Morivou Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 1) JSANDS: NOCTURNE Sojar Instrumentation – 10 points: I am always excited when composers use strange ensembles. However, a combination without a middle range instrument suggests an improper sonic hole. The inclusion of tuba is a mystery to me. Instead of just being a bass line with double bass, Sands could have used it as a melodic instrument. Take Mussorgsky for example and Bydlo from his Pictures from Exhibition Stylistic adherence – 10 points: Only a few bars suggest romanticism: Piano part is not rich enough (just take Chopin, Liszt or Rachmaninov as the examples), the melody does not progress towards any real climax and other instruments have little role to play. Romantic music is not ambiental, but strong in emotions and uses strong dynamic waves. Development – 5 points: There is only one significant rise of tention in bars 32-40, but does not progress. It is repeated a couple of times and that’s it. Sands should have kept this tention for a longer time. Then the composition returns to previous ambiental mood and stays this way. There is no real contrasting section: piano keeps a leading role, other instruments are always a background. Creativity – 5 points: As I have mentioned, the progress of melody and form is too static for romantic style. Score – 3 points: There are no articulation marks in the score (slurs, staccatos) and the bar 40 is extremely confusing: in cello and violin part Sands wrote “divisi”. The score suggests only one violin (sign “I” should be removed if there are no more violin sections) and one cello. The chords in bar 40 are impossible to be performed on a single instrument. If more violins and cellos are to be used, it should have been written so in the first presentation of the score. Also the tempo marks should be limited to just one on the top of the highest staff. I give some points for a proper use of pedal and dynamics. Audio presentation – 4 points: I can barely hear tuba, and forte moments are too sudden. Otherwise, nothing to say. Essay – 10 points: If the criteria for 10 points is 500+ words, then I’ll give them. But I would erase some points because Sands has a very “interesting” observation of sonata form. Sorry, but I can’t spot sonata form in his Nocturne. Totally: 47 points. Wayne Orchestration: 3/22.5 It's not enough to merely add in an accompanying ensemble as an afterthought, which is what appears to be done, here. When writing for 'piano and x' in the Romantic style, you'll notice that the ensemble or solo instruments usually provide just as much interest, if not a greater amount than, the piano part itself. The tuba was poor choices for this genre: while it did come to prominence during this period, it was generally reserved for orchestral music, and didn't really feature in this kind set-up; in any case, it didn't have much of a role in the piece. Lastly, when accompanying piano, the strings would usually use solo instruments, not a full string orchestra (which I gather is what has been done here due to the 'divisi' sign); unless, of course, it was a concerto or concerto-esque piece, which this is not. I'm scoring low due to the misuse of a poorly chosen ensemble. Stylistic Adherence: 2/30 This was not a Romantic-style piece. Functional harmony was not clearly used as a basis, it wasn't emotionally charged, the instruments didn't receive the melodic and virtuosic roles that would be expected of a composition from this period, &c. Pretty much anything that could fall under the umbrella of Romanticism in the piece happened incidentally/accidentally (note that appending the title 'nocturne' to a piece that doesn't contain any of the qualities of nocturnes of the period doesn't count for anything). The two points I gave were for the section beginning bar 33 and ending at the Adagio mark, which did (more or less) fit with the broader aesthetic notions of the Romantics. Development: 15/22.5 Ignoring the piece's deviation from the given style, I thought that a nice (mostly) continuous and varying narrative could be heard throughout in the piano part. I could pick out beginning, middle, and end, but the 'sections' were quite homogeneous in texture, and could've used a lot more contrast, but the theme did manage to maintain interest through little variations. Creativity: 3/10 Nothing much here in the way of Romantic creativity. Even taken in the abstract (i.e., ignoring the actual details and just focusing on the gestures), the piece seems to make use only of fairly stock moves; however, as mentioned before, I did enjoy the piano's narrative. Score: 3/10 A messy score: Tuba up above the piano with strings below, lack of articulation marks, incorrect placement of the tempo marks, &c. Audio Presentation: 5/5 Nothing fancy, but nothing outlandishly wrong. MIDI isn't a rendering; it's data; and I wouldn't deduct marks simply because someone hasn't got a nice library. Short Essay: 12/15 Ten obligatory points, and two more for the discussion of the piece. Total: 43/115 Aniolel Orchestration: 15/22.5: Style: 25/30: I Devempolement: 22.5/22.5: yes, yes it does. Creative: 7/10: Score: 10/10: audio: 3/5: it was hard to heard the tuba... progman notes: It was not a romantic program note, no points awarded. Johnbucket Orchestration: 3.5/22.5 Lack of economy (calls for a string orchestra; the only measure that calls for one, ms. 40, could be made to accommodate solo strings); most untypical ensemble – calls for string orchestra but curiously lacks a violin II (forgivable; but why the violin I?) and a viola section; material far too sparse to justify the ensemble; calls for a solo tuba, but the tuba is never given a prominent role: also, if the composer meant this to be a a piano and orchestra piece, he should have scored for full orchestra and not this curious reduction; other instruments nearly always bound to the piano: measures 23-24 is the only part of the piece where there is a slight semblance of independent lines; complete lack of articulation for all instruments but the piano – even there, the piano has only accents and one solitary staccato mark in bar 27, which I suspect is to have found its way there by mistake; expression marks appropriate; pedal fine for the most part, but lacks some changes/release where the literature suggests some (e.g. measures 11-12, 27). 2 marks for playable and serviceable piano writing [unidiomatic: bass in measure 6 and treble in measure 7, for example; too sparse for typical Romantic piano literature; sequence in measure 19 has no structural function; clash in notes between the hands (measures 1, 56); hand crossings neither necessary nor idiomatic (measures 41, 42, 44, 57); accompaniment by chords hallmark of the Romantic style, but extremely poor voice leading). 0.5 marks for having the double bass play a low F and not a low D, which would be out of its range. Stylistic adherence: 0.5/30 Complete disregard for common practice voice leading and harmony concerns. Piano writing not idiomatic for the style, let alone exemplary. Again, very poor voice leading and harmony; the initial measures fail to define the key, piece is full of chromatic contradictions (measures 2, 13, 15), chromatics not inflected correctly (measures 3, 21 and 23 for example, and measure 15 is outright wrong). Outlandish ensemble. I would have given 5 marks for the use of ternary form, which is typical of Chopin's, but his describing it as a sonata-allegro leads me to believe that this sole adherence is no more than a fluke. Development: 10/22.5 The material was highly varied; accompaniment was not a simple 'copy-and-paste'; variation of the first for bars of the melody at the beginning of the piece was clever, with the melody proper coming in surreptitiously at bar 5. Measures 21 to 29 were refreshing. There was a sense of form (ternary, with transition to B), but the piece did not seem to go anywhere; A segued well to the transition/climax, but the climax was flat, being repetitions of the same phrase and harmonically constant but for the second, where it sounds (not looking at the score) as though it ends on D minor. The B section is in B flat, which makes the previous climax on B flat bleargh (and stylistically wrong; the climax would most usually be on the dominant (Chopin's C# minor and F# major nocturnes come to mind) or a predominant in an interrupted cadence (Chopin's 13th moves to a diminished 3rd chord re-interpreted as the dominant to the Neapolitan). Much of the middle section seems to be meandering, however. Would have scored higher marks if material was tighter, and if development were done at a larger scale, and if development were cohesive across both large and small musical spans, as in typical in the works of the Austro-German Romantics, Beethoven and Chopin. 