|
Without a score it's fairly hard to comment specifically on this piece, but by ear I could identify a several points worth noting.
Whilst this piece seemed to have potential, it is not actually a fugue, and ignores some of the basic rules of baroque counterpoint. It appears that you're trying to emulate something of the late baroque fugal style, but there are several stages at which the interaction of voices or individual lines sound flawed. If you're not trying to emulate another style, or to write a 'traditional' fugue, then what follows may be irrelevant, but I hope you'll consider it useful advice rather than mindless criticism.
Firstly, the exposition uses the incorrect intervals. This is a rather major technical point, since it actually renders the piece more a canon or invention than a fugue. It also means that the characteristic tonic-dominant lilt of the exposition is totally ignored; the exposition hovers in C minor constantly. Secondly, the melody features augmented seconds as early as the two-part counterpoint of the fourth bar. Whilst the 'arabian' sound of the augmented second isn't something that's never seen in baroque fugue writing (Handel's 'Great' Fugues use them as characteristic features in one or two subjects), it's highly undesirable. Past the third voice's entry, things get rather too messy for me to analyse by ear.
In short, this composition was probably a helpful exercise, and it'll be useful if you upload a score for others to comment upon.
|