Prelude & Fugue for Harpsichord

I really enjoyed this. It is exactly the style of composition I've been exploring recently (although only now that my school music teacher's off my tail can I 'revert' to a more baroque idiom!), so I find it especially engaging. I particularly like the repeated notes in the fugue. They create a type of melody that's almost alien to the High Baroque period by which you have been so clearly influenced, and along with the chromaticism they make the composition very engaging (even if there are a few clumsy moments). It's also interesting reading both your comments on Bach's composition method. Certainly I agree that despite the introspective nature of many of his religious works, it is in the works for personal performance and pleasure, particularly the organ works, that one gains perhaps the greatest insight into Bach's musical personality.

I really hope the University I end up at has a harpsichord somewhere!

P.S. Do listen to some Gesualdo sooner or later.

Thanks, I'm glad you both liked it. My main difficulty with the fugue was that since I picked to do a different counter-subject every exposition it was pretty much, well, uh, I had to get somewhat creative so it never became stale.

As far as clumsy, well, to accommodate for some of the harmonic stuff I tried to do I had to do a couple of weird jumps, though they're all Ok in theory maybe I could've done something more elegant in a couple of places. Though, as it is, I think they're barely noticeable.

I don't think fugues are the end-all baroque high-point either, but since you can do so many different things in one, it's really fun to write. I think Bach was aware of this and he wrote so many fugues because they allowed him the greatest degree of freedom compared to, say, a concerto or a mass. Also, preludes, toccatas, fantasias, it's all pretty free, so no wonder he coupled all of this together (despite the tradition, which made it sort of hard to identify when the prelude ended and where the fugue started, much like in Bach's Prelude & Fugue in E and A minor from his earlier period for organ.)

It's no surprise, then, that perhaps his most inspired work is when he's working with such freedom, that's why I refer to the organ pieces~

I think another reason Bach wrote so many fugues is that, if one comes up with an effective and pleasant subject, the piece almost writes itself. Having the skeleton of the exposition, entries and of the subject itself provides a firm framework for composition; it's precisely this desire to be able to write a lengthy piece from as little material as possible that led to the development of the Sonata form.

In terms of clumsy moments, I'm not necessarily referring to moments of harmonic inappropriateness, rather of weaker voiceleading and counterpoint. Sections like the bassline is bars 13-15 stand out in particular, as does the use of the augmented second in the minor scale (perhaps consider leaping the octave to conceal these).

The prelude is very pleasant, but it seems to lack variation a bit too much for my taste. You did throw in a few breaks from the clockwork, but I felt that they didn't break the monotony enough.

Fugue is good.

Originally Posted by SSC

Here are the files:

01-Prelude&FugueinDminor-Prelude.mp3 (Prelude)
02-Prelude&FugueinDminor-Fugue.mp3 (Fugue)

PS: Oh, the subject of the fugue is original mine. Though, uh, if someone did something like before, I have no idea.

After your comments suggesting the other fellow's fugue was mediocre and that it was a waste of your time I was expecting Bach. So, I skipped the prelude and went straight to the fugue. Well ... it's not Bach.

There are akward pauses and breaks in the flow of the music and some passages simply go on and on without sufficient development or other source of interest. Overall, there's simply nothing particularly interesting about it as a fugue and the non-imitative counterpoint is rather stilted. However, I did notice there's some latin flair in your chords (do you like latin music??) , particularly the ones at the end (the ones in the middle werent great). Those were nice and made me forget about everything else in the piece as well as that rather rude comment you made to the other fellow who takes 30 minutes to write a minute of fugue.

It is possible to be brutally honest and civil, even good humoured, at the same time.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

After your comments suggesting the other fellow's fugue was mediocre and that it was a waste of your time I was expecting Bach. So, I skipped the prelude and went straight to the fugue. Well ... it's not Bach.

... You were expecting Bach? I'm not Bach and I don't WANT to write like Bach.

Ever thought of that?

How childish and unnecessary. I don't write music to compete with anyone. You clearly didn't understand the reason I talked down on Nico for his fugues, and I'm not going to waste my time telling you.

Originally Posted by SSC

... You were expecting Bach? I'm not Bach and I don't WANT to write like Bach.

Ever thought of that?

How childish and unnecessary. I don't write music to compete with anyone. You clearly didn't understand the reason I talked down on Nico for his fugues, and I'm not going to waste my time telling you.

I wasnt expecting Bach in style but rather in quality.

Perhaps I did misunderstand why you were so rude to Nico but there really isnt any reason to be rude.

Calm down. SSC, I think it's granted that anyone who chooses to write fugues risks comparison with Bach, since his mastery of the technique established the tenets of modern fugue-writing. It was Bach who almost single-handedly turned fugue from a texture to a form, and this composition is obviously inspired to some degree by his legacy.

This fugue was pleasant, but not masterful. Whilst palpable, I feel, in retrospect, that the form may have imprisoned the composition slightly. I also agree with Seraphim that your countersubject doesn't always complement the subject as well as it might, the situation aggravated by a largely irregular harmonic rhythm in the central episodes. There were also several audible, unconcealed and unreadied augmented seconds, which could easily have been disguised.

It seems to me that you and Nico wrote your music with a similar ethos; to compose a revivalist fugue, with inevitable modernisms.

Zetetic: Well, it's not like the things you mention are "errors" on my behalf, is what I mean. I know plain well about augmented seconds. I chose my harmonies carefully and I wrote what I wanted to write, plain and simple. I'm totally for critique and opinions, that's fine, but I don't really care if it's considered masterful or not. It's just what I wanted to write.

The reason this shit makes me angry is just, well, isn't it clear? Bach-quality? Really? I guess he goes to a Penderecki concert expecting Bach-Quality music?

Give me a break. Next he's going to say Hindemith's fugues aren't bach-quality either. That's such a nonsense comparison. Imagine if everyone walked around with that sort of impossible-pedestal rating system? "You'll never be as good as X." Really, thanks for the heads up.

Jeesh.

OK then, I withdraw my criticism, and rephrase it to convey the opinion that this composition sounds more like bad Bach pastiche than an exciting, neo-baroque composition. The answer to your question, based on prior peer-review, seems to be that it is not obvious you weren't striving to emulate the baroque tradition. Triumphantly changing your declared stance as a composer doesn't alter the quality of the piece. Its intention was not obvious from aesthetic structure.

It sounds like some strange flavour of baroque, not something sufficiently different to be classed alongside Penderecki or Hindemith, both of whom made leaps and bounds away from bog-standard baroque. This is a step Bachwards, and I rather liked it. I don't think it's quite as clear in intention as you're making out though.