Bonemans Fugue

[Boneman]

There you are Ron! Sorry for the delay I am on another forum at the moment!

[reith]

Another forum?? Where DO you find the time, what with all this lovely weather and writing clever music....?

I like this piece. Also appreciative of your use of tenor and alto clefs! Nice one!

[Boneman]

Originally Posted by reith

Another forum?? Where DO you find the time, what with all this lovely weather....?

I know I am going to go out and do some gardening soon before the triffid takes over!

[stevel]

Originally Posted by 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.

Things I like:
Well-Written!
Nice pacing throughout, and nice musical contrasts and interests.

Things I really like:
THe places like at m.9 where there's this staccato chord on the downbeat. Nice change. They really nicely mark changes of section, etc.

The section at A - not that it's better than the beginning or B, but it provides nice contrast but with plenty of unity.

Things I don't care for:
The measure before A. Don't like it. Doesn't "fit" to me. I wonder if there's a way to incorporate the staccato downbeat (even come to a "halt" on beat one, with 3 beats rest before beginning the next section?").

Things I wish you'd include or consider:
Textural "thinning" - you've pretty much got all four lines going all the time, except for staggered entrances. There's a little 3 part writing towards the end but it might be nice to do some duo against duo writing (Josquin was a master at this). Whichever way, I finf much music is too dense for too long, which often contributes to disinterest despite the musical content. This is fortunately short enough for it not to be a problem, but any longer than this and it's time for some 2 or 3 part writing, or even solo (or homorhytmic or melody w/accomp type texture).

Things I'm ambivalent about:
Your intro is confusing rhytmically:
It sounds like the first two 16th notes are pickups, and your beat 2 (and beat 4 - especially because of the tie and the harmonic implication) is your beat 1. Obviously once it gets going this is all straightened out, but I always worry when I see this that te composer needs a little attention to rhythm and meter and what listeners (and performers) percieve versus your notation.

The last chord - I actually LOVE it. But, I'm not sure I love it in this context. It seems a little abrupt - yes, it's unexpected, which is very cool, but, it would be nice to have a "premonition" of this somewhere else. In a broad sense, it's got nothing to do with the rest of the music, except for the fact that by it's very nature it's not. I would leave it, but maybe there's a better way to approach it. Here's a thought - can you incorporate a similar type of harmony or "surprise" back at the measure before A? THis would be a nice "setup" for the ending when we finally get there. It doesn't have to be identical, but a "hint at what's to come" might be an easy way to both fix the "stall" at 1 before A, and smooth out the otherwise "shocking" ending. Just a thought.

You're right Boneman - it's not traditional, but there's nothing wrong with that. You've got enough "tonal" music mixed with "extended tonal" music in here to work without sounding like It's Bach for two measures, and Piston for two - that's hard to pull off. Of course you've got parallels, strange harmonies, weird progressions, but all of that is fine because it's pretty obvious once we get going that it's not going to be Bach (my beef is always with the peopl who try to emulate Bach and don't do it well - you're not emulating - you're "inspired by", which is a subtle but important distinction IMHO).

Can you get this recorded?

You should. It would make a nice "Entrada" or even "Fugal Fanfare" or something.

Great job. I shold go back at the notation and pick that apart, but I didn't see anything at first glance that stuck out, so I'll rest since it's Easter :-)

Best,
Steve

[Ron Ofir]

Thank you for that, Boneman! I like it much better now. Oh, and around measure 35 it gets really interesting, so 2 more points for that!

[Boneman]

A bit of thinning here. Thanks for the mention Ron, glad you quite like it. As I say it is my first attempt so it obviously needs to progress from here but the more I do will improve it .


I will try for a recording at sometime.

[stevel]

Originally Posted by Boneman

A bit of thinning here. Thanks for the mention Ron, glad you quite like it. As I say it is my first attempt so it obviously needs to progress from here but the more I do will improve it .


I will try for a recording at sometime.

B Man.

Flow is much better now.

I think the "thinning" adds a nice textural change and holds interest better - what do you think?

I kind of liked your other ending better - that final harmony anyway. But the way you lead up to this one is much better - I especaially like the last motivic interplay. The final Major chord is very "homage-y", which is fine, but a little expected (though I wouldn't even mention it had I not heard the first version, so keep that in mind).

I REALLY like the change m. 27 (you had this same harmonic shift before as well) - I like how the solo-duo-trio leads up to it.

If you can record it, or get it played, you can get at all the little harmonic and contrapuntal nuances and fix up anything that causes funkiness (it's hard to tell with Sibelius playback - some things sound much worse (or sometimes better!) than they do on real instruments - plus you don't have all the dynamic control).

I would say, both of these latest versions are fine. I prefer this later one (despite the final chord, but, it was "out of place" as I said - but maybe there's a middle ground chord you can find - I'd at least try a couple of alternatives and see if something strikes your fancy).

Thanks for sharing this process with us - I hope some others find it instructive as well!
Best,
Steve