have and then simply "write it out." It works because fugues in this style are fundamentally modular, you can plot out the elements and then figure out how to chain them together to get what you want.

If you want, we can also work on a prelude/toccata/fantasia/??? to go with this fugue once it's done, which is also another rather fun exercise, though in that case there's a little more freedom than here.

PS: Oh, don't worry so much about the harmony itself, only in which tonal regions (keys) you're moving and attention to specific chord formations (like that 7th chord I pointed out.) You should obviously keep an eye on this but don't let it dominate your writing.

I am either up for a toccata or prelude.

I promise to get this fugue done very soon. I spent a couple days revising how I get to G minor and making the false entry that comes before it plainer to hear.

I also realized the material I wrote earlier to get to the G minor entrance of the subject would be a great to get BACK to the tonic to repeat the subject. I'll see how it works.

Totally agree about intution verses analysis and allowing exercises to be more than just an exercise.

Well, it's OK to post if you REALLY need to but to give your opinion or suggest stuff, well, that's what PM is for. Besides, I've already covered what you're suggesting.

Revised 2 nd entry of subject C minor, sequence to g minor entry and gminor statement of subject.

Ok, I think it's coming along rather nicely, save for the last bit. I like what you're doing with the dissonances, but there's also a question of rhythm and filling. For example measure 35, you could take advantage of that dissonance and resolve it in quarter notes at the beginning, keeping the 8ths during the two quarters on the bass, then resuming with quarters (D and Bb) on top.

Also in measure 36 there's a voice crossing there with the alto which is really, well, undesirable. You may be able to pull that off elsewhere, but if this is for keyboard then that G is redundant at best. Try to avoid crossing your voices if possible unless you're writing for organ (and they're in different manuals) or voice, or other instruments where crossing IS actually crossing, not just theoretically but practical as the colors are different.

I'd also be careful with using octaves like in measure 31, since even if your voices are moving properly (6th and step motion, both in contrary motion to eachother) they are moving into a perfect interval. Perfect intervals don't benefit from being approached by simultaneous movement like this unless you want it to have a sort of accent, which wouldn't make sense since your accent would go there on the first dissonant beat (and the octave would be then the resolution, which won't really SOUND like the resolution because it overshadows the actual dissonance's resolution by virtue of it being an octave.)

You also have a A - Eb diminished 5th in measure 27, which you may want to change. If you want to try something different, I suggest in this particular case that you use a bit from the theme (the repeating quarter,) so as to have G (octave) G G C all in quarters linking over to the C in the next measure like you had before. That way you can have a little imitation within the actual counterpoint of that part of the subject which comes up exactly in the next measure. Give it a shot.

Yes, the voice crossing in measure 36 is unworkable - will fix.

Your suggestion for mm 27 is brilliantly simple. That measure has been such a headache for me. Fixed mm 31 - changed it to an earlier version I had. The top voice, after G, goes to E flat for a quarter and tied to an 8th note. Then C B flat C in eighths. Alto, second beat is E flat, D in eighths to an E flat for a half note. Thus on beat 2 I keep the octave in the upper voices but eliminate the accent by using moving thirds in the lower two voices to highlight the resolution of the dissonance from beat one and to accentuate the accent on beat 3. Your discussion about 3rds and 6ths helped with this decision.

I don't quite understand your suggestion for mm 35 although it must be better than what I have right now which is a muddled.

I don't quite understand your suggestion for mm 35 although it must be better than what I have right now which is a muddled.

Think of it like this: you want to have different rhythmic figures in your voices (as contrast) which is pretty typical. By getting rid of the 8th scale in that measure you provide some variety as this scale figure already shows up enough. You can keep a bit of it where the bass has the quarter repetition, but otherwise it's not necessary that it remains there entirely. The reason I'm saying this isn't because it's particularly wrong, but because I'm getting the feeling that you are using elements sometimes "out of duty" than because you actually want them there.

Just think that section through and see if you really want that scale element in 8ths the entire time through that passage. :>

SSC - Now I understand. Actually it isn't even out of duty - it is from writing at the piano and letting the fingers ingrained patterns dictate the composition. This is why I want to improve my immature audiation. Sharpening my ears will allow me to compose away from the piano more AND recognize when my hands are composing rather than my ear and brain. PS For anyone reading this, this is one of the pitfalls of writing at the piano - it is easy to become careless with your ears. Nevertheless, composing at the piano is fine (or with any other instrument) as long as you guard against such carelessness and take very short breaks.

Thought over the problem with measure 31 and decided the b flat in the alto in 33 is unneccessary. This helps a little in reducing the recurrence of octaves in the upper voices in mm 29 - 33.

Just a tiny update to let you know i am working on it. Got sidetracked to prepare for a difficult (for me) Anglican church service after not playing even a full service for over a year.

Baroque Fugue - Jan 15 version.sib

I think the counterpoint is correct now in mm 35 - 37 (though a little odd in 33). I reverted back to what I originally wrote for mm 31 - despite its weakness this is the sound I want and I have spent way too much second quessing and nitpicking this section. Must move on.

It's pretty alright, and I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to start coming to the final exposition/etc by now too. As an exercise it's been I think a pretty successful endeavor, and that's what we're shooting for. Now we can move on to other things, like we said before.

Totally agree. Fugue fatigue has been creeping in lately anyway.

So, anything new? Bumping before thread dies. :>

SSC - actually lots ...so sorry about not keeping up with the fugue. I promise to finish it ... just have a sextet to write for class Thursday - string quartet+double bass+piano.

