Dear Michael:
Just a quick first reaction. Too much parallel motion at times. While the “rules” of common practice counterpoint allow consecutive thirds and sixths too many was frowned upon. Bar 9 is the first example, while not “violating any of the rules”, to the ear the parallel thirds and sixths destroy any sense of independence between the two voices. The jumping from thirds to sixths does not change this aural perception. Part of the problem might lie in the that fact that the two voices are moving lock step with each other with no rhythmic interest. One possible solution might be some how to off set the two voices rhythmically, id est having one voice move to the next voice before the other moves.
This same aural perception of moving from polyphony to homophonic texture occurs though out the piece. Bars 15, 21, 32, 50, 63-64 all “caught my ear”. In fact I listen to it a few times with my eyes closed so that my eyes would not fool me. In bar 32 the two outer voices are moving in parallel motion and the addition of a third inter voice might have mitigated the homophonic feeling, yet the fact that the intervoice is static in it melodic movement, id est simply repeat that same note, and moving with the same rhythm as the two outer voices only reinforces that homophonic feeling. Bar 21 while the two top voices are not moving in parallel intervals they are moving in a parallel direction and again locked-stepped in rhythm. The third (bottom) voice does over come this homophonic aural impression of the bar. These are the bars that stood out aural to me.
One thing, it was quite common, but not “required” that when a voice re-enters after resting that it would state the subject, I some times get the impression that when you have a voice re-entering it is simply entering to provide harmonic support to the existing voices, not to make its own “statement”, this is just an impression though and I have not examined this in detail.
While your use of a Picardy third to end the piece is quite “proper in the common practice” I wonder if now in the twenty first century that it is strictly needed and given the feel of the rest of the piece a bit out of place. Again bars 67 to the end have a very homophonic feel to them, I know it is the closing of the piece, but still ...
One final thought, I am un-convinced on the suitability of the subject and I found it interesting that you avoided both the sixth and seventh scale degrees in the subject. The two notes in the minor that are both the most difficult to handled (natural, harmonic, or melodic versions decisions ) and yet in some ways the most interesting and characteristic notes in minor.
No comments:
Post a Comment