Results: November-December Competition, 2013

Congratulations, ChristianPerrotta!

Judges: danishali903, NRKulus, Sonataform

Entrants' Scores:

1. ChristianPerrotta, 'Piano Trio 1 - 1. Pastoral': 234/300pts.
   • Creativity: 67/90pts.
   • Structure and Coherence: 46/75pts.
   • Instrumentation: 57/75pts.
   • Score Quality: 25/30pts.
   • Audio Quality: 24/30pts.
   • Other: 15/45pts.
2. stewboy, 'Piano Trio in D Major': 232/300pts.
   • Creativity: 60/90pts.
   • Structure and Coherence: 59/75pts.
   • Instrumentation: 54/75pts.
   • Score Quality: 29/30pts.
   • Audio Quality: 30/30pts.
   • Other: 0/45pts.
3. EstudioEvergreen, 'Sonata White-Evergreen': 158/300pts.
   • Creativity: 47/90pts.
   • Structure and Coherence: 23/75pts.
   • Instrumentation: 29/75pts.
   • Score Quality: 19/30pts.
   • Audio Quality: 30/30pts.
   • Other: 0/45pts.

Moderator Note: A very close competition! Thanks to all the entrants and judges for participating! Kudos!

(Link to the discussion thread of this competition for further details.)

danishali903's Scores:

Sonata White-Evergreen by EstudioEvergreen:

-       Creativity: To be honest, I didn’t think it was that creative; you played it WAY too safe here. But as you said, this is your first time composing a sonata, so I won’t totally count it against you. Your harmonies and rhythms sometime sound very bizarre and random (ex. mms 13-16). You have a nice theme in the exposition, but it feels VERY underdeveloped and I feel like the piece in general doesn’t go in any direction. 15/30

-       Structure and Coherence:  Despite your explanation, I don’t think this piece truly follows the traditional sonata form. The piece spends WAY too much time in the original E major key, and when you do venture out, it’s not effective due to the odd harmonies that come out of nowhere. Traditionally if you start on E major, the second subject (or idea) should be in the key of B major and the theme should be somewhat different from the first and you stay in this key until the end of the exposition section. You instead go to B minor (with a very odd little theme that comes out of nowhere) for a few measures and then quickly go back to E major. Other than that, the development section was very weak and very short, and the recap was VERY short. Also, the transitions between each section were non-existent. I think you just need to study some classical sonatas to get an understanding the form. 10/25

-       Instrumentation: You wrote for a traditional piano trio (which is fine), but you don’t really utilize the instruments well at all. While all the parts seem playable, they seem too simple and would probably bore the players. You should be bolder with what you do with each instrument! 15/25

-       Score Quality: For future reference, in chamber piano ensembles, the piano staves are placed underneath all the other instruments. You should also add more dynamic markings (cresc., dim., etc.) and expressive markings (slurs, bowings) to guide the players. You should also add a tempo marking so players know what tempo you want the piece at. 7/10

-       Audio Quality: Sounds fine! 10/10

TOTAL: 57/100

Piano Trio No. 1 by Christian Perrotta

-       Creativity: An interesting take on the sonata form. I can hear some Celtic influence (as you were clearly inspired by them). Your harmonies are also very interesting and invoke that “primitive” nature you referred to. Some parts actually reminded me of Ravel…but that’s just me. 24/30

-       Structure and Coherence: I can sense out some elements of the sonata form. You clearly have an exposition, development and recap. I thought the transitions between each section were adequate and didn’t feel forced. The only thing that bothered me was the lack standard harmonic structure that goes along with the sonata form. I know you were suppose to compose a loose sonata form, but the ending really bothered me since I was expecting it to end in the same key as the beginning of the piece…but it didn’t.  I just find it odd. 19/25

-       Instrumentation: Good for you for writing for two wind instruments instead of the standard violin and cello. I would advise that since you are writing for winds, you need to give them room to breathe by adding phrase markings (ex: mm 41-42 in the flute part, I would slur the 16^th notes). You should also add some extended techniques for the wind instruments to enhance your piece. 20/25

-       Score Quality: Adequate, some dynamic markings were misplaced. 8/10

-       Audio Quality: The audio was really weak. The piano was too loud and I could barely hear the bassoon. In general, all the instruments seem muddled which made it really hard to hear and appreciate the rhythms and harmonies. 7/10

-       BONUS POINTS FOR ANALYSIS: 5 pts.