Here is my second draft after hearing my first draft performed. Just FYI - I have to take it easy on with extended techniques - I mean i can use easy harmonics sul pont, tremelos etc but the focus is to get down some basic elements of orchestration and composing for a string quartet with double bass and piano (BTW I am stuck about what to do with the piano -- all I come up with are stuff sounding like a pale imitation from from Barok's Music for Celeste Strings and Percussion)

I have to ask, though. Seeing your Sextet there, why all the time sig changes?

It's interesting you mention Bartok, but let's talk a little about rhythm and organization. You're both using accents and metric changes, so basically I'm wondering what your intention is with the changes.

Opinions vary among musicians, and I've come across people who play 4/4 ALWAYS as 4/4, regardless if it's Ligeti's Atmospheres (!) or Bach, which isn't such a great idea. The difference is mostly, if you want your rhythm to come through the traditional metric-given accents, you would be inclined to use sig changes like you have.

But there's also a different reason why you would want to use different time signatures: It messes up the instrumentalists pulse. When there are many changes in signature, it provokes a break in the beat, it makes it harder to predict what comes next. Musicians trained with typical literature where very seldom do such changes happen will have always a difficult time trying to think in lines that change their basic beat every measure or so. This can be intended on purpose to cause a type of "stiff" or "robotic" playing, since keeping count overtakes the traditional rubato/flexible way people would phrase their lines with a consistent regular pulse.

Messiaen for example is a great example with his Valeur Ajout

SSC - Rhythmically the divisions in the first draft were much larger ranging from 13/4 - 9/4 . At my teachers and players request I subdivided the bars into 3/4 and 4/4.

The reason is the main thematic material is to be played with a rhythmic pulse similar to Gregorian Chant. Unfortunately many instrumentalists do not get sufficient experience with Gregorian Chant. So my purpose so far is to express different base pulses with the changing time signatures. The phrasing is to assist players with organizing the thematic material into a very long line.

As for long range planning - I want to get away from the changing meters to a more consistent meter - this can serve a larger structural purpose per your comments - a sort of rhythmic dissonance to consonance (in a very large Schenkerian sense) for the performer. The time limit for the assignment is 3 minutes so I am unsure if I will have time oto get to that point ... or if I even want to this after i finish the first section. This could be a nice long term project we could go back to.

Appreciate the comments on this - clarifies my purpose.

The problem for me is to translate such a vocal conception of one's thematic material to this medium. Strings aren't so terrible a transfer - they can do many things voices can. The problem comes with the modern grand piano which I have a prejudice - it never was a good vocal instrument (and one of my irritations which I live with is doing ear training exercises to mistuned pianos) - except in very, very few hands.

The other problem is vocally the string quintet and piano have the range of two super choirs.

SSC -

I think your comments about time are quite profound --- been talking with a few other members and I hope you find that in small ways I have taken into consideration your comments - the piece is far from complete. But the idea of how meter affects the performer's sense of pulse makes the idea of having the meter become apparently steadier to the performer as larger structural underpinning seems like such an obvious idea that hasn't been explored well enough.

Note this is a work in progress so the score needs some tidying.

Ok updated again ... I found a compromise on the time signatures ... but anyway my question is timbral about how to move the canon to the viola and cello and ideas of where to put my piano chords ... just some ideas for me to consider. I want to recall the pizz alterations but more violently bartok pizzes and strumming on the strings while such a canon develops. The eventual goal is to have a portion of the quintet gradually moving to play more consonant chords while another section moves into a micropolyphony in a narrow range (possibly sul pont) and the micropolyphony serves eventually as a pivot chord or chords to a new movement or section. Note that the new canon I introduce is take on fragments of A Mighty Fortress Is Our God.

PS Or do you think I am overthinking this whole thing and just need to leave the piece alone for a few days?

Sextet Version II.sib

Well, I think that if you have it planned out, you better write it first.

As for suggestions, I really don't know. You have a long slow development phase until rhythms start coming into a central role, and I'm not sure if you want to do that with the piano. An idea would have the piano break up the slowness of the strings from the start with a more vibrant rhythm and some contrasting harmonies.

Specially in the canon part. It's sort of going into minimalist direction if you just keep the canon going the way it is, which you may want to break up with the viola, cello or/and piano.

Thanks SSC - as I have been pondering the piano's role I have been thinking the piano would have the piece veer away from the minimalist direction it seems to be heading in some of its parameters (but be aware the fp will be varied and contrasts between wide and narrower vibrato will be explored to mitigate the minimalistic direction).

Good ideas

SSC -

First want to assure you that the fugue will be completed and a recording of it on a decent organ will happen.

Second to keep this thread alive I share with you my most recent assignment I am working on.

This assignment - to write a song (non-classical) for a non-classical singer has been difficult for a number of reasons:

1) I want to notate the syncopations without restricting the singer's chances to play with the phrasing.

2) Note I have no right hand for the verse. I did this after attempts to insert comping chords but they intruded on the vocal line or just weren't harmonically satisfying. So I may leave it to the pianist to comp on his or her own. Not sure. Would like your thoughts.

3) The left accompaniment really is simpler than it sounds - but because the 7th sounds as the root and the 9th, #11 and #13 of the E flat major 7th chord are heard often, the harmony is not clear. plus the bass line is angular. Therefore setting the vocal line was difficult - often had to adjust according old fashioned counterpoint rules.

4) Finally the lyric I wrote suggested a mix of jazz and gospel styles - I was listening in particular to Mahalia Jackson's In The Upper Room and the arrangement's mix of blues, gospel as well as a great bass singer providing excellent support to Mahalia prompted me in this direction.

5) This is my first serious attmept to wrote a non-classical song.

6) It is incomplete. Some moments I think it is redeemable other times I think it is complete trash.

Happiness gospeljazz2.pdf