|
|
Post by gx on Sept 28, 2017 9:20:13 GMT
Hi guys. Yes, back at the fugue. This one doesn't quite have a key center.. (and the harmonic mv't ends to move quickly at times).. but to me, very emotionally tangible, as if it does have a center from which it moves…(it is more like there are 4 tones centers in any given passage..) To me, it is quite folksy, dramatic, and a little funky - you'll know the place I'm talking about.
I also wanted to give the theme very contrasting frameworks from which to view it.
I may be still working a few bugs out.. the ending might need a touch more…
I've grown very fond of this one..I hope you like it.
Thanks for listening.
gregorio
soundcloud.com/gregoriox88/fugue-chimera-1st-draft-fnl-1
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hewer on Sept 28, 2017 9:44:28 GMT
Gregorio,
Welcome to the 21stC. Just simply brilliant. Everything about it is right for me and the whole is cohesive and finely wrought. I didn't even care that it was a fugue, it was a succinct expression in a language that I love. I like the invention and imagination you have found in the piano writing as well.
Without doubt for me, this is your absolute best so far and I did not feel as though I was listening to anything less than a great piece by an excellent composer. I hope you enjoyed exploring this language as it is rich in expressive potential.
|
|
luis
New Member
Posts: 22 
|
Post by luis on Sept 28, 2017 13:57:55 GMT
I also think that contemporary styles take many previous concepts in an open and free form. Strictly, it's not a fugue, but it doesn't matter. The concept is there and the result is a piece with very good counterpoint.
It's interesting to explore this field in atonal (or non classic tonal) music. I mean, the imitative patterns can rely on melody, but also in other elements (rhythm, the series)...
In summary, I like it a lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Sept 28, 2017 15:28:51 GMT
Woohoo, another fugue!
I've gotta listen to this several times more before I comment on its specifics, in order to do it justice... but my overall impression on first listen is that this is the "spiritual successor" to Dark Sky, much more finely wrought and more complete, and more fully and satisfyingly explores the language Dark Sky introduced.
|
|
|
|
Post by gx on Sept 28, 2017 15:59:35 GMT
Wow , Mike! I must take a step back.. Your response has made my week.. It Was a kind of rite of passage for me.. (practically went crazy:) this language that was more in the cracks of my other fugues - to varying degrees, fully emerges here.. Thank you so much! (though, now, I'm kinda scared to go back in there again:) Hi Luis. Thank you for taking a listen! Im glad you liked it… In response to your ideas… i think it is in a 'contemporary style' but it is not so 'freeform' here.. You mention about it not being a 'strict fugue.. and perhaps it is not, depending on your definition.. (the 2nd entrance doesn't start on the 5th, for example), but i thought i would leave here a structural outline.. (the fugue is only 46 bars long) A word on the 'Chimera' structure: Theme entrance in alto. 4 bars. Theme in tenor, (starting a raised 4th from initial starting note) ,with countersubject in Alto. Entrance, theme in soprano, (raised 5th) w/ CS in tenor, while CS inverted in Alto. Entrance, inverted theme in Bass, alto and tenor share counter subject. Then, stretto with soprano and alto, with CS in bass in 2 bar fragment, returning episodically. .. Then there is the theme in the bass at half speed, while cell fragments of the theme are tossed below and above... (yes, below the bass, so i guess technically, that would be a 5th (baritone) voice.. and a 'fake' doorway  It is followed by and sequence - using the half bar cadence of the theme.. That is followed by a two part canon used in sequence, taken from the first bar of the theme.. then there is some more culminating development, to the last statement , where the theme is in chords, (breaking the 'rules' somewhat, w/ cameo appearances, to thicken, and fill out what had been harmonically implied ) bass in contrary motion, w/ some passagework in tenor and alto.. The harmonic cells implicit in the theme are the building blocks for harmonic and linear mov't. So, i do think this qualifies as fugue... But whether it is 'strict' - is something others can decide.. Structure aside, my intention, most of all was trying to make (compelling) music. Hey HS! Thanks so much for your enthusiasm!! .. I'll be very curious to hear after you mull it over a bit.. ps.. i do too think it follows from 'dark sky'. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Sept 28, 2017 16:28:06 GMT
