Fugue in A major

This is a binary fugue in three voices. Each of the five "subject complexs" explores a common harmonic formula:

1. Perfect cadence, I-V-I (mm. 1-2)
2. Falling thirds (mm. 3-4)
3. Imperfect cadence, I-IV-V (mm. 7-8)
4. Ascending seconds (mm. 16-19)
5. Circle of fifths (mm. 22-26)

Sounds great.
I am surprised at what appears to be a very short subject.
I like the resources you have employed and describe.
By the way, one I like to include (I don't compose fugues seriously, just for fun) is a plagal cadence, before the final perfect cadence.

Hi @muchen_!

This is a very interesting fugue for a few reasons.  As @Luis Hernández mentioned, the short subject at the beginning, consisting of only 4 notes is a bit surprising, as the whole exposition of the fugue is over by the 2nd half of the 2nd bar.  Then, your episode right after sequences a figure which is itself an elaboration of the subject and longer than it.  You take many liberties with how you construct your episodes and don't return to any kind of traditional middle entries nor final entry.  It is very unusual for a fugue, which makes me question what made you decide to call this a fugue.  But, either way, it is still great music and certainly quite inventive.  Thanks for sharing!

Hey @PeterthePapercomPoser!

Thank you for listening and I'm glad you enjoyed the piece. This is most certainly a fugue! There are a great deal of middle entries (see mm. 16-18, 22-26), though not in the conventional sense of restating a subject in a given key - rather, the subject is really just a motif which the entire piece is weaved out of. Harmony is established by these subject entries via beginning the subject on different degrees of the scale (ala Omnes generationes from BWV 243). The five episodes are also rigorously written: mm. 5-6, 20-21, and 36-37 are stereotypical 7-6 suspension chains in different inversions, and mm. 31-34 is a replica of mm. 9-12 in a different key, which is itself a conventional falling thirds sequence constructed from the whole subject. There's even an important final entry in mm. 38!

If you're not familiar with Bach's WTC II then I'd recommend having a look at BWV 872b (Fugue No. 3). It is a fugue with a subject just as short as mine.

Thanks for your reply.  I guess I just expected the middle entries to be like a second exposition with such a short subject.  But I guess you are right - it is a fugue after all.

Hi @muchen_,

9 hours ago, muchen_ said:

If you're not familiar with Bach's WTC II then I'd recommend having a look at BWV 872b (Fugue No. 3). It is a fugue with a subject just as short as mine.

I remember in WTC II C sharp major fugue it’s a stretto fugue. The fugue subject does not stop after the first four notes, but rather continue until second bar, and it’s only the other voices get in earlier to form stretti. I think it’s different from the four note subject here.

I don’t feel like this one is a fugue since the subject is too short. The four note first subject in Bach’s WTC I C sharp minor fugue feels like a subject because it is much longer! However I do love the counterpoint here! I like your usage of suspensions as you have explained in your reply to Peter.

There’s a parallel octave from b.2 to 3 though.

Thx for sharing.

Henry

Hi @Henry Ng Tsz Kiu!

Thanks for listening too! There's debates amongst scholars on exactly where the WTC II No. 3 subject ends: after 4 notes, 6 notes, or whether it lasts one-and-a-half-bars. I don't particularly care about this debate - it's a fairly pedantic debate about labelling things. But what's very clear to me is that the main material used throughout the fugue is the first four notes alone. If you view the subject as one-and-a-half bar long then it reappears only three times for the rest of the piece, in the exact same stretto configuration as in the beginning! All of the "stretto" in the piece occurs after the first four notes too, thereby placing a great deal of emphasis to the first four notes alone. The fugue is also uncharacteristic in other ways. For example, it dissolves into a toccata-like texture with an undefined number of parts towards the end. Does this make the piece not qualify as a fugue?

I suppose you can call what I've written an invention with a strict fugal exposition. But then isn't this basically what a fugue is? 😄

Thanks for spotting the consecutive 8ve as well! I've fixed the score now.