Results: January-February Competition, 2014

Congratulations, Sonataform!

Judges: ChristianPerrotta, danishali903

Entrants' Scores:

1. Sonataform, Double Fugue in E-Flat Minor 'Leviathan': 223/200pts.
   • Creativity: 74/80pts.
   • Structure and Coherence: 40/40pts.
   • Instrumentation: 40/40pts.
   • Score Quality: 19/20pts.
   • Audio Quality: 20/20pts.
   • Other: 30/30pts.
2. xiangyik, Prelude 19 'Fugue!': 200/200pts.
   • Creativity: 75/80pts.
   • Structure and Coherence: 40/40pts.
   • Instrumentation: 37/40pts.
   • Score Quality: 18/20pts.
   • Audio Quality: 20/20pts.
   • Other: 10/30pts.
3. favi, Fugue for Thought: 144/200pts.
   • Creativity: 53/80pts.
   • Structure and Coherence: 29/40pts.
   • Instrumentation: 23/40pts.
   • Score Quality: 9/20pts.
   • Audio Quality: 20/20pts.
   • Other: 10/30pts.
4. Muulka, Fugato in F-Sharp Minor: 141/200pts.
   • Creativity: 59/80pts.
   • Structure and Coherence: 14/40pts.
   • Instrumentation: 25/40pts.
   • Score Quality: 13/20pts.
   • Audio Quality: 20/20pts.
   • Other: 10/30pts.
5. ccolson39, Chromatic Fugue in D Minor: 120/200pts.
   • Creativity: 45/80pts.
   • Structure and Coherence: 13/40pts.
   • Instrumentation: 24/40pts.
   • Score Quality: 18/20pts.
   • Audio Quality: 20/20pts.
   • Other: 0/30pts.

For further information on the judges' results, see below.

Moderator Note: Thanks to all the judges and entrants for participating. Kudos to you all! And congratulations to ChristianPerrotta for taking over these bimonthly competitions! Best wishes!

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

ChristianPerrotta's Results:

- xiangyik (Prelude No. 19 - Fugue. 4:40 min)

Creativity: 40/40 Doubtlessly, the inventiveness here is the utmost feature. When I listen to a baroque fugue, I know what to expect. But when I look for modern or contemporary fugues, I don't want to know what to expect.
You did this in an amazing way. The choice of the subject as well as the treatment of texture as the main trait to be developed, these two parameters were crucial here.

Structure and coherence: 20/20. I am not afraid of giving the maximum of point here too, as you've used all the existing fugal devices. It's also very good to have a "new divide" here: the "vertical diminution".
This new treatment of the themes are a great opportunity to bring fugal writing to a new level (and that's what I've been trying to do for a long time).

Instrumentation: 19/20 We know your piano-writing skills; it's very very coherent and difficult. The virtuosity may sometimes frighten some people (me, for example), and make them give up a performance (again, me).
The -1 point here is just for one suggestion: do good pieces always have to be difficult? You're a great composer, have you ever considered composing something easy, but still good? Maybe something like "Album for children",
or "Easy pieces for beginners"? It would be a very good contribution to these people to have a good work like this in piano literature.

Score quality: 9/10 Here, you have -1 for some very very subtle issues. Ex: m. 83, 3rd beat, upper staff, notes E and G should be aligned (I believe so); m. 66, left hand, last beat, a good solution here would be achieved by not aligning the notes in different voices.

Audio quality: 10/10 Volume is OK. Voice distinction is OK.

Live performance: 0 (computer generated).
Theoretical Analysis: 5pts.

Total: 40 + 20 + 19 + 9 + 10 + 5 = 103 pts

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- favi (Fugue For Thought. 3:37 min)

Creativity: 20/40 Well, the harmony is modern, the melody is modern, but the structure is very traditional, and that's what I was expecting here: creative structures. The fugue has traditional elements, but where are the new ones?
I know you have used a new thing here: many re-expositions along the fugue, but it sounded a bit boring after the 3rd repetition. A good thing here would be to start a new re-exposition but with very different things, like a new theme.

Structure and coherence: 15/20 The fugue has subject, counter-subjects and episodes. It's not really necessary to have more than this, but here it would bring much much more interest to the fugue as it sounded a bit monotonous after a while.

Instrumentation: 8/20 Not exactly a good choice for me. If it's an organ, why not to use a pedal? This fugue could be played on a piano or harpsichord as well, it's not that idiomatic. Besides the pedal, the organ can sustain notes
much better than the piano. This could also be a good feature here.

Score quality: 2/10 Sorry, but I believe you know that the score is quite messy. Many accidental above each other and entangled stems. These thing would drive any player crazy!

Audio quality: 10/10 It's okay for what it represents.

