Passacaglia attempt in Bm

Or at least the start of one. This is similar to the first work I did here, but this seems to be headed in a more solid direction. There are 4 parts so far.

Was it a mistake to make the 3rd repetition a mirrored form of the original? In the 4th, the bass line is played by the higher voice while the bass uses a faster part derived from itself.

Is this an improvement from my earlier attempt?

Edit: I updated and took echurchills advice by developing the initial upper voice melody a little more... though I also stuck the mirrored ostinato into the upper voice near the end as well (where it then goes into a sequence of 16ths that might sound a little contrived).

Another Edit: new version where the ostinato remains mostly literal. I'm happy up to the point where the inverted ostinato begins (immediately following the modulation to Em). The upper voice there is an inverted form of the original opening voice, but it sounds too distracting as it is now.

The mp3, if you don't like the midi.
Latest (version 6)

I do like the direction this is going in. The harmonies are nicely done; I guess there may be illegal parallels and such, but that's not too important. It begins very majestically.

I do have two pieces of advice, or constructive criticism to offer.

1. I think perhaps the ostinato melody itself in the bass is a little long. Or at least a bit too complex. I think a simpler bass line will allow you to vary that melody even more. Plus with a simple bass there will be more room for the upper voices to go crazy . I suggest that you take out any notes or motifs that don't really need to be in the ostinato melody, perhaps by singing them to be sure that they all fit in perfectly... after all, the whole piece will be built on that melody so it had better be flawless! That said, I don't think it is bad; it really depends on how you develop your ideas later on... which brings me to my second piece of advice:

2. I think perhaps you could develop each motif you invent in the upper voices a little bit more. For example, you begin the first variation with a plain chord... don't think that the listener will get bored if you have a whole variation of mostly plain chords! Then you go to what I presume is 8th note motion. That could be extended too! I don't necessarily think you can't continue as it is, but you might run out of ideas if you have a new motif every bar.


So that's all just my opinion; it's a good start! Keep on writing!

And by the way, putting the ostinato in a higher voice is a very good idea for occasional variety, although you might want to save that for later on. As for the mirroring thing, it sounds intriguing, so be sure to develop that idea extensively too.

That's good advice, thank you very much for providing your insight. I've added a few more bars but I'm not entirely happy with them right now. I'm trying to limit myself to creating variations of the ostinato... perhaps a section repeating the mirrored form for a short while would work (and separate the mirrored form from the original a little better). Do Passacaglias modulate?

Edit: Err... that sounded a bit dry as it was (with just the first sentence). I don't like to come across as apathetic when someone took the time to post a thoughtful reply =\ (of course I could be over-thinking things)

Well, about modulation you might want to see my description of ostianto on this thread: Writing a chaconne

Many baroque passacaglias do modulate.

I've gotten about 3 minutes 30 seconds into it now. Near the end the upper voice variations seem to fall a little flat or seem a little lost/out of place. I modulate from B to E, before returning to B with the mirrored ostinato and its variations (I'd only started to develop this. There are 12 passages as it is).

This is the most development I've been able to get out of my music to date, though the piece still remains incomplete (theres no coda).

I think sometimes the upper voices tend to drown out the ostinato too strongly with its chords. Some of the chords do seem poorly placed, or in other places where you might expect to find them they are absent. Some of the chords chosen may not be suitable.

I get the feeling it's evolving too quickly. Take a look at this analysis for some suggestions on how you might want to try varying your accompaniment to the ground:

Passacaglia & Fugue BWV 582

I agree that the ground can't always be heard, but that's the MIDI's fault. Putting the ground in the highest voice as echurchill suggested is a good idea, as is implying it without actually sounding the ground (as Bach does above). The only really awkward element of the ground itself is the tritone - that interval should really only be approached 'with daring', for want of a better expression.

I updated the first post (and the piece) and tried to take more care with the movements. I reorganized them to a degree, and changed the ostinato to remain literal throughout. Modulation to Em still occurs at the 7th iteration of the bass for 3 bars (might be the wrong word for that, if it is I apologize). At the 10th is where the inverted ostinato begins (theres no 11th right now, so there is where it ends)

There are still some sour spots, possibly due to the tritone Zetetic mentioned. The uppervoice accompaniment in 5th and 6th is new material that seems to fit well. Some of the fingering here got a little out of hand... to the point where it might not be possible to play (unless you have 3 hands). I'll need to iron out those kinks as well as others.

That said, should I vary the ostinato at all? Or does the modulation and inversion handle that well enough already?

You can vary the ostinato however you like, provided it's still recognisable. Altering the rhythm is orthodox, as is just implying the ground through the choice of scales and chords. Switching to something totally different is unadvisable; in the above example Bach actually uses the ground as the subject of the fugue - that's how determined he is to exploit the motif to the full.

I suggest you forget playability for the time being and work on composing something that *sounds* idiomatic. If anyone asks, it's now for mechanical organ. Mozart's most famous piece was composed for just that, and I daresay baroque composers would have done the same had they been provided with the opportunity.

Mozart's most famous piece was composed for just that

Which piece do you mean?
Or do you mean the most famous piece for mechanical organ is one Mozart wrote?

Originally Posted by Zetetic

You can vary the ostinato however you like, provided it's still recognisable. Altering the rhythm is orthodox, as is just implying the ground through the choice of scales and chords. Switching to something totally different is unadvisable; in the above example Bach actually uses the ground as the subject of the fugue - that's how determined he is to exploit the motif to the full.

I suggest you forget playability for the time being and work on composing something that *sounds* idiomatic. If anyone asks, it's now for mechanical organ. Mozart's most famous piece was composed for just that, and I daresay baroque composers would have done the same had they been provided with the opportunity.

An interesting side note: The mechanical organ was already well known in the early Baroque; Asthanasius Kircher published I think in Musurgia Universalis his plans for a mechanical organ based on a cylinder with raised marks. He included diagrams of the cylinders for a fantasy of Froberger's (I think Ut re mi fa sol la or the second fantasy) and an early ricercar of Kerll's (called, appropriately, Ricercata in Cylindrum Phonotacitum Transferanda). Both are excellent pieces of music, and the cylinder diagrams provide clues as to how organists of the time articulated.