7 points for the variations on the melody, and 3 points for the sense of form. Creativity: 3.5/10 Much of it reminds one of derivative film music (the climax stands out; I'll have to look for the others). Scaled the 7 marks for development. 0.5 points for the quirky use of the Neapolitan near the end of the piece. Score: 2/10 Not very neat; treatment of Double Bass as a new system is wrong; some collisions; wrong inflections. Audio: 2/5 As the rest of the instruments were just furniture, I gave this on the basis of the toy-ish sound of the piano. Essay: 10/15 Obligatory. Gross misapprehensions afoot. Total: 31.5/115 2) AUSTENITE: SOUVENIR FROM PEMBERLEY Sojar Instrumentation – 22.5 points: Everything is OK with the cast: a classical trio violin-cello-piano. Their usage is typical for romantic period: octave doublings of melody in violin and cello, rich piano part, often tenor-like singing of cello, arpeggio lines. No complains here. Stylistic adherence – 28 points: When I read the rules for june competition, I immediately knew this would be Austenite’s best chance to show his natural love for 19th century romantic music. Nothing much to say, this is great exhibition of middle 19th century composition, like Mendelssohn or Schumman, without quotations. The usage of A flat major is also typical for romantic period. I also like a little bit more open approach towards tonality later on. The reason I put two points away are some inappropriate harmonic clashes (bar 5) and a little weak usage of important tones in opening section (bass line in bars 9 and 10). Development – 18 points: Austenite had some discomfort with obligated 5-minute duration. The presented matherial would fit better into a 10 minute composition. The second theme of exposition is too short considering the opening and the development and repetition have similar problems. It is hard to write a fitting sonata form movement in just 5 minutes and also have a slow intro and similar coda. Austenite probably did the best he could considering the circumstances. I will not “punish” him for delivering a slightly too long composition. Creativity – 10 points: No complains here. While the melody in the slow opening does not really impress me, I like the way the 1st theme is presented in the exposition. Score – 10 points: No complains there, properly scored. Audio – 3 points: Sorry, I have to take a couple of points away. The acoustic sounds like being played at toilet, and piano is often too quiet. Essay – 10 points: Nicely presented. No complains there. Totally: 101.5 points. Wayne Orchestration: 22/22.5 Straightforward stock ensemble, though I would've liked to see a bit more detailed articulation in the piano-writing. Stylistic Adherence: 26/30 Stepping back and looking at the piece as a whole, there are a couple of things that I thought didn't quite fit with the style. The worst offender (and it actually crossed the line into irritating, for me) was the amount of times the piece stopped and then introduced the given melody. There's generally more flow in pieces of this style, and, even if you were going for variations or something, the amount of stops by themselves were out of character for such a piece, and then the way that they brought the unchanged melody back in every time was absolutely grating. If the piece isn't clearly articulated into self-contained phrase units (as in Classical and early Romantic music), the big pauses are usually for drama, so either try to keep the musical argument flowing, even through sections (a common trait in Brahms' music - there is often difficulty in deciding where one section ends and the next begins), or wind the momentum of the music down before stopping. Another large-scale weakness I found was that the first section, in particular, stayed in the same key all the way to the brief modulation to the relative minor at its end. If you look at the trios you mentioned in your essay, they barely get a few beats of harmonic rhythm in before they're ducking and diving in and out of other keys. Granted, you do employ some secondary dominants; but if you look at some of your examples, you'll see that, while they do use secondary dominants, they often stay in that key region for a time before bringing it back. If you'd suddenly gone to a completely foreign key in the second section and then worked your way back or something, then it would seem more deliberate, but, as it is, it appears as a flaw in the adherence to the style. Also, if you insist on having the second part in the relative minor, it would, stylistically, fit better if you, at least, went through an intervening key, first. Looking at the details then, there are a few weaknesses in the harmony and voice leading. The harmony is mostly fine, with the odd misstep here and there; but it was quite narrow in scope, which is a failing when attempting to write in the freely expressive language of the Romantics; some of the resolutions are deceptive, though, which fits quite nicely with the style. The voice leading, however, is what's really letting you down. Although you can find consecutives in the literature, they're not of this kind. They usually occur between two voices that are playing different types of non-chord tones, or as a result of maintaining a pattern, and, even then, they're usually fifths and not octaves - though you'll find exceptions to everything: there's parallel 8ves resulting from the combination of a retardation and an auxiliary in the sixth last bar of Chopin's Op. 58, and clearly intended parallel fifths near the end of his Op. 30; and in Mendelssohn's Op. 18, you can find fifths between bars 24 and 25, and in 58 (or thereabouts). Yours, however, step outside the range of the tolerable: the Chopin 8ves are tucked into a complex, fast texture, and are theoretically justifiable, the fifths are quite deliberate and, in any case, are on the piano (the uniform timbre makes them less objectionable than fifths between two voices, for example), the latter Mendelssohn fifths result from the maintenance of a specific pattern, but the former are just there; even these ones, however, do not occur between an otherwise independent part and the bass, as yours do. Having the 'cello double the bass voice in trios isn't uncommon, even in an ornamented form, but the amount of times the violin creates momentary parallels with the underlying bass is quite clumsy. I did actually take a lot of for the lack of stylistic detail in the harmony and counterpoint; but the way in which you used the material and the ensemble brought you way back up. Bars such as 67 to 70 and 81 to 83 were very good in terms of utilizing the ensemble in the manner of the composers of the period, and bars 52 to 54 in particular were excellent. Expressive melodies and great textures (such as punctuating, big chords in the piano's right hand, fast arpeggios in the piano, and the 'cello at 80 to 83 were particularly good) really gave the piece a Romantic feel. Development: 18/22.5 Although I didn't like how much both themes were repeated a lot with minimal changes, when they did change they were good. Varying the surrounding texture, too, really helped to give a sense of development. I would've liked to have seen a greater degree of thematic development and tonal variation, though - especially at the recap., where the music could've used a bit more dressing up. The progression of calm, quaint, and rustic to energetic and Romantic was quite good, and a fair attempt was made at bringing it back by winding it down rather than stopping and starting again. Creativity: 7/10 Some