Bonemans Fugue

[Boneman]

More to come tomorrow as the baby fugue is at work!

[Boneman]

Here it is with a fourth voice. Where do I go from here?

[stevel]

Originally Posted by Boneman

Here it is with a fourth voice. Where do I go from here?

Ignored my advice about starting the third voice later did ya :-)!

Ok, where you go from here:

Usually, at this point since all 4 have entered, you would either have a cadence, or a small coda that goes to a cadence (and I mean a "section ending cadence", and not just like the one at m.5).

Traditionally, a minor key piece would modulate to the Relative Major key (i,e, your cadence would be in Bb) for the next section. It might also modulate to the Dominant key (dm) - especially if the 2nd answer was real and sort of put you in that key to begin with (though if so, you could still modulate to Bb, or back to gm if you wanted).

So you have two choices - you could end the Fugue here and call it a Fughetta, or Mini Fugue, or Little Fugue, or whatever. If so, you'd probably want a little codetta to kind of close it of in gm.

Or you could go on (usually in dm or Bb) to the middle section, where you'd start to explore various facets of your Subject (break it up into motives, present it at different pitch levels, in imitation, in inversion, etc.).

I'd say if you decide to write just the Exposition, and call it a Little Fugue (or even Exposition #1 or something), then you'd probably need a little "ending" of some sort. You could just counterpoint to the final cadence, although it would probably be "more final" if you have one more Tonic entry of the Subject - or something like a tutti statement, or over sustained harmony or something to make it obviously "the end". One thing composers like to do is called "Stretto", where the entries overlap. So instead of:
Subject
1111111Answer
11111111111111Subject
1111111111111111111111Answer
you have:
Subject
1Answer
11Subject
111Answer

[Ed. I couldn't tab the words over, so the 1s are there for placeholders, pretend they're simply "beats").

This involves a little calculation usually (and in fact, if you want to include a stretto you do usually compose the Subject in such a way as it can be stretto'd - or even write the stretto first). But still you can sometimes make it work to satisfaction.

If you decide to go on an write a middle section, I would try to concentrate on one thing - like using the Subject inverted - it makes the music obviously related, but different enough to sustain interest, without making it too much work for yourself. Or another thing to do is break up the Subject into halves or thirds and use the motives. For instance, your first 4 notes G A Bb G make a nice motive. So does Bb G A F# (G) - falling thirds (this by the way is another reason I didn't like your initial attempt because it was basically two halves, the latter half being already motivically built from the first half - it kind of spoils the ability to use it later). You might even be able to accompany the first motive with the second. This way, again the music remains related to the Subject,and later, when the Subject returns in total, it becomes a defining event.

Now, a word about your conterpoint Boneman. This is the 21st century, so really, anything goes. But if we are using (and we may not be) 18th century counterpoint as a measure, you got some serious errors in here. The Sibelius example is really small, and I haven't been able to blow it up to look at it well, but, if you wanted to improve your CP (or bring it more in line with traditional CP), there's a few things that need fixing up.

The problem is, since you're writing an "ancient" form, and, your music begins as if "ancient" counterpoint, then people will assume that's what you're going for. Then when they hear the things that are "modern" sounding, they'll probably not assume that you're suddenly trying to juxtapose modern flavors, but instead that it's simply a mistake.

So let me know if you want to look more intensely at the counterpoint.

But otherwise, so far so good - it's a "fugue" by definition, with your own take evident, which is always nice to see.

Best,
Steve

[Boneman]

I know you will not like this but it is growing on me Steve! This one is purely for me Steve I shall apply your rulings later this week!

[stevel]

Originally Posted by Boneman

I know you will not like this but it is growing on me Steve! This one is purely for me Steve I shall apply your rulings later this week!

Why would I not like it?

I think it's quite good and it seems like you spent a little time finessing the counterpoint. There are lots of good qualities to it - one I'll mention offhand are that there's a lot of cohesiveness, but yet with variety and interest, and it's an accomplishment that you were able to pack a lot of interest into such a short span of time without it being information overload.

You may misunderstand me when I compare things to Bach-style - it doesn't mean I don't like something, it simply means I'm comparing it to a known yardstick (which many people are interested in doing).

Again, this is not Bach style. If you want it to be, you failed. If you didn't, then you succeeded. That's all :-).

I have only one "complaint" - something that's happend to me in the past when writing imitative counterpoint and that I now try to be on the lookout for: you've got a couple of spots where there are a pair of measures that just kind of lay there - they sort of "toggle" back and forth (what I call a see-saw). There's nothing wrong with it, but spots like this tend to delay or circumvent forward motion or overall direction. Sometimes you want that effect, sometimes you don't. My impression is that based on the surrounding material, these measures may be a little "weak" in comparison. When I run across this, I usually aske myself "do these measures REALLY need to be here", or "what's the purpose of these measures"? If their purpose os to delay or "stall" the action, then fine, it was the right choice. It doesn't seem to me (in my opinion mind you) that you want those "stalls" in there.

Now you've gotten the bug - so instead of a Little Fugue, your next project will have to be a full-blown fugue :-)

Good Job,
Steve

[Ron Ofir]

Well done! That's a nice fugue you got there, especially as it is your first one! I found it a bit too confusing at times, but overall I liked it, even though I might have preferred a bit clearer cadence at end, maybe a small melody to emphasize the dominant before that last chord.

[reith]

Nice one!

[Boneman]

I know this is not a fugue in a traditional sense and it is probably loaded with mistakes throughout. Anyway rip it to bits if you so wish, but please keep the techno chat to a minimum if possible. PM if you wish to keep your opinions to me!!

As requested by Steve1 it is for Trombone Quartet.

[Ron Ofir]

Very nice, though I think the ending could have been done better, maybe if you prolong that last measure (can you even say that?).

[Boneman]

your wish is my command, give me a few minutes!