Results: September-October Competition, 2013

Note: Sorry for the wait, entrants! After a month of waiting, low activity, and many dropouts, here are the final results.

Judges: danishali903, Stirling_Radliff

Entrants:

1. NRKulus: 177pts.
2. Austenite: 173pts.
3. Sonataform: 142pts.

Congratulations NRKulus!

danishali903's results

Preface: Thank you to all the entrants that actually submitted an entry fro this competition. All your compositions were unique and wonderful and made judging this competition really fun. All my comments/judgments are purely subjective and I didn’t mean to offend anyone personally (if you felt like you were offended). On a more serious note: I know we had like 10 entrants signed up (originally had more), but some had to drop out and they stated their intentions well before the deadline. As you all can see, only 3 entries were submitted. Frankly, I think it is plain rude and unprofessional for people to commit to something and then not deliver in the end, and it also destroys the spirit of what these competitions are intended to be. Having said that, I hope there is much more participation in the future from everyone who obliges to these competitions.

Sonataform: Waltz in Three

Creativity: Probably the most unique entry of all the compositions submitted. The use of three diverse instruments, at three different tempi, with some odd little quirks makes this waltz very exciting to listen to. I think this could possibly work in a live situation, though it will definitely be somewhat difficult to coordinate. I think to make this piece even more exciting (and nightmarish for the players) would be to deviate from the usual 3/4 once in a while, but that’s just me. 35/40

Structure and Coherence: From what I could pick up, there is a somewhat “conservative” ABA ternary structure to this unusual piece. I don’t if its just me, but it also felt like that the “randomness” of the three pieces in the beginning seems to almost converge into a unified tempo around the 1:20ish mark in the recording, and then starts to devolve back into the “randomness”.  I think you could’ve developed the piece a little more (hence be a little longer), but it’s still impressive you managed to keep everything together. I also felt like the ending was too sudden and didn’t have a proper conclusion. 15/20

Instrumentation: Definitely an odd combination of instruments. Though I felt like you might have played it a little too safe with them. I felt like the cello could have less pizzicato and more arco, or some more melodic moments in general. 18/20

Score Quality: Well technically, you don’t a proper score…just three different parts for the instrumentalists. Though I understand that it’s hard to compile a score using traditional music software (I can’t do it…), I HAVE seen pieces like this in score form. 6/10

Audio Quality: Sounds great. Would REALLY love to hear a live performance. 10/10

TOTAL: 84/100

Austenite: Waltz (Allegro sferzante)

Creativity: Very quirky indeed! I found the piece to be quite humorous, but sorta in a dark, ironic way. I could hear the influence of Mahler, Struass, and Shostakovich (you even quoted them!). It’s almost like you pay homage to all the old waltzes by twisting them into something very distorted whilst adding your own original waltz, almost like a ‘danse macabre’. You also keep the listener on their toes by unexpectedly switching the usual 3/4 time signature into 5/4 or 2/4. I also like this “darker” style and I hope you continue to explore with it in the future. However, I believe you could’ve gone more “weird” in this work and added more crazy-ness (be it more crazy instrumentation, more weird rhythms, or just crazy plain writing). 33/40

Structure and Coherence: As you mentioned in your notes, there is a ternary form structure. The piece is also unified by a recurring motif that is passed around the orchestra. I do think that each section could have had more distinctiveness, but that’s just me. Also, I know you intended for the chord to be unresolved at the end, but it came off us really randomly and sudden. Maybe put a heavier ritenuto at the end. 17/20

Instrumentation: As always, you’re great at writing for an orchestra. However, for this competition, I wouldn’t consider the instrumentation as “weird”. Though I do give you credit for using timbres that evoke a sense of creepy-ness. 15/20

Score Quality: As always, a very finely produced score! 10/10

Audio Quality: It was ok. I felt like the strings were TOO soft most of the time. 8/10

EXTRA BONUS POINTS FOR PROGRAM NOTES: 5

TOTAL: 87/100

NRKulus: Garden of Shadow and Sorcery: Fantasy Waltz

Creativity: You create a very cinematic, fairy-like atmosphere. Almost reminds of Danny Elfman’s work with a dash of Ravel thrown in. There is definitely a “waltz feel”. My complaint with this piece is that it just feels too…static-y (for me). There are occasional moments of excitement, but then it goes back to sparse, lackluster figures that could probably used to underscore a fantasy film. But other than that, I was greatly impressed by your orchestrations. 31/40

Structure and Coherence: There is a loose structure that is unified by some common themes. The loose structure works really well this is intended to be a fantasy, where there is almost no formal structure. It’s also wonderful how you seamlessly connect the different sections together without the feeling of a sudden mood/section change.  17/20

Instrumentation: As with another piece in this competition, I don’t believe that writing for an orchestra constitutes as “weird”. Although I do like the fact you use reduced forces with more emphasis on higher-registered instruments to create the fantasy-esque atmosphere. You also use extended techniques unique to each instrument to enhance the overall feel of the piece. My one complaint: TOO much Mark Tree. 16/20

Score Quality: Very neatly produced and detailed score. Good Job! 10/10

Audio Quality: LOVED your sound samples! However, I felt the strings at certain moments were almost inaudible compared to the other instruments. 9/10

TOTAL: 83/100

Stirling_Radliff's results

Sonataform: Waltz in Three

• Creativity: A very interesting, clever, and strange piece. For the topic it's well suited. To understand its ultimate goal, though, a live performance or a performance by more exacting equipment would do it much more justice than the midi recording: I'm not sure about the present execution and if its composition means how it sounds. The mixture between the, I think, simple material between the three instruments and the different tempi is probably a good idea: quirkier melodic and rhythmic ideas might detract from the concept. Though I think it rather being in a minor key, or making it harmonically more fluctuating, could add more interest to it. A larger issue I have with this piece, is that it isn't much of a waltz - I mean this with the concept in mind. Taking the three instruments separately or put together following a single tempo, there isn't really a waltz feel to it. It's in 3/4, but that alone doesn't make it a 'waltz': there's not really a dancing drive to it characteristic of that kind of music. The piece as it is doesn't acknowledge any real intention of being a waltz (except bar 29 of the cello, maybe bars 171/172 of the guitar, and various places of the clarinet), or at least I can't hear it. Aside from not being a waltz as such, it's still very interesting. - 28/40pts.

