# A piece with an attempted fugue in the middle



## level82rat (Jun 20, 2019)

Here is the flat.io link for the score.

If this link doesn't work try listening to just the audio.

I don't mind harsh criticism, if its garbage tell me its garbage.


----------



## caters (Aug 2, 2018)

I like it. And the fugue is good for an attempt. I have certainly done worse in my fugues. I don't hear any crunchy dissonances that don't resolve. And the flat.io audio worked. Just so you know, you don't have to put dynamics on both staves unless you intend the right hand and left hand to have different dynamics. Just 1 set of dynamics is enough for a pianist to know how loud to play it. 

Some of your arpeggiated chords and intervals though are only possible for those that have like Rachmaninoff size hands(octave + fourth shows up quite frequently). For me, I would have to get rid of the top note and just play it as an octave, because I can barely even reach a ninth on my piano, so octaves are my largest comfortable to play interval.


----------



## level82rat (Jun 20, 2019)

Appreciate the advice caters. I put dynamics on both staves because flat.io doesnt let one dynamic tag work for both. And would it be possible to roll the chords if they're too big? As in you arpeggiate the bottom few and only hold the chord on the top few?


----------



## caters (Aug 2, 2018)

level82rat said:


> Appreciate the advice caters. I put dynamics on both staves because flat.io doesnt let one dynamic tag work for both. And would it be possible to roll the chords if they're too big? As in you arpeggiate the bottom few and only hold the chord on the top few?


Well, is there a way to make the left hand dynamics invisible without affecting the audio? If so, then maybe you should do that. I prefer Musescore because you can change the dynamics to affect either the system, staff, or part. Part is the default for dynamics in Musescore(which means 1 dynamic affects both staves of the piano by default). And the Musescore software is completely free, but still very sophisticated.

As for the chords, yes that would indeed be possible to roll the chords, pressing the pedal down if I want to sustain the chord, but for the wide intervals with just 2 notes such as in measures 12 and 13, that isn't really possible to roll it.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I noticed you transposed the subject and changed duration of notes in the fugato (or is it canon?). I don't think it melds. The 2 lines remain too separate with little real interaction. Some notes just fall into place together arbitrarily.


----------



## level82rat (Jun 20, 2019)

Phil loves classical said:


> I noticed you transposed the subject and changed duration of notes in the fugato (or is it canon?). I don't think it melds. The 2 lines remain too separate with little real interaction. Some notes just fall into place together arbitrarily.


Appreciate the critique. Does this apply to the whole fugue section or measures 64-67? That's the only section where I changed the duration of notes.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Didn't see the score before. I think the fugato started out better, but got strained later on from bars 60 - 67. I think the counter subject could be stronger. For example, starting in the 4th beat of bar 52 where you went in parallel motion with the same interval to beat 3. The subject itself is a bit at fault. It manifests in bar 53, where the answer is a quarter note spread between beats. The 3rd beat of that bar sounds like it's straining for a better interval. You're using an augmented 5th, which is pretty ambiguous (or weak and dissonant). Try to reiterate the subject and/or counter so you can maximize the contrary motion, and have a stronger counter-subject. When you changed duration as development in a fugue, it's normally one part that gets shorter or longer while the other stays the same duration as before. You changed durations in both parts which just stretches it out.


----------

