Short canon at the 5th

Hi all!

Here's a quick update on my Suite WIP. I'm currently composing a Scherzo and Trio, with the Trio being a canon at the 5th over a free bass, in ritornello form. I've attached the Trio here. It's my first time composing a strict canon. Please let me know of any grammatical errors and your general impressions!

For context, the Scherzo (12 + 20 bars) will be constructed mainly out of 2-bar phrases.

Few complaints here, although I'm probably the least qualified to comment on musical form. There were a couple of passages that gave me pause. The 2nd beat of m35 includes an 8ve in the 1st and 2nd voice... I wonder if that might be destabilized with a 5th or 6th instead (which would also match the imitative leap in the 2nd voice at m37)? Also, the harmonic progression to the end of the first phrase (m40) isn't quite convincing to me. We do make the transition to the dominant by m36, and this is maintained through m38, but then there is a lowering of the dominant's leading tone back to B-flat. Would that be strengthened, I wonder, if the leading tone to the dominant were continued to be raised (which might also necessitate a change in the bass notes in m38)? Likewise, the progression at mm42-43 isn't quite convincing, perhaps because the initial chord at m43 is a bit ambiguous. (Is it a species of C chord? Amin7? Em?)

Really, though, it's a fine piece. As far as I can tell, you have a solid grasp of voice leading and counterpoint. And it's your music, so you can do with it what you will. These are simply my preferences and should only be taken into consideration if you agree with them!

10 hours ago, Tónskáld said:

Few complaints here, although I'm probably the least qualified to comment on musical form. There were a couple of passages that gave me pause. The 2nd beat of m35 includes an 8ve in the 1st and 2nd voice... I wonder if that might be destabilized with a 5th or 6th instead (which would also match the imitative leap in the 2nd voice at m37)? Also, the harmonic progression to the end of the first phrase (m40) isn't quite convincing to me. We do make the transition to the dominant by m36, and this is maintained through m38, but then there is a lowering of the dominant's leading tone back to B-flat. Would that be strengthened, I wonder, if the leading tone to the dominant were continued to be raised (which might also necessitate a change in the bass notes in m38)? Likewise, the progression at mm42-43 isn't quite convincing, perhaps because the initial chord at m43 is a bit ambiguous. (Is it a species of C chord? Amin7? Em?)

Really, though, it's a fine piece. As far as I can tell, you have a solid grasp of voice leading and counterpoint. And it's your music, so you can do with it what you will. These are simply my preferences and should only be taken into consideration if you agree with them!

 

Thank you for the feedback!

The cadence in mm. 39-40 is intentionally an imperfect cadence, IV - (Ic) - V, in the tonic key. The justification is that the Suite has 10 movements and every other movement features a perfect cadence in the dominant by the double bar. I thought I'd change up the game a little. Perhaps the brief digression into C major was unnecessary?

I agree with you though that I also don't find mm. 42-43 convincing. In the key of G minor, the E-natural in the upper voice is weird! Here is a reworking.

57 minutes ago, muchen_ said:

Perhaps the brief digression into C major was unnecessary?

Perhaps unnecessarily distracting, but certainly not to the ruination of the piece.