# Duetto in D minor, for piano



## Chordalrock

This is a piece fully in the Baroque and Classical eras tonal idiom. I think the main subject is as good as I could possibly come up with, and there are passages here and there that make this piece worth hearing.


__
https://soundcloud.com/chordalrock%2Fduetto-in-d-minor

It's a synthetic performance, since I'm bad at memorising stuff on the piano and even worse at playing straight from the score. But if someone better than me is interested in playing this on the piano, I can post the sheet music. I think it's a nice little piece.

Here's the score:

View attachment 33318


Comments and criticism are welcome!


----------



## Matsps

Maybe a bit long but it's a good attempt at a very difficult type of music to compose.


----------



## Aramis

Chordalrock said:


> This is a piece fully in the Baroque and Classical eras tonal idiom


If that was your goal, I'd say you made some mistakes because some things that occure during the piece would sound very surprising to me if I would hear them in actual baroque/classical era work. I don't know if "there are passages here and there that make this piece worth hearing", it sounds more like excercise to me. So, hopefully, it's rather more like there are passages here and there that made this piece worth of composing, for yourself.


----------



## Chordalrock

Thanks, both, for sharing your impressions.



Aramis said:


> If that was your goal, I'd say you made some mistakes because some things that occure during the piece would sound very surprising to me if I would hear them in actual baroque/classical era work.


Can you give an example / examples? Here's the score (the title of the piece near the top of the page is the actual download link):

http://speedy.sh/8MqUJ/Duetto-in-D-minor.pdf

Not that my goal was imitation of the idiom, it's just that that's how I would describe the sound world of the piece and the most obvious influences. I'm curious to hear where you would say it differs. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head would be the b-flat note near the beginning of the middle section in bar 26. A slight influence from the Renaissance period I suppose.


----------



## violadude

This doesn't sound Baroque or classical at all. You might not want to brief people beforehand that that's what kind of piece you have written because it was a lot more jarring to listen to since that was what I was expecting than if I went in with no expectation at all. 

How long have you been writing music? And are you taking any studies in music? This piece sounds distinctly "studenty", even "pre-studenty". It sounded like you were attempting a fugue. I would definitely take some counterpoint classes if that's what you want to do. The counterpoint isn't very satisfying, but not only that, the individual voices also sound quite directionless at times, like they are just noodling around. The harmony also at times lacks a certain strength, as if it's harmony without a backbone, without any real push, pull, or direction. So I would suggest some harmony classes as well which will have strong ties to your counterpoint lessons.


----------



## Chordalrock

violadude said:


> This doesn't sound Baroque or classical at all. You might not want to brief people beforehand that that's what kind of piece you have written because it was a lot more jarring to listen to since that was what I was expecting than if I went in with no expectation at all.


Again, can you point out some particular note or passage that breaks the tonal idiom of that time? (I didn't say it was 100% baroque or classical style, simple that it was tonal, as opposed to atonal, and tonal of that period rather than the romantic extension of tonality.)



violadude said:


> How long have you been writing music? And are you taking any studies in music? This piece sounds distinctly "studenty", even "pre-studenty". It sounded like you were attempting a fugue. I would definitely take some counterpoint classes if that's what you want to do. The counterpoint isn't very satisfying, but not only that, the individual voices also sound quite directionless at times, like they are just noodling around. The harmony also at times lacks a certain strength, as if it's harmony without a backbone, without any real push, pull, or direction. So I would suggest some harmony classes as well which will have strong ties to your counterpoint lessons.


I've been writing for half a year but playing and thinking about music for a decade. I have some other pieces that aren't two-voiced and have what you'd call stronger harmony as a result.

This isn't a fugue, although it has fugal writing. A typical Bach fugue is kind of weak in terms of harmonic progression and direction because in fugues he focused on integrating themes and counter themes as opposed to creating harmonic movement. When I write pieces -- whether fugues or fugal or not -- I want to focus more on creating satisfying harmonic movement than I focus on writing counterpoint. That might cause the occasional "aimlessness" of a voice, because often one of them is there for harmony and not melody.

But. There's only so much you can do in terms of harmony with mere two voices -- often you if you move from one key to another you can't modulate as strongly as you might wish, and I move from key to key here rather often, in order to create that interesting harmonic movement that I mentioned I wanted in my pieces.

Have you been composing yourself, and if so, have you composed two voice pieces? I'd like to get some general idea of where you're coming from -- whether you're speaking purely as a listener or someone with actual experience with composition himself.

