Jump to content

Monarcheon

Reviewers
  • Content Count

    1,905
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    144

Monarcheon last won the day on September 7

Monarcheon had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

419 Excellent

About Monarcheon

  • Rank
    Elite Composer
  • Birthday June 16

Profile Information

  • Biography
    My job as a theorist and reviewer is not to force changes or ideologies into your music, but to make you question your decisions and beliefs in the process. Being able to defend your ideas not only makes you a better musician but a better-equipped human being, and ultimately, it's our job to be both, even while only exercising one at any given time.
  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    USA
  • Occupation
    Composer, Conductor, Arranger, Administrative Assistant
  • Interests
    Cooking, Music, Drama
  • Favorite Composers
    Gershwin, Ravel, Tchaikovsky, Shostakovich, Reich
  • My Compositional Styles
    Big Band Fusion, Freely Atonal, Maximalist
  • Notation Software/Sequencers
    Finale 25, Logic Pro X
  • Instruments Played
    Cello, Guitar (classical), Piano, Violin, Percussion, Conductor

Recent Profile Visitors

14,922 profile views
  1. So, I got a little tired of the process is it kept going. It was cool hearing a Csus/Bb at the beginning and the occasional instrumental licks are nice, but even if I was watching a film, I think I'd be a little antsy by the 2 minute mark. Maybe some more rhythmic drivers would be nice, since your smallest rhythmic unit is split only once without an alteration of much contour.
  2. It does built tension quite nicely. The III∆7 chords in third inversion didn't feel as satisfying as a passing chord like that normally would. I think that it might be trying to have it both ways sometimes, since in the bigger end section it's over a dominant.
  3. Nice little thing here, that flows into itself rather well, despite being sectioned by standard form. The stops didn't get to me so much as Eb9 with a focus on the 9th did. I know it's part of your main progression but it always felt a little odd to me for some reason; perhaps it's the predominant function being accented as though it had dominant function, but I'm not sure.
  4. Yes, that 29 modulation is a little strange... I was excited at first because I heard the first bar as an augmented triad and I thought you were going to nebulous (WT0) with it, but the result was a little underwhelming. Also, to me most of this sounds as though it should be in 3/4. I know Ravel did something similar in his piano concerto, but it's not as ambiguous sounding to me. Though, the piece is nice in and of itself.
  5. m. 47 - The double E# in a row will take a very steady hand to not emphasize both and sound awkward. I would pick one to emphasize, but that's just me. m. 81 - the way you have the arpeggio written is a little strange, since the notational contour is one-directional but there's a note that goes down. Overall, I think this is a lovely piece. Great mixed sonorities reminiscent of Debussy's good ol' underwater cathedral. If I had one formal complaint it would be that the beginning kinda takes a while to get going. Establishing themes is great and in a sort of hymn style it makes some sort of sense, purely as a listener and not a theorist I found it a little start-stoppy. As soon as you start going, however, everything flows beautifully.
  6. I'm not really sure what you mean, but in counterpoint, voices always resolve themselves. I think it's still a rules issue, especially since the lower voice stays on the same pitch as the higher voice, before it jumps down. Whether or not you follow that rule is up to you, but it's good to know it's there.
  7. Sorry if it sounds like I'm trying to suggest a specific reading, I'm actually trying to do the opposite. When I say more modulations can be used, what I really mean is that there are so many options with all the diminished harmonies to be considered pivot chords than there's no need to try to keep it so rigidly in C minor. For my personal quick look over the score, I would say the F minor in m. 4 is the pivot ii chord in E-flat major. That D major you're referencing, I definitely view more as a V/V in C minor, signaling that that chord or a chord just before it is the true pivot back to Cm. But like I said, don't trust me; you've definitely looked at it more closely than I, I'm just suggesting another way of looking at it.
  8. Not a bad reading, but I'd encourage you to look further back and start your modulation there instead. A cadence in a new key does not necessarily mean it starts there, in fact it could have started quite a ways back, like the first E major cadence in the Moonlight Sonata.
  9. "Tertiary applied chords" are only useful if you have some sort of cyclic motion going on, and even then I don't think they're very useful. It's better to just call it a secondary dominant chain and call it a day. Sure knowing what the chords are is helpful, but when a chain's function is just to be a chain, it's better to call it what it is rather than try to force something it's not into them. When you use them in this analysis, they rarely have this function as it is, as they're more deceptively resolved normal applied chords. For this reason, I think you could stand to use more modulations in your piece. Recall the III as a very common modulation point in minor in this period, as opposed to being a prolongation of the tonic in some way.
  10. Good questions I hadn't considered. Let's go with: 1. Recognizability is key. Obviously it's more clear if the opening material is repeated exactly with orchestration and harmony, but there isn't a deduction, per se, as long as it's really clear. 2. Same general answer as above, but yes, I don't see why not. 3. I think I answered this actually, but yes, shared material should be at the beginning.
  11. @HoYin Cheung @isuckatcomposing @Gustav Johnson @bkho @Luis Hernández @Noah Brode @Tónskáld @KJthesleepdeprived Please note the rule added under the section regarding shared material (No. 5). This was always the intent, but I felt it should be explicitly stated.
  12. Nice work, overall with a great melody. I would have loved to hear more in each key; I feel like the modulations may be a tad too frequent to get in a "berceuse" headspace, at least for me. The VI - I in G major also kind of took me out of it slightly.
  13. It's important to note that your first two voices actually do violate a couple rules: for example, P5s in mm. 12-13 and crossed voices at m. 18. That aside, the first line oftentimes will move in what's basically constantly moving short(est) rhythmic units, for example Bach's 9th fugue in 4 voices. The time signature isn't really the issue here, since nobody really perceives that difference listening to it. You seem to have the right idea by filling in spots that have empty space, but there's no reason to have everything be so constant. Voices can take a breath in rhythmic respite without breaking any rules.
  14. Glad to give you a reason to get away from all those darn kids (jk I'm friends with teachers and they love it but I see the exhaustion on their faces). Judges will provide both scores and comments.
×
×
  • Create New...