I resent the pedantic, straitjacketed, textbook definition of fugue that has come to plague our generation. The concept of fugue is far more encompassing than the pedants would like us to believe, and I believe it holds much untapped potential that has been suppressed by the unnecessarily constricted, narrow understanding that is being taught. It is abundantly clear to me that something is wrong, when the fugues of none less than Bach himself need to be granted "exceptions" in order to fit under the contrived textbook formula. Olroyd's text on fugue, IIRC the title is something like "the spirit and form of fugue", deals with this issue to some extent. The so-called "exceptions" in Bach's fugues are actually completely normal, when viewed in the proper historical context. One point in particular is the answer being in the dominant key: this arose from the historical practice of the answer being in the plagal mode. The integration of the historical plagal mode with the modern (at the time) modulation to the dominant key is where Bach's genius shone, which genius is conveniently swept under the carpet of an "exceptional occurrence" in order to save a flawed theory of fugue. Not to mention other subject-answer key schemes other than I-V-I..., oft-mentioned by Kris Emerig of the Other Forum. Pachelbel's fugues in Magnificat, for example, exhibit all kinds of exposition key (and mode) structures, like I-I, I-IV, V-I, IV-I, and so forth, with I-V being only one of many possibilities. Yet the unfortunate students of fugue today are told from day 1 that the answer "must" come in V, and that deviations from this are "exceptions" to be granted only to geniuses like Beethoven, and certainly not to be entertained by the unwashed masses. And so today the art of fugue is perceived as difficult, straitjacketed, and only to be entertained by the academically-inclined (or inflicted as an onerous exercise upon composition students). Perhaps Kris said it best, that the fugue began to die the moment it became a form rather than a much more inclusive and flexible texture. In light of modern fugues like those by Shostakovich and others of more recent days than the "Standard Bach Model", I'd say gx 's fugue here is certainly qualified to be called a fugue!    |
|
luis
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by luis on Sept 28, 2017 16:30:20 GMT
What I meant is that the Classic fugue has tonal relationships that here are, logically, absent. But I agree that today the concept is not the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Sept 28, 2017 22:37:59 GMT
Alright. So, this morning I listened to this in a loop for about an hour (though I was mostly doing other things in the meantime, so it was more background music than anything), then I took a break and went and wrote the first part of my fractal fugue (hooray, I finally have something that could work! -- but more on that elsewhere). Then I came back to revisit this one, and took several more listens, a few times following the brief outline you posted. I like the oddball theme you have here. Peculiar and idiosyncratic, quite befitting the title, a kind of chimerical creature of multiple disparate natures, or perhaps multiple personalities. For some reason my brain keeps conjuring the image of a hydra with awkward, peculiar gait, but I'm pretty sure that's the wrong imagery here. The bass entry in inversion was unexpected, and quite an interesting way to shake up what would otherwise be a mundane old exposition in 4 voices. Love the scattered high chords you have from about 1:20 to 1:50 or so, while the bass play the theme at half speed, with fragments sprinkled throughout. Very atmospheric and "chimerical". I felt the buildup starting around 2:20 could be a tad stronger. Perhaps you could have them already at full dynamics, and just let the gradual thickening of the texture provide the rest of the buildup. The climax was nice, but I felt it could be made just a little heavier, maybe with a bit more emphasis, before fading out to the ending. A kind of "here's the chimera IN YOUR FACE" sort of deal, before the beast turns and wanders off into the shadows under the purple sky with dark clouds. Speaking of which, I wonder if Dark Sky and Chimera could work together as a pair. Dark Sky introduces the setting, the purple sky with black clouds, then Chimera introduces you to the inhabitant of the setting, the peculiar creature himself. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hewer on Sept 29, 2017 14:23:15 GMT
Be brave Gregorio. Interested to hear how you found/conceived your harmony, I mean was it as much a consideration as usual, or did you let the horizontal dictate a little more so?
