Jump to content

Monarcheon

Reviewers
  • Content Count

    2,031
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    153

Everything posted by Monarcheon

  1. So, I got a little tired of the process is it kept going. It was cool hearing a Csus/Bb at the beginning and the occasional instrumental licks are nice, but even if I was watching a film, I think I'd be a little antsy by the 2 minute mark. Maybe some more rhythmic drivers would be nice, since your smallest rhythmic unit is split only once without an alteration of much contour.
  2. It does built tension quite nicely. The III∆7 chords in third inversion didn't feel as satisfying as a passing chord like that normally would. I think that it might be trying to have it both ways sometimes, since in the bigger end section it's over a dominant.
  3. Nice little thing here, that flows into itself rather well, despite being sectioned by standard form. The stops didn't get to me so much as Eb9 with a focus on the 9th did. I know it's part of your main progression but it always felt a little odd to me for some reason; perhaps it's the predominant function being accented as though it had dominant function, but I'm not sure.
  4. Yes, that 29 modulation is a little strange... I was excited at first because I heard the first bar as an augmented triad and I thought you were going to nebulous (WT0) with it, but the result was a little underwhelming. Also, to me most of this sounds as though it should be in 3/4. I know Ravel did something similar in his piano concerto, but it's not as ambiguous sounding to me. Though, the piece is nice in and of itself.
  5. m. 47 - The double E# in a row will take a very steady hand to not emphasize both and sound awkward. I would pick one to emphasize, but that's just me. m. 81 - the way you have the arpeggio written is a little strange, since the notational contour is one-directional but there's a note that goes down. Overall, I think this is a lovely piece. Great mixed sonorities reminiscent of Debussy's good ol' underwater cathedral. If I had one formal complaint it would be that the beginning kinda takes a while to get going. Establishing themes is great and in a sort of hymn style it makes some sort of sense, purely as a listener and not a theorist I found it a little start-stoppy. As soon as you start going, however, everything flows beautifully.
  6. I'm not really sure what you mean, but in counterpoint, voices always resolve themselves. I think it's still a rules issue, especially since the lower voice stays on the same pitch as the higher voice, before it jumps down. Whether or not you follow that rule is up to you, but it's good to know it's there.
  7. Sorry if it sounds like I'm trying to suggest a specific reading, I'm actually trying to do the opposite. When I say more modulations can be used, what I really mean is that there are so many options with all the diminished harmonies to be considered pivot chords than there's no need to try to keep it so rigidly in C minor. For my personal quick look over the score, I would say the F minor in m. 4 is the pivot ii chord in E-flat major. That D major you're referencing, I definitely view more as a V/V in C minor, signaling that that chord or a chord just before it is the true pivot back to Cm. But like I said, don't trust me; you've definitely looked at it more closely than I, I'm just suggesting another way of looking at it.
  8. Not a bad reading, but I'd encourage you to look further back and start your modulation there instead. A cadence in a new key does not necessarily mean it starts there, in fact it could have started quite a ways back, like the first E major cadence in the Moonlight Sonata.
  9. "Tertiary applied chords" are only useful if you have some sort of cyclic motion going on, and even then I don't think they're very useful. It's better to just call it a secondary dominant chain and call it a day. Sure knowing what the chords are is helpful, but when a chain's function is just to be a chain, it's better to call it what it is rather than try to force something it's not into them. When you use them in this analysis, they rarely have this function as it is, as they're more deceptively resolved normal applied chords. For this reason, I think you could stand to use more modulations in your piece. Recall the III as a very common modulation point in minor in this period, as opposed to being a prolongation of the tonic in some way.
  10. Good questions I hadn't considered. Let's go with: 1. Recognizability is key. Obviously it's more clear if the opening material is repeated exactly with orchestration and harmony, but there isn't a deduction, per se, as long as it's really clear. 2. Same general answer as above, but yes, I don't see why not. 3. I think I answered this actually, but yes, shared material should be at the beginning.
  11. @HoYin Cheung @isuckatcomposing @Gustav Johnson @bkho @Luis Hernández @Noah Brode @Tónskáld @KJthesleepdeprived Please note the rule added under the section regarding shared material (No. 5). This was always the intent, but I felt it should be explicitly stated.
  12. Nice work, overall with a great melody. I would have loved to hear more in each key; I feel like the modulations may be a tad too frequent to get in a "berceuse" headspace, at least for me. The VI - I in G major also kind of took me out of it slightly.
  13. It's important to note that your first two voices actually do violate a couple rules: for example, P5s in mm. 12-13 and crossed voices at m. 18. That aside, the first line oftentimes will move in what's basically constantly moving short(est) rhythmic units, for example Bach's 9th fugue in 4 voices. The time signature isn't really the issue here, since nobody really perceives that difference listening to it. You seem to have the right idea by filling in spots that have empty space, but there's no reason to have everything be so constant. Voices can take a breath in rhythmic respite without breaking any rules.
  14. Glad to give you a reason to get away from all those darn kids (jk I'm friends with teachers and they love it but I see the exhaustion on their faces). Judges will provide both scores and comments.
  15. Please see the following topic for more information:
  16. Young Composers Fall 2019 Competition: "Poor Form" Welcome to "Poor Form", a competition dedicated to stimulating creativity by way of thematic transformation. Liszt was a huge fan of using this concept; an opening thought would be copied, but used in wildly new ways to preserve unity despite deviating from it! The Renaissance similarly used the "headmotto mass", where each portion of the Ordinary Mass would begin with the same material, before breaking off into different forms of counterpoint. This season, we're going to celebrate originality in the most literal way possible: it's what you do with it that matters. You're going to see a lot of rules, but that's only because this concept is pretty different; we're trying to make it as creatively free as possible! Topic: Compose a small suite of 4-6 short pieces, each beginning with the same music, then deviating away from it seamlessly into new styles, developments, and orchestrations. Composition Rules... ...regarding the shared material: The shared material between all movement must be at least 5% of your movement in terms of performance time. For example, a movement of 2 minutes, must have at least 6 seconds of shared material. Shared material need not be at the same tempo between movements. Shared material must be identical in most ways; it is up to composer discretion what this means, but a hard rule is that not only the melody/theme can be used each movement. The closer the shared material is to being identical between movements, the better. Entries for solo monophonic instrument (i.e. not harp, piano, organ) are extra-encouraged to have shared material be identical. Shared material must be found at the beginning of each movement, and should not reprise mid-movement, with exception of perhaps the final movement. Shared material and new material must sound different, while still sounding appropriate. New material must feel like a natural progression from shared material. The intent is to show composer inventiveness and skill in developing themes and ideas. ...regarding the movement form: Suites must have a final movement in some way combining the branching processes of the other movements. This movement is included in your movement count. The final movement should not be a restatement of the other movements/processes linearly, but a blend of some sort. However, not all processes need to be blended all at once. Basically, make it a mashup of some sort. Movements, bar the final one, may not exceed 5 minutes in performance time length. Movements must be at least 1 minute long. Shared and new material in movements should transition seamlessly between each other. Eligibility: *You must be a member of the Young Composers forum in order to enter. Sign ups will be in the comments below. *There will again be no limits regarding instrumentation. *You must have a minimum of 4 movements in your piece, including the final blend variation. *You must have some sort of audio rendition accompanying your work. *You must present a score of your music for judging regarding proper handling of musical convention. *If you volunteer to be a judge, you may not enter as a contest participant. *Note: A written component is not required for this competition. The music should speak for itself this time. Scoring: Clear and inventive deviation from the shared material between movements, all with an obviously repeated introduction. /20 A conclusive and satisfying, yet creatively combined final movement. /10 A good, semi-professional score and audio rendition of the work. /10 Sound and realistic instrumentation and orchestration. /10 TOTAL: /50 Deadlines: Deadline for entrant intent: October 31st Deadline for entrant's submissions: November 15th Deadline for judge responses: December 1st Competition results: by December 8th. Entry Notes: Please list your interest to compete by replying to this thread below in the comments. Please note if you are applying as a PARTICIPANT or a JUDGE. I will be updating this list for participants as we go. However, entry into the competition is a commitment. While we would love to have as many interested participants as possible, not entering is better than committing, then dropping. This competition is a little more laid back to encourage more entries! A separate topic for submissions will be available at the end of the entrant application period. Note: Judges must be able to provide ample feedback on all 4 categories of scoring as well as provide a numerical score in each. Minimum 1-2 paragraphs per criteria. Participants: isuckatcomposing Noah Brode Tónkskáld KJthesleepdeprived Gustav Johnson bkho HoYin Cheung J.Santos luderart Judges: Monarcheon Luis Hernández
  17. It's well designed and has a catchy thematic element. Only thing I'd maybe say is the pacing was a little funky for me. I know these loops can't be super long, but when the chromatic walkup was introduced it felt like a cool little tail, then became the main thematic element until the end. Just went from 0-100 pretty quick near the end for me.
  18. Last chance to vote in this! Signaling interest in some was is important for analytics, even if it's just the tiniest bit.
  19. Haha, yes, I suspected "Voices" might be a bit challenging. The flip side would be that everyone would be challenged!
  20. Are you not allowed to switch your vote?
  21. PLEASE leave a comment along with your vote on your thoughts about your choice, and the others, if possible. I wanted them to be a little more interesting than just a theme to work off of, but still open ended enough for lots of creativity!
  22. Something like this in m. 13, for example.
  23. Sure thing: you know how in Cynical (the part with the triplets with quarter notes on the bottom at 39) you have the quarter note on its own implying it's held? You use two layers to create the effect; later one is on top to create the triplets, and the second later is the bottom with the quarter note. In Fireplace, you have a bunch of notes tied together to hold the chord instead of using multiple layers like you do in the other ones.
  24. What I really love about this piece is the slightly more sparse but equally effective texture. The trio at the beginning was super nice, for instance. I would maybe tighten up the violin line just a tad to sound a little more complementary within the realms of counterpoint, but this was great to lean back and take in.
×
×
  • Create New...