Jump to content

Monarcheon

Reviewers
  • Content Count

    1,826
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    140

Everything posted by Monarcheon

  1. The term is probably really effective when it comes to composition, but when it comes to analysis, you'll notice it's just a few sets of scalar tetrachords that whose [0] prime value go up by fifth i.e. C D E F# - G A B C#. The sound of the scale in and of itself is cool, and great in improvisation, perhaps, but analytically it falls short of any practical value, in my opinion.
  2. Nice, though I like the prelude more, I think. You have a set of parallel fifths in m. 59, by the way. I don't know if you care.
  3. You're making a lot of assumptions about meaning both semantically and audibly which are never expanded upon. I mainly am arguing against your section as to what you think a good melody is, and what it means to "reinforce" lyrics. Your entire last section deals with variance = goodness, essentially, but a lot of early medieval/renaissance music use static pitch, especially in plainchant. Opera also commonly uses recitative on a single pitch, yes, often to exposit, but the composer is in charge of that decision; is the foundation of what made these trends a thing in the first place also bad? The example you give for a "bad melody" in Love You Like a Love Song actually does most of the things you think a good melody does. Let's see how: 1. In the first portion of the first verse, the range spans an octave, with the tessitura at a comfortable minor seventh. 2. The first portion of the same verse utilizes a very brief sequence with its repeated notes. In measure four, the repeated Bb is the minor seventh over the iv chord. Two measures later, the A is a major seventh over the III chord. The melody, in effect, is a simple walkdown utilizing the same approach figure. Measure 8 almost repeats the figure with G, but cuts itself short to change it at the last minute. This is a truncated sequence (ABAB'), in a classical sentence structure with the second half of the verse. Thus, familiar, yet unexpected. That's what the Gallant era did best. 3. You could easily argue that the tonic is very clearly defined throughout the melody of the verse. G is the tonic of the song, and you'll notice it returns to it frequently throughout the verse to ground it within the extended harmony the repeated notes use. In the chorus, it's ironically the minor third that becomes the static pitch, but if that's not a center, I don't know what is. 4. Definitely repeats. Read what I mean about sequence in section 2. 5. Read section 2. 6. The repeated notes in m. 4 form a minor 7th against the bass, which immediately resolve to a typical triadic structure in m. 5, where the singer forms a major third against the bass. It's not an atypical way of dealing with dissonance (resolution by escape tone), and does its job well. The A's in m. 6 form an even spicier major 7th against the bass and resolve to the same triadic structure in the next measure. The chord progression with extensions (from m. 3) are Gm - Cm7 - F - Bb∆7 - Eb. Notice that where an extension is used, it is immediately resolved in the next chord. Edit: In the chorus, the repeated use of the one phrase over and over also creates and resolves tension by having the minor third and perfect fourth vary in relevance to the tonic of that chord. 7. See section 2.
  4. With the voices: maybe I missed some, but the issue there was that there were too many close intervals in a row. Even with the octave displacement, it ends up sounding very unplanned. With the cadences: since you're already in free counterpoint by the end, you might look into using more fourth species. Most of it has been confined to the first three. It's not a great one, but see the attached for an example.
  5. Can't fill out the poll since I don't think it fits the jazz style at all. The issue is here is that the audience doesn't have a good rhythmic framework to interpret this as anything but a piano piece. Heavy metal you'd want a half time drumbeat and jazz, there should be more extended harmony, which isn't played into at all here.
  6. Most of your problems arise from it being two voices. Some would otherwise be okay, like the direct, but a lot of these strange parallels hurt the composition.
  7. Agreed with the above. The counterpoint section helps, but it's far to short and this feels like the same four measures on repeat aside from it.
  8. These all sound pretty same-y. Undead and rendevous sound particularly similar. The chord progression doesn't really matter as much as the timbres you use which, while technically consistent, sound unoriginal to yourself in separated contexts.
  9. First of all, don't be so preoccupied with writing with the intent of making anyone feel anything specific. You're going to lose that battle against your audience. Secondly, I'm going to focus in on the second movement. I feel like sometimes you're going for something complex when it doesn't have to be. Your deceptive cadences are lovely, especially in the coda, but your brief modulations and borrowed chords sometimes are ineffective at maintaining tone (happy or "reminiscent" as it may be). The most egregious one was hearing Ab->E using the flattened dominant as a secondary common tone. The voice leading also leaves something to be desired. I only mention this because it was supposed to be similar to the Pathetique sonata, but the contrast between open intervals in the bass and a very squirrel-y melody line sometimes exacerbated some of the more noticeable harmonic changes. It's a nice movement with a clear plan, but some of its moment-to-moment progressions took me out of it sometimes.
