Hello @MK_Piano! The review of your piece is my last one, not because—far from it—it gives me a headache, but because I have great respect for it. This has nothing to do with the piece itself, but rather with you as a person, which I’ll try to explain briefly: First of all, the challenge of the competition - to take Paul Verlaine’s poem “Donc, ce sera par un clair jour d'été,” as the inspiration of the composition, and to try to evoke moods of summer, love and beauty – was your idea, which might perhaps have arisen in your mind for a longer time. So you have a certain advantage over the other participants—or let’s say, a kind of “tailwind.” On the other hand, I’ve already heard a lot about you—your compositions and, perhaps even more importantly, your insightful reviews—and that, combined with my knowledge of your professional background, carries the risk of being biased and expecting you to deliver an outstanding work (even before I’ve heard it at all). Taking all that into consideration, I will give my best not to take that considerations as a „bonus“ or a „malus“, but trying to be as objective as possible in that sense. Melodies Themes Motives and Harmony Chords Textures: The entire piece is based on a simple yet effective motif that could be described as an “arch”. It is introduced by the piano in the opening measures and then repeated by the violin. Furthermore, this motif, repeated twice, forms the melody or theme of the “song” that unfolds after the introduction. The harmonies are „romantic“ and pleasant, dissonances or other „coloring“ is used in a subtle way. We have a variety in texture between the different instruments, while preserving the overall melody, allowing the listener to follow the piece with ease. Form Development Structure Time: The piece starts with an introduction that already „spoilers“ the melody and uses a cadenza as the „curtain opener“ of the song which now unfolds: Its three parts could be recognized as corresponding to the three stanzas of Paul Verlaine’s poem. Each part consisting of „melodic passages“ where the main theme is „sung“ and passages either calming down or developing the harmonic or rhythmic material further. Originality Creativity: The piece does not owe its originality from „experiments“, let’s say a spectacular instrumentation or other effects. It is well crafted, somewhat hiding the compositional details and skills applied behind an overall „solid“ and pleasant impression, and therefore one can recognize it as an original „Mason Kistler“ style piece. Score Presentation: I’ve noticed that you often use hairpins for dynamics without placing dynamic marks at the beginning and end. In my opinion, that’s not a bad thing (though there are some situations where I’d prefer to see a dynamic indication, such as in measure 24 for the violin), but I’ve listened to many orchestration tutorials in which this was considered a “mistake”, and the instructor insisted on explicitly specifying “from where to where” the hairpin increases or decreases the dynamics. Is there a general rule for this? Beside that, I didn’t find things I would consider „engraving issues“ (and I admit that I did not explicitly search for nitpicks). So I would end up with a more general comments on the readability and „aesthetics“ of the score: In my opinion, the font size for the strings parts is too small and make that parts hard to read. I suppose, that you’ve chosen that somewhat aggressive decrease of the font size for the other instruments than the piano to achieve getting three systems on one page (yes, this is sometimes hard – and on the other hand, having only two systems on a page would look ugly). And there is another thing which makes the score somewhat „less enjoyable“ to read – and that has absolutely nothing to do with you and your engraving – since that is an inherent „problem“ of the scores produced by the most nowadays notation software: The result is „correct“ but seems to be „cold and mechanical“ when compared with older hand-engraved scores. There exists an interesting „Essay on automated music engraving“ from the developers of the „Lilypond“ notation software I use, where that issue is discussed in brevity. Instrumentation Orchestration Playability: Your choice of a “traditional” piano quartet is not exotic (as some of the other submissions), but rather solid, and it gives you the opportunity to create enough musical color to highlight the main melody in various variations, ensuring that the piece doesn’t become boring throughout its entire six minutes. I’m sure you’ve examined the playability of some of the more challenging passages (and you’ve already mentioned this), such as the multiple stops in the string parts (especially for the violin at the end). Execution of Given Challenge and Taste: You resisted the temptation to take the competition’s challenge “literally” and set the poem to music to create a kind of “chanson”. Instead, you’ve composed a pleasant piece with a memorable melody that recurs in the piano and violin, conveying the feel of a song with clearly defined verses and transitions. The mood remains cheerful throughout the piece, evoking the image of the sun on a summer day; it changes only slightly in a few passages, as if small, fluffy clouds were obscuring the sun for just a few brief moments. All in all, it’s a “solid” piece, if not the most solid of the entire competition. With this strength, your piece would certainly appeal to a majority of the “general audience”—in contrast to some other, more exotic or atonal submissions. On the other hand, you haven’t stepped outside this kind of “comfort zone”, so for a “more specialized audience”, such as the reviewers on this forum, pieces with their “rough edges” (and perhaps even their shortcomings) might have an equal or even better chance of attracting attention. Melodies Themes Motives Harmony Chords Textures Form Development Structure Time Originality Creativity Score Presentation Instrumentation Orchestration Playability Execution of Given Challenge Taste 10 9.75 10 9.5 9.25 10 9 8.5 Average Score: 9.5
By
Wieland Handke · 11 minutes ago 11 min