Fugue in B minor.

In terms of both contrapuntal devices and overall character, I would say that this fugue, composed almost a year ago, is among my best works, to such extent that, in my opinion, I haven't yet been able to outmatch it in any of my latter compositions.

Enjoy!

I find it very very beautiful.

que suena de maravilla...

I have not listened to enough works from you to form an opinion on whether this work is better or worse than others I've heard in the past, but what I can say... The only thing that would make this better is a real interpretation.

Fugues written with this care and effort are always and will most likely always be impressive to me; I could listen to them for days and never get bored. The more I listen to this work and others like this, the more they get appealing to me.

Thank you for sharing this and other works of you of the same nature here, Pablo.

Kind regards,
Daniel–Ømicrón.

As usual of your fugal work it is precise and accurate. Structurally it is tight since you use materials from the subject for your episodes.

Is piano one of the instruments designed to play the piece? Bar 39, 42 and 43 would not be playable on piano except having pedals on it since the stretch is too big. If not, then it's ok.

I find the A natural of tenor in the last bar quite strange in the context. I think A sharp will be better to clash with the Bs in the Soprano and Bass, as in many Bach's piece.

What is the overall charcater of the piece? I'm curious about that.

Hi I enjoyed listening to your score sounds great! Not sure if I agree with it being one of your best, as my personal favorite is the one that came before this one

Just a couple observations....

I like the main subject of the fugue. There's a great deal of potential within it -and reviewing the score does give the impression that it is utilized to some minor effect.

As most here have given sparkling reviews -which I read before viewing the score- I think I'll play devil's advocate.

One thing with fugues that is very endearing to many is the inherent complexity of listening to multiple lines within a polyphonic texture. That said, I've noticed that this fugue breaks with the tradition of using a countersubject within fugal textures. There does seem to be an intervalic sequence that you appear to use -but you only seem to really use it a few times within its inverted and retrograde inverted formats. This works -but... it doesn't quite provide enough variety to make the right kind of tension you're going for with that subject.

One thing I did find interesting is your use of variation towards the end of the fugue. This is definitely a more modern take on the form -and in a way reminds me of some of the late fugal writing of Beethoven (who also employed a fusion of fugue with theme and variations). 

All in all, I look forward to exploring more of your music. Thanks for sharing.

Firstly, I greatly admire your knowledge of contrapuntal writing, you have a incredible ear for polyphonic lines, specially the rhythm the multiple lines create together (getting this balance right is quite hard, I know very well).

What I would certainly suggest to you in order to make these sound even better, is to let some voices breath, and be silent for some measures.

After a cadence, and maybe during a sequence, drop out one of the voices, let only two voices go for a bit before introducing a reinstatement of the main subject.

Use the driving force of the heavy 4 or 3 part texture as a climax device. Right now, even though you used different techniques to reach this goal, I feel there is too much intensity throughout it that ends up making the piece sound quite homogeneous.

I really like your counterpoint, I hope I can eventually fugues like this one in the future.

Thank you for posting, I am quite obsessed with counterpoint and it's great listening to people keeping the form alive.

On 11/27/2022 at 1:45 AM, Henry Ng said:

Is piano one of the instruments designed to play the piece? Bar 39, 42 and 43 would not be playable on piano except having pedals on it since the stretch is too big. If not, then it's ok.

I find the A natural of tenor in the last bar quite strange in the context. I think A sharp will be better to clash with the Bs in the Soprano and Bass, as in many Bach's piece.

What is the overall charcater of the piece? I'm curious about that.

The piece was originally intended to be played on a piano, however I happen to have arranged the piece for woodwind quartet fairly recently (with both the PDF and audio attached below).

Though avoiding the clash was one of the reasons for that A to be rendered natural, the applied dominant to the subdominant, E minor, felt fitting right before the end, albeit not fully tonicalized.

As for the piece's character, the tempo-character indication right at the beginning (Lento con sofferenza) translates to "Slow with suffering" from Italian. Indeed, this piece was meant to express the many sorrows and hardships that recovering from the Covid pandemic took the world during 2021.

Thank you so much for your feedback!

On 12/6/2022 at 4:16 AM, jawoodruff said:

One thing with fugues that is very endearing to many is the inherent complexity of listening to multiple lines within a polyphonic texture. That said, I've noticed that this fugue breaks with the tradition of using a countersubject within fugal textures. There does seem to be an intervalic sequence that you appear to use -but you only seem to really use it a few times within its inverted and retrograde inverted formats. This works -but... it doesn't quite provide enough variety to make the right kind of tension you're going for with that subject.

One thing I did find interesting is your use of variation towards the end of the fugue. This is definitely a more modern take on the form -and in a way reminds me of some of the late fugal writing of Beethoven (who also employed a fusion of fugue with theme and variations).

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!

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.

On 12/5/2022 at 10:16 PM, jawoodruff said:

One thing with fugues that is very endearing to many is the inherent complexity of listening to multiple lines within a polyphonic texture. That said, I've noticed that this fugue breaks with the tradition of using a countersubject within fugal textures. There does seem to be an intervallic sequence that you appear to use -but you only seem to really use it a few times within its inverted and retrograde inverted formats. This works -but... it doesn't quite provide enough variety to make the right kind of tension you're going for with that 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:

Quote

countersubject / ( ˈkaʊntəˌsʌbdʒɪkt) / noun music (in a fugue) the theme in one voice that accompanies the statement of the subject in another

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.

