Music Composers Unite!
Yes, just one more… Then i shall move to another spot, *(for a time)..
For those who are curious about the structure: After the first thematic statement, it is then stated in the 4th, then 5th, then on the 2nd in the bass, while it's inversion plays concomitantly- also on the 2nd, then is played on the 3rd which then leads to the statement in the relative major- 6th, where it culminates with a dash of impressionism, then a transition leading to the returning to the opening theme in minor, where it is a bit like a Chopin etude, with some 'salsa' before its final statement..
There is a lot of mirroring, some strettos, even a faux canon :)
The hanging questions: It is the transition to the returning minor that I'm feeling i might extend by a few bars, and also the very ending could be modified some..
Of course , all comments and criticism are welcome and appreciated.
Thanks for listening!
This fugue fusion thing is proving to be a rich seam of ideas and is in no way exhausted yet.
I liked this very much because of its gentle insistence on development and gradual build. I suppose the nocturnal element is its overall quietness and prevailing mood or is there more to it? It actually doesn't smash you in the face with fugality (is that a word?) neither which is a nice twist seeing you have used some neat devices.
The ending is just left somewhat hanging for me, it feels like prep for a new section or a new movement - it does not feel final. But listening again, you end the theme on the dominant - if you just added the last 3 semis(!) of the original theme (4th, supertonic, mediant) and finish on the tonic (with a rall!) , that'd do it for me, but its yours not mine.
I had no problem with the transition, but I'm all for going a bit further...
Nice fugue, it builds, but am I right in not perceiving any modulation? That could be the source of Mike's perception of the ending being somewhat left hanging. Is there a score we could see?
Thank you Mike. I always appreciate your reflections, as i feel you get what I'm going for and can offer specificity.
Hi Steve. Thanks for listening. Im glad you liked it! I'll post a score today.
Hey Ray, it's not a paint by numbers.. The structural analyses offered is in retrospect - after the fact..There are many ways it Could have turned out. I wonder if you even listened.
"As always, just one pleb's personal opinion."
"As always" is correct.. But what can i expect from an engineer who has a condescending perspective on the act composition in general (as you freely have admitted elsewhere) .. Understandable, given the fruits of your energies put that way. I think you're just bored, and need some drama.. Second cup of coffee?.. As always, i appreciate your response as much as i always do..
Hey Steve, i just posted the score.
Mike, i did use the word nocturne to frame the mood, and perhaps to mitigate the reflexive response by some to the label - 'fugue'.. Also, i do think i'll fiddle a bit more with the end.. Thanks for mentioning! .. (but don't think it will lead to another section… but who knows?
Wheres it gone? I wanted to follow it with score......
Had another listen with score and enjoyed it very much. The writing falls under the hands very nicely as one would expect from you, although the last beat of semis in the RH at b54 are easier to play an 8va higher. As I was sight reading, I came across a possible error in the score at b66. Should the 3rd semi of the first beat (lower notes in the rh) be a G and not an Asharp? I only ask as you keep the 8vas consistent in this figure.
The nocturne feel is of course enhanced by your pedalling instructions, blurring the clarity of lines one should expect in a fugue...nice.
Thanks Mike for venturing into the playing. I am delighted and honored! . b54 it is true would be easier, and wouldn't detract so much, but feel the alto line - especially the 1st semi - as it is for me the last note of a phrase started from the beat before, (many times my phrases end on a main beat, instead of starting on one) would be disrupted.. the following 3 semis i have no trouble moving up, which still may make it a bit easier. Bar 66 - it is indeed an error. Thank you for noticing! There is one more mistake, in b80, where the soprano should be G## with A#, - i was wondering why i didn't hear that smudge - and thought that the pppp marking was just hiding it.. But no.
I really appreciate you taking a look at this from the ground floor.
btw, i know some of the stretches - in a few places in the LH - are a bit much, and can be rolled..
Wow. You've got a nice subject and lots of fun stuff going on here... can't say very much now 'cos I feel like I need to listen to it several more times to pick out all of the little tricks you put in there. Very nice indeed. Thanks for sharing!