ANALYSIS: Chopin, Fugue in A minor, B.144 || Imitative Counterpoint 8 

I litteraly read your comment, to litteraly answer using litteraly my fingers

@@elie2133 why so salty lol

I appreciate that!

Of course!

Thank you; I'm glad you liked it.

I didn't want to explicitly state that in the video, but I think there is a very good possibility that you are right, considering how many of the standard fugal techniques Chopin demonstrates.

Yes actually, I"m going to be including some Taneyev along the way (especially his approach to canon) in the imitative counterpoint playlist.

Maybe this fugue would deserve that criticism. It is hard to say exactly what people mean when they say that. I usually take it to mean that the piece lacks natural and convincing contrast. One of the first lessons I was taught in composition class is that composition is primarily about striking the right balance between contrast and continuity, and I believe that is true. A fugue in particular runs the risk of too much continuity (i.e. boring the listener) because its basic design requires the frequent repetition of the fugue subject and answer. It strikes me that Chopin probably composed this fugue very rapidly to demonstrate certain fugal tricks to one of his piano students. I would not say it is a masterpiece.

@@JacobGran Thanks a bunch man. You really clear up a lot of things. I have a lot of questions because I receive a lot of ambiguous criticism that I'm not sure about.

it's best to try to develop an instinct with form. There's a great deal of difference between *knowing* form and *understanding it* and the latter can only come from extensive auditory analysis, and experience through simplicity. Start with simple things, like writing a single phrase, and don't just do that once, do it hundreds of times. Ebenezer Prout's "Harmony: its theory and practice" has many exercises suitable for a beginner. Then go to simple forms which complete a full piece of music, AABA, AABB, short preludes, chorales, etc. rinse and repeat and go up from there. it should, and will take you years, don't rush, as that is a fast-track to failure. And always try to understand things auditorily, never be satisfied that it looks unified on paper, as the ear may tell a completely different story.

@@Whatismusic123 I am not really looking for advice on how to achieve it. I want a target and then I'll figure out by my own choices how to get there. And if you say there's no way to create such a target then there's also no way to criticize any piece I create. For example "I can clearly feel through your piece that you haven't gone through my rigorous practice methods" I can just say to that "I actually did." and the criticism would lose its point. Good criticism addresses objective properties of a piece, not an assumption about the composer's past. Your advice is probably good and I may or may not have done it already for years. When I listen to some Bach pieces I say to myself "Well, there's no way this is developed - this really goes nowhere" and I love those pieces and Bach. But I really do believe they go nowhere. The pieces I mention, no one has ever explained to me why they are considered developed. And when people do they say it's a matter of feeling - well my feeling is some Bach pieces are extremely under-developed and I feel they really go nowhere. An example of a piece like this is his famous C major prelude. To me this is just a bunch of chords really, I don't see why people say it's brilliant. Only with fugue I ever got clearer answers as to how a piece develops.

I agree its not a very good fugue, but it is instructive (some would say pedantic), which makes me think he wrote it for one of his students, probably in a single lesson or afternoon. It gives some insight into his education at the Warsaw Conservatory and his contemporaneous review of Cherubini's counterpoint textbook. In other words, it is a good example of a "textbook" fugue because there isn't much else to it other than the formulas. He'd be mortified to know we were paying this much close attention to it.

you can't just say "it breaks this rule" you must actually understand the rule, and when it applies, there's no rhythmic momentum being destroyed, while it's corny to say this, Chopin knew better. The form of the phrase is 3+3 measures. The first measure of the second half is a variation of the first measure in the first half, It needs to follow a similar rhythmn, as if it were to say, start on eigth notes, the measure would end up weak and the form would be destroyed, being a broken mess like 3+1+2. The fugal subject is perfect, you're not making any point.

​@@Whatismusic123 I don't know what you mean by "Chopin knew better". Was Chopin a good or even marginally competent fugue writer? No, he wasn't. So no, he probably doesn't know better. As for the second half of your comment, I have to ask: do you have some kind of intellectual disability or something? Did you even read my comment, and if so, are you able to understand what it says? I said that the subject has an awkward sound because the last beat of m.2 has two 8th notes followed by a quarter, which sounds like a hiccup. I don't care about phrase symmetry. Your whole tirade about phrase structure is entirely irrelevant. "The fugal subject is perfect, you're not making any point". Wow, so you are not even willing to concede that, for example, this subject is less than perfect but still good. No, it's literally perfect! Amazing. Well, Bach would disagree. Schoenberg would disagree. Basically anybody who understands fugue would disagree, but go ahead and keep worshipping this failure of a fugue. And I'm not even sure why Chopin fans want to die on this hill, defending this fugue. Chopin was an amazing composer, his music has so many virtues. It's just that fugue writing wasn't his strong suit. Why is it so difficult for you to admit? This is just dumb.

what

As a matter of fact, the mobility of relativity is quite asinine in its lugubriousness. The following will state 3 functions in which this is the case: f(x)=sqrt((32x)/arctan(20⁰)) f(x)=42.69/(sin(x⁰))-3x⁴ f(x)=We're no strangers to love You know the rules and so do I A full commitment's what I'm thinking of You wouldn't get this from any other guy I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling Gotta make you understand Never gonna give you up Never gonna let you down Never gonna run around and desert you Never gonna make you cry Never gonna say goodbye Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you We've known each other for so long Your heart's been aching but you're too shy to say it Inside we both know what's been going on We know the game and we're gonna play it And if you ask me how I'm feeling Don't tell me you're too blind to see Never gonna give you up Never gonna let you down Never gonna run around and desert you Never gonna make you cry Never gonna say goodbye Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you Never gonna give you up Never gonna let you down Never gonna run around and desert you Never gonna make you cry Never gonna say goodbye Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you Never gonna give, never gonna give (Give you up) We've known each other for so long Your heart's been aching but you're too shy to say it Inside we both know what's been going on We know the game and we're gonna play it I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling Gotta make you understand Never gonna give you up Never gonna let you down Never gonna run around and desert you Never gonna make you cry Never gonna say goodbye Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you Never gonna give you up Never gonna let you down Never gonna run around and desert you Never gonna make you cry Never gonna say goodbye Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you Never gonna give you up Never gonna let you down Never gonna run around and desert you Never gonna make you cry Never gonna say goodbye Source: Musixmatch Songwriters: M Aitken / P Waterman / M Stock Never Gonna Give You Up lyrics © All Boys Music Ltd., Sids Songs Ltd., Mike Stock Publishing Limited

I will countenance no furtherance of this obstreperous espieglery