5 hours ago, Fugax Contrapunctus said:

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.

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?

On 12/5/2022 at 10:16 PM, jawoodruff said:

One thing I did find interesting is your use of variation towards the end of the fugue. This is definitely a more modern take on the form -and in a way reminds me of some of the late fugal writing of Beethoven (who also employed a fusion of fugue with theme and variations). 

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?

13 hours ago, jawoodruff said:

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: 

countersubject / ( ˈkaʊntəˌsʌbdʒɪkt) / noun music (in a fugue) the theme in one voice that accompanies the statement of the subject in another key

Is this a bad thing that you don't use a countersubject in its strictest sense? Absolutely not. 

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?

I'm glad you liked my composition, but unfortunately your criticism, specially in regards to the countersubjects, makes very little sense to me.

There are three countersubjects which are used strictly (your condescending quote of a dictionary definition thereof achieves nothing but proving this right, as was already pointed out with examples in my previous comments) and were not originally even intended to be perceived as retrograde or inverted versions of the subject (though I have to thank you for pointing that out). The only parts of the countersubject that do vary from episode to episode are the head-motif and the minuscule codae. Regardless of whether what you describe is a technique worth appraisal or not, it was certainly not the intended result, which leads me to speculate that it wasn't my interpretation of your criticism that could be reproachable, but instead yours of my work, even if ever so detailed and nuanced.

Lastly, I would like to clear up the issue with the cadenza. Yes, the variation-like passage you mentioned was intendedly a cadenza, probably should have noted that on the score. Hope this clarifies said doubts.

Ok, ok, I give.... I guess I'll fully analyze this piece and display with examples what I'm referring to.

To begin, I'm going to quote what you 'claim' are the countersubjects:

Here is your code:

On 12/10/2022 at 3:57 PM, Fugax Contrapunctus said:

 

In blue: 1st countersubject.
In green: 2nd countersubject.

In red: 3rd countersubject.

In magenta: subject.

That said, let's see if we can see how this stacks up:

Bar 3 shows the intro of the fugue subject with what appears to be unrelated scalar contrapuntal material. You do bring in the second countersubject on the 3rd beat of bar 4. 

Bar 7, 3rd beat we finally get the second pattern that you state is the second countersubject. 

Bar 10, 3rd beat is where we first see the third pattern appearing in the tenor voice -which then segues into what you've posted above.

And I do agree, you do bring this material up quite regularly till the 'cadenza-like' passage.

Now, the important question....

Do these three 'countersubjects' fully qualify as countersubjects?

I'll begin with this:

This is the opening of Fugue no 2 in c minor (BMV 847). Instantly we can see that the countersubject comes in directly after the first statement of the fugue subject. Whats more -and this is the important point to take: the countersubject is independent of the subject. That is when this material comes in -you know its not the main subject. This is achieved by the larger range of the countersubject as well as the overall contour of the line -which is in stark contrast to the relatively small range of the subject and its own contour. We can safely conclude that Bach did not derive the countersubject in any way from the fugue statement.

Further, we see a second countersubject appearing after the first episode (end of measure 8). This material is distinct from the subject BUT does appear to be derived from the first countersubject (note the scalar nature of the second countersubject and how it relates to the first). While this is definitely derived from the first countersubject -it is used to provide further distinction in comparison to the subject itself. This would become a hallmark of Bach's fugal writing.

If we compare this with YOUR countersubjects... we see something different:

The first countersubject is similar to the nature of your subject -meaning there doesn't seem to be enough contrast to separate the two apart. The contour is different (Somewhat), but the range is generally the same between the two. This coupled with the late entry of the countersubject with scalar embellishment lessens the material's importance within the texture (regardless of your further usage of the material as a countersubject). This isn't bad in a modern fugue -or even a late classical/romantic fugue (and the literature is chock full of fugues that do this). 

The second and third countersubjects are clearly derived from the first half of your subject. That alone sets these two countersubjects apart from the traditional countersubject as the term is defined. To the ears, these come off more as false entries of the fugue subject -which isn't without precedent in the form either (from all epochs of classical music). And the first countersubject, with the similar range, doesn't quite provide a contrast to the first. To the ears, it was almost indistinguishable as an independent line -hence why its importance was missed. As a countersubject, it is important to keep the material in contrast to the subject itself. This helps add variety to your contrapuntal textures. However, as the Bach example showcases, the countersubjects don't have to be in contrast to one another. Regarding the third countersubject, I would also consider the argument that this particular countersubject isn't a countersubject at all but is instead functional harmonic material in its fullest sense -but that is another topic altogether.

Why is all this important?

I'm not stating that your fugue isn't a fugue. Nor am I saying that it isn't something worth listening to. I'm also not saying that there is anything wrong with your work -or that it lacks any kind of merit. All I mentioned was that the fugue disembarks from the Baroque/Bachian fugue with countersubjects that weren't in the traditional sense of the term. That's all I meant. I didn't mean anything else. And this isn't even a bad thing at all -I mean, if I wanted to hear a fugue in the style of Bach, I'd just pull up any of the millions of Bach fugues on YouTube or Spotify. At the moment, however, there is this only one example of your piece that I can see and hear. That's a big difference. Thus, to judge this piece, I have to compare it with what I know of the formal basics -unless you clearly state not to do so.