Generally speaking, these comments would be more helpful if they were more technical and included example passages, rather than being general and vague impressions (as if you were mere listeners). So far, some people seem to have liked the piece, some seem to not have liked it, and nobody can much say anything about the whys. Which is OK. I'm interested in reactions from those who are just listeners as well. But please drop the air of superiority if you are only giving your impressions and are unable to give technical advice.


----------



## violadude

Chordalrock said:


> Again, can you point out some particular note or passage that breaks the tonal idiom of that time? (I didn't say it was 100% baroque or classical style, simple that it was tonal, as opposed to atonal, and tonal of that period rather than the romantic extension of tonality.)


Hm, well something isn't automatically Baroque and Classical sounding just because it's not highly chromatic or atonal. That's simplifying matters a bit too much.

It's difficult to point out a specific passage for what I'm talking about without seeing the score. Are you able to provide that?

What I said applies to mostly the whole piece I would say.



Chordalrock said:


> I've been writing for half a year but playing and thinking about music for a decade. I have some other pieces that aren't two-voiced and have what you'd call stronger harmony as a result.
> 
> This isn't a fugue, although it has fugal writing. A typical Bach fugue is kind of weak in terms of harmonic progression and direction because in fugues he focused on integrating themes and counter themes as opposed to creating harmonic movement. When I write pieces -- whether fugues or fugal or not -- I want to focus more on creating satisfying harmonic movement than I focus on writing counterpoint. That might cause the occasional "aimlessness" of a voice, because often one of them is there for harmony and not melody.


I think you are separating the elements of harmony and counterpoint too much. The Common practice harmonic system grew out of already existing contrapuntal systems. This is why even when music the trend of music swung more toward homophonic textures the composers of that time still payed attention to the voice leading of those chords, following voice leading guidelines that directly related to counterpoint.



Chordalrock said:


> But. There's only so much you can do in terms of harmony with mere two voices -- often you if you move from one key to another you can't modulate as strongly as you might wish, and I move from key to key here rather often, in order to create that interesting harmonic movement that I mentioned I wanted in my pieces.


You can create plenty strong harmonic motion with two voices. Have you ever listened to Bach's 2 part inventions?



Chordalrock said:


> Have you been composing yourself, and if so, have you composed two voice pieces? I'd like to get some general idea of where you're coming from -- whether you're speaking purely as a listener or someone with actual experience with composition himself.


Yes, I compose. I am a senior (soon to be super-senior  ) in college on my way to get a Bachelors degree in music composition. I don't have any pieces in my current repertoire that aims at a Baroque or Classical style, but I have a pretty good understanding of those styles through my schooling.



Chordalrock said:


> Generally speaking, these comments would be more helpful if they were more technical and included example passages, rather than being general and vague impressions (as if you were mere listeners). So far, some people seem to have liked the piece, some seem to not have liked it, and nobody can much say anything about the whys. Which is OK. I'm interested in reactions from those who are just listeners as well. But please drop the air of superiority if you are only giving your impressions and are unable to give technical advice.


I gave you some technical advice, take counterpoint and harmony classes. They tend to be very grueling and academic but they will help you greatly in understanding voice leading, harmonic motion, good counterpoint ect. But beyond that, again, I can't really point to anything too specific unless I see the score.


----------



## Chordalrock

violadude said:


> But beyond that, again, I can't really point to anything too specific unless I see the score.


I posted a link to the score in my second message to this thread. Oh well, here it is again (the title of the piece near the top of the page is the actual download link):

http://speedy.sh/8MqUJ/Duetto-in-D-minor.pdf

As for counterpoint rules and their relation to harmony. I'm afraid you are incorrect. The rules of counter point during the Renaissance and earlier -- which is when they evolved -- were about how to create music that sounds polyphonic, so: no parallel leaps, no parallel fifths, stuff like that. It has absolutely nothing to do with harmonic motion or even harmony separate from, like, avoiding homophony.

I know the rules of counterpoint. They aren't difficult to learn. Now, when Renaissance writers say to avoid consecutive leaps, obviously I'm not going to follow that advice unless I write specifically to imitate the Renaissance styles that followed that advice. I'm also not necessarily going to avoid parallel leaps, although I'd recall I did avoid them in this piece.

But now that you have the score, you are free to point out errors of counterpoint or oddities of tonality. I'm all ears.


