Search the Community

Four fugues and 3 preludes (or whatever these can be called.) The counterpoint and style is mostly quite free, I took a lot of liberties with harmonies and voice leading if I thought it was interesting, so there's inevitably going to be parallel motion, but I think I'd rather take that than make it bland. It's been quite a long time since I've written this kind of music so it was really refreshing to go back to "my roots" and have fun with it. As for technical matters, the subjects for the fugues, save for the first one, are strange on purpose. Specially C minor and the second double fugue subject in the D minor fugue. I mean, they're workable, but I'm constantly harmonizing "against" the subjects, so this leads to some pretty fun moments like a subject that's supposed to be in G minor tonic being harmonized in Ebmajor, stuff like that. It was pretty challenging to get all of this done and stay somewhat inside the style of instrumental counterpoint that I like. The double fugue in D was hard to write and it went on for longer than I had anticipated, even after cutting all the fat. If there's something I realized when writing these things is that I have very little tolerance for sequencing that is there for the purpose of padding out the runtime of the piece. So I try to never sequence anything more than 3 times, and I will vary the amount between 3 and 2 depending on context. It's one of the trappings on the style and I understand better now a lot of composers that worked in this style post-baroque times, specially within the context of a sonata's development episode vs the way sequencing is used in a fugue. Combining both things is very difficult from both a conceptual and technical point of view. In fact, I grouped these fugues together (I wrote them in sequence within the span of 2 weeks or so) and in the end I feel this is also sort of, kind of, like a sonata. Even if there's no "sonata form" in these, but then, I get the feeling that the DNA of the thing is more leaning in that direction than something like Bach. I purposely avoided reusing countersubjects when I could help it, too, as to give myself more freedom to write whatever was more appropriate within the context of that moment, but that also has the unintended side effect that the whole thing feels a lot more complex than it really is (certainly felt that way when I was writing it.) I get the feeling that a lot of the typical baroque counterpoint conventions and traditions end up being shortcuts to pad out time, so I kind of didn't want to use them. If anything was too "automatic" I would cut it and rewrite, and I did this the entire time when writing. I have no idea if that's something audible, but well there you go. As for the score, it's not completed yet. All the music is there, but I need registration markings and a bunch of other things that I'm not going to write until meet up with the person who will be performing these, so we can work out the details together at an actual organ. It's easier that way. Edit: Guhhh, fixed IV's key signature to something sane. oops. 01-fugue in e.mp3 02-fugue in h.mp3 03-fugue in c.mp3 04-fugue in d.mp3

It's interesting to study these dances, their rhythms, etc.... I wrote this just to learn. They don't follow the baroque rules about form or harmony. Some people ask me to write the chord names, so I leave them.

Saw an interesting comment in a post in the upload where someone was trying to describe their music in terms of whether they were 'neo-baroque' or not. So, figured it'd be an interesting discussion to be had -but... I don't want to just see a one word explanation of your music. So, I'll describe how I view my work -my language, my view, nada nada nada- and then you can follow suit. In other words, let's make this a valuable discussion. I consider my music to be chiefly modern. By that, I use a harmonic language rich in dissonance and outside of the traditional concepts of tonality (notice I didn't say my music was purely atonal). I do consider harmony and tonality to some degree -even in my more serial guided works. I also consider myself a neo-classicist. I strongly value form and tradition and believe staunchly in utilizing structure to make the most out of limited material (hence you'll see a lot of development and counterpoint within my works). I also, at times, borrow from other aesthetics and fuse different -often far separated- techniques together. It's not a fetch to see a whole tone derived section within a work of mine that is heavily centered on a serial row. Thus, you could say I'm a neo-classical modern eclectic.

Inspired by Bach's Cello Suites (and chorales)...