Double Fugue in G minor

Mp3 version

Updated Aug 25th mp3 version

This is an attempt at a double fugue, but it is also my first time venturing outside of 4/4 time (this is 3/4 I believe). The second subject is troublesome. I can't seem to answer in the dominant without modulating to it. Instead, I answer in the mediant. Also, though there are episodes I'm pretty sure this never modulates (another problem I seem to have in fugues).

Since the first subject seems to do ok with being placed on the dominant without subverting the tonality, I think I should probably plan its entries first, and the second subject later. I also expect to modulate to a major key for a short while.

Edit: Well here's the latest version as of Tuesday Aug 25th. I have a bit of fun in major for while before returning to minor. It's still a work in progress (the part that returns to minor sounds incomplete... partly because one section doesn't exactly conclude, nor does the next, which tries to use the two subjects in stretto. It gives me ideas but I'm not quite sure where I'm going to go with them. Perhaps I can use it to drive into the coda.

This time I've posted a sibelius score, and tried to set it to the correct settings.

Well, I've also got another countersubject to develop but haven't used yet. It's possible I could make a triple fugue out of this but something tells me no.

doublefuguegmoll5.mid

doublefuguegmoll11.mid

DoubleFugueGmnr13.sib

DoubleFugueGmnr13.mid

I updated with a more complete section of the combined subjects. Following that is a modulation to G major which leads into D major soon after.

That last section might be a little odd because of the way its organized. Instead of combining the subjects, it states them one at a time (though other voices keep it company as it gets thicker. It is also the only part which builds up to 4 voices.

Is this piece too sectionalized? I kind of feel like I have two fugues here.

I wish you would post a proper score rather than a midi. :/

But it sounds like you need a more coherent structure. I mean, you go off in tangents where it's hard to tell what they have to do with the subjects. Plus you aren't highlighting your second subject enough, you should give it more time.

The whole gist of a double fugue is to have the two "characters" of the different subjects contrast one another and play off eachother. To have that you probably need to spend more time developing each and actually writing it so that it looks like:

Subject 1 -> exposition/development -> ending -> subject 2 -> exposition/development -> ending -> combination, final cadence and development stuff.

You need time to expose the characters of each before you start mixing, or it'll just sound rushed like it does now.

Alternatively, you can intro both subjects at the same time, or one after the other directly and have a double exposition. It's up to you really.

I'm sorry to say but this doesn't sound like a double fugue. It took me a couple of listens even to notice where the second subject was even introduced.

The simplest way I could think of to emphasize the second subject is to have a strong resolution occur before the introduction of the second subject because right now it sounds like some random melody spun off of the subject with no real break in between. To the listener it sounds like a unimportant tangent that you've included for some reason rather than a vital subject.

Also, the first subject just stands out more readily than the second. I can't really explain why. Perhaps it's because the slower rhythm contrasts against the majority of eighth notes in the countersubjects, or it could be that leap of a fifth in the second measure but the second subject seems plain when compared to the first.

But I'm no expert on fugues...

I'm sorry to say I didn't much like this. I certainly think it's a great starting point though. The main criticisms I had were that the subjects were indistinct, the harmonic motion seemed confused, and it wasn't at all obvious when you entered an exposition (that is, the first statements of a subject) Fermion's point is an apt one, and fairly crucial. You need to make it very clear that this is a double fugue from the listener's perspective (having considered SSC's equally apt point about subject compatibility). You can do this in one of two ways:

a) Make the two subjects perceptibly different (e.g. give one shorter note values, an interesting head (that is, the part that the listener hears first), perhaps using a memorable leap, staccato... the possibilities are endless)

b) Have a clear cadence before the second exposition, perhaps even silence. In the final Contrapunctus of Die Kunst der Fuge, the last written exposition (on the BACH motif) comes after near-total silence. This, coupled with the chromatic nature of the subject makes it obvious that this is another exposition.

Have you studied what happens after the exposition in Bach fugues? I found it hard to discern exactly what you were doing. Though there is no cut-and-dried method for fugue writing, there is a sort of identikit toolbox of elements, some more familiar than others. It's probably not helpful to reveal this, but there are no rules that aren't broken in several instances, if not by Bach then by someone like Hindemith. This doesn't mean that structure goes out the window. It means that structure becomes even more important; you, at least, must know precisely what's happening in the composition.

To give you a whistle stop tour, the most important element in a fugue is the exposition, since it varies least from fugue to fugue, and is the section of the piece from which almost all the subsequent material is derived/ The basic tenet here is that the fugue subject enters in each voice successively alternating between tonic and dominant in that order (usually!). You managed this, but the lack of harmonic motion was unconvincing; in bars 14-18, for example, nothing really happened. Some of the individual voices were pleasant.

After the exposition, pretty much anything at all can happen, defined as musicologists see fit. What always happens in a good fugue however, is the exploitation of the expositionary material. After the exposition, iit's incredibly rare to hear something 'new' (except of course, in a double fugue, or invention-fugue.... etc. etc..). Treating each subject's fugue as a separate entity, there should only ever be brief moments where material from the exposition is not being used to generate the music, most commonly in the 'episodes'. These aren't even necessary in all fugues, and in slower, tortuous fugues they are sometimes undesirable. There aren't as many in Die KDF as there are in Das WTC. In something that lacks harmonic motion however, I say - add them! They'll give you direction. In fact, I suggest you add one between each key idea of your developments (what follows the exposition).

Ideas in developments (which you may not have considered as you were writing) should exploit the most memorable parts of the exposition that weren't in free counterpoint (most commonly, the subject!); they include canon at the octave and fifth, use of the melodic inversion either in the manner of an exposition, as countersubject to other preexposed material, or in canon with preexposed material, use of retrograde (rare), use of augmentation (less rare) and use of invertible counterpoint (very common - this involves swapping the register of preexposed material, so that, for example, the bass line works as the tune, and the treble line works as a bass. If you can write your counterpoint to be invertible, the piece will almost write itself. All the catchiest, hummable Bach fugues seem to use this).

Hopefully this gives you a few ideas. I suggest you write a simple fugue first, and write a brief passage about how you've generated its structure.

It's not bad but I do not think you subjects are strong enough to be used as a fugue(fugue subjects have a very distinct melody and harmonic character).

Thank you all for the advice/criticism given so far.

I guess it's fair to say inspiration from the conjectured completion of BWV 561 (the incomplete double fugue) is mostly to blame for why I created my own double fugue in the first place. The subjects I use aren't entirely dissimiliar from the two used in it.

Conjectured completion to BWV 562

Here's the score for it if you're interested: http://www.bachorgan.com/Comps/fugue562-2.pdf

I really love this piece :x. I just hope that I'm not too unoriginal myself for having been inspired by it to make this one here.