PeterthePapercomPoser

I think this question comes from the wrong place philosophically. When one asks the question "How do I compose faster?" one is really treating themselves like a machine, the assumption being that the more trial and error, the more one learns. Take this anecdote: While this anecdote addresses the concept of craft, it doesn't really get at inspiration. I believe that the question any artist or composer should really be asking themselves is "How do I enjoy music more?" or "How do I enjoy writing/creating more?". Without addressing this question one is quickly going to crash into a wall called "burnout". The pattern behind one's creative output is likely to become something akin to this: 1) Overexertion 2) Exhaustion 3) Creative stagnation 4) Increased self-doubt 5) Repetition. Asking the question "How can I enjoy music more?" will lead the composer towards music that they want to emulate, setting up a pattern of: 1) Discovery 2) Epiphany 3) New utility 4) Integration (or Refinement) 5) Sharing 6) Repetition (I won't lie, I partially used Google Gemini to help me come up with more healthy creative habit steps)

In the beginning and throughout the piece you set a consistent mood, which for me makes it sound like VGM. But then the way you use rhythms and ornaments from 0:46 on makes it sound more Baroque to me.

Perhaps my most intriguing Muzoracle casting to date - Fred asked the Muzoracle "How will I attain political power?". (Muzoracle is a storytelling/divination tool similar to the Tarot card deck, but with cards with musical concepts and 12-sided Musician's dice and Solfege dice.) My interpretation of the cards and dice are displayed below. Since two strings cards were dealt in the 1st and 3rd position, I used Violin and Cello. In the 2nd position I dealt a Tritone of Percussion so I used a Clavichord. In the 4th and 5th positions I dealt a Major 2nd and a Triad of Voices, so I used choir. If you'd like to find out more about Muzoracle and how castings are interpreted go here: https://muzoracle.net/ This short musical interpretation of Fred's Casting is about a minute and a half long. The piece is in C major since the black musician's die landed on C. I then made the following melodic/harmonic underdrawing that I used in the composition of the music. To fill out the piece harmonically I included Roman numeral interpretations of each of the dyads/positions in the casting. Since the piece starts with strings I used Violin, Cello and Harpsichord in the first three positions. The voices then come in on the 4th and 5th position. The Triad card is normally supposed to be interpreted as a major triad, but since this was a descending casting and the position where the triad card was dealt was descending I decided to interpret it in a negative harmony way, inverting the intervals of the triad downwards, thus producing an E minor triad based on B (Ti). Then, to conclude the piece I reversed the order of the chords in retrograde fashion to land back on the first chord at the conclusion, but reinterpreting it harmonically as a C major 6 chord. I also reinterpreted the triad as a major triad ascending from B (Ti). If you've gotten this far, thanks for reading! And I hope you enjoy listening to this short chamber work I wrote to represent Fred's Casting. Comments, critiques, suggestions, or observations are of course, always welcome. Thanks for listening!

Hi again @olivercomposer! I think with the way you're using the ornaments and little trills here and there, to me it sounds more Baroque now! LoL

Hey @olivercomposer! Nice piano piece! I don't think it's very Chopinesque or Lisztian - but it certainly sounds like Oliver Kovacs! I think your chord progressions are very unique to you and to your by now well defined cinematic style of composing! If you wanted to make it more Chopinesque you could have included more rubato and long drawn-out roulades or fioraturas. Liszt's piano technique is also quite a bit more difficult. But I really enjoyed this piece of music! Thanks for sharing!

Hey @MK_Piano! Great ideas so far! I think what I find confusing about the beginning of your main theme (after the short 4 measure introduction), is that at first it seems like you start the piece on an accompanimental one measure vamp in the strings. So the phrase actually seems to start on measure 6 in the Bassoons. That serves as the antecedent phrase of a musical period. It lasts for 4 measures from bar 6 - 10. That's just fine and dandy, but then the consequent phrase doesn't come in until measure 11 in the Bassoons once again. So it seems like you might be including that one measure vamp again as part of the phrase, in which case it becomes an acephalic five measure phrase. I know Haydn and even sometimes Mozart were known for writing five measure phrases. I am not sure if it is working here. If you are happy with it - definitely keep it! But to me it would sound better if you concatenated the phrasing so that the consequent phrase would start at bar 10. This confusion about the phrase lengths continues into the 2nd iteration of the phrase at measure 18. The phrase starts right on beat one, so this time its not acephalic. But then it continues for five measures from measures 18 - 23 with a slight 3/4 hemiola that's then concatenated to terminate on beat one of measure 23. To me this definitely starts to sound awkward and confusing in the phrasing. When I first listened to the piece without looking at the score, it sounded like you changed meter to 3/4 and then abruptly back to 4/4. I felt lost as a listener, not knowing where the phrase was going rhythmically. So although kinda awesome, the piece does have many structural flaws that confuse (at least this) listener. When the piano comes in on the theme later on in the piece (solo), you do concatenate the phrases to 4 measure phrases and I think that does kinda work better. But I think as far as the big form and macro-tonal plan is concerned, the piece seems to repeat too much. I think if you had included the contrasting 2nd theme in the exposition before doing a 2nd exposition with the piano that would have made more sense. But I have personally never written a piano concerto in sonata form before - I've just written two theme and variations pieces for piano and orchestra. So all my experience is in concertante type piano concerto writing. Thanks for sharing and I hope some of what I had to say was helpful/useful!

