Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Monarcheon

  1. It's a thing in a lot more modern music where subdivisions and syncopations change frequently and a floating rest can be very ambiguous, especially in multiple layers on a single stave. Or at least it's most helpful there. In standard meter it doesn't seem very helpful, but that's just me. Personally, I'd use it sparingly, but it's situational.
  2. One of the greatest examples of this kind of thing was done by Schoenberg; you may not like the sound, but it's one of the quartets theorists and composers keep coming back to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L85XTLr5eBE Another personal recommendation for the blend of styles is Prokofiev 1. Lots of moving parts at all times. The middle section of the 1st movement is terrific. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TRIQP7WNkc
  3. This falls into the Andalusian cadence trap of trying to think of something new for every repetition of the hypermeter and it becomes a little boring after a while. Some parts I feel like you're struggling to find something for all the instruments to do. I don't think this is necessary.
  4. Maybe I'm just impatient... the 4 chord loop for 4 hypermetric units became boring to me. Adding the moving line over it was fine, but with the first chord it throws me off a lot. C(x3quint) with Gphry is a strange combination, that does smooth out a bit but is jarring in a not-subtle way.
  5. Transition to B-flat minor sounded really random; came out of nowhere and left very quickly.
  6. III to v (or I - iii in E-flat) sounds really awkward because of the ambiguity in tonality in that area.
  7. I don't much like the original anyway, but this probably needs some more rhythmic influence, since it's integral to the original. This arrangement just sounds like it's constantly on the subdominant when the original also moves around.
  8. Vocals need to be fixed, as always. I get a disconnect between lyrics and instrumental, as though music was an afterthought.
  9. Parallel dissonances between bass and melody near the end of each theme. Cellos can't play low B.
  10. Rather nice, with the addition of features upon repetition. The process is just kind of repetitive once you know what's happening.
  11. Not sure the meme is necessarily worth it. Phrygian doesn't mean ancient. Anyway, the jumpy counterpoint in the beginning could be tightened by making use of the mode's semitones as smoother transitions in voice leading. The ending percussion section I feel falls flat.
  12. If it "free" or is it Q=60? I feel like for a quarter note delay you'd want to be specific.
  13. Lots of homophony; too much for me. Distinct voices would be nice. Also, all your key changes are unnecessary. Just make it an un-keyed score.
  14. The harmonic rhythm in A" was a little bit slow for me, especially with the alto-range tonic syncopation.
  15. 1. Enharmonic spellings need to be checked. 2. I'd suggest reexamining your use of accented non-chord tones. They can get a little too present.
  16. Appoggiatura on the 4th of C major in the opening really rubbed me the wrong way for some reason. It resolves right away so I couldn't exactly tell you why. I like the changing accent placement within phrases.
  17. This whole duple-tuplet business you have going on is really confusing. Do a ratio tuplet and be specific.
  18. Your problem is with particular passing tones at a lower metrical level. Like in m. 6, where there's parallel G# -> B and the passing A# doesn't count towards mitigating it. Be wary also that a diminished to perfect fifth going upwards is generally considered incorrect (unlike P to diminished going down), like in m. 5.
  19. It works mostly. Small note; watch the voice leading in the arpeggiated left hand. Sometimes it has the option of being a bit smoother, especially with harmonic extensions in it.
  20. Lots of people cite Ravel and Berlioz as the orchestration masters but I always like to throw in Respighi into that post-Romantic mix. As for your modern approaches, Lutoslawski's consistent patterns are very well-known, as are Stockhausen's opera cycles and multi-orchestra works. I might suggest adding Saariaho in there if not mostly for her careful and specific timbral markings.
  21. Trust me when I say if everything was tuned in fourths, it would be WAY harder to finger anything.
  22. Welcome to the industry. You'll find yourself thinking this a lot, then eventually going, "eh, fuck it". This is pretty standard for most art, let alone music. Compositionally speaking, find ways to transform your melodies, through augmentation, segmentation, or diminution and extending melodic fragments with portions of new melody to keep the familiarity in new contexts.
  23. Nope. Great on their own or sparsely to accentuate a part, but they're used to rests. Also stamina. That's just a general rule, though. Obviously different situations call for different doubling.
  24. Strings > Woodwinds > Brass is a pretty okay rule to follow (or at least it was what I was taught) most of the time when it comes to orchestration, in regards to playing frequency. It's more broken in canonical or fugal stuff where the idea is that the new voice is heard (unless you're Ligeti or Lutoslawski where they intentionally try to hide it). Because of this it's mostly homophonic stuff you'll need to watch out for and WW/brass density in terms of pitch structure also contributes to a psychoacoustic sort of overpowering rather than a necessarily acoustic one.
  25. Harmonically, it's mostly fine. The main thing to take a look at is sectional lack of varying metrical hierarchies. Contributes to how counterpoint is normally dealt with in the era.
  • Create New...