muchen_

Calm yourself. Note also that defending religion on the internet is a pointless endeavour and I'd advise against it.

I'd say it's probably more of a "consistently used device for purely historical reasons", certainly a small detail not worth glossing over. Overall I like the fugue, and as you said, it's indeed fun. I'm a big fan of how you chose to retain the original harmonisation through your countersubject(s). The piece just wouldn't be the same without it! The counterpoint and motivic development are both very good. What I find lacking is the choice to include the extraneous 9th bar in the subject. At the risk of the fugue becoming a bit foursquare, I find its inclusion to be a little inelegant. In addition, the appearance of a rising chromatic scale in the subject harmonisation is something which I feel like should be explored more: the harmony in the episodes is too tame in comparison.

Can you elaborate and define what you mean by "fullness"?

This is an accompanied recitative in the late Baroque style. The text is taken from Goethe's Unbregrenzt (unbounded). I have also attached the aria "Nun Töne Lied". These form a recit-aria pair, part of my WIP cantata.

Yes! The flute + tenor pairing is one of the classics (like trumpet + bass). As far as the "aria" aspect goes, it's a blend of ternary form and a ritornello theme.

It's a lovely trio sonata. My favourite movement is the 2nd. The subject is interesting and your treatment of it is very successful throughout, with a well-planned structure. I would personally omit the re-exposition before the stretto entries, and expand on the stretto material - I think it's here a contrapuntal goldmine that is somewhat underexplored. But overall, the piece is rhythmically varied, motivically tightly-bound, idiomatic, harmonically consistent with the Baroque (I love the Neapolitan chord near the end!), and with well-written counterpoint throughout. For me, the biggest weakness I find is the lack of variety of form. The fourth movement is almost identical to the second from a structure PoV, and the third lacks a formal structure. Principles like binary/canon/ritornello/invention/gallant sonata are all reasonable tools to reach for that will make your movements have greater diversity and contrast. Writing the third movement in a major key helps too!

This is an aria in the late Baroque style for flute, tenor, and continuo. The text is taken from Goethe's Unbegrenzt (unbounded).

I really like this cantata. You do a lot of things really well: the bass line is nice and melodious, you have very catchy ritornello themes, the macro structure of all of your arias & sinfonias make musical sense, there's a great deal of variety between the movements in terms of the core musical ideas, and you have a great sense of rhythm - all of the pieces have an excellent driving energy. It's clear that you have the Baroque spirit in you! The biggest thing I personally find lacking throughout is more adventurous melody and harmony writing. I find myself wanting more use of chords in first & second inversions, suspensions, seventh chords, appoggiaturas, more frequent modulations and use of chromatic chords etc. - all the usual musical devices that spice up your work and give it lots of colour (Disclaimer: having listened to Bach all my life, I am not familiar with the Italian Baroque, so perhaps this is my complaint with the idiom as a whole rather than your music specifically). Two other definite issues: the "recitative(s)" here ought to be called "arioso(s)". Assuming this is a solo cantata, I also think the tessitura & range of your alto should be more consistent throughout the cantata. Compare what he/she has to sing in the first aria vs the last, as an example. All of the music I compose is in the Baroque style too, so perhaps you may be interested in this?

Hi @Henry Ng Tsz Kiu! Thanks for listening too! There's debates amongst scholars on exactly where the WTC II No. 3 subject ends: after 4 notes, 6 notes, or whether it lasts one-and-a-half-bars. I don't particularly care about this debate - it's a fairly pedantic debate about labelling things. But what's very clear to me is that the main material used throughout the fugue is the first four notes alone. If you view the subject as one-and-a-half bar long then it reappears only three times for the rest of the piece, in the exact same stretto configuration as in the beginning! All of the "stretto" in the piece occurs after the first four notes too, thereby placing a great deal of emphasis to the first four notes alone. The fugue is also uncharacteristic in other ways. For example, it dissolves into a toccata-like texture with an undefined number of parts towards the end. Does this make the piece not qualify as a fugue? I suppose you can call what I've written an invention with a strict fugal exposition. But then isn't this basically what a fugue is? 😄 Thanks for spotting the consecutive 8ve as well! I've fixed the score now.

Hey @PeterthePapercomPoser! Thank you for listening and I'm glad you enjoyed the piece. This is most certainly a fugue! There are a great deal of middle entries (see mm. 16-18, 22-26), though not in the conventional sense of restating a subject in a given key - rather, the subject is really just a motif which the entire piece is weaved out of. Harmony is established by these subject entries via beginning the subject on different degrees of the scale (ala Omnes generationes from BWV 243). The five episodes are also rigorously written: mm. 5-6, 20-21, and 36-37 are stereotypical 7-6 suspension chains in different inversions, and mm. 31-34 is a replica of mm. 9-12 in a different key, which is itself a conventional falling thirds sequence constructed from the whole subject. There's even an important final entry in mm. 38! If you're not familiar with Bach's WTC II then I'd recommend having a look at BWV 872b (Fugue No. 3). It is a fugue with a subject just as short as mine.

My submission for the challenge is here: https://www.youngcomposers.com/t46132/fugue-in-a-major/ I've attached the Music Jotter version below. fugue.mid

This is a binary fugue in three voices. Each of the five "subject complexs" explores a common harmonic formula: 1. Perfect cadence, I-V-I (mm. 1-2) 2. Falling thirds (mm. 3-4) 3. Imperfect cadence, I-IV-V (mm. 7-8) 4. Ascending seconds (mm. 16-19) 5. Circle of fifths (mm. 22-26)

I'll submit a fugue in the coming few days too.

This is exactly what is permitted in 5-voice counterpoint! Have a look at the Kyrie I and the Cum Sancto Spiritu from BWV 232. You'll see that the voices mostly stay uncrossed, but voice crossing happens very frequently between all parts, and especially between the two soprano parts. You find this in SATB works too, just less frequently. To be honest, my interpretation of voice crossing is that it's more of a guideline: "make voices mostly stay in their lanes". Two problems with this. The first is that it's incredibly difficult and tiring to sing something this high for this long - I know you don't care about it but I have to mention this regardless. Second is that your timbre palette is severely limited by having a range of a diminished fifth. It sounds very very odd to my ears - like hearing a violin playing above the ledger line for 2 minutes straight. I'd like to draw your attention now to your tenor line. This on the other hand, to my ears, is incredibly interesting, fully coherent, and sounds like it was crafted with skill and care. Contrast this with your soprano line. Do you maybe now see what I mean?

Have a look at your soprano line. Does it sound like a coherent melody? What do you notice about its range?