Pantonal Perpetual Canon No. 3 in Hypodiatessaron for Choir and Orchestra.

Since this is in essence a revised version of my earlier Enharmonic Perpetual Canon No. 3, whose single contrapuntal flaw replicated across all voices required a modification of an octave leap which ultimately ended up necessitating a transposition of the whole canon a perfect fourth higher, I decided to change the title of the entire series thus far to "Pantonal Perpetual Canons", as the previous title didn't quite serve as an accurate descriptor of the technicalities within the compositional process that gave rise to these pieces.

Due to the necessary integral transposition of this work, however, the coda's newly resulting ending key (F-sharp/G-flat major), the only key along with its relative D-sharp/E-flat minor that displays an equal number of accidentals when enharmonized, far too many inconsistencies relating to the enharmonization of melodic intervals can be found in this version. Normally I would have managed to transcribe the melodic theme across all its internal transpositions in a way capable of satisfying apparent melodic continuity throughout the notation process, but due to the ambivalent quality of this key when it comes to enharmonization, not even the coda could be perfectly transcribed without far too many double accidentals. As such, as much as it irks me to see it like this, I have had no choice but to leave the currently notated version of this canon as is.

The choral lyrics of this canon (once again, in Latin) translate as follows: "Change is inevitable in all things. Everything flows in the balance of those who are tempestive." As for the coda, its own lyrics further drive the meaning of these aphorisms to greater clarity and realization.

YouTube video link: 

Edited March 7Mar 7 by Fugax Contrapunctus

Hello @Fugax Contrapunctus!

I really enjoyed listening to your revised canon, as it sounds very harmonious and has a constant flow that could perhaps go on forever, musically underscoring the lyrics.

As reading your introduction, I see how much effort you’ve invested to make the piece what it ultimately is, and that you have dealt with the challenges to finally find a satisfactory enharmonic notation that is both harmonically correct and easy to read, so I have not gone into detail about your score.

Surprisingly, although the rhythmic texture consists of only a few motifs that are repeated dozens, if not hundreds, of times as they move through the voices and instruments, it is not boring, but illuminates the theme from so many different angles until it reaches the coda, which initially introduces more tension and finally resolves. In this context, I am reminded of Bach's D major fugue from WTC2, BWV 874, which also repeats its short fugue subject extensively.

Now for some thoughts that should be understood not as criticism but as questions I am asking myself: Your canons, especially this one, are magnificent examples of how contrapuntal imitation techniques can be brought to absolute perfection. However, I am not sure whether a cycle of, say, six or twelve such canons would be presentable in a live performance for an audience other than a highly educated one. For such a purpose, I could imagine that the canons should alternate with “less demanding” pieces, such as fugues, chorales, etc. (That could also be the reason why The Art of Fugue contains only two canons, as far as I remember ...)

2 hours ago, Wieland Handke said:

[...]

Now for some thoughts that should be understood not as criticism but as questions I am asking myself: Your canons, especially this one, are magnificent examples of how contrapuntal imitation techniques can be brought to absolute perfection. However, I am not sure whether a cycle of, say, six or twelve such canons would be presentable in a live performance for an audience other than a highly educated one. For such a purpose, I could imagine that the canons should alternate with “less demanding” pieces, such as fugues, chorales, etc. (That could also be the reason why The Art of Fugue contains only two canons, as far as I remember ...)

Greetings @Wieland Handke!

The response I was writing got lost when I tried to post it, which saddens me considering I went on a very long tirade about how Bach's music cannot conceivably be surpassed and how my admiration for his genius renders my own works insignificant in my view, but perhaps precisely for that same reason it's for the better that such a reply will never see the light of day. At times even I grow concerned by my absolute devotion towards Bach, so stating the obvious a thousand times with different words would only further make it seem like an unhealthy obsession.

As for the canons in Die Kunst der Fuge, there are actually 4: Contrapunctus XII at the Octave - in Hypodiapason/alla Ottava, XIII at the Twelfth - alla Duodecima in contrapunto alla Quinta, XIV at the Tenth - alla Decima in contrapunto alla Terza (not to be confused with Contrapunctus XIX, the unfinished Fuga a 3 Soggetti, which is usually presented as Contrapunctus XIV in most of the modern versions that omit the canons) and XV in Augmentation and Inversion - per Augmentationem in Contrario Motu/al roverscio et per augmentationem. There is also one more, found in the Appendix of the Art of the Fugue and often relegated to obscurity in most editions for that very reason, as well as probably because the beginning of its theme until the entry of the 2nd voice is identical to that of Contrapunctus XV, and only then diverges: the canon in Hypodiatessaron al roverscio et per augmentationem perpetuus. As you can see, the format of the title itself had a far greater impact on my own canon's technical conceptualization than the music itself.

And regarding the point you're making, I am rather inclined to agree. Shunske Sato arranged the Netherlands Bach Society's recording of the Art of the Fugue so that every couple movements, a chorale would be sung. Perhaps my own canons could serve as interludes instead of being the focal point of a given programme or concert cycle, though for such an outcome a far more monumental and extensive work would need to be composed first.

