Jump to content

Monarcheon

Reviewers
  • Content Count

    1,861
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    143

Everything posted by Monarcheon

  1. It does have a Webern sort of vibe to it. I don't know what your assignment was, but in the middle section it sounded like the start of a fugue or something that you could have overlayered row forms as you went along, whenever the tetrachordal groups become combinatorial. In general, too, I think you could have had more fun mixing row forms in the parts, because right now, while it does sound ambiguously harmonic, sounds a little too static. The tempo changes were great!
  2. It's nice. When you use a ii˚ chord and voice it in close structure in the bass voices, it sounds a little gimmicky sometimes (like around 0:54).
  3. Pretty energetic and flowing. Well done on that stuff. The moving voice in the main theme ends on E (7th of the V7) and doesn't resolve to D# and it irks me a little bit every time. Generally pretty good though.
  4. Maybe a little too emotionally static throughout? It may have been how the original was, but that shouldn't really matter now with modern aesthetics. Your chord progression was cool, but I wish I had gotten a touch more variation in it like maybe with a bVII -> ct˚7 -> vi instead of just jumping right to D minor.
  5. End of the second phrase where the piano tremolos I would suggest forgoing the tremolo (sounds unexpected and space-fill-y) and have the strings play something over it instead. The quintal stuff at the end was really cool, but never felt super satisfying as the piece ended. Since you transformed into the inversion of it, it left the counterpoint a little bare without much resolution to the previous section.
  6. How much did you want to emulate the counterpoint rules of Pachelbel's canon? In mm. 4-5, already your leading tone resolves by leap to the 3rd, etc., etc... This is especially noticeable from your second to last measure to your last measure. Even if you weren't trying to adhere to the rules, some of your notes have lots of close-knit dissonance leaps that don't really resolve in a suspension or retardation format and end up sounding non-fluid. Your chord progression is somewhat weird, since you have a I - V - IV6 - IV which creates this strange little portion of static harmonic movement.
  7. This is super cool. You should be glad to have written it. I wasn't as big of a fan of the section at 113 with the tremolos, since I think you lose some of the momentum you've built up. I know the idea is you treat the chord changes as the big rhythm, but the augmentation is slightly lost to me. Maybe it's the MIDI? There were also some spots with cross-player oblique motion that sounded a little static to me like 99 (F5 - F5), but I really liked listening to this. Congratulations.
  8. Thank you both! The huge chords come off in various different timbres depending on velocity of the strike, which is why they're awesome to use in consistent sequences.
  9. You forgot A# in your description scale, haha. That's kind of the important one. The piece is pretty cool, though you might want to consult a harpist on sharp fourths? I'm still trying to figure out pedals and stuff, so you probably know more than me. The couple parts with the dissonance between 6 and 7 were cool. I don't think you have to be conservative using Lydian-Mixolydian (how I learned to call it), and when we work in odd scales for the first time, sometimes we get so fixated on preserving the sound of the scale that we sacrifice our ideas for it. In major/minor we alter tones all the time, so you could definitely expand this a little bit, introducing some new ideas. Remember that nobody is going to praise the piece just because it's in Lydian-Mixo, so you might as well have fun with it.
  10. Cool, pretty chill stuff. Some nice moments of harmonic oddity that can be interpreted in multiple ways. If there was one thing to harp on, in fact, is that some chord changes, especially to the tonic can sound a little dorky in comparison to all the other great changes you have, especially when you try to elide the cadence so much.
  11. Serge touched on this a bit; to me, it just doesn't seem to have a ton of range from apex to nadir. It seems to stay pretty consistent. I don't think this feeling is helped by the pretty static tempo throughout either.
  12. Felt a little bit too long without significant change– when you get to the end, it sounds like a sort of end to the exposition of a sonata form or something. Like, it felt like that should have gone somewhere. I don't know, the intrigue you built a the beginning was great, but a little disappointing when it felt like that was going to be the status quo.
  13. Impressively dynamic. Couple things: A got a little tired of the rhythmic figure of the piano in the beginning. The harmonies were cool (especially the first modulation), but even a couple bars more of variation would have helped. The use of the more Eastern scale was a little bit jarring to me upon first listen. I don't know why, but the effect it had was more instant, than transformative. Overall, nice work, especially the beginning and the end.
  14. Maybe tone the percussion a little bit, especially the snare drum. Because the bass line is constant (and you already did some of this), I would make some more internal chord changes stemming from the mid-range notes (i.e. creating a G6/A chord using the float-synth, over bass).
  15. Yeah, maybe tone back the percussion a little bit. The vox effect would be better as a linear slide than an exponential one since it spans a whole step, not just a semitone. The use of the syncopated figure at the end in the piano was a nice touch in that register. I could have used something outside of i VII VI VII, sometimes, though..
  16. I don't know if it's just the fact it's a demo, but when you get to the more aggressive part, I can't really tell the intention of the harmony in relation to the melody, I hear some iii and "bIV" tritone subs in there, but I wish everything was more connected– the jumps seem a bit arbitrary.
  17. Interesting and clever use of the second inversion bIII chord in the chord. Wish it could have gone a few more places than just that, not including the perfect fourth (G, C) pedal a separate chord progression after the first build.
  18. Careful with the handling of suspensions. Sometimes you have the sus4 and the third present at the same time, which can be used for effect, but because of how sparse the writing is, makes it sound more like an interval than a chord choice.
  19. A little bit hard to follow rhythmically. Adding something else in chords or counterpoint to take away from the power chord or parallel sound might have been welcome, especially in the beginning. When thirds are used, it's a little sparse sounding due to lack of proper upper support.
  20. It's pretty good. I take a little bit of issue with the ending if not just for the bit of anti-climax I experienced. It goes a lot of places tonally, but not necessarily harmonically, except for modulation, which I think you could have had a little more fun with– the cross relation in the beginning got me excited. Either way, nice work.
  21. I'm with Quinn. After I listened the first time, I dragged the slider into various points of the piece and always heard a tonicized E-flat somewhere in the bass or melody. The orchestration is needlessly sparse, especially for some of the bigger moments.
  22. I did this "piece per day" thing for about 250 days a couple years ago. Extraordinarily difficult, so props to you. I'm going to briefly discuss 5, and the differences between interpretations of runs. When you arpeggiate, specifically the diminished one around the piece, it will be analyzed as only a couple notes actually mattering to the melody line. This is particularly true because the diminished 7th chord is precisely the number of 16th notes in a quarter note, so it just sounds like a duplication. Thus, the piece kind of just stops in time for a bar or two. The opening run is a bit more effective in keeping its melodic momentum because of smaller, less consistent intervals. This is neither saying it's good nor bad; it's just a matter of auditory interpretation.
  23. The final movement in my piano suite, intended to be a bit of a mixture of all the other movements. It's a bit needlessly dramatic, but it's the most functional of all of the movements, except for the middle section.
  24. Nice thoughts on it, @punintentional. One small nitpick. Sometimes your suspensions fall on weak beats, which used to be straight up wrong in the Renaissance era, but now, while it is fine, still carries some weird tonal qualities when prolonging the dominant or the tonic (i.e. 73).
  25. Up to you. You can always send details to me once you're ready and I can post them up.
×
×
  • Create New...