Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Monarcheon

  1. Transitions are a little harsh. Particularly the one going back to the A section at 1:51. Ending on what's basically a subdominant chord in a harsh inversion attempting to function as a VII in your original tonic of G minor was pretty jarring, especially since there was no transitional inner voice work.
  2. OP defined parallel harmony as parallel related tonalities, or at least that's what I infer they meant by their post. You are defining it differently, as a method of harmonic planing, and there are two variants: diatonic and chromatic, which, yes, would correspond to the Finale transposition options available. The idea behind planing, is that voice leading remains in constant structured harmony, oven supporting a melody line either explicitly or secondarily.
  3. If we're defining parallel harmony that way, look up the term "planing", specifically "chromatic planing".
  4. What? You have to realize that major and minor modes don't really mean anything and that your reaction to them is learned. In the transition between the Medieval and the Baroque, Willaert and Zarlino codified the minor thirds as sweetness and grief and major modes with harshness and bitterness (Burkholder, 249). Obviously completely contrary to what most people think today, but all it takes is a few hundred years to change what the world thinks.
  5. Couple ways to interpret this: E major with added 4th (11th in jazz), or an Esus with the third as well (less common) A major 9 chord in second inversion with no third.
  6. I don't much like to sound super artsy or whatever, but I literally had a dream with this melody in it, and I don't know if it sounds familiar to me or not. It uses a similar diatonic structure to Rent, but I think it's decently different enough, but if anyone knows of something that uses something similar to it, I'll abandon the melody lol
  7. Wrote a first movement of a Webern-Babbit kind of hybrid piece. Not sure if I like the process enough to keep going?
  8. It's about following the scansion. "the LORD is my LIGHT". Putting "the" on the downbeat makes it sound like the stressed syllable, which it isn't. You said later that you don't necessarily want to follow the rules, and that's fine. I agree with you it sounds good, but it's not "correct". In strict counterpoint, you're supposed to avoid it in a melodic line altogether. That's not correct, or at least that's not how I learned it. It's disputed the cases where a direct octaves are okay. Yours is one of those exceptions that some consider fine: where both the outer voices move upwards, but the bass leaps and the soprano moves by step to the same pitch class. Some wouldn't say that's okay. It depends. Direct octave leaps in similar motion are absolutely not okay, but you don't use those 🙂 My bad, I meant unequal fifths. EDIT: I'll stress here that I only made those observations because I didn't know what kind of feedback you were looking for. I see "chorale" and I'm like "oh, maybe they mean counterpoint?" It's 100% okay (and even good) you don't use those rules, I just didn't know what you were going for. That thing about the scansion though is a little strange though.
  9. Are you trying to follow the rules? 1. "The Lord is my light" is strange because "The" is not a stressed syllable. 2. m. 3's leap of an augmented second does not resolve properly downwards by step. 3. After the fermata of m. 3, the outer voices form a direct octave by upwards motion. The bass does not outline the tonic triad. 3a. The same happens between mm. 3-4 and m. 5. 4. Same problems mentioned before in m. 6. 5. m. 7 has an upwards motion of contrary fifths. Only downward is acceptable. 6. Same problems mentioned before happen in m. 11 and 14.
  10. Thank you for asking. The following information has been added: "A separate topic for submissions will be available at the end of the entrant application period."
  11. Sorry, my writing was slightly confusing. It wasn't double negative syntactical error as much as it was two clauses that contradicted. The first "not" agrees with you. The second "not" agrees with the first statement syntactically (double clausal intent) but expands upon its point. Again, my bad.
  12. I'm not at a computer so I can't look at this in depth, but in the first few measures you have a few instances of direct octaves, and since you're still in two voices they do matter. M. 9 has parallel 8's as well. Consecutive open intervals is also considered bad in two voices so watch out for those too. My main disagreement regarding it being a Bach-like subject is the leap in beat four. It happens on a weird place, not to mention the fact that you never harmonize the seventh leap with an applied dominant which is a very Bach thing to do since vi to ii is a little strange on its own.