----------



## violadude

Chordalrock said:


> I posted a link to the score in my second message to this thread. Oh well, here it is again (the title of the piece near the top of the page is the actual download link):
> 
> http://speedy.sh/8MqUJ/Duetto-in-D-minor.pdf
> 
> As for counterpoint rules and their relation to harmony. I'm afraid you are incorrect. The rules of counter point during the Renaissance and earlier -- which is when they evolved -- were about how to create music that sounds polyphonic, so: no parallel leaps, no parallel fifths, stuff like that. It has absolutely nothing to do with harmonic motion or even harmony separate from, like, avoiding homophony.
> 
> I know the rules of counterpoint. They aren't difficult to learn. Now, when Renaissance writers say to avoid consecutive leaps, obviously I'm not going to follow that advice unless I write specifically to imitate the Renaissance styles that followed that advice. I'm also not necessarily going to avoid parallel leaps, although I'd recall I did avoid them in this piece.
> 
> But now that you have the score, you are free to point out errors of counterpoint or oddities of tonality. I'm all ears.


It doesn't download on my computer. Do you have another way of presenting it?

Also, no I'm not incorrect. The way Classical and Baroque treated harmonic progressions is directly related to older styles of counterpoint. One grew out of the other.

When you say you know the rules, do you mean you have only read them? or have you practiced writing species counterpoint exercises?


----------



## Chordalrock

violadude said:


> It doesn't download on my computer. Do you have another way of presenting it?


I added the score as an attachment to my first post on this thread. Check it out.


----------



## violadude

Chordalrock said:


> I added the score as an attachment to my first post on this thread. Check it out.


Alright, thanks.

First thing I see that really throws the listener off immediately is you start a theme in d minor, and then you repeat the theme in the bass in a minor, but the note you pair it with in the treble clef is D, which then implies, not a minor but a 6/4 d minor chord but then we hear that B natural right away in the next beat without a C# or any other notes to give it a context within d minor. So it becomes very confusing what key you are actually trying to go for here.

There are a few places where the key is vague. Always know what you're trying to modulate to and how to get there. For example, what are you trying to do around measure 10? It looks like you're going for c minor or something like that, but you never actually establish c minor before you back away from it. Then you add an F sharp in the bass. We just heard and e-flat in the treble so that might be interpreted as some sort of diminished f sharp 7th chord but then you have an e natural right after the f sharp in the bass. So it's really confusing what you're going for there. There are more examples of that type of thing.

I think you need to pay more attention to what's in the bass. Much of the weakness of the harmonic motion can be attributed to this. Even though you aren't dealing with full chords, you are still implying chords based on what you have in the bass and different inversions of chords have different functions in the context of common practice tonality. For example, in measure 49, you start the theme again in a minor, but you don't want an E in the bass at the very beginning of the theme if you want to establish a strong a minor, especially if you are going to leap up to A on the third beat. This makes it sound like the harmony is out of synch with itself and that E actually belongs to the dominant setup in the previous measure.

Also, as far as satisfying melodies go I think there are too many consecutive leaps. If you are trying to write a satisfying piece inspired by the Baroque era you don't want your melodies to skip around so much like the 2 consecutive skips you have in measure 7-8. This example is especially strange since the skips don't even outline a particular chord, at least not one used at that time period.


----------



## Chordalrock

violadude said:


> First thing I see that really throws the listener off immediately is you start a theme in d minor, and then you repeat the theme in the bass in a minor, but the note you pair it with in the treble clef is D, which then implies, not a minor but a 6/4 d minor chord but then we hear that B natural right away in the next beat without a C# or any other notes to give it a context within d minor. So it becomes very confusing what key you are actually trying to go for here.
> 
> There are a few places where the key is vague. Always know what you're trying to modulate to and how to get there. For example, what are you trying to do around measure 10? It looks like you're going for c minor or something like that, but you never actually establish c minor before you back away from it. Then you add an F sharp in the bass. We just heard and e-flat in the treble so that might be interpreted as some sort of diminished f sharp 7th chord but then you have an e natural right after the f sharp in the bass. So it's really confusing what you're going for there. There are more examples of that type of thing.
> 
> I think you need to pay more attention to what's in the bass. Much of the weakness of the harmonic motion can be attributed to this. Even though you aren't dealing with full chords, you are still implying chords based on what you have in the bass and different inversions of chords have different functions in the context of common practice tonality. For example, in measure 49, you start the theme again in a minor, but you don't want an E in the bass at the very beginning of the theme if you want to establish a strong a minor, especially if you are going to leap up to A on the third beat. This makes it sound like the harmony is out of synch with itself and that E actually belongs to the dominant setup in the previous measure.


Thanks for the detailed response. I'll have to think about your first and third paragraphs more. I can't immediately think of anything vastly preferable, although in measure 49 I suppose I could write A to E instead of E to A but I wouldn't say that's a wonderful improvement. I don't know. What do you think? (And of course I'd have to rewrite all the similar passages if I did that, that first paragraph of yours being kind of related to this.)

