วีดีโอ

Thank you for your comment! (: I’m sorry, I don’t understand your first point. This fugue does not have a countersubject, every entry of the subject or the answer is accompanied by free counterpoint. Could you elaborate on that? (: As for the rhythmic aspect: I have never heard of such a rule. Of course, this fugue is rhythmically not particularly varied, but I think I have often seen a rhythmic motif being repeated over more than four bars, even in Bach, especially in sequences in episodes (as is the case in this fugue). Can you point me to a source of this claim? I possess some standard treatises on counterpoint.

@@averynhiell I am only reporting the academic notions of the 4-voice fugue. there is a manual by Adler that talks about the escape of the Baroque era. obviously then over the centuries the rules have changed but the countersubject in a fugue is a constitutive element of the structure of the exposure

@@vekkyo6026 It is true that most fugues have a countersubject, but it is not a requirement. Off the top of my head, I can name you three fugues by Bach without a stable countersubject: Contrapunctus I and IX as well as BWV 881.

I love the "Spitfire Fugue," by William Walton.

@@kawikaharper1579 Thank you for sharing, I just listened to it and I absolutely loved it! What a subject.

@@averynhiell You're welcome! I also wrote an atonal fugue, and tried to take on the challenge of it th-cam.com/video/99DLM4o0fD4/w-d-xo.html An atonal fugue, would you agree?

Wow, thank you so much, your words mean a lot to me! <3

Thank you! (: (not a guy btw)

Thank you so much, your comment made my day! (= I’m so glad you find the jump to 16ths effective, I had really hoped that it works well.

Thank you so much! I love to inspire others and give them the urge to write a fugue, give them the nerve to write a fugue.

​@@averynhiell😂

Thank you for the tip! (: It’s so much easier to write abrupt modulations, but I do like Bach’s gradual modulations a lot.

I know what you mean by ‘simple accompaniment’, I was experimenting with something different this time. Whether it’s boring or not is of course subjective, but I see your point. (:

Wow, thank you so much, this means a lot to me! (=

Thanks a lot! (=

Usually between five days and two weeks. (:

Oh very good

@@matthewkane502 Do you compose as well? (:

Thank you! (= I like the dark.

Спасибо вам! (:

Thanks! ^^

Thank you, I appreciate it a lot! (= Yes, something like this was the inspiration.

Да, вы можете сыграть его на одном фортепиано, но вам понадобятся два пианиста.

Thanks a lot! (=

I appreciate it! ^^

Thank you a lot! (= When you write ‘stubbornness of rhythm,’ are you referring to the continuous 16th-runs and the general lack of special rhythmic figures?

@@averynhiell yes, and the drum like pattern of the theme (Tun -TUUN tun-TUUN tun-tun tun-tun tun-TUUN --- seen in the first measures --- which, with the modulation, gives a sense of joyful march, but, with the minor mode, it has also a bit of melanchony in it)

@@vultun29 Yes, I see what you mean. ^^

Thank you a lot! ^^

Thank you! (: My email address is in the channel description. If you prefer Facebook Messenger, you can contact me here: facebook.com/wren.hiell

Thank you for your kind words! (=

Thank you so much! (=

Thank you so much! (=

I hope you find a way to learn it! (:

Thank you so much! (=

Thank you! I agree. (:

Qu'est-ce que tu veux dire ?

Thank you so much! (=

It’s for two players.

Thank you, I appreciate it! (: I am not trained in writing for organ. I wrote the fugue specifically for piano, the broken pedal points and Alberti bass-style writing is more idiomatic for harpsichord or piano afaik. I’m not sure if it would work on an organ (on a simulated organ no less).

Thank you! ^^

Thank you so much! (=

xD Thank you so much, I appreciate it! I love Scarlatti’s Cat Fugue. ^^

@@averynhiell ohh I didnt know D Scarlattis fugues! I listened to them all now, cat fugue very funny, theme simulating the cats random walk on the keyboard. 🙂 and I found D scarlattis fugal parts in his 10 voice choral work! Maybe you can try some counterpoint on human voice too... sounds very dramatic and deep.