nice ideas, but a lot of Romantic creativity stems from utilizing harmonies in clever ways, which this piece did not have very much of (the exception, for me, being bars 52-54). The textures and use of the instruments were quite creative and even, in places, recalled Brahms. Score: 9/10 Generally, fine; but trios such as this usually have the solo instruments' staves smaller than the piano's (see here as an example), and there's an awkwardly spelled Gb that should be F# in there somewhere. Audio Presentation: 3/5 Excessive reverb and upset balance. I suggest uploading MIDI alongside works, in the future, as it can help the listener to get a better sense of the balance of the instruments and the lines come out much clearer, which, combined with the VST's provision of timbre &c., gives a better overall feel for the piece. Short Essay: 15/15 Grand. Total: 100/115 Aniolel Orchestration: 22.5/22.5: T Style: 30/30 Development: 22.5/22.5 Creative: 10/10 score:10/10 audio: 5/5:ts Program notes: 10/5: Johnbucket Orchestration: 20/22.5 Stylistic adherence: 20/30 Development: 14/22.5 Creativity: 6/10 Score: 7/10 Audio: 4/5 Short essay: 15/15 Total: 86/115 3) MUHMIUHMUSIC: ROMANTIC VARIANT Sojar Instrumentation: 15 points. Interesting, but two cellos always “eat” a single viola. The range of instruments is OK, but bare in mind the romantic composers increased the range of cello up to treble. Here, the cellos are stringly in bass-baritone register. Stylistic adherence: 15 points. The music is a bit in hard rock pop style with open fourths and fifths in harmony which is not similar to 19th century Romanticism. Also there Development: 10 points. Formal approach is too free to fit into a form of variations as the title suggests. The composer named the composition also “Romantic variant”. However, it’s not very convincing. The lack of rich and more polyphonic writing is also missing, as well as any serious dynamic waves. Creativity: 6 points. The instrumentation is not exciting enough and focuses to much on same registers all the time. Considering the range the selected instruments have, there is a lot to improve to make it good. Score: 5 points. Again, no articulation marks (legato, staccato). Piano part is always in the bottom of the ensemble cast when used in chamber music, not on the top. I gave a couple of plus points for proper writing for viola. Audio: 5 points. Nothing wrong with midi audio. Essay: 10 points. Nicely presented. No complains there. Totally: 66 points. Wayne Orchestration: 8/22.5 It would be better, if writing for piano quartet, to have instruments that, together, cover a nice wide range; selecting two 'cellos and a viola instead of a violin, viola, and 'cello was a little daring, but you ought to have separated the roles of the two 'cellos more strikingly for it to make sense; as it is, both cellos hang around the same general range which will most likely overpower the viola. The writing for the individual instruments was, overall, not bad; good points include knowledge of string techniques, such as tremolo and pizzicato, and bars 32 and 33 in the piano part (from an instrumental point of view), which gives the nice contrast of a single line on the top punctuated by lower (but not too low) chords; however, there's not nearly enough detailed articulation in the parts. You ought to download diagrams of the instruments to better understand idiomatic and playable writing for them. Also, they don't seem to rise above a supporting role to the piano; if you check out some Romantic quartets or quintets (Brahms in C minor and F minor respectively, if you're interested, as particularly good examples, though any from the period will do), you'll find that the piano and the ensemble (or solo) instruments mostly have completely independent roles in the piece. Stylistic Adherence: 5/30 Though you do seem to have (admittedly, somewhat vague) notions of the general aesthetic ideals of the Romantics, this piece does not fit with the style. The harmony and counterpoint is not common practice; to point out just a few things: the piece contains too many 'empty' chords (chords without thirds), and then, when the thirds are present, they are often doubled, which produces a thick effect; parallel fifths are used prominently throughout and, though you will find some deliberate fifths in Chopin &c., they don't run up and down together as yours do, and the general messiness of the rest of the piece betrays your lack of familiarity with the style and, therefore, reveals them as ignorances (they, in fact, give the piece a 'pop' or 'rock' feel, due to the prominence of fifths and pentatonic figures in these types of music); the instruments do not function in their traditional roles within the style; the bass is very weak (you choose to use the second inversion of chords for no good reason, and then fail to resolve them properly). The imagination is there, though; I suggest finding a good harmony book and working through it to understand how the harmonies of the nineteenth (and twentieth) centuries evolved from those of the Classical and Baroque eras, which will enhance your understanding of music and greatly improve your writing. Development: 8/22.5 Overall, I appreciated the effort, but found it quite weak. Like the attempt at the style, I understand where you were coming from and what you were trying to achieve, but the execution needs improvement. There was some nice little figuration changes a couple of times, but the surrounding texture didn't vary enough; however, I did like the incorporation of the theme in the introduction (or, rather, the seeming-development of the theme from the introduction's material). If you want to look at a nice piece in this vein, I suggest both Schubert's D. 935 (No. 3 in B-flat major) and, of course, the classic Beethoven Op. 120, for a better idea of how to make successful variations. Creativity: 2/10 Not much I can give away marks for, here. The parts were uninteresting and few (counting parts that double other lines as a single part), and there wasn't any rhythmically interesting turns or strong variation. Two points for the nuances and introduction's loose use of the melody. Score: 8/10 Some things were slightly to the left of where they should've been. The ensemble should've been scored on top of the piano, rather than below (your notation program most likely set it up this way automatically because it's the order in which they come in an orchestral score), and, if possible, scaled down so that each staff is smaller than the piano's; see here as an example. Audio Presentation: 5/5 Can't fault MIDI: it's not sound, it's data. Short Essay: 14/15 I would've liked the points to have been a bit more directly addressed; but other than that, it's fine. Total: 50/115 Aniolel Orchestration:20/22.5 style:25/30 Devemploement:22.5/22.5 Score:10/10 Audio:5/5 creative:9/10 program10/15 Johnbucket Orchestration: 6/22.5 Writing was playable across all instruments apart from one pair of slurred notes (bar 17) in the viola which, I think, may be a little awkward as it requires quite a stretch for the fifth finger, but it'd be best if a string player could confirm this; particular issues with the piano writing include complete absence of pedal marks, extremely unidiomatic fifths and fourths [chromatic and (diatonic) scalar fourths are acceptable: i.e., those resulting from parallel 6/3's – see Chopin's Polonaise in A-flat for the former and the first movement of the B minor sonata for the latter] – see measures 13, 26, 30 and 43; ensemble was poorly used, with the viola bound to the right hand part of the piano for the most part, either doubling directly at the octave (ms. 8 foll.), or sketching out an outline of the piano part (ms. 26 and ms. 43 foll.; the former even has parallel fifths); a similar complaint, applied to the left hand part of the piano, is to be made of the 'celli parts: too often, the two blend in with the piano without adding anything, for the parts are clearly derived from those of the piano; in bars 25 and 26, the upper 'cello in the score doubles the right hand of the melody; generally, the idea of musical conversation and complementary rhythms were not present, giving the piece a somewhat too homophonous (I stop short of saying that it is monophonous, which isn't technically true, but it sure comes close) texture, and none of the instruments were used for their strengths. 