Re the second paragraph... In measures 10 & 11 I'm flirting with G minor. If you look at it again I think you will see it. It's not terribly tonally stable I'll give you that, and I'll certainly be more conscious of tonality in future projects (and I may slightly revise this -- but anything more substantial seems kind of pointless because then I'd have to get rid of a lot of material that I'm fond of).

Anyway, I do appreciate your comments. There are a few other of my pieces that I'm interested in getting reactions to, but I'm not sure when I'll be posting them. Hopefully you can find the interest to listen to them as well if not to look at them more carefully. They're very different from this one.


----------



## MJTTOMB

Hi Chordalrock, you asked for a detailed analysis of features of this work that are distinctly un-classical and un-baroque. I've re-uploaded your score here with some annotations to that effect, but I'll summarize a few of the major points of my annotations here as well.

First, I would caution you against the belief that avoiding consecutive leaps is a uniquely Renaissance trait that was totally outmoded by the time of the classical era, as this practice carried well into the 19th century, where most large leaps were still followed by stepwise motion in the opposite direction. By now, of course, it is totally acceptable to leap consecutively, but _not_ if the goal is to write idiomatically for another time period as you have stated. On the whole, the idea behind this is that lines with too many leaps cease to sound like melodic "lines", and more like figuration-which is counter to the most basic definition of counterpoint as _melodic_ lines set against each other.

The most immediate thing to strike me was the rhythm of your subject, as it alternates freely between duplet and triplet rhythms. Again, this practice as well is totally acceptable in modern times, but it is not idiomatic in either the Baroque period (where either one or the other was used exclusively), or in the classical period (where triplets appear most frequently towards the end of a movement to give a sense of acceleration without a change in tempo).

Now, to your counterpoint: there are a number of things that suggest to me your knowledge of the rules of counterpoint may not be as strong as you claim, but the primary evidence lies in the frequent use of unprepared, untreated dissonances on strong beats. Again, I'll note that in our times it is totally acceptable to do this and some modern composers such as Carl Ruggles and Charles Seeger even developed a style of "dissonant counterpoint" where dissonance on strong beats was the rule instead of the exception. In the baroque and classical periods, however, it was the rule (with some exceptions) that dissonances could not be placed on strong beats. In the annotations, I've marked these with a box around dissonant notes on strong beats. These dissonances are sometimes acceptable, for example, in the case of a suspension or an accented non-chord tone that resolves by step to a chord tone. However, they should be otherwise avoided (also, a note that a perfect 4th is considered a dissonant interval due to tension that makes the upper voice want to resolve into a 3rd of some kind. P4's were by far the most common dissonance found on strong beats in this piece, though some M9's occurred as well).

Also, be careful of cross relations, as these occur a few times in your piece (a C in one voice followed by a C# in a different voice and different register). Cross-relation is, like all of these things, much more acceptable now, but it is still a very unsettling sound to hear in tonal music. It is decidedly not idiomatic for music in the common practice.

There are a few instances of perfect 5ths approached by similar motion from perfect octaves. These have been circled.

I've been composing for about 7 years now (I'm in my third year of college studying it) and I'm always excited to hear of people taking an interest in composition. I think this is a good start. I don't know if you plan to ever take classes in counterpoint or harmony as was previously suggested, but I can tell you with certainty that after you've applied the skills like this in writing, reinforcing them with classes is not only helpful but rather easy and fun (there is always more to learn from such classes, but having a basic prior knowledge of the subject allows you to focus on new material, instead of having to play catch-up from day one). I hope this helps, and by all means keep practicing your art!


----------



## Chordalrock

Thanks! This is quite helpful. I wasn't aware of the extent of rules and practice that one has to follow to be writing within the boundaries of classical style. It's also not what I was consciously aiming for with this piece, but my ignorance was there all the same and posting the composition here has been more of a learning experience than I could have anticipated.

I'll also mention Violadude's first paragraph again, which I've been thinking about and it's something I probably wouldn't have thought about or learned elsewhere. The passages in Bach's fugues that I thought were comparable were actually not. Now I see why he adds short transitions in places like near the beginnig of the big A Minor organ fugue (BWV 543).

Re taking classes, I don't think that's possible where I live and with my resources and abilities. I mean, yes, if I were a brilliant musician I could probably get into a conservatory, but I don't think they have composition classes for hobbyists like me. I'll keep my eyes open though.

Anyway, these comments make me want to try my hand at a fully Baroque style two-voice piece with this added knowledge that I've gained here. Thanks again to those who commented.


----------

