Jump to content

Monarcheon

Reviewers
  • Content Count

    2,228
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    164

Everything posted by Monarcheon

  1. Your opening is what's catching my ear the most. The voice exchanged F# and G between the melody and the bass in m. 1 is a little odd, also it results in accented parallel fifths in beat 3. The perfect fourth going to the m7 in m. 2 creates a strange parallel dissonance that is resolved unidiomatically by octave retardation. P5's in m. 3, and in beats 3 and 4, you only have dissonant (m9) or open intervals (P5, P4).
  2. @jawoodruff covers lots of good points. I'll just chime in and say high A-flat's in a diminuendo to pp and B's in mf are going to get you some angry looks from soprano's (mostly because soprano's are divas).
  3. The main rule broken here is crossed voices, where a voice in a given timepoint is above a note from the higher voice from the previous timepoint. I also think the treatment of harmony is kind of weird. It likes to meander with a lot of implied dominants not resolving properly in the schema. Also, please make sure to review other member's works here. It's great you're learning, but we all want to as well.
  4. There's just a lot of short term analysis in generating your argument. The slow section, for example, is based off parallel major triads as a harmony of an extended chromatic enclosure to a prolonged tonic that was previously established and is implied. It may not be tonal in the common practice way of thinking, but it's tonal in many, many other aspects that have extended from it. Without the aid of a computer, musical things are embedded in time; not everything is vertical.
  5. I don't know if you're being sarcastic, but I definitely am. Trying to categorize the entirety of a sound type while only having listen to several of its members? Why go into an argument leading off with an admission of lack of sufficient evidence?
  6. Your score... I feel a lot in 3/4, with the downbeat on the low notes. Is this notation a conscious decision? Like the beginning of a new phrase in the middle of m. 66 is baffling to me.
  7. This is *a* way to deconstruct the theme. I would be more specific in the instructions if this one is picked.
  8. You really think I meant this opinion came from one person?
  9. That's pretty much the extent I was talking about. You have bands like Tool, old Taylor Swift, and They Might Be Giants who have their, according to lots of audiences, own sound. Then you get people who abandon Taylor when she switches to the mainstream because it doesn't have that old style. Imagine if Tool did that. New artists get screwed over for sounding too generic. Artists get sued now for their similar sounding musical aspects. Gentleman by Psy was criticized for sounding too much and not enough like Gangnam Style.
  10. On an artistic level? Agree for the most part. On a commercial level? Then I don't, at least to an extent. Audiences are fickle.
  11. Almost every chord is a polychord of the one of the essential aspects of a major triad (root/third) and an augmented triad, generally voiced so that the relationship between the major and augmented triad results in some sort of tritone. The little high piano licks are all based on embedded tritones too.
  12. 10ths at the end not 6ths. m. 7's linear escape tone sounds a little awkward. mm. 11-12's transfer of the F from bass to soprano is... technically fine, but sounds a little weird.
  13. If anyone has any comments, I'd love to hear those too!
  14. The reason I'm specifically mentioning it for this piece is that if they just played it detache, a lot of more important beats would be up bow, the harder of the two take make strong. Composers may not mark bowings, but they often do indicate slurs and articulations to facilitate them to be more natural.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...