Neoclassical Fantasy and Fugue for String Quartet

I've just finished writing a Fantasy and Fugue for String Quartet, composed in a neoclassical style. The whole piece is derived from a single motif, which later manifests itself as the subject of the fugue - it was given to me by my composition tutor to force me to compose in a more modern style.

The composition is littered with symbolism, which hopefully you'll have fun detecting; my intention was to combine baroque shapes, form and style with a handful of more modern elements to create a distinctly 21st-century composition - not to write a pastiche. Having said that, the fugue employs solely traditional methods of development. In order these are; the exposition, a counterexposition of inversion, a 4-part canon of the rectus at the third, a set of middle entries in unrelated keys and finally 4-part canon of the rectus at the octave and unison. I'm in the process of writing a short brief pro forma about the composition (which is, hopefully, being submitted as part of my school music portfolio), but I thought that in the mean time some of you might enjoy listening to the composition.

I'm open to criticism (provided it's not substantially destructive) for the next few days, after which the composition will need to be finalised so I can get parts to players for a performance.

P.S. I got GPO today, so I've been experimenting with various audio outputs. I've still not quite worked out how best to integrate it with Sibelius (it's incredibly fiddly!), so here are some links to silly mixdowns, complete with fake ambient sound:

String Mixdown (WMA)
Organ mixdown (with ridiculously powerful registration) (WMA)

I really like the opening gesture with the tutti and first violin leaps. That'll sound really good with an actual string quartet. As far as the fugue, I don't know, I feel more could be done with it. If you want an example of a 20th century fugue, listen to the 4th movement of Barber's piano sonata, a perfect example I think. It's not in the same stylistic vein exactly as what you're going for here, but it can still give you ideas of how to inject your fugue with that same inventiveness that you had in the Fantasy. Either way, this is quite good, the Fantasy is very interesting and satisfying. It's actually neo-classical, not just a trite failed imitation of early Beethoven like you might normally see people attempt. Congrats.

Thanks for your comments - I really appreciate your input. Hopefully this is something that can be appreciated (or at least reviewed) by both those composers who strive to imitate, and those who strive to be original. Inevitably we'll all be a bit of both. I'll have a listen to Barber now. In a way I'm anxious to move on to something else, but I think you detected quite rightly that the Fantasia is more stylistically advanced than the fugue; I wrote it about a month afterwards, and did so in about two days (as opposed to two weeks). Listening to the Barber, which is very harmonically distant from my composition, I'm getting lots of new ideas for the next piece.



The fugue works more as an exercise than a piece - I've plotted out the structure in Microsoft Excel, and it displays as a myriad of different cells, inversions and so on. So in a way I consider the fact that it actually works as a piece (despite all the contrivances) very pleasing. Also, it will hopefully provide an objective aspect to the composition, which will mop up some extra marks.

This is realy good, i loved the fugue, it was perfect!

This is excellent; you intertwine many common chord progressions and motives from eras from the Classical and Baroque with those of seemingly modern music, creating an interesting effect (like a contemporary piece making reference to the times of old while still highlighting the music of now).

To be honest, though, I really prefer the choice of an organ over a string quartet, as it gives, at least in my opinion, the movements a much more emotion, even with such registration, but this may just be me. It is a splendid piece of music, nevertheless, and I am delighted to hear the performance of it (even if it be just an organ performance).

Thanks for the positive comments, gms5287, SimenN and Magna Carta. It's pleasant to think that baroque enthusiasts appreciate this sort of musical fusion. Your advice has been duly noted, and I am seeking to revise the piece over the summer holiday taking into account both the above and a handful of other suggestions. Expect a live recording within the month (hopefully!).

Originally Posted by Zetetic

The fugue works more as an exercise than a piece - I've plotted out the structure in Microsoft Excel, and it displays as a myriad of different cells, inversions and so on. So in a way I consider the fact that it actually works as a piece (despite all the contrivances) very pleasing. Also, it will hopefully provide an objective aspect to the composition, which will mop up some extra marks.

I'm sorry to say it sounds like that. I got the feeling you were "doing the job" rather than writing music. The subject you're using is REALLY complicated to work with, and you're doing stuff like having having seconds intervals at strong beats in 2 voice counterpoint, so that stuff is sort of jarring. I don't mind if it's modern or neo-baroque, it's just that apparently you let a formula write it for you.

I'm a fan of Hindemith's fugues and stuff with tons of dissonances and, haha, "wrong notes", so it's not a matter of taste. I just think maybe a little more writing and less planning in your case could help smooth the whole counterpoint writing thing. Also, you also did what is a pretty common error, having all voices going on all the time. Sure, it looks or may sound impressive, but really, I couldn't understand half the stuff you were trying to do. At one point you invert the subject, but you do it in such a way that it sounds like a second subject rather than just an inversion.

But well, that's looking at it from a strict point of view, I really didn't like the fantasia much, and I skipped the repetition. I'd say the best thing out of the whole thing is the fugue subject. Try writing a different fugue with it again, maybe? Though it's a very hard subject to work with, it's good practice.

I'm sorry to hear that you didn't enjoy the piece. The seconds at the opening were entirely intentional (during the exposition they're all functional) and are just the sort of thing in which Hindemith and Walton delight. The inversion was supposed to soundstriking, since its first appearance is in counterexposition (cf. A minor Bk 1). Obviously the formula did not write the piece. I did. Fugue is essentially a process, and there's always a danger that one will simply run away with the subject, especially if one dispenses with a regular countersubject (as I did, in order to maximize harmonic possibilities). I accept the criticism of using all four voices most of time. That's unidiomatic, and something I've learnt from writing this.

hmm i didn't really understand the fantasia.
But i enjoyed the fugue alot. Something colorful about it.blues,blacks,reds
i enjoyed the subject,counterpoint and imitations much to
i did think it could be elaborated on and extended a bit
maybe a with some emptiness. And calling to and from with frags of the theme with rest somewhere or something along those lines

I don't think I can make many technical comments, just one sort of broader comment based on the two pieces as a whole. Both are written very well, and demonstrate obvious skill and knowledge of technique. The Fantasia, however, seemed to have more life to it. The Fugue, in contrast, seemed a little dull in comparison to the brilliance of the first movement; it didn't seem to want to move forward quite like the Fantasia, and thus kind of lost my interest. Both pieces are things to be proud of, and I look forward to perhaps hearing a live version :]