TOTAL: 83/100

Piano Trio in D major by Stuart Rynn (aka stewboy)

-       Creativity:  To be succinct: I found the melodies and rhythms engaging, but not very creative. I did feel a “Christmas carol” feel to it so good for you for staying to that theme (I don’t know if this was your intention or not). The harmonies were effective, yet very simple. I would urge you to be bolder and explore more chromatic harmonies. 20/30

-       Structure and Coherence: I think you’re the only one in this competition who actually followed the standard sonata form. You had a well-defined exposition with two contrasting themes and keys, though I do think you did spend a little bit more time in the second subject than the first. The weakest section was probably the development; I think you could’ve explored more keys and rhythms. It felt more like a transition section than a true development. The transitions between each section were fine, though I thought you could cut down some measures between mm 79-86. 20/25

-       Instrumentation: You replaced the cello from the standard piano trio with a viola (I play the viola so bonus points!!!), which is very interesting! I think in general, there is too much slurring going on in the string parts, and in reality, string players WILL have to break those slurs apart. Some of the double stops in the viola (especially in the higher ranges) seem difficult and would definitely pose a challenge. While I understand the rhythmic pulse the piano plays in an ostinato, I think it might get a little tiring for the player to play it all the way through the piece. I would urge you to think about writing more extended techniques for the string instruments (and maybe the piano) to spice up your composition. 19/25

-       Score Quality: Looks good enough. Maybe add more expressive markings 9/10

-       Audio Quality: Sounds fine. 10/10

TOTAL: 78/100

NRKulus's Scores

Stewboy

Creativity: A conservative but well-executed piece. The unyielding energy and Celtic flavour are appealing, and I imagine a live performance would be popular with both performers and audiences. The way you gradually build harmonic density and speed up the harmonic rhythm for the first 26 measures is especially effective.

The use of active rhythms on a single repeated pitch (at m. 37) is a good way to create a break from (or anticipation of) the fuller harmonies and textures without losing any rhythmic energy. However, I would have liked to hear more transitions that use a different technique... this one gets a little tiring when it's used at nearly every transition in the piece.

The phrase structure also gets a little monotonous after a while... you use almost exclusively 4-measure phrases that usually have a similar shape (ascending then descending) and are usually arranged in pairs (for 8-measure phrase groups). To create a bit more large-scale contrast, it would be nice to see the occasional irregular phrase or phrase group length, more lines that consistently ascend or descend, more melodic development techniques such as fragmentation, etc.

In addition to using more varied phrase structures and transitions, I think you could make this piece more exciting and unique by taking more risks with texture and harmony. Sonata form provides a nice opportunity to balance nice melodies and traditional textures (which you already have plenty of) with more adventurous writing (which you could do if there were more of a development section in this piece). 20/30

Structure/Coherence: A basic sonata form with generally well-paced ideas and mostly smooth (if conventional) transitions. My main complaint is that there's almost no development, so the return of the main theme on p. 9 does not feel fresh. M. 87 is very distinct and effective: you finally start move away from long melodic statements with the full ensemble to a more subdued, soloistic texture. This feels like the start of something new and different, so it is disappointing when you abruptly and inexplicably abandon it after just 4 measures and go back to something that sounds, quite honestly, almost exactly like everything else in the piece. Why not develop the idea at m. 87 into a whole section based on continuous interplay between the two themes--and maybe the two stringed instruments as well? Generally, the point of sonata form is for the two contrasting themes to interact with each other--like characters in a story--and be transformed as a result of that interaction. Otherwise it's like writing a book that has characters but no plot. 19/25

Instrumentation: The writing for all 3 instruments is idiomatic, and the parts seem fun and quite playable. The ranges of the violin and piano are very conservative, but this didn't bother me because your changes in range and texture were paced very well. Still, using more adventurous registers, textures, and (on the violin and viola) extended techniques could make this piece even more unique and engaging.

I'm glad you included one melodic section in the piano part, but I think the piano could interact more with the other instruments (interjecting an echo or a contrasting idea at the end of a phrase, for example) to create more textural variety.