@@alindmay Hmm, interesting suggestion! The problem is, I don’t really like the sound of human voices in the program I use, and I can’t really afford paying actual singers. Do you know a good VST for that? (:

Thank you! (:

Thank you so much, I appreciate it! ^^ Yes, I would love for it to be played by a pianist, but I can’t really afford that at the moment. As for the dynamic markings: I don’t have much experience in how to handle dynamics in a piece, I’m mostly winging this part. If you know any helpful resources about that, I’d be much obliged. (:

@@averynhiell As I understand it you don't play the piano yourself, so this would be a bit difficult to explain. (But IMHO it would help your composition skills a great deal if you at least learned some basics of the instrument; it would give you great insight into why certain things are written a certain way in the classics like Bach). But in a nutshell, unlike computer playback, when you're dealing with a live player, dynamics are not absolute. "mf" in one context can be louder or softer depending on the surrounding material, and often also the mood and experience of the pianist. As such, rather than thinking of dynamics as some fixed sound volume, it's much more useful to think of them as the *manner* in which you want the pianist to play. For example, "mf" means "play in the usual manner", i.e., your typical average piano intonation. "mp" means "play somewhat more gently than mf". And "f" means "hammer on the keys", and "ff" means "hammer on the keys *really* hard like there's no tomorrow", whereas "p" means "play gently and calmly" and "pp" means "play extremely gently like you're tiptoeing". Don't worry too much about the actual volume the pianist will play at; that's their job, let them figure it out themselves. More important is the manner in which they will play, since this is what will give the right expression to the music. Secondly, unlike computers, pianists aren't dumb (at least good pianists aren't haha); they generally know which notes to emphasize (down beats, climactic notes, etc). So you don't need to write so many dynamics; only where it may not be immediately obvious from the notes themselves. This includes crescendos and diminuendos: if you look at, say, a Beethoven piano sonata score, you'll see a lot of hairpins without any explicit dynamics. If you read the score, it's pretty obvious what Beethoven intended (crescendo for those group of notes, then go back to whatever the ambient dynamic was). A computer, however, doesn't understand this, so you have to spell it out always ("< mf" -- increase volume until mf, "> pp" - decrease volume until pp, etc.). For a score intended for a human player, a lot of this can be left out unless it's ambiguous, or you want something unexpected (e.g., crescendo and sudden pp at the end). It's hard to explain exactly when you need to be specific and when not to, though, if you don't play the piano yourself. The best way is probably to learn how to play it, at least to a basic level. ;-) Either that, or study piano scores and see how others notated their dynamics and how it sounds in a performance. Sorry for the info dump. Hope this helps.

@@user-gp1ou7fd2g Wow, thanks a lot for your comprehensive explanation! (= This helps indeed. I did have piano lessons for a dozen or so years, but not to a point where dynamics mattered a lot. Of course, the dynamics I notate are, as you said, mostly to make the playback sound a bit more alive. But I will keep in mind what you told me for future pieces. (:

Grazie mille! (=

Thank you! (: I agree, the alto clef would be an elegant solution, but afaik, it is extremely uncommon in scores written for keyboard instruments.

Thanks a lot, I appreciate it! (=

Wow, thank you so much! (=

Thank you so much! (= This is Musescore 3. I don’t play the fugue myself, it’s all done by the software.

Thanks a lot! (: I totally see what you mean about the independence of the voices, thank you for pointing that out.

Wow, thank you so much, this means a lot to me! (=

Thanks a lot! ^^

@@averynhiell Yw :)

Hi, nice to meet you too! (=

I feel honoured that my work has inspired you! (= This one took me a few weeks due to longer pauses in between. But I usually only need a couple of days (if I’m inspired enough to finish it, that is). Have you had lessons in counterpoint and fugal composition? Or have you taught it to yourself? Without proper understanding it’s not really possible to write a fugue, both because counterpoint is essential for it and because you need to know the structure and techniques of fugues. I’m asking because in an earlier comment you asked me how I learned it. (:

​@@averynhiell i don't really have any composition training, i've kind of been experimenting for the last 6 years - mostly with electronic music - and as of late became interested in baroque music. if it's not too much trouble for you, could i email you what i have so far for you to check out?

@@obonyxiam I had a very similar background before I started fugue tution. I will try to have a look at your work and see if I can help you with anything. You can find my mail address in the channel description. (:

Thank you! (= Of course, I would feel honoured. If you need a score for any of them, feel free to send me an e-mail, the address is in the channel description. Earlier pieces have a link to a MuseScore score.