2 marks for each instrument for playable parts, less 1 mark for each of the issues I pointed out – plus 2 for the effort. Stylistic adherence: 2/30 The piece was not written with common practice conventions in mind; thirdless chords, parallels, both direct and hidden, and poor voice leading (the first few measures illustrate), among other things; some melodic motions not idiomatic (bar 2, viola – F should either be sharped – not possible given the first 'cello's line, or resolve to E, or be changed to D), use of pentatonic lines (the part in the second 'cello, bar 23, is not acceptable). All in all, one point for the use - however poor – of a Romantic form, and one point for the waltz, which was, particularly, a prominent feature of the Romantic style, whereas the Classical style favoured the minuet. Development: 3/22.5 Shoddy copy-and-paste for the introduction. Transition not clearly marked from the variation, and is disjoint from the theme – the most telling mark of when the piece was into the variation was bar 36, because the rhythm inexplicably haltered and stuttered. The variation. Here it becomes a little clearer why some of the lines were pentatonic: the sequence in the given melody is a decoration of a typical pentatonic motion, as is demonstrated in bar 52. All in all, the textures were very dull – the waltz did not sound rhythmically distinct until bar 36 – and the piece did not seem to go anywhere. 2 marks for the transition and 1 for the variation. Creativity: 1/10 Horribly dull rhythms and exceptionally plain use of the given melody. I'd have given more for the change in rhythm; which, while not inventive in itself, is refreshing; but it was poorly executed. Score: 3/10 Neat enough, but lacks articulation and pedal marks and phrasings, so I'll give it a fair score. NB: Wrong layout. Audio: 2/5 Meh. Wall of sound. Short essay: 13/15 Obligatory 10 marks and 3 for a fair essay. Total: 30/115 4) ANANTH: WECSHEL Sojar Instrumentation: 15 points. A song for voice and piano is a popular “instrumentation” in romantic period. However, this is not a soprano part, unless she is a beginner. The range suggests alto or mezzosoprano though. Stylistic adherence: 25 points. There are stylistic collisions between more simple diatonicism and free chromatic writing which sometimes sound a bit strange. There are some exaggerating dynamic contrasts (ppp to sudden f) Development: 18 points. Amazing, but it actually works. A sonata form lied. However, the exposition and recapitulation have the 2nd theme is the same tonality which is not proper for sonata form even if it works for a lied. I was a bit surprised when the recapitulation began in e minor. The melody is too much used as a “copy-paste”, without variations which weakens the purpose of the form. Creativity: 5 points. Too small range for voice makes the lied too long. The melodic lines are also a bit too simple to be effective enough. The text is very expressive and it is not produced well enough in musical terms. Sometimes the text is simply put in some useful notes and that’s just not enough. Score: 10 points. The score is professionally written, no complains there. Audio: 4 points. I cannot properly judge midi for vocal music with text. Considering the circumstances, it is as it can be. Essay: 10 points. Presentation is fine. I praise Ananth to give us the translation of the text. Totally: 87 points. Wayne Orchestration: 19.5/22.5 Mostly well-informed writing for the instruments. A couple of spots in the piano part are quite awkward to play (e.g., ms. 19 has the hands pretty much crashing into each other - you'd be better off amalgamating the two hands' parts, here). The soprano part is, generally, quite dull, and the range is too confined for over three and a half minutes of music (see below). Stylistic Adherence: 25/30 The broad strokes of the style are there, but the attention to detail is often less than exemplary. Even though, when writing for piano, one isn't as concerned with real part-writing as when one is writing for voices, the impression of parallels should, of course, be avoided. Some books on the matter (e.g., Lovelock, Kitson) prescribe far stricter rules than is to be observed in the literature; due to the 'parts'' uniform timbre, they allow free doublings, &c., on the surface, but place restrictions on the progression of the bass, with respect to the other parts, to ensure that students avoid the sense of parallels; but, while this effect is indeed to be avoided, there are a multitude of examples from the classics that show that (contrary to the prescribed necessary avoidance of any implied parallels at all) when the bass is independent, the open effect of consecutives can be avoided as long as they don't occur bluntly in parallel motion (i.e., are figurated, occur by contrary motion, occur between two phrases, &c.); unfortunately, though, your piece often doesn't quite maintain even these loose contrapuntal ideals, and I did find some of the parallels bothersome - bar 16 being a particularly bald example. The harmony was a mixed bag, and the voice-leading often seemed quite clumsy. There were some particularly good points like the prevalence of modulation/tonicization through chromatic movement (bar 37 was simple, but effective), the use of the common-tone diminished 7th chord, and the beautiful deceptive motion to a back-relating dominant (function) from bar 89 to 90; other good little stylistic features include the accented auxiliary in bar 25 and the anticipated bass in bar 42. Nonetheless, there were quite a few weaknesses, and even whole departures from the style. Obvious examples include the sudden upset of the progression in measure 17, the ill-paced tonicization of the dominant from bars 30 to 31 (and 103 to 104), and the teeny-tiny cross-relation in 35 (and 108). On a larger scale, the initial choice of the dominant major for the second section was quite stylistic; but the lack of a return to a related key for the recapitulation of the first section sounded a little off; I could've used either more or less stability (i.e., have it in a related key or don't plant yourself so firmly in E minor), but, as it is, it sounds weak. On the soprano part: I thought that it was a little restricted and boring. This lied is quite long for such a confined space, and there were moments, especially in the second section, when the part sounded as though it needed to stretch its legs a little bit, for some contrast. No doubt you'll find lieder that encompass only this vocal range, but I think it's reasonable to consider context, and this one sounds as though its strict span needs to be freed up. Quite a bit of Schubert and Brahms often glides comfortably up to a G5, G#5, or A5, and, in extreme cases, lieder have been known to even go up to a Bb5 or B5 (e.g., Schubert D. 965, Fauré Op. 23, and Wolf No. 19 from Goethe-Lieder), whereas your 'climax' is just an E5 (an F5 does appear as an ornament, though). Going down as far as a B4, Bb4, or even A4 is not unheard of, either, if you insist on restricting the upper range, which I think might suit the piece better. Development: 14/22.5 I wasn't crazy about the piece's use of material. Though thematic fragments are taken and rehashed, I don't get a sense of momentum from the piece's use of this; in Brahms, as an example, you can see that he takes little motives and uses them very deliberately as wind for the sails, rather than just to keep the boat afloat, which is the feeling that I get from this piece; it's long enough to warrant some development of this kind. As an example: the texture of the passage from 28 to 31 could've been, at its second appearance, elongated and used to push the music tonally further than it did the first time, but it instead appears as a direct repetition. Although the vocal line is, sometimes, varied where material is repeated, there are spots (e.g., bar 98) where the verbatim repetition of the melody was very tiresome; I felt that