Jump to content

Monarcheon

Reviewers
  • Content Count

    2,321
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    174

Everything posted by Monarcheon

  1. Places like m. 101 not just being a dotted whole note are somewhat strange...
  2. What's the etude factor here? Also, please do consider reviewing other works on here as well. We're not here *just* for people to get exposure.
  3. Some uses of chromaticism, especially at modulation points and melodies (i.e. 1:20) can be a little confusing. It's a nice touch, but their use seems superfluous.
  4. Monarcheon

    Ghost

    To add on to that, the differentiation between using a m7 chord and a standard triad in certain places was a nice touch, since it was frequent enough still to call a pattern. I think my main complaint here is that the drops and risers don't seem very effective to me; you seem to backpedal from their effect sometimes which is cool in certain instances, maybe just not every time.
  5. @KJthesleepdeprived, many thanks for requesting that "destroyed works" thread be overturned. It irked me a little bit as well. I've seen people come and go from this site, and was around for its main, populated phase for just a little bit back then. When I came back, it was relatively empty. I sound like one of those sheriffs you see in westerns. I'm a masters student in music theory in Canada right now (though I'm from Seattle), focusing on 20th century art music mixed with jazz/musical theater. I've had a rough history with writing music, so my whole ethos of composition is totally messed up, but I'm trying to find a nice middle ground with it. Before comp, I was originally going to go into physics and environmental science, but that didn't end up panning out and I don't know if it's for the better yet lol.
  6. I definitely am most of the time (you'll see when I post my Christmas music!); this was written for a friend who kind of hinges on the edge of enjoying modern stuff. I don't plan basically anything I write, so the fact it comes off as repressed as opposed to slow/boring is just as good as any compliment. Thanks!
  7. So I'm not sure how to feel about this piece. It's not really bad– everything is cohesive enough. Maybe I'm not used to writing in stasis anymore.
  8. The idea of it is pretty cool. I like how the beginning comes back near the end of the exposition, but it seems a little heavy handed at the beginning in order to achieve that effect. What might be cool moving forward is preserving hexachordal combinatoriality with the start of that figure horizontally and vertically, since you seem to already want to do that in places like mm. 21-23. Finding a way to invert that combinatorial figure vertically would give you a lot more early-position row forming down the line that all sounds similar.
  9. This is an interesting idea. I think it's a little bit of a shame how PC6 was delayed from P0, only to just kind of show up in an inner voice. M. 18 also seems a little bit empty compared to the relative motion of the passage before it. It's a neat idea for a piece, though! Nice to see some different stuff on here once in a while.
  10. Everyone is welcome to contact me if they have questions about any of my scores! @Gustav Johnson, if you'd like to start a new thread for ideas, you can, but since I mostly run that portion of the forum you can just message me if you have a specific idea you want to elaborate on.
  11. There's not a lot of... motion in this piece. Most everything is pretty static and it takes away from moments that might otherwise have more weight; an arpeggiated eighth note figure doesn't resolve this. At bigger points like the place where you have marked forte (the blank measures), it seems like a very musical theater-type high point, and my advice there is to try to find some sort of way for the past vocal material to form the counterpoint against the voice. Even better if you can insert snippets of responsorial passages in between measures as retransitions.
  12. Thank you to everyone who participated! It was super fun being able to see a truly full competition again, after a lot of hard attempts to get off the ground. I'd like to thank every contestant for bearing with us judges as we worked through some new and malleable competition terms, but I hope it still made a for a fun, creatively nuanced experience that'll assist with your thematic development down the line. Every single person contributed a lot, and it was really fun to listen to new ways to take old stuff (see our old Theme and Variations competition); every piece had a wonderful arc and I appreciate you all for joining in! Without further ado... the places: 1. @Gustav Johnson – 91.5/100 2. @Tónskáld – 91/100 3. @Noah Brode – 84/100 Congratulations, Gustav! The chart with my and @Luis Hernández's scores is attached to this topic post and contestants will find their individual remarks in the comment section!
  13. If you don't already know what they are, I would suggest you look into what we call Neo-Riemannian transformations. I don't know if you're consciously using isographic patterns or not, but they work really well in this piece.
  14. If you're aiming for a baroque style, there's lots of parallels i.e. 4ths between beats 1/2 in m. 2, octaves between beats 3 and 4 of m. 2, 5ths in bass/soprano of m. 5, and more. The inversion of the theme was nice, and I enjoyed the commitment to movement you had, even though it might get a little too tangled for my taste like in m. 5.
  15. @Noah Brode You certainly can in spirit, but not officially. The theory is yours to use; it doesn't have to be tied down to a masterclass format. The only reason that formal format exists is so that composers can get guaranteed feedback on the use of the techniques.
  16. Haha, thanks, I guess?? This whole suite is supposed to be pretty low-key; I certainly don't criticize Webern for not using many notes. Yikes. They were compilations from a Sketches project I did a few years ago, writing a piece a day for most of a year. Those just so happened to be the jazzy ones. Glad you like them, though. Haha that's kind of what this piece comes down to. Lots of atmospheric stuff; I write pretty maximalistically normally, so coming down and writing with just a few notes/patterns was a challenge. I have a few of each on the forum, but most of them are bad. The 2 harpsichord fugues I've written are the only good baroque pieces on here by me. Most of my compositional style is either musical theater related, or neotonal/modern. Thanks, again!
  17. I daresay I almost like this better than Beethoven's own work. My main thing is that the repeated triplets whenever there's an interval involved can feel a little heavy-handed without variation. m. 27 to the end, for example, was a nice A∆9, but that ostinato really become obsinate-sounding (which is what its English translation is), and a little too foreground for my taste by the end. Lovely work, though.
  18. If I have time, I'll write a little comedic 12-tone or some sort of set-theory based adaption. Short and sweet, as I think it'd be enough to give the audience a good little laugh.
  19. 也请花点时间对您自己他人的作品发表一些评论和反馈。帮助系统运转
  20. Please also take the time to leave some reviews and feedback of your own other's works. Helps the system go 'round 🙂
  21. This is the main reason. The bass sounds like it's doing a typical V6/4 - 5/3 - I motion (or V8-7 - I), while the soprano sounds like a prolongation of tonic scale degree 1. Sounds like you're trying to have it both ways.
  22. Lots of 4ths. Not wrong most of the time, but be careful; in Fux's time, emphasizing the fourth via 5-4 suspension is an accented dissonance without proper preparation. Leaps should be followed by stepwise motion in the opposite direction (i.e. mm. 7-8). Leaping away from a dissonance is also not the best (i.e. m. 5).
  23. I'm not an expert, but I was almost an ethnomusicologist. I would encourage you to not think of raga so much as a set of notes or a mode and more of a color, a sort of feeling (in that culture's words) that is associated with a piece, not a mode. Only thinking about them in a Western way can you begin to think of the raga as modes (that are not tuned the same way we do it; just intonation is far more prevalent, and even then, it's not consistent), which are pretty internet-able, though there are so, so many. The main difference between raga and modes in a practical sense is that a raga, way it may have a "tonic", have each of the different notes serving some sort of particular function (different emphasis somewhat like Medieval church modes, are different rhythmic emphasis (tabla) when used in a certain contour).
×
×
  • Create New...