5 Voices Running(Maybe Fugue?)

Scores, post them.

Scores, post them.

First I need register this composition

Let us clear up an apparent misunderstanding: a fugue is not "one melody". That is a rather simplistic way of describing it, and also misses the entire point of what a fugue really is.

So, your piece isn't QUITE "by the rules", as you have a unison of the first two voices when the 3rd voice enters.

You are also, again, using canonic development and not fugal development. For example, I notice that your flute part seems to be repeating the subject always in the same key.

I also notice that you reduce the contrapuntal density at the end, voice by voice until you have only one voice playing a repeated figure. Again, this is a canonic device, and not a fugal device.

There should, technically, be modulations after every exposition. Generally speaking, there should be episodes. There are various contrapuntal elements that are part and parcel of what a "fugue" IS. They appear to be lacking from your piece.

Strictly speaking, again, "by the rules" means no parallel 5ths, no unison passages, and by very strict rules, a strict limit on the number of parallel 3rds and 4ths.

I can call my dog "a cat" all I want, it won't make her any more a cat than a dog. You can, likewise, call your piece "a fugue" all you want, it won't make it any more a fugue than it is.

This may be a website for young composers, but please, don't forget that there are many young composers here who are in university studying fugue and counterpoint and harmony. Also, there are a number of music professors who participate on this forum.

It will not be appreciated if you come in here, blowing like Hurricane Ike, and exclaiming your own brilliance. Generally speaking, those who act in this manner do not end up staying very long.

Now, to counter all the negative in my post, I must say that you DO have a lovely sense of harmony, with a unique twist to it. You should not be afraid to post your scores here. There is very little chance of anyone "stealing" your music. Besides, by copyright law, the minute you commit your music to any permanent media it is covered by copyright.

Arturas, you are simply wrong about a lot of the claims you make in your myspace bio, parts of which you have posted on this forum. First of all, most famous composers (the examples you use are bach and mozart) were extremely well musically educated and became that way by studying the music of their contemporaries. You suggest in your bio that you have a deep understanding of music because you simply have that sort of brain power. I am only critical of this because of your extremely arrogant personality: there is nothing really profound about your music. While you claim to derive your music only from your own ideas, your music is extremely derivative.

And people are telling you you are writing canons, not fugues, because you claim that they are fugues. None of them are fugues. Others on this forum have attempted to explain to you the difference, but you perceive that as attacks against your creativity. They are simply not fugues. That doesn't devalue them, but you may not call them fugues since they are not fugues.

Bach's Art of Fugue has a lot of Fugues as well as Canons. I gotta take a look at the score to see if it's a fugue. But QC is right about the flute entering at the same pitch all the time. Also about how everyone slowly start to stop playing one by one. So yeah, fugues are not normally like that. Take a look at Bach's Art of Fugue for example, especially the first one.

What your piece lacks of is the structure of a fugue, which is normally exposition, episode, then another exposition (in different keys) then another episode, etc. And start using fugal techniques like stretto, etc. The two voices doing paralel 8ves are pretty horrid btw. You should definitely get a subject and countersubject to work with.

But I do agree with QC on the harmonic thing too. Your subject is definitely a really nice subject. I love it.

If you had called this piece something else, it would be a really good piece.

Here you are - scores

scores (all rights reserved).mid

A midi file, that is.

But I guess it'll have to do.

let's clear up this nonsense right now.

All I had to do was move all the subject voices back a few measures, so that they all start on the 1st beat of the 1st measure, and you can see that they are all playing the EXACT same thing from start to finish.

The answer voices have minor chromatic modifications, and both of THOSE voices are identical from start to finish.

And both the subject and answer are, apart from the minor chromatic differences, identical from 1st note to final note.

This is not a fugue. I honestly don't care what anyone told you. It's not a fugue. It's a canon. I could hear it in the recording on your website, and now I can see it in the MIDI file, plain as day.

Instead of insisting on it being a fugue, why don't you come here, like so many others, to LEARN about fugue and how it is really made? You were told wrong by this professor at the Academy of music. It happens. He MIGHT have told you it was a fugue to make you go away. (I wouldn't be surprised). If you came to him with the same arrogant attitude that you ahve demonstrated here, I'm certain he would have very little interest in trying to teach you anything.

I, myself, studued fugue at the university before becoming a professor of music. And I don't mind telling you that this is not a fugue.

If you REALLY want to learn about composition, and counterpoint is one of the cornerstones of composition in my opinion, then you are welcome to participate on this forum.

If you have just come here to post your works, boast of your talent, and argue with people who know better than you do, then please, go away. You won't be welcome here.

If you REALLY want to learn about composition, and counterpoint is one of the cornerstones of composition in my opinion, then you are welcome to participate on this forum.

If you have just come here to post your works, boast of your talent, and argue with people who know better than you do, then please, go away. You won't be welcome here.

Seconded. And, to contribute:

Lessons - Young Composers Music Forum Browse around, there's a lot of stuff on this type of thing, specially baroque style copies and:

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/crash-course-writing-fugues-3412.html

This should help you get your bearings. Obviously it's silly to say it can all be synthesized in a rule book or a couple of threads, but getting started is an important step in the right direction.

Also important is for you to understand that QC's criticism there only comes reactionary to your claims, but neither of us mean to really attack you or your pieces. Instead, this is all oriented at you being able to learn things that help you do what you want to do better and more efficiently.

They are pretty well-constructed canons in general - but yeah, not fugue.