it was crying out for something to vary it to make that figure seem less perennial. The tonal development was quite nice and varied, though; consistent with the style, the piece quickly establishes the key and, without further ado, begins exploring other regions. Creativity: 3/10 Nothing brilliant to report. There were some nice harmonic twists and turns here and there, but I didn't find much that I'd call creative; anything that approached being out-of-the-ordinary seemed too inelegant to be properly extraordinary. The only move that really gave me any pleasure (besides the lovely back-relating diminished 7th I mentioned earlier) was the resolution of the 49's 6/4 suspension over E in tandem with that E stepping up to F (making the progression, in C, IV - bII#6/iii - iii6/4 - V4/2), thwarting the expected modulation to A minor (though I would've preferred if the bass of the German 6th on the flattened supertonic of the mediant - or the standard German 6th in A minor, possibly, at that stage - resolved). The melody wasn't really creatively used, either; it was, rather, cut up and twisted to the point of being almost unrecognizable. Just as an example, what I think would've been nice is if you'd extended your tonicization of C minor (before the second section), all the while deceptively making it sound as if this was going to be the new key area, far enough to tonicize its Neapolitan, and then have the second section in that key (thereby deriving a key centre from a Leittonwechselklänge - i.e., wechsel!); you could then, after a while, use this key area to briefly fulfill the listener's initial expectation of the relative major before moving on, as is common in Brahms, for example. Score: 9.5/10 Not much to complain about, here. Some of the slurs could've used little adjustments (they often just about overlap other elements of the score or come right down on top of some notes) and the cautionary accidentals with the ties were unnecessary and caused ugly overlaps. Page 6 was a little cramped. Audio Presentation: 5/5 MIDI. Short Essay: 12/15 Not terrible. I counted the English translation of the poem in the word-count, 'cause I'm a nice guy. Total: 88/115 Aniolel Orchestration:22.5/22.5 Style30/30 Development: 22.5/22.5: creative:10/10 score:10/10 Audio: 5/5 Program: 10/5 Johnbucket Orchestration: 15/22.5 Stylistic adherence: 20/30 Development: 13/22.5 Creativity: 3/10 Score: 9/10 Audio: 3/5 Short essay: 3/15 Total: 66/115 5) IAMIVAN: TAKES ON A GIVEN THEME Sojar Instrumentation: 15 points. String quartet is always a useful combination. However, romantic period used all instruments freely. Here, violin I is too much in leading position and other instruments don’t have enough space for their own expression. Plus, pauses “sound” good as well. Using full ensemble all the time makes the composition less interesting. Stylistic adherence: 17 points. Not bad. There are some similarities with Shostakovich (which is somehow a bit of romantic composer) in free use of chromaticism and free harmonic language. Other problems have been mentioned before, at the instrumentation, so I will not repeat them. Development: 10 points. The motif is always repeated, without any serious progress, which is irritating. There is no real contrast in the movement as well. Even if the form has baroque proportions, one should observe the development of single motif in Bach’s fugues for example. Creativity: 5 points. Nothing new to say, I have already mentioned everything considering instrumentation and form. Score: 3 points. If I see viola part written in bass clef again, I’ll spit in anger! Plus legato slurs are missing. Audio: 4 points. The cello sounds funny in low register. Otherwise OK. Essay: 10 points. Nice presentation. If only music would sound better, though... Totally: 64 points. Wayne Orchestration: 0/22.5 The piano was not used, and this was a requirement for the competition. Otherwise, a good choice of ensemble to use. Something to keep in mind when choosing an instrumentation (especially when writing in a specific style or style-period), though, is that certain idiomatic writing is implied by the choice (see below). The main thing is to vary the texture more by letting it breath. Having all the instruments playing nearly all the time is too heavy and monotonous to maintain for an entire piece, and the music needs clear-cut changes in texture to provide relief and to help give it a more clearly-defined form. Stylistic Adherence: 10/30 A fair attempt. The writing is clearly somewhat informed but incipient: the first four bars alone show some study of harmony, as they make use of a (slightly flawed) clear tonal progression, including a secondary dominant; however, some weaknesses have crept into the writing: in the first bar, it would be acceptable either to raise the second violin to an F or bring the 'cello up to a C, as these would respectively progress i5-6 - iv and i - i6 - iv (with some cheeky ornamented ornaments in the melody), but what you've written , i - vi6/4 - iv, isn't an idiomatic tonal progression; the second bar's G in the first violin is neither a harmonic tone nor a stylistic non-harmonic one; there's unnecessary consecutive octaves between this bar and the next, the third of the chord is doubled for no good reason in the third bar (because of the mentioned consecutives) which then leaves out the A of the viio7/v; and the third to the fourth bar is missing a leading tone on the last beat and has consecutives between the outer voices. The writing on the larger scale, in general, is quite out of the style. The melody-and-accompaniment texture, featuring the first violin, treats the other instruments as merely ancillaries. This type of writing is a characteristic feature of the Classical period, but by the Romantic era, composers had freed up the other instruments' roles into ones equally important with the first violin's to provide a much richer interplay of voices, which resulted, combined with their much more freely colourful use of harmony, in a much more expressive type of string quartet. The sequential treatment of material in this fashion, as well as the nearly uniform rhythm is quite foreign to the Romantic style; it is usually to be found in earlier eras. Dvorak Op. 106 is an example of a quartet with an obviously Classicaly-influenced aesthetic, from this era, which manages to expresses Classical ideals whilst embracing the freedom and expressiveness of romanticism, if you want to take a look at how this is achieved. Development: 8/22.5 Not that much substantial development, here. The melody doesn't really flourish and the rhythm and texture is, broadly, quite homogeneous throughout. Creativity: 2/10 Not much in the way of creativity present in this piece. The imagination is there, I believe, but this won't flourish into full blown creativity until you have a better handle on musical grammar. Score: 5/10 The viola is generally read in the alto clef; the bass clef appears, here - that's what most of the marks have been deducted for (that's a big thing!). The tails of the p's are cut off in the dynamic marks, which is weird, because one of the examples in your essay contains one which is perfectly fine. Audio Presentation: 4/5 Not bad. I suggest also uploading MIDI, though: the balance obtained through a MIDI rendering is much better than a plug-and-play VST, usually, and the combination of the two can give you a better idea of the piece than just one or the other. Short Essay: 5/5 Fine essay, but below the threshold for extra points. I liked the inclusion of examples. Total: 34/105 Aniolel Orchestration: 22.5/22.5- Style: 25/30- Development: 22.5/22.5 Creative: 10/10 Score: 10/10 Audio: 5/5 program: 3/5: Johnbucket (Due to the fact that a piano is required in this competition, this piece will be scored 0, but I've left my scores as what it would have been) Orchestration: 13/22.5 The first piece in this order of reviews that has some impression of counterpoint; being able to hear more than one functional voice was certainly a welcome change. All instruments had their moments in this piece; the homophonic A1 section contrasts well with the more contrapuntal and sequential A2 