It's also important to make use of each instrument's strengths and distinctive characteristics. In my view, you didn't do this in the viola part, which really sounds more like a 2nd violin part. For example, you never make use of the instrument's dark, rich low register for any extended period of time, and tend to stick to a very high range that would sound fuller (and be easier to play) on a violin. It could be changed into a violin part with almost no revision, which I would advise you to do if you ever have this performed live--unless you're up to the challenge of writing a more violistic (for lack of a better word) viola part. 20/25

Score quality: Good; everything is very clear. But are those phrase marks or bow marks in the string parts? Some of them (e.g. violin, mm. 55-62) might be very difficult to do in a single bow stroke. 10/10

Audio quality: Fine. 10/10

TOTAL: 79


EstudioEvergreen

Creativity: This piece has a quirky, playful character that is appropriate to the competition's holiday theme, even if the piece isn't directly holiday-related. I think the beginning shows a lot of potential: you set up a very clear opposition between the straightforward, neoclassical character of the first 4 measures and the more syncopated, dancelike quality of the next 4 measures. Both of these ideas are distinct and effective, and both have good potential for development--which is why I was disappointed when, instead of developing them, you continuously move on to new ideas, many of which (the scale-based figures starting at m. 14, for instance, as well as the 2nd theme at m. 36, which really feels more like the 4th or 5th theme) are not nearly as unique or memorable as the first 8 measures.

To put it more simply, there are too many melodic ideas in the piece, and the listener is likely to get lost without a clear, recurring theme to follow. In future pieces, it might be good to choose just 1 or 2 short ideas you really like and sketch out a bunch of different variations on them (these variations can be very simple, like keeping the melodic rhythm of the opening 2 bars and changing the pitches), then find ways to combine these variations to create longer sections.

I like that you spiced this piece up by adding some "strange" chords, but I think they would be more effective if they were better-timed: a crunchy chord can add tension at a high point in a phrase, for instance, or be used at the beginning of a section to introduce a new, more restless environment. Using such changes in harmony (or orchestration, or rhythmic profile, etc.) to highlight important points in the piece's form can make your piece more interesting and easier to follow.

Clearer melodic shapes would also help move the piece along. Even relatively unimportant lines--all those sustained notes you like giving to the cello, for instance--can help contribute to a piece's sense of motion if they have a clear shape, ascending or descending over the course of a few measures toward some goal. 17/30

Structure/Coherence: As my comments above may have already implied, this piece is difficult to follow. This is the result of (1) too many ideas (as I mentioned) (2) lack of consistent textures and texture changes (more on this under "instrumentation") (3) lack of clear phrase structure, cadence points, and harmonic tension/release. Cadences don't have to be full resolutions to tonic chords, but there should be some form of repose--a sustained rhythm or rest in all instruments, for example--that helps the listener mentally separate the piece into phrases or sections.

As far as the sonata form goes, this piece (with the exception of the return at m. 50) felt more like a series of expositions with very little development. In the future, it may be good plan your composition a little more before you start. In addition to sketching out themes and ways to develop them (like I suggested above), creating a "road map" of the piece (showing main sections, key areas, where certain themes will be used, etc.) can help you compose with more intention and create more coherent forms. 8/25

Instrumentation: All of the parts are idiomatic enough, and I don't foresee any performance problems with this piece. However, there is a lot you could do to make the writing for these instruments more interesting--and to create more textural and orchestrational variety that would make this piece more interesting and easy to follow. The cello's highest and lowest notes in the piece, for example, are both on the first page--after that, you basically stay within an octave or so in the instrument's middle range, and tend to exclusively give it sustained notes that aren't very important in the texture. What about exploring the instrument's lower and higher registers, giving it more melodic material, maybe spicing up all those sustained notes with tremolos?

The piano's left hand could similarly benefit from more important material, and the string parts could be made more interesting with some extended techniques like pizzicato (maybe to add some bounce to your lively dance rhythms?)

You could also use orchestration to clarify the piece's form. Rather than having almost constant melodic give and take between the violin and the piano (like you do now), you could have some sections that have a clear melody in one instrument and accompaniment in others, some sections with unison rhythms, some sections defined by a repeating figure in a particular instrument, etc. 14/25

Score quality: Layout and spacing are good, but there are quite a few other problems. Why is the rhythmic notation off by 2 beats starting in m. 36 (i.e. beat 3 sounds like beat 1) and by 1 beat starting at m. 50? (This would be extremely confusing to performers, since the notated meter contradicts the rhythms they are playing). Why are there 2 empty measures at the end of the piece? Why is the final note a different duration in all 3 instruments--do you really want it performed that way?

There are also lots of little notational errors--the random triplet rest in the piano's right in m. 6 or the note tied to a rest in the same part in m. 45--that collectively may make the piece difficult to read. And more articulations, phrase marks, cresc./dim., and a tempo marking at the beginning would all help performers (and the judges) interpret your piece more effectively. 5/10

Audio quality: Sounds fine to me. 10/10

Thanks for submitting! I hope my comments weren't too overwhelming. Please contact me if you'd like me to explain any of my suggestions further.
 

