Fugal Duet in E minor for 2 Violins and Basso Continuo.

Finally, a smooth panning functionality has been added in the latest MuseScore 4 patch (version 4.2.1). Even though it is not nearly as "smooth" as its MuseScore 3 counterpart (dare I say, quite a bit jittery (at least in my opinion)), it is quite a considerable improvement for me, since the video format I have ostensibly specialized in relies quite heavily on this one feature. Unfortunately, concerning the Basso Continuo part, figured bass playback is unfortunately not yet a thing in MuseScore (at least, not that I know of), so I had to resort to fleshing it out to the point where at times it might seem like a totally independent harpsichord line. Still, the additional benefits when it comes to the violin soundbanks are truly priceless, and as such, with the aforementioned deficitary deterrent out of the way, I feel I can finally move on to MuseScore 4 by default.

As for the piece itself, I originally conceived it as a two-voice fugue, but eventually decided to add a harpsichord part serving as basso continuo to enrich both the timbre and the underlying harmonies of the intertwined melodic lines in the violin parts.

Enjoy!

YouTube video link: 

Edited February 2, 20242 yr by Fugax Contrapunctus

Hey Pabio @Fugax Contrapunctus,

This is a lovely gigue like fugue! As usual there is a far reaching point when you reach C sharp minor in b.127. The continuo is definitely a great addition to the two violins.

Thx for sharing!

Henry

Hi, that is a great composition with really good interaction between the two violins and nice modulations.

Only remarks the harsichord part only in the bass cheaf looks a bit rear to me, I see a clear trio sonata texture. What about writing it for Cello and 2 violin? Harsichord part will be then played on the bass harmony giving some chords. Common practice would be write some throuthbass numbers unter the baseline, but it could be laborious if you are not familiar with that and one need a clear idea of harmony and dissonances, on the other hand could be a good exercise of voice leading and even inprofe some "weak" melodies. 

Then also the double notes on the violins look a bit out of the style and distract a little bit, also I see some unresolved dissonances.

Final point the last bar is a bit strange. You resolve first in minor and than in major. But are fine, but I would choose one of those. One think I feel very common practice is resolving to the major chord with a decorated forth suspension on the harpsichord part.

؜

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by Fugax Contrapunctus

@Fugax Contrapunctus I am so sorry that you recieved my comments in such a negative way.

I never said your melodies are weak or that your are a bad composer, not even that you must change a comma in your work...Sorry if I sounded arrogant or something like that, but I just pretended to openly say what it standed out to me after two listenings...Probably I am an old-fashined freak with not sensibility for innovation 😉.

To be honest, if you post your music on the forum you should be open to certain criticism in a respectul and constructive way and don t take it so badly. 

Have a nice day!

Guillem

I think you are a very talented composer, and I fully enjoyed this. Very fun rhythms!  While I can't call myself an expert in counterpoint, all I know is that it was an extremely enjoyable experience to my ears. The fact that you mostly use short and quick rhythms greatly enhances the longer duration notes you add, which really brings out this piece.

I would like to remind you though that there will be constructive criticism of all types on this forum. If you disagree with a remark, that's perfectly fine, but there is no need to get upset. I recently put myself out into the public eye (yikes) by becoming a YouTuber, and criticism is just a part of putting our creative works out into the world. I've read through all the comments here though, and there was nothing offensive being said to you.

@chopin My apologies for my response to @Guillem82's remarks about my work. As much as I should have respectfully defended my work, I'm afraid I'll have to admit I blew my reply out of proportion. I'm deeply sorry that was the case. I should not have behaved in such an immaturerly hot-headed manner, and there's hardly anything exclusive to this forum that could excuse that on my part.

I now have come to appreciate such kind, constructive criticism and believe myself hopefully ready to plead responsible for my statements and strive for your forgiveness.

You know, I like this piece a lot. You break out of your usual style of writing here, creating a balanced contrapuntal texture that is not dense, with plenty of nice sequences and imitation that brings contrast (the hockets like in mm. 19 to 21 are great). I also don't agree with some of the things @Guillem82 mentioned: I don't see or hear any harmonic mistakes/unresolved dissonances, and I don't mind the doubled notes on the violin. Sure, it's uncharacteristic but in this case it works fine, just like the distant modulations.

Moving on to things I don't like...I would surmise it as:

There is no apparent organisation or plan of your musical motifs.

Let me elaborate. Regarding the first point, I remember saying to you before to analyse what Bach does in the WTC with his fugue subjects in order to get an idea of how to develop them (the formal term is fortspinnung). I really would like to make this recommendation again. It is not just fugues, or even Baroque music that this skill applies to - a control and constant development of a limited number of musical ideas is a trait of virtually all classical music. Especially in contrapuntal music, a failure to do this ends up making much of your music "noodling", where you have correctly constructed melodies, harmonies and parts that work with each other, but virtually zero connection between one bar and another.

As an example, when I wrote the fugal section of the Overture of my Keyboard Suite, I recognised that the driving rhythm will be 6 semiquavers-per-bar. To achieve motivic unity, I limited myself to three possible settings of notes to this rhythm: an ascending scale, a turn figure (both of these can be found in the subject), and a rising fourth from the 2nd to 3rd notes followed by a descending scale (found in the countersubjects). You can check for yourself that except at structural cadences, every group of 6 semiquavers in the 242-bar long piece belongs to one of these three settings or their inversions. This is a somewhat extreme example; the Air for example is far more loosely bound by motifs, but I stand by my point.

When you look back on your fugue, ask yourself: what is it that ties the whole work together? To me, it's certainly not the subject! The lack of subject entrances aside, the head (very nicely composed) has a characteristic descending, dotted, pattern

which completely disappears after the first few bars! The tail (also very nicely composed) comprise of a descending scale and a rising seventh chord in quavers. Both of these elements return very rarely for the rest of the piece.

So, if your core musical idea isn't actually the subject, what is it?

Edited March 17, 20242 yr by muchen_

؜

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by Fugax Contrapunctus