  10. Generally nice work. Sometimes in your VI chord, you do a pseudo resolution to a bII6/4 chord (Bb) which combined with the dominant 7th over the F chord can feel a little out of place when you're setting up both a secondary dominant and tritone sub going forwards and backwards.
  11. Production value stuff I won't really comment on, since all things considered you're probably a better sound designer than I am. @mark styles has provided good information to you regarding some engineering stuff. There are some parts that overlay in diatonically polytonal language that confuse me sometimes. Around the 2:30 mark, you retain your i - iv vamp but your melody goes to a iv - v vamp, which creates a im11 and a iv13(#11) sound which can be distracting. I know the point is to retain to lines at once, but sometimes it doesn't work for me. Horns playing high C at the beginning is a difficult thing for them to do, the highest of most player's tessituras. Careful writing concert F's. The sections are quite nicely flowed through, though when it comes back down to the chants, it never seems to leave that portion of the dramatic arc, leaving the ending feeling rushed.
  12. Fine in terms of intended harmony, but I get the sense of it being too sectioned off into 4 measure bits.
  13. Colorful chord changes and good voice leading. I would avoid using the tertian secondary leap too much, since it becomes a pattern after a while, taking away from the wonder I think is trying to be emulated.
  14. Focusing in on the section around the one minute mark, the counterpoint between the upper and lower voices was a little strained when there are leaps to and away power chords in the upper register (perfect fourths) in an unrelated key.
  15. Pretty nicely done. Stuff at the end was good with the harmony, but could have used a bit more variation in the second round of the A and B sections. On a purely design level, the soundfont for the violin seems a little too... clean, perhaps, for the style of music? I don't know, to me it didn't have the same impact or oomph it could have with a heavier sound.
  16. I'm a little confused. Are the visuals part of the piece, or are you background scoring? Either way, some pretty cool timbres you used; the end was so different and cool I wanted to hear more of it!
  17. It does have a Webern sort of vibe to it. I don't know what your assignment was, but in the middle section it sounded like the start of a fugue or something that you could have overlayered row forms as you went along, whenever the tetrachordal groups become combinatorial. In general, too, I think you could have had more fun mixing row forms in the parts, because right now, while it does sound ambiguously harmonic, sounds a little too static. The tempo changes were great!
  18. It's nice. When you use a ii˚ chord and voice it in close structure in the bass voices, it sounds a little gimmicky sometimes (like around 0:54).
  19. Pretty energetic and flowing. Well done on that stuff. The moving voice in the main theme ends on E (7th of the V7) and doesn't resolve to D# and it irks me a little bit every time. Generally pretty good though.
  20. Maybe a little too emotionally static throughout? It may have been how the original was, but that shouldn't really matter now with modern aesthetics. Your chord progression was cool, but I wish I had gotten a touch more variation in it like maybe with a bVII -> ct˚7 -> vi instead of just jumping right to D minor.
  21. End of the second phrase where the piano tremolos I would suggest forgoing the tremolo (sounds unexpected and space-fill-y) and have the strings play something over it instead. The quintal stuff at the end was really cool, but never felt super satisfying as the piece ended. Since you transformed into the inversion of it, it left the counterpoint a little bare without much resolution to the previous section.
  22. How much did you want to emulate the counterpoint rules of Pachelbel's canon? In mm. 4-5, already your leading tone resolves by leap to the 3rd, etc., etc... This is especially noticeable from your second to last measure to your last measure. Even if you weren't trying to adhere to the rules, some of your notes have lots of close-knit dissonance leaps that don't really resolve in a suspension or retardation format and end up sounding non-fluid. Your chord progression is somewhat weird, since you have a I - V - IV6 - IV which creates this strange little portion of static harmonic movement.
  23. This is super cool. You should be glad to have written it. I wasn't as big of a fan of the section at 113 with the tremolos, since I think you lose some of the momentum you've built up. I know the idea is you treat the chord changes as the big rhythm, but the augmentation is slightly lost to me. Maybe it's the MIDI? There were also some spots with cross-player oblique motion that sounded a little static to me like 99 (F5 - F5), but I really liked listening to this. Congratulations.
  24. Thank you both! The huge chords come off in various different timbres depending on velocity of the strike, which is why they're awesome to use in consistent sequences.
×
×
  • Create New...