TOTAL: 54
 

ChristianPerrotta

Creativity: Nice piece. The constantly shifting modal harmonies give this piece a feel that evokes ancient Celtic music but is at the same time modern, mischievous, and a bit unsettled. You also seem to be the only entrant who addressed the competition's holiday theme... well done!

The writing is mostly good... the textures and harmonies are lush and attractive, and most of the ideas are adequately developed. Each individual section works well; over the course of the whole piece, however, the constant high density of ideas may be a bit overwhelming to the listener. You might fix this by altering:
(1) Texture: The piano is almost constantly active across a very wide range, which gets tiring after a while--it's such a rich sound, especially with all those big octaves in the left hand. My orchestration professor liked to talk about how important it is to create variety in registral space (the distance between the highest and lowest notes sounding at a particular moment.) To do this, consider (for example) creating entire sections in which both hands in the piano are working together as a single textural entity in the same narrow register.
(2) Harmony: You have quite a lot of different notes in every measure. Consider occasionally thinning out the harmonic density by limiting the accompaniment to just a few pitch classes for a few measures--or an entire section--using techniques like octave displacement to keep the texture interesting.
(3) Harmonic rhythm: You have at least one harmonic change in nearly every measure (and often every beat), which can be quite overwhelming and makes the form a bit harder to follow. Consider slowing it down--sitting on the same chord for at least a couple measures--especially at the beginning/end of phrases or sections to give the listener some time to breathe.

Your melodies have a strong sense of motivic unity, but they can still become a bit difficult to follow. I think this is mostly because of very long phrases that sometimes lack clear goals or cadence points. Still, a very creative and compelling piece. 23/30

Structure/Coherence: I think if you create a bit more variety in texture and give the harmonic rhythm more time to breathe like I mentioned above, this piece's form will be very easy to follow. You already have a very logical progression of ideas and some nice developmental techniques going on.

The sonata form is mostly handled well, although I have a few complaints. Most significantly, there isn't really a retransition, so the return of the first theme at m. 60 is rather abrupt and jarring--especially since the previous section seems to be prematurely terminated. I really like the contrasting section at m. 53, and I think it could be continued for at least a few more measures, building in intensity and maybe introducing some chromatic tones to destabilize F lydian and create harmonic tension, so that when the recapitulation comes, it feels like it has been earned. 20/25

Instrumentation: This is a lovely combination of instruments that deserves more repertoire. The writing showcases the strengths of each instrument, and each part has a good variety of ideas that will keep it interesting to performers. I think the woodwind players in particular would have fun with this piece because their parts strike a nice balance between lyricism and flashiness. The piano part is extremely challenging; this is largely because you almost always have completely different textural ideas in each hand and very little respite from the constant complexity.

I mentioned registral space earlier, and I notice the bassoon is almost always occupying the same registral space as the piano. For some variety, it might be nice to give the poor pianist's left hand a break and let the bassoon stand on its own in the low register for a bit. As it is, your melodic writing for the bassoon is good, but you could do more to exploit its capabilities as a bass instrument.
Well, I already deducted points for texture under "creativity," so I'll give you 21/25 here.

Score quality: Everything is notated clearly and accurately. However, be careful to make sure that you indicate a dynamic at the end of all crescendi/diminuendi so the players know how much louder or softer they should get. Also, adding some slurs to the woodwind parts might be a good idea--especially in those extended 16th-note passages. (Sane performers would probably play them slurred anyway, but the markings are good to include for clarity's sake!) 9/10

Audio quality: Good, but the bassoon did not come through enough. 9/10

Analysis/Program note: +5

TOTAL: 87

Sonataform's Scores

Piece #1 Sonata White-Evergreen by EstudioEvergreen

Oh, I'd like to thank everybody for this competition: to entrants, for having a such a good and close competition, and for judges for their great observations and suggestions here^^ It's good to know that my new and recent tendency to impressionistic aesthetic has somehow pleased the judges (so, yes, there was a lot of Ravel in there). This is a good feedback^^

Congrats Christian! And congrats to the other contestants as well

Stewboy should have made a PDF analysis of his work, he missed out on some cheap bonus points. 

I never know what to say. Plus it feels a little forced when I'm analysing my own work.

Thanks for the judgement! I find the info on it very useful and I will try to use it for next compositions. See you in the next competition!