Jump to content

Monarcheon

Reviewers
  • Content Count

    2,135
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    158

Everything posted by Monarcheon

  1. Maybe I'm just not understanding your question correctly. In Mendelssohn's overture to Midsummer Night's Dream, rehearsal C, all the orchestra plays a dotted rhythm. Definitely does not sound like a time change.
  2. Not a fan of a lot of these dissonances. Sounds like you're trying to write extended chords in a pseudo-tonal framework, but they really stand out to me as way too harsh and inconsistent, especially when there are normal cadences like in m. 8. i.e. parallel 7th's in m. 3, bizarre augmented sixth voicing with E and E# in m. 7. The rhythmic stuff also seems a little too tedious. Satie likes repeated stuff sure, but each section boils itself down to one process a little too much, i.e. the quarters get repetitive (especially with repeat), the melody over chords at the end seems imbalanced compared to the rest of the piece's formal structure.
  3. Watch out for places like 17 where your octaves don't use the same accidentals. Starting at 34 I enjoyed it a lot, though it could be far better engraved. I'm not totally in love with the left hand's melody. Sometimes I don't get it's function in some chords (i.e. m. 8, I see a G∆9 chord, but with the seventh on the bottom, which isn't a great voicing, even if that's what was intended). The rhythm also kind of has a weird momentum for it for me; it kind of push-and-pulls a lot, which isn't a bad thing necessarily, but it seems like it might be trying to be a tad too varied.
  4. More than playable. Have no fear. m. 39 is the only difficult measure because of the 9th, but just because I can't reach it doesn't mean other people can't.
  5. If you're going to continue posting here, make sure you comment on other people's works too. We try not to be just about self-promotion. Minor vi was an interesting inclusion. While the sections change on many fronts, it doesn't change texturally... high strings, piano lead, synths and perc in background. Switching it up would be nice; just sounds like a block of the same orchestration.
  6. I get that it's called formless, but the opening just sounds awkward to me. Dsus is an interesting voicing in the tenor range, but everything else sounds like you had a little too much delay added on all your inputs. In addition, no meaningful rhythmic development is added to it in later sections, besides references in the toms. I have no reason to assume it's anything other than wrong. Some counterpoint in later sections clashes, particularly between strings and piano. It's almost like you want the strings to set up a chord progression, but the piano isn't allowing it. Too much push and pull.
  7. It's nice, and definitely just sounds like an intro or a part of something else. In the second half of the B section, the G - E - C bass motion seemed a little awkward to me, but I see what you're trying to do.
  8. Agree to disagree there, I guess. You can do whatever you want, yeah, but without a reason you fail to engage in any meaningful discourse. You haven't proved to me that you wanted it there; you've given me no evidence.
  9. Arpeggiated F minor triads near the end sound awkward. Be careful of the inversions of your chords, especially when the bass voices move on their own. Triadic content needs to match on top.
  10. Firstly, you have wrong intervals in m. 5. You have a lot of note-to-note voice exchanges, i.e. D/B to B/D in mm. 1-2, A/F to F/A in m. 3. These aren't bad, but their overuse makes them sound... well, overused. Parallel 10ths in mm. 9-10 are also not wrong, but don't work so much in his choral style. which is much more based off imitation.
  11. Maybe I've gotten more cynical since August, but we need to be original enough to: A: to other people... use other people's techniques, tonal language, and sounds to make our own music, but not enough to get sued for it. B: ourselves, for other people... keep using the same techniques and tonal language, but not enough for people to get bored of you and just enough to keep things fresh, without infringing on condition A. Good luck achieving that balance. You can't. We're all fucked.
  12. You need rests in empty bars and after notes. Why are they not there? Put bowings for strings. It really feels just like an A and B section repeated endlessly... lost my attention after the second time.
  13. Bb7 near the end I get was a transition point to Cm, but the 7 was unnecessary and felt weirdly comical in comparison to the rest of the piece.
  14. String entrance way too loud. The entire fast didn't hold my interest until the beat 1 and 2 hits near 3:25. After that it was fine, but before that the whole thing just flatlined for 2 minutes.
  15. Just power chords in the chorus feels weak. Doesn't even have to be triads. Quintal/quartal harmony would be fine.
  16. First instance of IV is jarring because of the orchestration. Counterpoint in the first section after the riser is awkward. Too many rhythmic layers. Plucked sound is weirdly prominent. Transition to D minor was very smooth, though I get the feeling you're running out of things to say with it, since there's not much real development. Your drum section seems to kind of build to nothing? C minor was an unexpected new key center, because of Ab's b5 relation to Dm.
  17. :12, Em7 ruined with the b9 at the end of the measure. :24, don't make your horn play that. Too many sections with not enough orchestrational development. 1:29-1:37 is a mess.
  18. Repeat to the beginning sounds unnatural. Going to 27, I had no reason to think C was a leading tone to C# minor again. Awkward. Dim at the end likely starts too late. The onset of removal of rhythmic intrigue starts at 64, a better place for a poco dim.
  19. Two voice counterpoint is weak, especially after the fff. Sounds uncharacteristically basic in comparison to the other harmonies in play.
  20. m. 17 is super awkward. Eliding the cadence sounds more natural. I disagree with detache in 30. Slurring the 16th's will help keep the volume low. Works better at 66.
  21. I don't mind the F/F# in that measure, since the onset of the F# is displaced from the F, so it sounds like D7(#9), because of the timepoint interval. I take far more issue with the F# and G clash in beat 3. It doesn't fit in the slightest.
  22. Hahaha I suppose my mindset is the problem when you're stuck composing for younger groups for most of your career. Also when voice crossings actively hurt your grade in school lol
  23. Haha, everyone knows this piece already. But the fact it's heard in a Romantic-era work means it's not that modern. I meant something more Neo-Riemannian related, like SLIDE, LPL, or N. Something that would take more time to justify. For example, in these Neo-Riemannian terms, Bm -> GM is only a simple "L" relation away from Bm, which is a very common modulatory transformation. To activate "SLIDE", however, you'd need to do a lot more modulatory work, more like Ades or Pärt since SLIDE is "LPLPL".
  24. This is probably one of the better compositions you've posted here. Congratulations on that! I think you were effectively able to work with a pedal and manage a decent balance between homophony, accompaniment, and counterpoint. There are a few things that strike me as odd, like m. 20's lack of a third, the drawn out, naked transition from mm. 58-64 (could have added a violin support, since by itself it sounds a little awkward), and the prominent 4th scale degree on the tonic at m. 56, but overall this is quite nice. I'd encourage you listen to some of the other Christmas Event pieces if you have a chance! It's nice that we're all giving back to each other. Have a great holiday!
×
×
  • Create New...