Jump to content

Monarcheon

Reviewers
  • Content Count

    2,322
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    175

Monarcheon last won the day on June 2

Monarcheon had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

556 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, Webern, Shostakovich
  • My Compositional Styles
    Maximalist, Modern-Classical, Musical Theatre
  • Notation Software/Sequencers
    Finale 25, Logic Pro X
  • Instruments Played
    Cello, Guitar (classical), Piano, Violin, Percussion, Conductor

Recent Profile Visitors

18,258 profile views
  1. You're probably right. Dates have been updated as well.
  2. IN A DIFFERENT WORLD YC Composer Competition - Summer, 2020 We live in a bit of an unprecedented time and it seems that many of us are, understandably, feeling many emotions ranging from anger to fatigue to even hope. Whatever your reaction, welcome to this summer's competition, where you'll attempt to express it as creatively as possible. I. Topic: Compose a piece that in some way mirrors one's reaction to the 2020 global pandemic and how it may or may not sway or adapt over time into something else. II. Eligibility: 1. You must be a member of the Young Composers forum in order to enter. Sign ups will be in the comments below for JUDGE or ENTRANT. Comment "I'd like to enter as ____" for entry. 2. There will again be no limits regarding instrumentation. There is no minimum length, but there is a maximum length of 15 minutes. 3. You must have some sort of audio rendition accompanying your work. 4. You must present a score of your music for judging. 5. If you volunteer to be a judge, you may not enter as a contest participant. III. Scoring: Scoring will be split into two categories with two "winners" – member voting and traditional judging. Member Voting: Once submissions have been entered, members will get three votes in which to vote on each other's pieces. These votes are tiered, meaning you will vote for your favorite entry, your second favorite entry, and your third favorite entry. The criteria or reasons for your vote need not be explained, though participants are highly encouraged to leave reviews on each other's works regardless. Members will send their first, second, and third choice picks to the facilitator @Noah Brode after the submission deadline. Failure to do so will result in disqualification. Traditional Judging: How well is the central process of the piece executed? How effective is the progression, or in the case of a lack of a linear one, how well is it represented? Most importantly, how internally consistent is the piece in the construction of a narrative? /25 How well is the piece orchestrated? Do instrumental orchestration (range, ability, etc.) and voice leading seem to be appropriate? How effective is the treatment of the ensemble? /20 How clear is the score and audio of the submission? /5 A brief written segment (1-2 sentences) is required to explain the premise of the piece, if any. /0 Entrants whose primary language is not English are encouraged still to participate, as the diction and syntax themselves will not be judged. Judges will not judge the premise itself and will use the explanation to rationalize participant choices. Timeline: Members will submit entries by first submitting their piece to @Noah Brode, both the score and the audio file. SUBMISSION DEADLINE FOR ENTRANTS: AUGUST 14, 11:59 PST JUDGING DEADLINE FOR ENTRANTS: AUGUST 21, 11:59 PST JUDGING DEADLINE FOR JUDGES: AUGUST 28, 11:59 PST
  3. Sure, that's fair. This doesn't mean I'm incapable of making them, though. In particular, if I personally can't describe what's wrong with technical language, then I'm not going to make judgment on it because then I don't feel qualified to make that claim. I definitely still can enjoy music as is! I just prefer for criticisms to be substantiated, as I'm sure you wouldn't object to. For open ended ones like this, and for more participation, we normally just leave instrumentation open. @Noah Brode, do you feel strongly about only participants making calls or do you think staying traditional might offer good insight. At this point, I'll just leave the call to you. 🙂
  4. @Quinn Judging hasn't been a problem in the past with "amateurs"; it's the response to the music that matters most as opposed to the technical. I would imagine we're old enough to know how to at least numerically rate our feelings if not something esoteric like pitch class sets. I'm inclined to lean it towards traditional judging, but with no one else weighing in, it's hard to determine. I can give full reign to you, @Noah Brode if you'd like, after we figure out what we're doing with judges, and I'll post an official thing in the competitions section.
  5. I'm thinking of just making the audience participation thing a fine tuning measure as opposed to a 1:1 ratio of effectiveness. Would still encourage community and could possibly be the determiner between similar scores but nothing that would massively influence it. In that way, the small percentage would help mitigate the necessity for a large amount of people. A middle ground, perhaps, of the things we've been discussing.
  6. I can change the weight of the people's influence by just changing the number that I multiply the ratio by. I just don't know what to make it. Agreed to the first point, which is why I suggested equal influence, but can see where a traditional means might serve better. Anyone else?
  7. If you want to have it be mostly or purely participant based voting on each other, I get that. That being the case, though, I'm not going to require judges give the lengthy feedback since it's not going to be worth the time to go that in depth with the piece if it's not at least somewhat affective. It'll just basically be having participants give a comment's worth on 8+ pieces. Which definitely can work, I'll stress. But it's different depending on your value through all this.
  8. I suppose it's possible. I would personally prefer it to be unified, but will keep the conversation open for a bit while I write up the rules.
  9. I tested this example. It does work, technically. However: A. It relies on having a lot of participants to make the percentages mean something. B. It's far easier to have disparities in score that don't accurately represent perceived quality if such a resource is limited.
  10. TO ALL INTERESTED APPLICANTS: This is a proposed version of the quick grading system for entrants to rate other entrants. Competitors will be required to rate a piece out of 5, the results of which will be tallied. Your total member score will be divided by the maximum total points you could have received (in the below case, 25), to determine a percentage. That percentage would then be multiplied by 50 (the maximum judge score to make the total /100), and would be added to the average judge score to determine your total score. Thoughts or concerns?
  11. I'm currently developing a system of several tiered rankings for all members (though this is heavily subject to change based on viability), to be converted into a point percentage. Don't worry, I'll definitely run it through the tester and get it reviewed.
  12. Yes, again, I apologize for that again, and hope there aren't any hard feelings. My bad on that front. A quote I found interesting in the second article you linked is the following, in addition to the implied subsections thereafter. "They may have stirred controversy, but they made teachers think and encouraged pupils to ask questions about the nature of music. Despite what, with hindsight, now seem absurdly dogmatic assertions about what counted as ‘truly modern’ or ‘serious’ music, there was much stimulation to be had from these books which, in my view might be profitably revived today" (Spencer, 3). I'm a big music education proponent, and I think that perhaps goalpost "standard" that these educators are referring to as derivative from "modernism" may be a bit different than an objective standard, in certain cases. They seem to encourage the relativistic (creative!) ideas of sound organization, the core of the idea being that that process of organization is the most important part, and the outcome, no matter from what process, is valid if the thought is there. The "replaced standard" you mention in your post might, then, be in reference to the lack of teaching standard; if you will, a difficulty in creative assessment led to a lack thereof, as opposed to the actual material.
  13. Interesting @Quinn, @Tónskáld. How might we feel about a 50/50 weight (or some other ratio) of member judgment and judge criteria, just so members keep the ability to get feedback?
  14. MOD NOTE: This thread was originally locked with posts removed insofar as they became or led to inciting remarks for further review from me and OP. I will admit that this was a hasty decision and I don’t wish to set a precedent of merely halting conversation upon the first sight of danger, though comments that are primarily inflammatory in nature quickly become irrelevant and are socially unwelcome. I want to be clear that my actions were not intended to silence opinions, but quell the heated argument; in this case, my attempts to make peace overstepped and failed. This thread is now reopened as the previous discussion was good, and while I deeply apologize to those involved that I cannot replicate the removed comments, I do hope the conversation can continue as it was, civilly and thoughtfully.
×
×
  • Create New...