Quarterly Competitions?

How about quarterly competitions? One competition would take place every three months: January, February, March; April, May, June; etc.?

At the start of each competition (on the 1st of January, 1st, of April, 1st of July, etc.), we would start a poll listing these ensembles (or others, these are just examples): choir, flute choir, brass choir, string orchestra, wind orchestra, full orchestra. Members could vote for the ensemble they would like to compose for, and the one with the most votes after one week would become the ensemble for that competition.

During that week, there would be another poll with options for style (these are just examples): Baroque, Classical, Romantic, Film.

Then the competitors would compose their pieces, with these guidelines (once again, these are just examples, not set in stone):

1. The piece must be written for the ensemble most voted for. Entrants can also include up to two instruments that are not technically part of the ensemble. E.g. if the ensemble for the quarterly competition is the string orchestra, the composer could choose to add, say, a flute and harp to the composition if they wish.
   
2. The piece must be written in the style most voted for.
   
3. The piece must be at least 3 minutes long, and no more than 12.
   
4. The piece must be submitted (in the “Submissions” forum) as both a .pdf and an audio file (WAV, mp3, or midi).
   

The pieces would be scored by each judge according to these categories:

• Melodic strength (out of 25)

• Orchestration (out of 25)

• Score (out of 25)

I don’t really want a “creativity” score, because creativity is so subjective. The melodic strength is somewhat of a creativity score though, I suppose…

The three scores would be added together to result in the final score of the piece.

The judges would be selected at the opening of the competition. If they are unable to judge the pieces for any reason, they are responsible for finding a replacement. The judging would take place starting on the 15th of the third month (March, for instance). All entries must be submitted by midnight of the 14th. The pieces will be scored by the 25th. Then the contestants could rejoice (or cry, if need be). Five (or six) days later, the next competition would begin.

Maybe, if the administrators agree, we could have the winner’s piece displayed at the top of the forum webpage over the following three months (2nd and 3rd place as well?). I think this would be a fairly cool prize: for one, the winner’s piece will get a lot of attention and critique; and in addition it would just be cool for the winner to see their piece on display. A prize like that would have no monetary issues, but would be an extra incentive to enter the competition and work hard.

I feel like a competition that regularly took place but took place over three months rather than one might gather more enthusiasm and result in higher quality competitions than monthly competitions.

Micah

I like this idea.

Ditto

Ditto, without styling constraints.

How is this different than the monthyl competitions? How many times have "featured" statuses been offered?

Come on, how bout running what we have in place correctly and effectively.

How is this different than the monthyl competitions? How many times have "featured" statuses been offered?

Come on, how bout running what we have in place correctly and effectively.

Well, it would be similar to the monthly competitions. The only difference is that it would take place over longer time periods (giving more time for quality works to be crafted, as well as making it easier to make sure we can run the competitions correctly and effectively), and the instrumentation for the competition would be chosen by popular vote rather than by one person a month, who may or may not have an idea that people care to compose for. This may result in more competitors for each competition.

I've read several replies from composers saying that they don't want to compete since the time is so limited in the monthly competitions. I also think that several competitors wind up dropping out of the monthly competitions due to unfinished compositions.

Ditto, without styling constraints.

The styling constraints can be removed - I just thought it might help the judges by giving the compositions something in common other than instrumentation.

Okay, here're the issues at hand:

1- It's a good idea to give more time for competitions.

2- It is NOT a good idea to give A LOT more time for competitions. People forget if you put the deadline too far off. One month is plenty of time to write a prompted composition. Perhaps stretching THAT to a bimonthly competition is a good idea.

3- If we were to incorporate another regular-per-amount-of-time competition set, it'd get confusing what with the other set of competitions (the monthly ones) going on concurrently. Perhaps if you instead proposed it on a quarterly/seasonal basis rather than "every three months." Be easier to distinguish, even though it's still a little odd.

4- The judgment guidelines you propose are pretty bad (no offense). They're rigid and confining and could seriously undermine creativity, artistry, and real music. You say you don't want the criteria to be subjective? Music is a subjective art. Those guidelines are on the wrong side of the dichotomy presented in Dead Poet Society, where greatness of art is quantifiable.

5- If we decide by majority vote what sort of composition is to be done, we run the risk of having the exact same competition every three months. Sure you have more participation, but you also have less variety.

My .02

Actually, we've been tossing around ideas similar to this about competitions that are given with longer deadlines. I'll talk to Michael and see what he thinks!

Too much talk no action. It's been like that for a loooong time. Please implement something soon. I also agree though, if we can barely run a monthly competition, I doubt a quarterly competition will be any better.

@ Peter W.

You may be right that three months is a bit long for a competition, and I would have no problem with a bimonthly competition. However, it seems to me that a month, although technically plenty of time to write an excellent work, winds up not being enough time because of school, work, other compositions, etc.

After reading your comment, I agree that my judging guidelines were too confining. What would your recommendation be for a set of scoring guidelines?

The one thing I disagree with you about is the voting. Yes, we run the risk of winding up with the same ensemble for each competition, but if that increases the amount of participants, I think it would be worth it. Also, I really don't think that people will vote for the same ensemble over and over. If I had just spent two months crafting a piece for string orchestra, I would probably vote for brass choir or something I hadn't just been working with.

Micah

@ Peter W.

You may be right that three months is a bit long for a competition, and I would have no problem with a bimonthly competition. However, it seems to me that a month, although technically plenty of time to write an excellent work, winds up not being enough time because of school, work, other compositions, etc.

I personally like the variety, but you do have a point.

I guess my question is are we moving away from monthly comps in favor of longer times, or adding another set of regular comps?

After reading your comment, I agree that my judging guidelines were too confining. What would your recommendation be for a set of scoring guidelines?

That is and should be up to the people in charge of YC competition, namely JF and MA.

The one thing I disagree with you about is the voting. Yes, we run the risk of winding up with the same ensemble for each competition, but if that increases the amount of participants, I think it would be worth it. Also, I really don't think that people will vote for the same ensemble over and over. If I had just spent two months crafting a piece for string orchestra, I would probably vote for brass choir or something I hadn't just been working with.

And we can agree to disagree. It's ultimately not up to me or even you, I was simply submitting my thoughts. :)

Best,

Peter

I personally like the variety, but you do have a point.

I guess my question is are we moving away from monthly comps in favor of longer times, or adding another set of regular comps?

My original idea was just to add another set of competitions, but it doesn't really make a difference to me. Either way would be fine.

I'm newly returning to YC (after a small amount of activity over a year ago), so I'm just suggesting a setup I thought may help result in regular competitions with more participants - and therefore a higher level of competition - than the current monthly competitions.

If my idea catches on and people decide they'd like to try it and see how it goes, I'm perfectly OK with those who have more experience with competitions than I do deciding the final rules, scoring deadlines, etc. of the competition.

Micah