Leaderboard

Here is my submission for the Summer 2016 competition. Apparently, I like to cut it close. Feedback is much appreciated. Cheers! -- Noah

Very enjoyable. Brevity is indeed the source of wit! It's a well thought out concept well executed throughout. But also wit I think requires a little barb here and there, something a little off, something to make the listener ask, Is he serious about this or just kidding. I would have liked to hear more of that in the music. You know, take a small risk here and there. But for your own reasons you chose not to take that route, staying in the key, etc, or were satisfied instead with subtlety, some of which a got and some not. I like the instrumentation, that was a good choice. Very Nice!

Whew... I don't know where to start. @Monarcheon You just said it - MIDI is indeed a disaster. When writing, I try to discount the playback factor and orchestrate "ideally" (hoping for a live performance someday), but MIDI must do for the meantime. I'd say it doesn't do a lot of justice to my piece, since I have relied heavily on brass, which tends to be the weakest spot of the playbacks. Nevertheless, I can see you've gone through the whole work, so I must thank you for your appreciation. @fishyfry Funny thing, the K section onwards was the section I had to rush through during the last weekend before the deadline. I must admit, however, that I've had the melody of the passage where Caesar's ghost taunts Brutus (Allegro con Moto) stuck on my mind ever since. @KJthesleepdeprived Thanks for your comments! I feel somewhat humbled by the burden of expectations that seems to have popped up upon my work for this competition. Nevertheless, as I always try to give my best when writing large-scale pieces, I'm delighted that fellow composers have come to expect it too. @Ken320 I was looking forward to your opinion about my piece. Indeed, I just had to tip my hat to Tchaikovsky, with his Hamlet and Manfred being the main models for what I wanted to achieve, along with Mahler's Fifth Symphony's 1st movement. Of course, as I pointed out already, this piece uses the brass quite often, and the available sound fonts don't quite add up, so the result is murky at times. I'm not sure if I would be looking for wider intervals most of the time, however (I used a lot of chord inversions in many passages) unless I'm going all out piling up the brass to swear a theme across a wall ... @Marc O'Callaghan Glad to have your comment too! I'm equally elated and humbled by the fact that other composers have so high expectations and look at my orchestral works as a standard of quality, since it seems I've come a long way. I'm delighted that you found the work worthy of praise despite our differences on tastes or appreciation. Everyone: thanks a lot!

Need I say you have set the standard for orchestral composition in this competition ? Not everything in your piece speaks to me, but that is a matter of musical taste and interpretation. A truly masterful work, though no-one expected less from you.Good luck to you!

It was a very nice voyage! You took us through a lot of scenery and handled the transitions deftly as I usually observe in your work. The themes were clear but I'm not sure if I would say memorable, as you spent a good bit of time in romantic variation mode. I listened to it twice. I noticed a brief tip of the hat to Tchaikovsky which brought a smile to my face. The piece is unabashedly in that vein and a successful effort. So, great job, Austenite. For me the most interesting and exciting parts were around pgs. 30-35 when the orchestra was the most contrapuntal. I did not care for the long held notes in the brass, made worse by the bad sound. I feel strongly about this because it challenges me so to invest my ears on it in order to judge your work fairly. Similarly the close intervals in the brass were difficult to hear in their register. More wider intervals would have been better, yes? BUT I am not a judge and the contest awards only 2 points for sound anyway, and notation software sound is probably the reason why. So ... it's a great entry. Good luck to you!

I agree with the point that this piece has a lot ideas that could be further developed. It seems mostly formless. I would recommend reading about and listening to examples of different forms that have been used by many composers before. (Sonata Allegro, Ternary, Rondo, Arch, the list goes on and on) You don't have to stick specifically to any one of these forms by any means, but I think they would help give you a foundation from which you can consider how to structure and develop your ideas. Theres good stuff here, but it could be made much better with some refining. Keep up the good work.

Gonna be honest here... I don't hear the Schubert Quintet when I listen to this. I'm going to assume it's supposed to be neotonal or atonal, and not necessarily in D major. I don't really hear the tonal center until about m. 19 and it tapers from there relatively quickly. Also feel like you should change the clef of the 2nd cello near the end, there. Why did you write this in cut time? Especially past 167, the piece kind of suffers in its engraving by having it in cut time; a lot of tied over whole notes and half notes, and not really necessary. 4/4 with a cut tempo might have looked better. I know it's supposed to be a very sporadic piece. But it's supposed to be tonal, it may be a bit too sporadic. I don't get much sense of a form in this, and the melody is cut off maybe a little too often. In general, I feel like there's a lot of ideas that just don't get developed enough. Of course, maybe you like all this, and if you do, who am I to tell you that's wrong? Cheers.

Yeah, I agree that the solo part is probably not practical in its current form. Also what you (and others have also observed) about the abrupt end of the first section before the second section is well taken. It evolved that way since I wrote each section separately then tried to connect them together and I never came up with a convincing way (in my mind) so I just left it as is. Thanks for listening.