Actually, Bolanos, you err in stating that "no counter-subject = no fugue".

There are plenty of fugues which do not have counter-subjects. A CS is in no way a prerequisite for a fugue.

There are strict fugues both with AND without CS.

Let us ALL be careful in our statements and assertions.

Thanks, I was unaware. I was basing this statement off of Bach fugues as stand-alone pieces rather than fugal development of some melody in a larger context (ie: as part of a movement of a larger piece).

As far as I can tell, and please correct me if I'm wrong, every fugue in the wtc has a countersubject, and most have one countersubject for each entry.

Well, I'm sitting here looking at WTK book II, and fugue 2 doesn't have a CS, fugue III is debatable as to whether it truly is a CS, same with fugue IV, VII doesn't...

Remember not to confuse the fact that "new melodic material is generally limited in a fugue", with the "presence of a CS".

If you have a CS in a fugue, it should fit both the subject AND the answer, or else it is simply "similar material" being used as counterpoint to your exposition. A few notes of a phrase that are similar do not a CS make.

And it would not be considered a CS if it is a different phrase at each entry of an exposition. That would simply be free counterpoint. A CS is a strict musical phrase that accompanies almost every appearance of the subject/answer, is generally written in reversible counterpoint, and often serves to generate episodes, and can itself be the subject of an extended contrapuntal development in a larger scale fugue.

A countersubject is just a second "subject" which always shows up to counter the.. subject. You can as well not have it (and make your counterpoint each time different, IE; Bach WTK book 1 fugue 1) or make it neither here nor there. There's no real rule for this, the only thing is that for something to be named countersubject it must be used at least more than once or twice during expositions of the subject.

But a fugue can be a fugue without a countersubject; I personally don't like writing countersubjects to my fugues. It's a personal thing.

Could this be what Arturas is talking about..?

if his piece were not so blatantly a "canon

What the hell is going on here?

Well, TECHNICALLY, if it weren't for the "this is supposed to be a style copy" we can't really dispute the fugue status, in the same way as "concerto for garden hose and elephant" may as well have a "fugue" in there.

But clearly, cleaaarly, that's not the case here. :>

Well, TECHNICALLY, if it weren't for the "this is supposed to be a style copy" we can't really dispute the fugue status, in the same way as "concerto for garden hose and elephant" may as well have a "fugue" in there.

But clearly, cleaaarly, that's not the case here. :>

I wonder if the subject in the gardenhose/elephant fugue is trunk-ated?

a CS is integral, every time the subject/answer appears. It is not modified (other than to correspond to a tonal answer) from one repetition to the next.

Free counterpoint that happens to fit, and can be freely modified here and there, but MAY have recurring motifs, is simply free counterpoint. It is normal for there to be recurring motifs within a fugue that are not part of the subject/answer pair.

Where does one draw the line between "Free counterpoint that ... MAY have recurring motifs" and a recurring CS that may be modified "to correspond to a tonal answer" .. . ?

Sounds like the boundary between Israel and Palestine, homo erectus and homo sapien, the perception of light as a wave or a particle. Can't it happily be a bit of both?

the modification for a tonal answer is circumscribed by specific rules of counterpoint. it does not allow for the elimination of notes or the alteration of any rhythmic element.

recurring motifs are fragmentary.

A CS is a fixed thematic element, that is (generally) roughly the same length as the subject/answer.

And no, it in no way sounds like any of the things you mention. It is quite clearly defined.

Let me start over:

A countersubject often needs to be altered to fit with a tonal answer. (I was not speaking of the modifications necessary to create a tonal answer, but of those needed for a CS which will fit both subject and answer in a tonal context).

These modifications are circumscribed by relatively strict rules.

A CS will be readily identifiable as such whether it is accompanying the subject or the answer.

If every time you have subject/answer there is different material accompanying it, then you do not have a CS. You have simple free counterpoint. Nothing stops you from doing so, it is not erroneous in the context of a fugue. And nothing stops you from using this material repeatedly throughout the development of the fugue either.

My answers are not ambiguous. I just don't have time right now (nor interest either, really) to write an essay on fugal subects and their countersubjects.

Your question was:

Where does one draw the line between "Free counterpoint that ... MAY have recurring motifs" and a recurring CS that may be modified "to correspond to a tonal answer" .. . ?

My answer was above, but I will repeat it in other words: The CS that is modified for a tonal answer will ALWAYS appear in that form when it is accompanying the answer, while the original CS will always accompany the subject.

The part relating to free counterpoint is self-explanatory.

I wonder if the subject in the gardenhose/elephant fugue is trunk-ated?

Ah, there's nothing like a good (bad?) pun!

As for fugues, I don't know a tremendous amount about them, but it's certainly a skill I'd like to develop, since it'll definitely improve other aspects of my composing. That said, it's easy to hear this isn't one.

Arturas - I'm sorry to inform you that I will in fact be stealing your music. There really isn't much you can do about it, sadly. I have brain power for writing things down I hear, and I have written down your entire fugue- which I must say rivals Bach - after having heard only half of it. To put it into words you might be able to comprehend, I used my special brain power to extrapolate the rest of the composition.

I already sent it to Henle-Verlag and they were rather thrilled to inform me that an urtext edition is being prepared and will be available for sale sometime next month.

Sorry! Next time, reconsider sharing your music and especially your thoughts with others!

May as well take this opportunity to say (long overdue): Welcome back, Nightscape.

lmao, that was a good one... rather mean though, I hope he got the joke...