  13. @Quinn I want to address this edit from another post because it's not really true. The beginning I agree with, at least philosophically. From there on I'm not so sure: firstly on a purely philosophical level, those composers don't write music because anything... especially not for audiences, generally. Secondly, your assertion that serialist compositions are pre-determined in some way... articles by theorists like Hyde and Babbit will definitely say this is not the case, delving into the concept of secondary dimensions as well as multi-linear segmentation of the row. Yes, perhaps you can't hear it, but if the piece truly is serialist, you'll notice that simply following the line in standard voice leading won't produce the row. Look at someone like Berg, who incorporated many related triads in his serialist music. An analysis by someone like Webern is unlike analyzing Katy Perry or something because despite knowing what a "IV" chord is, most of those performers aren't going to know it has "predominant function" or know that it's often a prolongation of the tonic in second inversion, yet we still apply that knowledge to it because it means something to us. Webern's 12 tone structures are dissimilarly conscious, and even beyond that, finding those dimensional connections can only add an element of connectedness otherwise unavailable in such radical (at the time) music.
  14. Not letting me open Noteflight without an account so you're going to have to bear with me. First, and this is just personal philosophy: don't try to make an audience hear anything in your piece. It'll just lead to you being disappointed. I'm going to focus on one aspect of the composition that gets to me, which is pretty much most of your writing for the left hand. Your B section has some good rhythmic intrigue but places like 1:38 are completely static and uninteresting because of the lack of color your give your left hand. There are also so many octaves in this section without use of inner compound melody that a lot of the rhythmic intrigue introduced in the right hand is mitigated. Another example is the end, where you have these really big octaves in the low register and really high stuff in the right hand. This stratification increases the range, but none of it is filled in with counterpoint or inner voice chords making it sound ironically empty. You can use your left hand stuff to greater effect by not being so functionally fixated on its "lower" tendencies.
  15. I'm focusing on ice world because I love snow and winter 🥰 The interval stacks are nice but get a little repetitive, and it's super noticeable because of the register. I think what made me get a little tired of them too was the fact that they follow in the harmony as though in diatonic planing. I think maybe having given it a little more flavor by inverting it to form a sort of stacked voice set would have been really nice. Your melody and rhythmic mixups are great and really help this get off the ground from the getgo. Your triplets later are super great as well.
  16. If I wanted to be really picky, I'd say that by the Renaissance, parallel 5ths were becoming more and more frowned upon 😂 But it's a perfectly simple and effective arrangement. I'd only hope for a little more rhythmic variety (the slight syncopation at the end was lovely), but overall it was pleasant listening.
  17. Okay, please note that entering this competition is more of a commitment this time since we want as many participants as possible without having to change the grading scale later on with people dropping.
  18. You should research the concept of "dissonant counterpoint". You'll need basic knowledge of tonal counterpoint to understand some of it, but it's a type of counterpoint that consonant notes end up sounding dissonant because of the flipping of rules. "Dissonance" is not an audioacoustic term. It's a very relative term that varies from person to person (or culture to culture, though I personally dislike talking about music in terms of overarching cultures). What one person find extremely dissonant may be very consonant for another.
  19. That seems to be a somewhat long-winded way of doing it, but it works, I guess. It doesn't specifically tackle how to deal with the minor third, but it does get you the correct intervals. But that's only how to calculate it; it doesn't really explain anything in and of itself.
  20. I don't know what this whole A1 A2 business is. Their math is right but I don't know how they got there.
  21. This isn't really music anymore. It's just math that you'd learn in school. The minor third ratio is from E to G, or the second and third places in the ratio. That's 10:12. 10:12 dividing both sides by 2 gets you 5:6 which is the proper ratio for the minor third.
  22. That's how ratios work. They divide and reduce like fractions do. It's just basic math. 8:12 divide both sides by 4, you get 2:3, perfect fifth. 10:15 divide both sides by 5 you get 2:3, perfect fifth. The fact that they're off by a factor of 4 or 5 doesn't mean anything as far as the ratios are concerned. It's just a bigger form of 2:3. They need to be that big so that the other intervals also work with it.
  23. @Quinn It's a vector because it displays varying magnitudes (in this case, intervals in a set) on a singular matrix structure. You have to realize: music theory, effectively, is a way for musicians to be lazy. We don't have time to count individual pitches that sound good. Having a system in place to describe them easily helps. There's a second point in music theory, where it becomes mostly analytical, while still attempting to create systems. Composers often leave this behind (though some don't, like Carter and Babbit), but that's why it's a field unto itself. You can use the concepts for composition, but they're a means of understanding something beyond performance practice or orchestration. Simply speaking, it's great you have what you need to know and like many people stop when it no longer becomes compositionally functional, but there are people who take it further as means of further insight into existing works. Both viewpoints are valid.
  24. They are represented. They're just multiplied by a certain factor to preserve the relationship between the two. 2:3, the perfect fifth is equal to 8:12 and 10:15. No. They're all individual and considered together at the same time.
  • Create New...