|
|
|
|
Post by gx on Sept 29, 2017 15:42:43 GMT
Hey HS.. i appreciate you looping it but did you have to characterize it as 'background' music? .. And why are you always asking my climaxes to be bigger? But yes, at first, (as i mention at the top) that perhaps the ending could have a bit more added, but i wasn't sure. And also, a few more seconds to declimax - and weed out … but, i also do like the contrast of a sudden turn for the last 2 bars.. i dunno yet as i write this. I haven't listened to the piece since i posted it.. I needed some space, thinking i could better tell w/fresh ears. Im still not ready - as i was subsumed for a long bout.. (it took a ridiculous amount of time to even come up w/ the theme before i settled.. there were many variations.. which finally came down to 2 versions that i found that were slightly different rhythmically, (one is slightly foreshortened) and had different cadences.. I ended up deciding to use both - the choosing depending on the context.. You'll notice that the 2nd entry is slightly different - especially at the cadence - which is in contrary motion to the 1st statement of the theme.. (The emotional difference being, that one cadence seemed for 'final' and the other more a 'question)...This allowed a wonderful flexibility that i quite enjoyed… Just to mention, that my string quartet also employs much of the approach to this one… (also one i did quite a while ago - 'Dilemma', and come to think of it, i did a sort of progressive rock tune, 'Jabberwocky' , employing electric violin and electric guitar, bass, perc, keyboard, done years ago, with this thinking as well …- which can be heard on my sound cloud. Thank you, as always for sharing your thoughts, which i value as a very keen reflection! |
|
|
|
Post by gx on Sept 29, 2017 16:16:55 GMT
Hi Mike. Perhaps i have exhausted my 'retro' urge.. but maybe not completely With re to harmony.. after i came up with the theme - i was amazed at the harmonic content it implied.. so many colors and shades, with wonderful degrees of 'distortion' as well as simple major and minor - and oddly the major and minor almost hit me as a as a special effect:) as a sudden bit of brightness. A reversal of sorts. Because of that, i ended up very carefully choosing the harmonic content each step of the way.. even with 16th note passages, though i suspect there the ear can't grab on so easily in real time.. (but i was totally loving going into that kind of detail).. I should mention that i also allowed notes outside the (already rich with possibilities) given harmony -which afforded a wonderful sense of freedom within a greater structural complexity than my other pieces.. It was kind of exhilarating.. It is for that 'rush' that i will stir the cauldron for a hundred hours .. seems i always have to go thru this long - 'get to know you' period.. Digression aside, in short, the linear and harmonic choosing was on equal footing - if not more leaned to the harmonic.. |
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Sept 29, 2017 16:56:09 GMT
Haha, yeah, I guess I'm such a sucker for big climaxes. You should probably add a few grains of salt to my advice on climaxes. As for allowing two variations of the theme, it reminds me of my C#m fugue, where the subject technically ends at the C# 16th note, but I decided that the following note could be either D# or B#, depending on context. And yes, that afforded a lot more flexibility in the course of writing the rest of the fugue. Well, that, and I also took liberties with the very first entry, which is a few notes longer than all subsequent entries, which is never repeated again after that. And similar to your question/answer variation, the D# variation emphasizes the implied tritone much more strongly, thus less stability, whereas the B# variation seems to tend more towards a V chord, as if preparing for a cadence, so more like an "answer", or at least the anticipation of one. It's funny how we both came up with something so vastly different, yet similar in so many ways. All this talk about expanded harmonies makes me want to (temporarily) shelve my fractal fugue WIP and embark on a fugue in Phrygian dominant, that has been brewing in my head for a while now. Perhaps I'll even go beyond Phrygian dominant by adding "extra" notes to the scale, just for kicks. I even have ideas about a completely non-traditional fugue, that's neither tonal nor atonal, but something else altogether. But that's probably not going to materialize anytime soon, because it's such a foreign territory for me, like jumping into the middle of the deep blue ocean, that I'll probably need a lot of time to find my way around. And also, my current notation software setup will need some drastic overhaul just to be able to accomodate something like that. And I might even end up having to invent my own notation for this stuff, it's just so completely out there. (And perhaps I might even need Mike's help to produce a believable audio of it... I doubt my current lame patches will be able to produce something that won't make your ears bleed.) |
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Oct 1, 2017 5:12:58 GMT
Just another thought about your 2nd entry being different from the 1st: this is probably stretching it, but could it be regarded as a modern analog of a tonal answer in the traditional fugue?
Traditionally, tonal answers arose from the answer being in a different mode from the subject, ie, the subject translated into the plagal register (rather than in a different key -- that came later, around Bach's time). One could think of it, therefore, as a kind of non-verbatim imitation of the subject with different modal characteristics. For example, the 4th between the tonic and dominant gets interchanged with a 5th, which is the historical origin of the rule about tonal answers when the subject ends on the tonic.
In your case, arguably one could say you have an answer with different melodic characteristics, effected not by modal considerations but by melodic considerations.
Anyways, just a fun thought I have on how one could rationalize this. It might be interesting to see if there's a theory that can be derived from this.
|
|
|
|
Post by gx on Oct 1, 2017 7:32:52 GMT
That does seem to be stretching it a bit Im not sure if there is any documented justification for what i did, but if one could be applied, if anyone could find it, my bet is on you! But this sounds about right to me :"In your case, arguably one could say you have an answer with different melodic characteristics, effected not by modal considerations but by melodic considerations." Yes. Just an opposite melodic gesture at the cadence (last 5 notes of a 25 note subject). (i don't feel it has modulated to a different mode there).. i thought it was just a little deviation, but i thought there could be trouble in mentioning it:) (of course i believe it works perfectly for This piece.. but i have no theories  |
|