• Structure and Coherence: The three instruments apart from one another, it seems to be overall in some kind of ternary form. Sounding together as the piece goes, no obvious form is there. Though that seems to be beside the point. And it coheres in the unpredictableness brought by the weird off-tempi: it makes sense insofar that randomness is supposed to. There's nothing that could really be said against that, to my mind. - 12/20pts.

• Instrumentation: An odd grouping that pulled off to sound pleasantly Brahmsian, though that might be the material: it very much reminded my of Brahms's late clarinet sonatas; if the cello and guitar were replaced by a piano, it would be uncanny. The instruments are composed for very well, in that everything composed can be played. But nothing very interesting, nothing unique to the instruments' abilities, was really actively considered and applied. For that it's too simplistic for a competition that marks weirdness, even here where simplicity might be necessary: something more inventive could have been done for the instruments. - 10/20pts.

• Score Quality: Complying with the limitations the piece's concept gives, individual scores for the instruments is understandable, though it would've been nice to see a master score showing the instruments together as each part is played to its own tempo and where they meet up with each other. Whether that's possible I'm not sure, but it's something to consider. - 8/10pts.

• Audio Quality: No complaints. - 10/10pts.

• Total: 58/100pts.

Austenite: Waltz (second movement from Symphony 3 in G Minor, Op 29)

• Creativity: Nicely composed! Though it's rather conservative and romantic - especially the xylophone which sounds to be a cousin from Saint-Saëns Danse macabre, which could be said of the rest of the piece, with Tchaikovsky and others thrown in. It sounds a bit old guard, but in that it's very well composed. - The xylophone theme (starting at bar 5) could've been used more on other instruments throughout the work to make it the more ominous; and because it's one of the more striking themes, it could have been made the climax of the movement. - The movement sounds incomplete, the way it ends. Some last jolt of anger and hatred, a loud and growing orchestral dissonance, would be nice. - Overall, well done! It will sound brilliant in a concert hall. - 32/40pts.

• Structure and Coherence: Well executed! It's a thorough job, though the piece sounds like it could be a given another and climactic section. - 16/20pts.

• Instrumentation: Again, well composed! Even a Bartok pizz, I saw. - 16/20pts.

• Score Quality: Clean and easy to read. - 9/10pts.

• Audio Quality: No problems. Though midi does it no justice. - 8/10pts.

• Bonus Points: For program notes. - 5pts.

• Total: 86/100pts.

NRKulus: Garden of Shadow and Sorcery: Fantasy Waltz

• Creativity: Very cinematic; it sounds like some of the music from this last series of Doctor Who; it also reminded me a bit of Respighi in places. The piece is wonderfully developed. But it doesn't as such sound much like a waltz, at least not all the time - it has sections that sound very waltzy, though that seems to be an intermediary effect to make way for more mysterious things. Like I said about Sonataform's piece, just being in 3/4 doesn't mean it's a waltz. It sounds much more fantasia-like than waltz, and the title admits some to that. Besides its not entirely being a waltz, it's extraordinarily composed, it's amazingly dynamic, and certainly something to take pride in. Very, very well done! I look forward to hearing more of your works. - 37/40pts.

• Structure and Coherence: Well developed for a fantasy. Everything follows, and everything is pleasant or interesting. Congratulations! - 20/20pts.

• Instrumentation: Amazing! Lovely to see, and everything was incredibly well composed for: the effects are wonderful. - 18/20pts.

• Score Quality: Easy to read, overall very clean and understandable. - 9/10pts.

• Audio Quality: Some of the sexiest samples I've heard in a while. Well done, Vienna Symphonic Library! and well done to your employment of them! - 10/10pts.

• Total: 94/100pts.

Thanks to the judges! I would have been surprised had my piece won, but I'm glad I wrote it none the less. Good job to both Austenite and NRKulus, well done!  

Congratulations to the winners!!! o/

(Ravel would have been a great competitor here, hehe)

Hooray! Many thanks to Sterling and danishali for your kind feedback and helpful criticism. I really enjoyed Austenite's and Sonataform's pieces as well--too bad there weren't more entries.

Since both judges remarked on the samples I used, I feel like I should mention what they actually are, since there are a bunch of different Vienna libraries out there. I use the Special Edition, Volume 1 library with the extended string sounds (for harmonics, sul pont., Bartok pizz., and so forth). This is the cheapest (in a relative sense), most bare-bones version of Vienna, but I've been quite happy with its capabilities!

First of all, belated congrats to NRKulus!

Secondly, I'm really glad that once again I finished as a close second - but more importantly, I'm pleased by the received feedback from both the "surviving" judges. I'm taking a hint from both of them: a bit of extra "craziness" couldn't hurt, just as Danish suggested - and the usage of the xylophone figure as a recurring, ominous theme with an added climax is indeed a great idea by Stirling. Both of these suggestions have me almost wanting to sit down again and rewrite it at once :toothygrin: !

Third, I must also commend Sonataform again on his highly original approach (despite the fact that it made me feel yet again like a musical dinosaur).

Once again, thanks a lot - and keep 'em coming!