Jump to content

Monarcheon

Reviewers
  • Content Count

    2,312
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    173

Everything posted by Monarcheon

  1. 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?
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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?
  5. 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.
  6. Because the nature of these topics are so personal, it'd be great to have more judges this time around, since it's less technical!
  7. I don't really know what happened to the steam of this idea, but since I moderate the competitions section, let's just start a poll so we can get everyone on board ASAP! I figured we should keep it theme based this time for participation.
  8. I think you're all taking this way too seriously. Music that doesn't affect you doesn't matter, because nobody else is you. If you're championing people who want to write what they want, are we not already doing that? Why hate on Adés, Schönberg, and Xenakis and the type when they did, in fact, write what they wanted to write, theoretical as it may be? Conversely, if there is an objective standard to hold music to (and the composers I just mentioned don't adhere to it), then why allow people the laissez-faire musical option in the first place? Commercial composers/songwriters don't have that luxury, not necessarily because they can't, but because it's their job to write what people like. And why deny audiences that enjoyment? When we teach composition, we teach students to effectively translate their ideas on "paper" (that's the objective part, what we mean by "good") and expose them to ideas they might have not considered before. After all, why would a student even consider criticism if they didn't know other options existed? The styles past 1920 might be too much for them, who knows? But at least they know it's an option, that it can (not does) have a narrative purpose, even if it isn't yours.
  9. No "permission" to view the score.
  10. Brahms was intimidated from writing his own symphony because of Beethoven's reputation for quite some time, but other symphonies were, indeed, definitely written in that period (Mendelssohn, Schumann, etc.)
  11. Simple, which is fine. Maybe consider a short rhythm-breaker in the bass with a 3 note walkup or something for text painting purposes, but it functions well as is.
  12. That's a lot of not-breathing you have going on.
  13. iii - V - I at the end of the first period really threw me off, since it sounded like a modulatory passage. Maybe that's just me.
  14. I feel like this is a lot of buildup to something that never really came. A perfect fifth to a fourth in the ostinato is interesting because it recontextualizes the fourth in either a split or arpeggiated harmonic context. It would have been interesting to see more done with that especially in the upper parts defying or adhering to the guideline. Well-designed, overall.
  15. Harmonic (bass+treble extensions) anticipations should be handled with caution. It can create ambiguity, but also leads to confusion when two successive chord can be effectively the same.
  16. I'm not a fan of the plucked anticipation of scale degree 5 on the VII. Intermixing the oboe and flute in such close proximity and slightly different parts is a neat effect, but I don't hear it as warranted quite yet, especially when this just feels like an introduction. Make it less isochronous (beat-driven) as it goes on. It's partly why I hear this as an intro.
  17. One thing that feels a bit unidiomatic is the constant use of held notes in the ripieno parts, particularly in such a fast movement in the strings. Opens up a lot of opportunities for counterpoint and flourishes, but instead comes off a bit flat.
  18. As soon as the subject comes back after the episode, things start to go awry, with parallels (mm. 8-9) and some crossed voices (mm. 9, 10, etc.).
  19. @Tónskáld, I've been pretty hesitant on participating/reacting to/modding this thread, so thank you for attempting to define common terms. Socrates and Plato would be proud.
  20. I've judged the last several competitions here, and would be interested in competing, but only if we know what we're getting ourselves into. I'll likely stay involved somehow, though!
  21. Historically here, participants aren't allowed to judge.
  22. Had a strange bit of immediate subversion with the chromaticism in the melody quickly replaced by diatonism, not returning until the figure repeats. Transition to the second part of the song is my favorite bit, though it would have been a good time for a brief rhythmic shift just for variety. Strings feel a little bit underwhelming for the insistence on a single interval, but the suspension "chain" makes it a bit better. Interesting little creation. Nice work.
  23. Unresolved dissonances in ripieno are off when other parts actually do resolve them. The juxtaposition is unidiomatic for the Baroque.
×
×
  • Create New...