Jump to content

Monarcheon

Reviewers
  • Content Count

    2,232
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    164

Everything posted by Monarcheon

  1. 1. Enharmonic spellings need to be checked. 2. I'd suggest reexamining your use of accented non-chord tones. They can get a little too present.
  2. Appoggiatura on the 4th of C major in the opening really rubbed me the wrong way for some reason. It resolves right away so I couldn't exactly tell you why. I like the changing accent placement within phrases.
  3. This whole duple-tuplet business you have going on is really confusing. Do a ratio tuplet and be specific.
  4. Your problem is with particular passing tones at a lower metrical level. Like in m. 6, where there's parallel G# -> B and the passing A# doesn't count towards mitigating it. Be wary also that a diminished to perfect fifth going upwards is generally considered incorrect (unlike P to diminished going down), like in m. 5.
  5. It works mostly. Small note; watch the voice leading in the arpeggiated left hand. Sometimes it has the option of being a bit smoother, especially with harmonic extensions in it.
  6. Lots of people cite Ravel and Berlioz as the orchestration masters but I always like to throw in Respighi into that post-Romantic mix. As for your modern approaches, Lutoslawski's consistent patterns are very well-known, as are Stockhausen's opera cycles and multi-orchestra works. I might suggest adding Saariaho in there if not mostly for her careful and specific timbral markings.
  7. Trust me when I say if everything was tuned in fourths, it would be WAY harder to finger anything.
  8. Welcome to the industry. You'll find yourself thinking this a lot, then eventually going, "eh, fuck it". This is pretty standard for most art, let alone music. Compositionally speaking, find ways to transform your melodies, through augmentation, segmentation, or diminution and extending melodic fragments with portions of new melody to keep the familiarity in new contexts.
  9. Nope. Great on their own or sparsely to accentuate a part, but they're used to rests. Also stamina. That's just a general rule, though. Obviously different situations call for different doubling.
  10. Strings > Woodwinds > Brass is a pretty okay rule to follow (or at least it was what I was taught) most of the time when it comes to orchestration, in regards to playing frequency. It's more broken in canonical or fugal stuff where the idea is that the new voice is heard (unless you're Ligeti or Lutoslawski where they intentionally try to hide it). Because of this it's mostly homophonic stuff you'll need to watch out for and WW/brass density in terms of pitch structure also contributes to a psychoacoustic sort of overpowering rather than a necessarily acoustic one.
  11. Harmonically, it's mostly fine. The main thing to take a look at is sectional lack of varying metrical hierarchies. Contributes to how counterpoint is normally dealt with in the era.
  12. This is what you played in the video. Works fine in 4/4. Maybe you're extending the dotted rhythm past its confinement to a beat mentally.
  13. Yeah, then absolutely fine, though I'm not sure if they'll like you all that much, Jenkins 2.0.
  14. I won't necessarily argue that it's bad for basic development, but I am a little worried all of your examples are from the common practice period.
  15. It's a little busy, don't you think? It's not normally an issue, but your melodies being in similar ranges for some reason sounded strange this time. Lots of small crossed voices. What's the purpose of the instrumentally separated accompaniment figure?
  16. Listen to more pop music. Uses plagal cadences all the time. Obilque motion helps.
  17. Agreed. Especially the purpose and standard nature of the semitones within the collection.
  18. I'm not seeing your premise that the bass feels like triple meter. If the meter is isochronous (for simplicity's sake, the pulse is steady), then the "&" you mention should just feel like an absent beat 4. My guess is that it's the tempo for you.
  19. Violin/voice not matching up with the piano's melodic suspensions becomes more of an issue as time goes on. Around 2:15, the new melody in the violin having entire whole notes on hypermetric positions 2 and 4 is really off-putting and momentum-halting when the alto parts don't have much meaningful material. Ending is not as dramatic as I think you may hear it. Sounds tacked on.
  20. Since "al" means "to the", is that weird as a downbeat syllable? I speak Spanish, but text setting it is a different story. Anyway: m. 11: Not a huge fan of the harmonic anticipation of V over i, since it takes a half-beat in order to execute. m. 13: A bit of an awkward-sounding piano part in the right hand. Triadic, but also leap-y. m. 15: I don't see the reason for a chromatic passage there. Comical tone shift in something that doesn't really set itself that way. m. 18, beat 2: Again with the dominant over tonic voicing, but this time it just sounds kind of wrong instead of like a choice since it's arpeggiated in the bass. m. 25: 8-9 bass suspension in piano and tenor is harsh. Less of a problem between tenor and soprano. m. 38: major seventh between bass and alto as a 7-8 suspension sounds awkward in the ii half diminished setting. Piano's fine.
  21. Around 2:40. Before that I can clearly here the difference between ride cymbal and closed hi-hat. In the section after I just hear a bunch of unyielding ride cymbals ("double" meaning two per beat without any sort of meter hierarchy), that themselves don't really seem to have a hierarchy. I could hear the snare and it's backbeat function, but the cymbals still seem a little bit unidiomatic to me. Maybe I'm overthinking it.
  22. III. Something about the repeated melody note in the chord after the main figure irked me for some reason. It's okay when the chord is repeated. Beaming in mm. 29-37. I know it's trying to highlight the figure, but it just comes off as confusing. The repeat to the beginning maybe should happen a little earlier (or a different transition), since the restart seems a little strange after a winddown passage like that. Good counterpoint before the subito. Not a huge fan of the ending. Couldn't really tell you why, unfortunately. Felt like a buildup, I guess.
  23. I like your fearlessness of the inner chords juxtaposed against the implied bass harmony. If there's one thing for me, the unchanging texture began to bother me after a bit, and you should probably have something for your soprano to sing (vowels, etc.). Also, why the 4 bars at the end?
  24. In terms of the video, putting the score up was next to useless; couldn't see anything on it. The music is nice, but I feel like there's a lot of suspensions. Spacing the chords with extended harmony might be nice *sometimes*, since sometimes your use of them is pretty clever already.
×
×
  • Create New...