section (nice commentary from the 'cello), although the violin II part was still somewhat bound to the violin I part; the sequence in the B section has the instruments passing the baton to the above instrument, which was nice the first time (from the 'cello to the viola), but it got tiresome. Too much emphasis given to the first violin; measures 35-40 were the only ones in which it clearly played a subordinate role. While measures 48-58 and measures 61-71 were a welcome change from the droning rhythm, they lacked an individual contour in the sense that they moved with each other in the same direction, which is an outgrowth of your predisposition to sequences; measures 53-58 and 65-66 are examples. You should write with greater contrast in rhythms across the parts – see Mendelssohn's op. 102 no.3 for the wonders of what a little clarity in rhythm and motion can do for a sequence, and here he quickens the pace of the harmonic changes in the last two bars of the sequence to keep things interesting. All in all, an acceptable effort; 2 marks for each instrument (here violin II is independent enough of an entity to justify the 2 marks), 3 marks for an appropriate ensemble, and 3 for the effort, less one for the inclusion of an arco mark when there was no contradicting pizz. mark ('cello, bar 34). Stylistic adherence: 9/30 Curious hybrid of popular music and baroque idioms. Such droning, mechanical, marching-band esque rhythms are not to be found in romantic music; neither are the Bach-ish ascending fifth harmonic sequences of the sort here: harmonic sequences can be found in the works of Schumann (the last movement of his second piano sonata in G minor has some sequences which sound like those here), Schubert (last movement of D.958 and first movement of D.959) and even Chopin (his fourth etude in C-sharp minor and his eighteenth in G-sharp minor), but generally Romantic composers preferred melodic sequences (e.g. più mosso from Chopin's C-sharp minor waltz). The form was not a Romantic one – it bears more resemblance to popular music – and there are numerous harmony and voice leading issues [unacceptable parallel fourths in measure 31, wrong bass note (or a very poor pedal, at least) on the second quaver of the sequence starting on bar 8). Again, rhythm was very stiff for the better half; the only Romantic piece which I can think of that has a similarly unwavering rhythm is the first movement of Schumann's first sonata in F# minor, but generally Romantic pieces were very inventive with rhythm. Phrases were alright but the sequence, which was perhaps too square for a Romantic piece.The piece is, as a whole, tonal with popular music inflections [the move to #iii (your second violin should really be playing E's on the sixth quaver onwards) in measure 5, for instance; measures 59-60 sound particularly so]; there was evidence of some understanding of functional harmony, despite the numerous mistakes. 10 marks for that, and less one for the fact that it ends in the wrong key (the subdominant). Development: 8/22.5 The treatment of the given melody was very dull, melodically; the sequential motif is repeated quite a bit, there was no real melodic development, save for the derivation of the sequence motif, and the piece did not seem to go anywhere (but there is a sense of return). Bars 48-60 (which is similar to what a bridge is in popular music), while derived from the melody, sounded almost as if it were an irrelevant aside. The extended sequence from measure 33 onwards was very meandering and nebulous; there did not seem to be a key to which the motion drives, and it was overwrought. As an illustration, the sequences in Chopin's G-sharp minor etude, had a very clear harmonic progression: it starts from the major mediant, moves to the subdominant, and lands on the diminished seventh leading tone chord, after which there is a long descending chromatic movement, as in your piece, but this one has a sense of resolution to the dominant seventh. While yours begins and ends on the tonic, it's as if whatever comes in between is of no consequence. Also, you have the beginnings of an imitative episode in measures 61 and 62, but it fizzled out without being fleshed out. What distinguishes this entrant is his deployment of the rhythm from the given melody as in bar 5 of the melody; so - 3 for the sequences and imitation, 3 for the motif of the sequence and 2 for the rhythm. Creativity: 2/10 Not much to give considering the dull rhythms and poor treatment of the melody. Score: 3/10 Less two for the shying away from the alto clef, and less one for the odd dynamic marks, but add one for the staccati (more if the composer had just written staccato, which would be aesthetically preferable). Audio: 4/5 Acceptable, and I like that I can hear the 'cello. Short essay: 4/15 Very thoughtful to include extracts; unfortunately, this did not extend to counting the words for the judges' convenience. A quick estimation yields somewhat less than 500 words, however. (What a great idea it was to have 10 for the number of words and 5 for the essay) Total: 43/115 6) JOSHUA HARTON: ROMANTESQUE Sojar Instrumentation: 15 points. The selection of the instruments is excellent. Too bad the composer did not experiment more with such cast though. Stylistic adherence: 8 points. Much like Sand’s score, this one is also too ambiental to be really approaching Romanticism. No ups and downs in dynamic waving, no progress towards anything... There is nothing much to add. Development: 5 points. I understand Joshua wanted more, and I admire his cajones to published what he managed to complete. It is a sort of a b a form which sounds like an opening of something which was attempted to expand. Creativity: 5 points. The instrumentation is transparent and all three instruments are pretty independent. The harmonic relations, although predominantly diatonic don’t seem to be too important for Joshua’s formal progress. Score: 3 points. The composers will have to prepare full scores, not just for such monthly competitions, but for practical purposes as well. Again, the horn is not transposed as it should have been (in F, one fifth lower) and articulation marks (slurs, staccatos) are not in the score. Also the diminitive dynamics in oboe are very long and have no orientation: it’s probably “piano” later but nothing similar in other instruments. Audio: 5 points. No complains there, it’s OK as much as midi can be. Essay: 0 points. No essay, nothing to evalue. Totally: 41 points. Wayne Orchestration: 13/22.5 An odd, but nice, choice, by my estimation. The arranging for the piano didn't seem very well done, though: idiomatic-writing wasn't taken advantage of and proper articulation marks are missing, while others are misused. The writing for the solo instruments was fair, but, like the piano, could've used more detailed articulation. Stylistic Adherence: 5/30 This isn't in the style. The general character of the piece doesn't fit with the aesthetic of the Romantics, and the harmony and use of instruments does not fit with the style at all. I could go on pointing out this and that, but I think that the writing makes it clear that the knowledge isn't there, yet, that's necessary for this to be of any use. I suggest picking up a good harmony book and working through it and reading scores. This will make writing more fluent and will greatly enhance your understanding of music in general. Development: 9/22.5 A good attempt. I realize that this was meant to be longer and, so, didn't reach it's full development; but I've given some marks for obvious thematic working. Creativity: 5/10 A chamber tone poem isn't really usual, but I think it's a fine idea. Some creative imagination is also displayed. Score: 9/10 Score is generally fine; but chamber music including the piano like this usually has the solo instruments' staves smaller than the piano's (see here as an example). Audio Presentation: 4/5 Not too bad. VSTs can, sometimes, horribly distort the balance and blur some of the features of the music, though; I suggest uploading MIDI alongside a VST rendering to give listeners a chance at piecing together the music properly. Short Essay: 1/5 Not much of an essay, but