Edited March 7Mar 7 by Fugax Contrapunctus

In modern staff positioning, the choir is above the orchestra.  Alo, put phrase markings on the woodwinds. 

Your recording is playing it legato but they won't read it that way.  

Also, in real time, reading one line(alto) in the choir with flats and sharps like that is a huge cognitive dissonance Since it is descending, make that G# Ab.

You are already showing Db or Gb in that phrase.  That augmented 2nd is the devil in the Soprano part. Make that Eb instead of D#.  Gb is cool, F# is the bane of our existence. OF COURSE, we can read in F# major, but no wants to. Gb is better.

Lastly, you can break the rule in the last measure.  Instead of having the mezzos go higher,swap with the sopranos.

Love the piece.

On 3/14/2026 at 5:34 AM, maestrowick said:

In modern staff positioning, the choir is above the orchestra.  [...]

Not sure what you're referring to, the choir is evidently above the orchestra both in the score I first provided and the one I last uploaded before you made your comment. Perhaps you meant the choir parts should be placed between the string orchestra and the woodwinds?

On 3/14/2026 at 5:34 AM, maestrowick said:

[...] Alo, put phrase markings on the woodwinds. 

Your recording is playing it legato but they won't read it that way.  [...]

Again, not sure where you're getting this from. It doesn't take a full woodwind section of geniuses to figure out the general character of the piece based on the articulation of the string entries preceding them and play their own expected articulations in accordance.

On 3/14/2026 at 5:34 AM, maestrowick said:

[...] Also, in real time, reading one line(alto) in the choir with flats and sharps like that is a huge cognitive dissonance Since it is descending, make that G# Ab.

You are already showing Db or Gb in that phrase.  That augmented 2nd is the devil in the Soprano part. Make that Eb instead of D#.  Gb is cool, F# is the bane of our existence. OF COURSE, we can read in F# major, but no wants to. Gb is better. [...]

Which enharmonic notation ends up in the final part scores will be completely dependent on the contours and intervals of the main theme according to the requirements of the resulting key per each entry/transposition so as to avoid said cognitive dissonance allegedly present in the current version of the score. The latter, as the main score including all parts, is not meant to serve as a dedicated particella for each individual performer, but merely as a general visualization of the flow of counterpoint across all entries and transpositions.

On 3/14/2026 at 5:34 AM, maestrowick said:

[...] Lastly, you can break the rule in the last measure.  Instead of having the mezzos go higher,swap with the sopranos. [...]

I could, but the mezzosopranos can reach that B natural just fine. Despite the voice crossing, which is to be expected in settings with this many voices, swapping their melodies in that specific spot, or any other for that matter, would most likely completely sacrifice the melodic contour in either case, not to mention putting the whole structural integrity of the coda into jeopardy. In my view, the detriments of changing it far outweigh the benefits, so it will stay as it currently is.

On 3/14/2026 at 5:34 AM, maestrowick said:

[...] Love the piece.

Thank you for clarifying. It would have been exceedingly hard to tell otherwise unless you had included any technical commentary of note about the music itself instead of focusing exclusively on notation nitpicks pertaining to the scoring alone. Have a wonderful day.

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by Fugax Contrapunctus

23 minutes ago, Fugax Contrapunctus said:

Not sure what you're referring to, the choir is evidently above the orchestra both in the score I first provided and the one I last uploaded before you made your comment. Perhaps you meant the choir parts should be placed between the string orchestra and the woodwinds?

Again, not sure where you're getting this from. It doesn't take a full woodwind section of geniuses to figure out the general character of the piece based on the articulation of the string entries preceding them and play their own expected articulations in accordance.

Which enharmonic notation ends up in the final part scores will be completely dependent on the contours and intervals of the main theme according to the requirements of the resulting key per each entry/transposition so as to avoid said cognitive dissonance allegedly present in the current version of the score. The latter, as the main score including all parts, is not meant to serve as a dedicated particella for each individual performer, but merely as a general visualization of the flow of counterpoint across all entries and transpositions.

I could, but the mezzosopranos can reach that B natural just fine. Despite the voice crossing, which is to be expected in settings with this many voices, swapping their melodies in that specific spot, or any other for that matter, would most likely completely sacrifice the melodic contour in either case, not to mention putting the whole structural integrity of the coda into jeopardy. In my view, the detriments of changing it far outweigh the benefits, so it will stay as it currently is.

Thank you for clarifying. It would have been exceedingly hard to tell otherwise unless you had included any technical commentary of note about the music itself instead of focusing exclusively on notation nitpicks pertaining to the scoring alone. Have a wonderful day.

Yes, the choir goes DIRECTLY above the orchestra and below everything else. That is just standard practice. Also, it s true, I critique the score.

As for the phrase markings, assume nothing. In classical music, they initially won't play it legato. Also remember, they probably won't have but only one rehearsal to rehearse this. Finally, yes, I am big on score markings/notation. It's how the performers internalize what the composer truly wanted. I've learned the hard way to take nothing for granted when typesetting!