In all the years past, the Christmas Event was just an event - not a competition. It was a completely free event with no limitations on ensemble nor duration and no judges, or scoring. The intent was just to channel the spirit of Christmas (or the holidays or winter) in the music in any way the participants saw fit. And there were only two types of badges - participant badges for everyone who submits music and community organizer for whoever bolstered the event through an announcement post and submissions thread. There was never any popular voting or anything like that either. Sure, that's a great idea! Let me know what you think of the Category Definitions in the Competition Reviewing Template that I just added! Thanks for your input!

Thanks for your vote and for voicing your opinions @MK_Piano! We have had this idea at the end of the last formal competition - "Dreamscapes" - which had monetary prizes and an official set of judges. As can be seen at the end of the "Dreamscapes" Satisfaction Survey linked below 5 out of 10 voters in the survey liked the idea of having tiered divisions for entrants of different skill levels. I think one of the problems with this idea is that we can never know if we'll even have enough participants joining the competition to justify having even just two different tiers. And would this also imply that the prize money will be split evenly between the different winners from the different tiers? Or would the more advanced tier get the lion's share of the prize money? But either way, I think from looking at the results (so far) of this 2025 Halloween Satisfaction Survey, the emergent fashion seems to be that people prefer to keep the competitions as casual as possible or just for fun and without monetary prizes. The formatting was optional. All the reviewers were free to use the reviewing template or dump it and make their own. Or just write comments and forget any kinds of categories or numerical scales. In the past when we had official competitions with monetary prizes, the official judges talked to each other about the entries (the composers of which were kept anonymous by me) on a set of competition dedicated discord channels on the Young Composers Spot discord server. We were a team and presented a concerted effort to review all the entries as consistently as possible. And as mentioned above in my response to @Wieland Handke's post, the only thing that needs to be consistent from one judge to another is the differences between the different entries. So that even if each judge rates the entries in a different range of the numerical scale, as long as the differences between the different scores are consistent across the whole set of entries, the scores all get averaged between the judges and produce a fair result. Thanks for your response and sharing your thoughts!

You're welcome! I enjoyed it! First, thank you for voicing your opinion! When we've done competitions with monetary awards and official judges in the past this was an issue that people have brought up. However, ultimately, when the different scores from the different judges were averaged together, as long as the judges tried to accurately reflect the differences between the various musical entries in their scores then once the scores were all averaged together, even if say, some of the judges scored the pieces in a different range of the scale than others, the scoring still worked to accurately reflect the differences in quality between the different entries. In the past when we had competitions with monetary awards, the entrants were kept anonymous by sending their entries by personal message to me. I would then add their entry to the submissions thread. I think in a free contest, this requirement might be too strict. And I personally don't like the idea of keeping the names of the judges anonymous because it discourages discussion and interaction between the judges and the members. Thanks for voicing your opinion!

I think it's harder because for me it's very important to evoke the casting in the music as closely as possible. So I can't always just write the music I want - I have to follow the underdrawing of the casting. Thanks for your review!

I don't how this is still happening but your vote isn't showing up on my end again... 😕

I come to you with yet another Muzoracle casting. Lisa is a friend who has kindly bought me my own Muzoracle set (which lets me do these castings for people I know) and Chromatic Harmonica. Thanks Lisa! (Muzoracle is a storytelling/divination tool similar to the Tarot card deck, but with cards with musical concepts and 12-sided Musician's dice and Solfege dice.) This time Lisa asked me if her new breath notation (based on harmonica tablature) will help others with aphantasia to learn to read music. This is my biggest casting thus far - with 10 positions, so I had to take two pictures of it to capture the whole thing: My interpretation of the cards and dice are displayed below. The instrumentation of the piece was guided by the suits of the cards drawn. Since there were two brass cards drawn in the 3rd and 4th positions, I included Trumpet and French Horn. Then, in the 5th position we got dealt a card in the suit of Woodwinds, so I used a Flute. Then in the 8th position we drew a triad of strings so I used a Violin. And finally, in the 9th position we drew a Soloist of Percussion card so I used a Vibraphone. If you'd like to find out more about Muzoracle and how castings are interpreted go here: https://muzoracle.net/ This short musical interpretation of Lisa's Casting is about a minute and a half long. The piece is in Eb major since the black musician's die landed on Eb/D#. I then made the following harmonic/melodic underdrawing that I used in the composition of the music. I started the piece on a single solitary A note surrounded by Silence since the first card drawn was the Silence card. Then as the piece progressed, I added more notes (Cb, D, and G) and let the piece fall into a rhythm. I used the brass instruments first since they were the first to be drawn. Then the Woodwind card got drawn in the 5th position so I had the flute trill between F and Gb. The strings card gets drawn in the 8th position so that's where the Violin comes in, playing high E major (Fb major since its based on RA) chords as a triple stop. Then I used the Db and Bb to build a Bb half-diminished b9 chord with the Fb major chord on top since the 9th position is a Soloist of Percussion card (Vibraphone). The whole piece repeats before finally ending on the tonic chord Eb major (which I added simply for the sake of the music and a clearer tonal identity). If you've gotten this far, thanks for reading! And I hope you enjoy listening to this short chamber work I wrote to represent Lisa's 3rd Casting. Comments, critiques, suggestions, or observations are of course, always welcome. Thanks for listening!

The competition is now over! Check out the results and winners!

Check out the results and winners!

Ok .. your votes are showing up now. Thanks for voting!