Jump to content

Monarcheon

Reviewers
  • Content Count

    2,232
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    164

Posts posted by Monarcheon


  1. 6 minutes ago, jawoodruff said:

    I thought about either leaving a note on top of that or using a breath mark to indicate that.

    Probably that. The way I read it now is stop the bow but use the same stroke.

    I also do see that stratification is a theme throughout the piece (to me, culminating in the tritone register split followed by a diatonic cluster at the end of the cadenza). The short term jumps in this process might have been what prevented me from hearing the whole thing as a process to that end, but I'm not entirely sure. 


  2. Your bowings need serious revision. mm. 11-14 are insane.
    I really like the development. The expo and the recap throw me off especially when there's a pattern of the piano outlining a cell repetition and the violin doesn't interact with it's not clear that it should be; that is to say, it sounds stratified. I'm also not totally sure how effective the cadenza is. Because everything is so tonic centered and metrically adherent to itself it sounds empty when I don't think it really needs to be; other double stops without the open strings might be interesting. The ending is also nice. 🙂 


  3. 8 minutes ago, caters said:

    I myself find that augmented triads, while they are said to not be directional unlike their diminished cousins, I feel a direction from the chord, As an example, if I take a C major chord and sharpen the fifth, I find that while it can go to C major nicely, it actually has more of a tendency towards A minor being the chord of resolution, with G# being the leading tone. In other words, out of context, I hear an augmented triad as the III+ of the relative minor of the chord's root. V+ and I+ I only really hear within context(V+ within a chord progression, I+ mainly in chord alternation).

     

    (C+ = E+) = ([C E G#] = [E G# C]) = ([C E G#] = [E G# B#]). 
    E+ = V+/vi in C major. 

    • Thanks 1

  4. 24 minutes ago, Left Unexplained said:

    isn't that one of those french/italian/german 6ths? I like those a lot too.

     

    No. Unless you're doing a tritone substitution, a V+ chord has dominant function while augmented 6ths have predominant function. V+ is pretty normal rock + musical theater chord because the sharp 5 voice leads nicely to the major third of the tonic. 

    • Like 1

  5. For some reason I couldn't get into the flow of these, especially the first one. The tonality shifts like Rach does, yes, but in combination with the constant change of momentum it felt like getting nauseous on a rocking boat. Coupled with its sparse writing it ends up sounding, to me, uncomfortable. 

    • Like 1

  6. Pretty nice. I would maybe reconsider the role of the clarinet and some of the lost momentum that occurs throughout the piece. The clarinet seems very melodic, but not very flowy which is not bad in contrast to the bassoon, but in times like the return of the A it opens up some opportunities to match the nice counterpoint you already have instead of sounding empty. Points where the piece lose energy are nice when it's like the augmented sixth chord before V, but harsher just before the return of A. The potential for this to be a continuous string is high. 
    Also, the beaming on your parts in 6/8 is incredibly strange sometimes.


  7. The voice leading rules aren't the only thing in that book. The chord construction ones are also important and there are a lot of tones that function as accented non chord tones when the main tone they embellish is itself a non chord tone. 


  8. Only considered the first movement: I'm a little confused by the tonal language you're going for. It sounds mostly tonal, then you throw a sus chord over a tonic triad in m. 16 for some reason. Consistency is important and it has a lot of that; there are just moments that confused me.
    In that same vain, when the traditional voice leading conventions aren't used, like the unresolved leading tone in the beginning, and the doubled third first inversion chords later on (without proper alto/tenor consideration), it sounds a little weird. Definitely not bad, as the piece on the whole was quite good, but just those little moments sounded just the tiniest bit off.


  9. 14 minutes ago, Quinn said:

    I see you're taking the p---. I was trying to help. If you don't want constructive comment probably best not to post here and ask what people think. 

     

    First, chill. By the translation this is likely not their first language.
    Second, I think he was confused by your thoughts of breathing considering the score shows it's written for two oboes, not one, so they were wondering if that problem of breathing was mitigated. You might think so or not, but that was their question. In other words, no, they likely misunderstood your breathing comment was in direct relation to creating a more realistic sound product as opposed to a score. 


  10. Voice leading likely needs to be looked into... lots of times where the dominant and submediant occur simultaneously for equal metrical durations and the tonic arpeggiated voice leading (i.e. violins G A Bb D vs. cellos G D Bb G) sounds strange as there seems to be a disconnect between harmonic functions.


  11. It's nice. Maybe I'm just a stickler for traditional voice leading despite being an atonal composer, but the fast runs sometimes sound a little off when moving chords just because of an inconsistency regarding half and whole steps, but this is minor. It's quite good.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...