I'm giving one point for the description of the piece. Total: 46/105 Aniolel Orchestration: 18/22.5 Style: 15/30 Development:11/22 Creative: 10/10 Score:10/10 Audio:5/5 Program:1/5 Johnbucket Orchestration: 10/22.5 The choice of ensemble here, both in scale and the exact instrumentation, is untypical of Romantic tone poems in the former and without precedent in the latter; as noted below, the term is mostly reserved for orchestral works, but I note that Scriabin has written a couple of Poems for solo piano; programmatic music for chamber music did not take root until the very turn of the 19th century (Schoenberg's Transfigured Night was written in 1899). This very ensemble is exceptionally rare, but not unseen; there are at least 5 works, four of which are very late 19th century and one of which is early 20th century scored so. In any case this ensemble escaped the notice of the preeminent composers, and perhaps rightly so: the oboe has a sharp and queer tone which probably did not blend well with the upper ranges of the piano. To the music now: I see no breaches of range, and there are no quick passages for either woodwind or brass; the valved horn, which allowed 'opened up a great deal more flexibility in playing in different keys', was invented in the early 20th century, and that led to later developments which allowed the chromatic passages here. I liked the use of complementary rhythms in bars 4-5, and the lines were clear throughout, despite your use of parallel fifths – bars 10-11 are examples, parallel 6-4's (measure 7). This was probably too short a composition for you to have displayed the strengths of any individual instrument, but it was decent as a whole. 10 marks would be fair. Stylistic adherence: 7/30 One associates the form 'tone poem' with a large-scale programmatic orchestral work, which are -in Listz's - usually in cyclic form, with thematic transformation as the main mode of development, at least in those of Liszt and Strauss. That the piece did not stick to this tradition represents a departure from Romantic norms. The composer avers that he 'tried to use some 7ths and 9ths while maintaining a mostly traditional harmony', but it must be understood that sevenths and ninths most usually had contrapuntal meaning in real part-writing, with the non-resolution of the seventh infrequent, and the use of sonorities from the literal stacking of thirds was not common until the 20th century; thus, the second quaver of bar 10, and bar 13, for example, are unacceptable – in bar 10, the D (a – in correct treatment- passing second) in the right hand of the piano does not resolve to C, and in bar 13, the oboe (in this case a fourth suspended above the bass) should move to G# on the third beat, and the D (now a passing seventh) must move to E before the next bar. The piece, as a whole, is tonally ambiguous – bars 1 to 3 were muddy, bars 7-13 are in A minor, the next 8 in E minor, and the last two a forced cadence on C major. While it is alright to not begin on the tonic (we term this an incomplete progression, naturally), you should confirm your tonic at the end of the progression, at least; here the piece begins in the dominant of A minor, moving through a passing ii (again with incorrect resolutions, but it's not entirely your fault,as it's the motif) and a passing VI 6 (the augmented third is most unusual, but again) to a V 6/4 – but you don't end in A minor. Now, I'd like to think you were being clever in the sense that you presaged the irregular ending on C major with this phrase, but your spelling of some accidentals make me doubt that you've had anything but a nascent understanding of music. What is interesting is the use of an augmented sixth in bar 6; this is correct in and characteristic of the late Romantic period. Six points for the acceptable harmony in between, one point for the augmented sixth and no points for the lack of any adherence to a Romantic period form. Development: 10/22.5 The competitor displays quite a flair for motivic development: we have an augmentation and a double augmentation of the motif at the onset of the piece, stacked upon each other; bars 4-5 was a clever use of the head of the melody; bar 18 has an augmentation of the head split across the oboe and piano. But there are only so many marks to be given for that; with no contrasting sections or semblance to a form whatsoever, there was no development on the larger scale. I suggest you take a look at Liszt's and Strauss' tone poems, Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique and Schoenberg's Transfigured Night to get an idea of how great composers combined – what is called – 'tone painting' with musical logic. Creativity: 3/10 The treatment of the motif was inventive, but I really couldn't care less for the pop-music like harmony (the first few bars and the last two are the ones which I'm thinking of to be specific), and one has to make that distinction, as in the fine arts, between genuine brilliance and the overexcited mess of an amateur (this comment is made with regards to the form). Scaled the marks from development. Score: 2/10 The oboe and horn staves should be reduced in size. You should have the horn part notated in line with the standard practice of the Romantic era, given the subject matter of the competition – that entails having the notes written in treble clef a perfect fifth above concert pitch and having the notes written in bass clef a perfect fourth below concert pitch. Your bar numberings are odd (you have them above each instrument), and some of your hairpins, which were spread across systems, were unappealing aesthetically; use cresc. and decresc. Instead. Bar 8 has a hairpin where the lines do not intersect. The final bar should have only three beats (one has gone to the anacrusis); if you want the doubly dotted crotchet, your anacrusis should only be a quaver's breadth, but that is not the case. Audio: 3/5 A fair score. Short essay: 2/15 Not elaborate, but fair enough. Total: 37/115 7) TJS1977: UN BALLO IN MASCARA Sojar Instrumentation: 20 points. This is a perfect romantic ensemble cast. I like the inclusion of clarinet which has really flurished in 19th century. The instrumentation is well balanced, no complains there. I am worried about fast changes between arco and pizzicato in b section. Computer can produce everything, but real players cannot. Take bar 59 for example. Stylistic adherence: 28 points. This is an early romantic period music which slightly reminds me of Rossini or opereta composers. It is mostly good but some sections remind me of modern, Clayderman-like music (bars 83, 84) which is slightly inappropriate. Some harmonic resolutions (from bar 6 to bar 7) are too strange considering the usually “normal” tonal progression. Development: 17 points. The a-b-a form is always good for a short duration composition. Nevertheless when recapitulating a section, the theme is not variated, which makes the composition too much “copy-paste” like. Fortunately, TJS_1977 progresses fastly towards coda which makes things more acceptable. The contrasts between a and b are OK, but the instrumentation is perhaps a bit too similar all the time. No real ups and downs there. I believe TJS_1977 was aware of this so he compensates well enough with short form. Creativity: 10 points. Lovely and beautiful. Works well in every aspect. No complains there. Score: 3 points. Sorry, but the presentation of score is awful. When a composer specifies an A clarinet, the transposition should be created. There are no articulation marks in the score, and viola is written in treble clef all the time while it should have been written in alto clef. I don’t know why the composer didn’t do that. After all, this is only one simple click. Audio: 4 points. The presentation sounds like a clarinet, piano and bigger string orchestra. Considering the score, there is only one string instrument. So the usage of orchestral strings is inappropriate. Otherwise a presentation is OK with acoustics and balance. Essay: 10 points. Enjoyable reading. Totally: 92 points. Wayne Orchestration: 21/22.5 Generally, quite excellent. The ensemble is absolutely perfect; piano quintets are popular in this