Jump to content

Monarcheon

Reviewers
  • Content Count

    2,135
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    158

Monarcheon last won the day on January 9

Monarcheon had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

491 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

16,645 profile views
  1. Around 2:40. Before that I can clearly here the difference between ride cymbal and closed hi-hat. In the section after I just hear a bunch of unyielding ride cymbals ("double" meaning two per beat without any sort of meter hierarchy), that themselves don't really seem to have a hierarchy. I could hear the snare and it's backbeat function, but the cymbals still seem a little bit unidiomatic to me. Maybe I'm overthinking it.
  2. III. Something about the repeated melody note in the chord after the main figure irked me for some reason. It's okay when the chord is repeated. Beaming in mm. 29-37. I know it's trying to highlight the figure, but it just comes off as confusing. The repeat to the beginning maybe should happen a little earlier (or a different transition), since the restart seems a little strange after a winddown passage like that. Good counterpoint before the subito. Not a huge fan of the ending. Couldn't really tell you why, unfortunately. Felt like a buildup, I guess.
  3. I like your fearlessness of the inner chords juxtaposed against the implied bass harmony. If there's one thing for me, the unchanging texture began to bother me after a bit, and you should probably have something for your soprano to sing (vowels, etc.). Also, why the 4 bars at the end?
  4. In terms of the video, putting the score up was next to useless; couldn't see anything on it. The music is nice, but I feel like there's a lot of suspensions. Spacing the chords with extended harmony might be nice *sometimes*, since sometimes your use of them is pretty clever already.
  5. Some strange polychords built up in the climactic section. It does create some tension, but mostly I just get confused by the voice leading whenever there's a cadence.
  6. At the end; the V/vi resolving to I was a little surprising. Also, I'm not sure double ride cymbals on every beat in that section is the best idea, though maybe I just couldn't hear the playback's backbeat accent.
  7. Why do you give the piano proper sixteenth notes but the viola you give the double line "tremolo"? In my many years of playing a string instrument, I've never seen 1 or 2 beamed tremolos unless the music was decently fast-paced.
  8. Yeah I'd go so far to say most if not all the transitions suffer in some way. Just changing things suddenly definitely has a place! The famous transition to Section 6 of Reich's "Music for 18 Musicians" is a good example, but if you hear in Section 5, that process is already happening subtly in the background. Let your transitions breathe a bit.
  9. Your opening is what's catching my ear the most. The voice exchanged F# and G between the melody and the bass in m. 1 is a little odd, also it results in accented parallel fifths in beat 3. The perfect fourth going to the m7 in m. 2 creates a strange parallel dissonance that is resolved unidiomatically by octave retardation. P5's in m. 3, and in beats 3 and 4, you only have dissonant (m9) or open intervals (P5, P4).
  10. @jawoodruff covers lots of good points. I'll just chime in and say high A-flat's in a diminuendo to pp and B's in mf are going to get you some angry looks from soprano's (mostly because soprano's are divas).
  11. The main rule broken here is crossed voices, where a voice in a given timepoint is above a note from the higher voice from the previous timepoint. I also think the treatment of harmony is kind of weird. It likes to meander with a lot of implied dominants not resolving properly in the schema. Also, please make sure to review other member's works here. It's great you're learning, but we all want to as well.
  12. There's just a lot of short term analysis in generating your argument. The slow section, for example, is based off parallel major triads as a harmony of an extended chromatic enclosure to a prolonged tonic that was previously established and is implied. It may not be tonal in the common practice way of thinking, but it's tonal in many, many other aspects that have extended from it. Without the aid of a computer, musical things are embedded in time; not everything is vertical.
  13. I don't know if you're being sarcastic, but I definitely am. Trying to categorize the entirety of a sound type while only having listen to several of its members? Why go into an argument leading off with an admission of lack of sufficient evidence?
×
×
  • Create New...