Jump to content

Monarcheon

Reviewers
  • Content Count

    2,144
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    160

Everything posted by Monarcheon

  1. 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.
  2. :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.
  3. 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.
  4. Two voice counterpoint is weak, especially after the fff. Sounds uncharacteristically basic in comparison to the other harmonies in play.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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".
  9. 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!
  10. It has a great atmosphere through most of it. Score things: be cautious that trill marks only cover how many beats they need to and that all voice parts are given a syllable reference at least. I'm not sure what the point is of adding a section in E-flat major... it really takes away from that atmosphere, and could be used to make all sorts of polytonal or chromatic developments to the theme, which thus far had been interestingly tossed around the ensemble. Maybe it's supposed to be the point of relative momentum compared to the rest, but it doesn't really build up to much, and has the opposite effect of being in a non-complementary tonality. But it's written quite well; I'm glad your girlfriend appreciated it!
  11. The counterpoint of the main saw-wave kinda sounding thing is for the most part nice... if not a tad too foreground. There's a point within it where the top line of it (near :30) plays E - G - B - E - A - B - G, and the bottom does E - G - B - E - F# - D - E. I honestly have little idea as to why this sounds so awkward to me, since it makes sense in a voice leading way, but maybe it has to do with an implied minor v7 harmony in a strange harmonic rhythm... maybe it's the timbre. I don't quite know. The developments of the main theme, especially in the last part are quite nice! Best wishes to you!
  12. Not a huge fan of the middle faster section... the nicely subtle orchestration of the early and later parts are almost more angry than the middle section, just because of how simplistic it is in comparison, despite the overlapping modes. Also, please consider reviewing other works of the forum here. I know you get views and feedback, but it helps us out if you contribute back here too.
  13. I agree in part with this; I think it could be mitigated by letting theme 1 develop in different ways while theme 2 ends up more orchestrationally prominent. Love the orchestration of the extended harmonies, though.
  14. In pure production terms, the voice stands as out as very dry and prominent in comparison to the rest of the mix. This is less of an issue during the verses, but is very noticeable in the chorus. Crash cymbals on every beat is also not a great sound, as it has a tendency to obscure offbeats. Compositionally, the switch of E7 going back to Dm7 and going to Am is an interesting one, though I don't think E7 always has to be in third inversion to make the voice leading smooth. Good first attempt!
  15. In the opening measures, the E-F motion in the high register seems a little naked without reverb support, or homophonic support like you gave it in later bars. In those same opening bars, I also feel the Am6 chord doesn't quite have a good effect because of the close spacing on the triad. The prominence of the string hits later on in the song, closer to 1:40 is a little unprecedented or led up to... it's a little abrupt.
  16. I agree with this. The opening measures's push and pull factor is great when there's counterpoint, but there might be more that be done dynamically to make the stases have a tad more weight. Lovely work, overall.
  17. Quartal progressions were interesting, especially over a pedal pitch. One thing I noticed was the piano's textural rigidity between sections, some more contrapuntal stuff with the solo might be nice.
  18. You say you want to avoid unwanted dissonances... but I'm assuming you don't necessarily want to follow Baroque fugue rules? Because if you did, the vast majority of this piece would need reworking, i.e. parallel fifths everywhere, parallel dissonances, incorrect chord resolutions. Operating on the assumption those rules don't matter to you, I'd still say that dissonance is the main issue here, since it obscures some of the chordal function of a lot of the piece. m. 14 is an example of that with a 7-8 bass suspension from B to C in the cello, but a motion to C on beat 4 before the syncopated resolution of the suspended tone. These sorts of little things exist in a few places (i.e. m. 20's G∆7 chord as a resolution to C). It's a well-thought out work, with an interesting take on the idea of fugue as a homophonic unit, but obscures the tonality a little bit too much.
  19. It's a great harmonic language. My main slight concern was the heavy consistency of the accompaniment in certain sections. The running notes in the beginning were great, at least for a while. Slightly more contrasting motion might be helpful to transition into the tremolo sections, keeping certain motives intact by way of "verticalizing" them somewhat to mix things up. It's a nice piece, overall.
  20. They may not be as prominent as you want them to be from the sound of this recording. The verticality and horizontality of this piece to me are at odds with each other. I can hear the horizontal imitation, but allowing for a blend of those elements I think could help this one along slightly.
  21. The use of the minmaj "I" chord is a nice recurring touch, though I feel like its presence could be heard more throughout, since it's a great introductory barrier breaker between tonality and a hint of chromaticism. It would also help build more cohesive indeterminacy for the audience, where any chord could be off-putting and yet totally applicable. Also, please consider reviewing other works of the forum here. I know you get views and reviews, but it helps us out if you contribute back here too.
  22. Your endings tend to have passages leading into them that break the harmonic qualities established therein. It might help if you lead the audience to that kind of ending transition with little hints of it along the way. Helps everything feel final. Please consider reviewing other works of the forum here. I know you get views and reviews here, but it helps us out if you contribute back here too.
  23. I don't quite hear the Bach. Bach favored a sort of compound melody implicit in the lines, that are often brought out in Schenkerian analyses. Most of this just seems to run on. Also, please consider reviewing other works of the forum here. I know you get views and reviews, but it helps us out if you contribute back here too.
  24. I agree with this, I think! The abrupt changes in texture and tone are I think the most stand-out to me, since little transitional material is accumulated at the end of every return of the ritornello, it doesn't serve the purpose of priming the audience to listen for the fancy stretto/fugal stuff that's going on.
  25. Nicely done, though I could possibly hear a little more percussion in the beginning parts, though its introduction near the end is a nice, climactic setter.
×
×
  • Create New...