era, and the inclusion of the clarinet instead of the second violin was very well chosen, as it began to become quite a popular instrument at that time. The use of the ensemble is great, too; each ensemble instrument provides its traditional role and makes use of idiomatic figures; though the piano does seems a little confined at times, the piece does show a knowledge of its typical function within this genre, and it often seems to be restrained rather than lacking. I would've liked to have seen slurs used, though. Stylistic Adherence: 29/30 I thought that this was a nicely-styled Romantic piece. A strong knowledge of harmony is displayed throughout; and I particularly liked the cleverly varied progression at bar 99 (as opposed to bar 12), the quick cycle of dominants from 118 to 122, as well as the creative resolution of the 6/4, afterwards. The elegant harmonic creativity found in Romantic music is often present, but I think that the amount of times that we are handed what's expected outweighs the stylistic deception common in Romantic-period music; I would've liked some more deceptive resolutions that created ambiguity and suspense about which key we're going to; as it stands, there's rarely any mystery about this. It's possible to have all the details in place but fail to provide an overall picture, but I think that this piece really gave a really nice sense of the Romanticism. Not only, I felt, did it manage to capture the style, it manged to sound, rather than Romanticism through the eyes of the 21st century, like a Romantic using the music to capture the sense of a programme; bars 27-30, for example, were a perfectly fine transition, yet aside from that, it's hard to imagine a more perfect way to depict the mounting excitement of the ball than the rising chromaticism within a sustained harmony used here. I could go on and on, but I feel that you obviously knew exactly what you were doing. Other honourable mentions include the syncopation in measures 29 to 33, the 'sigh' in the harmony in 85 and 137, and the acclerando at 118. Development: 22.5/22.5 Do I need to say it? I thought it was just great. The sections were well controlled, motives were clearly used and reused throughout (the bass of bar 57 was a really nice touch) in recognizable but fresh ways, the theme was developed quite nicely, the middle section was a nice change (though a real rendition would display this better), the return of the A section incorporated some great changes. Creativity: 10/10 Full marks for a piece bursting with creativity. Score: 8/10 A couple of crashes between different elements of the score (e.g., bar 162). Chamber pieces such as this generally have the solo instruments' staves smaller than the piano's, though; see here as an example. Audio Presentation: 4/5 Not too shabby; I always recommend also uploading MIDI, though, too, as a better balance is obtained through this rendering, and having the two gives the advantages of both. Short Essay: 11/15 Ten points for being 500 words, and one point for an 'essay' that didn't really address what was asked. Total: 105.5/115 Aniolel Orchestration: 22.5/22.5 Style: 30/30 Development:22.5/22.5 Score:10/10 audio5/5 Program: 15/15 Johnbucket Orchestration: 20/22.5 Mostly fine writing. Piano part was idiomatic. Stylistic adherence: 26/30 I thought the central section was a little too reminiscent of certain Beethoven/Mozart sequences (The fourth sonata in E flat major, 2nd movement, and "Ah, vendicar, se il puoi, giura quel sangue ognor!" from Don Giovanni, respectively) – especially the latter. I didn't think (though I may be wrong) that having the central section in the supertonic was common in that era, however. I thought that the melodic lines could have been made smoother – bars 15 and 16 for the clarinet part is an example. I like that you've chosen the waltz as the form for your piece, but – although yours follow the plan of a waltz I note that Chopin's waltzes usually have two sections in the A section, like A1A2A1 for the Minute Waltz and the Grand Valse Brillante (the first, in E flat). Development: 18/22.5 The clarinet melody had a clear connection to the melody provided, so some good amrks for that. I thought that the first section was underdeveloped – it segued to soon to the central section – and that the second section didn't really go anywhere (going by the ear, I heard that it goes from D major to B minor and then to a preparation for the return to C major, but it was basically a phrase followed by a sequence, and this is then repeated). I liked the move to E major before the coda, but I thought the coda could have been better written – the climax (bars 124-129 of it, I mean) was a little static (although, looking at the score, it's interesting, harmonically), and the ascent was a little dull (although I understand it reflects the rising sequence of the melody). I thought that having the climax of the melody in the coda was a clever choice. Not too bad, though. Creativity: 7/10 The modulations were fresh and surprising in this one, and they fit well into the greater architecture of the piece. Again, I like the clever use of the given material, which – as Schindler, thought notoriously unreliable as he was – was transformed from Schusterfleck to something listenable. Unfortunately, you have to do more with your sequences, and you need to be equally inventive in smaller musical spans for me to give you higher marks. Score: 6/10 The score is not very neat, and expression marks should have been written in bold. Understandably, bracketed accidentals like that in bar 45 is a technical mishap on Sibelius's part, but you are bound to correct it. Also, the 1 in Violin 1 was unnecessary. Audio: 4/5 One of the better realisations I've heard. Short essay: 10/15 Irrelevant. But you get the 10 marks. Total: 91/115 FINAL RESULTS: 1.TJS: 403.5 2. Austenite: 402.5 3. Ananth: 356 MuhMuhMusic: 247.5 IAMIvan: 239 Jsands: 204 Joshua: 194 ;) Quote
Morivou Posted July 9, 2012 Author Posted July 9, 2012 WOW! A close three top places! Congrats to all, especially to TJS_1977! Quote
EileenDances Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 Wow, it's a nice competition what you're having here :) ! Loved it! I'm trying to listen to all the pieces that entered this contest. Just a question: why are some pieces missing the score from every judge? I hope that didn't affect the outcome. Quote
wayne-scales Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 Johnbucket's scores for two of the pieces weren't posted. I'll get them and edit the post. Quote
Austenite Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 Congrats to TJS - his piece was indeed kind of the competition's "dark horse" which ended up carrying the race. 1.TJS: 403.5 2. Austenite: 402.5 Another one-point loss. What else could be expected? 1 Quote
Morivou Posted July 10, 2012 Author Posted July 10, 2012 Whoops! That was my bad. Luckily it didn't change things. hahaha. Sorry! Quote
TJS Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Thanks, Morivou, Austenite, and Ananth. And, of course, a thank you to the judges who took the time to write their insightful reviews of our pieces. Sojar, you must have looked at my piece right away and then not checked it again. I had initially made a mistake with the score and then posted the correct transposed score before 7 or 8 p.m. on July 3rd. (Morivou had given me permission so long as I didn't make any other alterations.) 1 Quote
TJS Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Incite what? :ermm: Oops. No better way to celebrate than to make oneself look like a fool almost immediately.... Quote
Menelik Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 :lol: This Austenite guy gets robbed again. Did Bob Arum get himself involved at any point? 1 Quote
Sojar Voglar Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Very much expected first three places, as the quality of these works considerably overpowers the other four. 2 Quote
Austenite Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Did Bob Arum get himself involved at any point? Nah, it was just that TJS's piece was good enough. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.