Live performance: 0 (computer generated)
Theoretical analysis: [5] (that harmonic analysis does not count)

Total: 20 + 15 + 8 + 2 + 10 [+ 5] = [60] pts


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Muulka (Fugato in F-sharp minor. 3:18 min)

Creativity: 30/40 I must confess that it's different. I'm not exactly arguing about the fugal structure yet, but this movement is not something that one would expect previously. Somehow it kept my interest throughout the whole work.

Structure and coherence: 2/20 I don't believe it could be easily called a 'fugue'. I mean, you simply forget the subject after the exposition, then you use new themes, then new themes again... Fugue is all about exploring the subject in first place.

Instrumentation: 10/20 It could have used more of the piano, like pedals. However, you have a good use of dynamics.

Score quality: 3/10 I really don't see a good reason to write the whole piece in 6/8. This is completely meaningless. I understand you have some passages where you must use this kind of rhythm, but it would be much easier
for the pianist to read everything in 2/4 and use triples only where it's necessary. All that dotted notes throughout the piece made it very very weird to read.

Audio quality: 10/10 no problems here. (although sometimes I can't hear some notes.. but I believe it's a problem here)

Live performance: 0 (computer generated)
Theoretical analysis: 5 pts (although I don't really think that the pdf you attached really counts as a theoretical analysis, but a program explanation).

Total: 30 + 2 + 10 + 3 + 10 + 5 = 60 pts

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- ccolson39 (chromatic fugue in D minor. 4:22 min)

Creativity: 30/40 It doesn't really have a fugal structure, but is somehow different and innovative. The "Da Capo al fine" repetition is something we don't see in fugues! (I mean, good to try something new)

Structure and coherence: 5/20 Sorry, but this is not a fugue. Even in the most modern works we need to somehow identify the most basic elements of a fugue. We barely identify the exposition here.
You use a double structure here, like two fugues (which is interesting), but it's not solid. We only know that you had the idea, but we can't really hear the development of this idea.

Instrumentation: 10/20 No use of dynamics or other pianistic features (like pedals).

Score quality: 10/10 No real problems here.

Audio quality: 10/10 just OK again.

Live performance: 0 (computer generated)
Theoretical analysis: 0 (none)

Total: 30 + 5 + 10 + 10 + 10 = 65 pts

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Sonataform (Double Fugue in e flat minor. 3:00 min)

Creativity: 35/40 The romantic treatment you gave to this fugue is the big difference here. That last cadence part is something very unique. I particularly liked M. 79 on.

Structure and coherence: 20/20 You have used everything one can use when composing a fugue. And in a very skillful way.

Instrumentation: 20/20 Perfect use of the piano. Good use of dynamics and pedals.

Score quality: 9/10 Just small issues, like m. 42 (accidental over beam) and last measure's glissando mark (shouldn't have interruption between staves)

Audio quality: 10/10 great

Live performance: 10 pts (it really made the difference here!)
Theoretical analysis: 5 pts

Total: 35 + 20 + 20 + 9 + 10 + 10 + 5 = 109 pts

danishali903's Results:

Preface: I had a really busy week so sorry for the delay. Since I was preoccupied, my results won’t be as detailed as my previous ones. I just wrote down the most important things that affected your score, so if you want more detailed comments, contact me through private messaging. Side-note: I’m not an expert on fugues…or playing keyboard instruments…so excuse my aloofness. Oh and double-check the math!

Prelude No. 19 by xiangyik

-       Creativity: I enjoyed this work as a whole. At first I thought the open fifths opening was a little bare…but as it went on, it made more sense. The thematic material was engaging and fresh, and the transformation it goes throughout the different sections of the fugue was very convincing. You also did a fine job in creating something “modern” while also paying homage to the great fugue masters of the past (love the Bach-esque ending!) 35/40

-       Structure and Coherence: I didn’t catch any problems with the structure, and I thought it was very coherent.  Putting in annotations in the score also helped a lot, so thanks for that! 20/20  

-       Instrumentation: Looks good…. a little difficult…but all fugues are hard. Perhaps a little less pedaling in certain places. 18/20

-       Score Quality: It was good. Might I suggest changing key signatures once in a while instead of all those accidentals (and I hate double flats!) 9/10

-       Audio Quality: Sounds fine to me. 10/10

-       BONUS POINTS: 5

-       TOTAL: 97/100

Fugue for Thought by favi

-       Creativity: An interesting little fugue. Usually fugues to me are an intense brain activity, but this one actually had a more soothing effect, so that was nice! You also take some liberties with the traditional fugue “rules…like the beginning with the tritone entry. 33/40

-       Structure and Coherence: I sensed an overall arch, but the whole structure was NOT very convincing. I also felt like the different sections were not melded together, harmony-wise, and sorta felt abrupt. 14/20

-       Instrumentation: You didn’t make clear which keyboard instrument this fugue is intended for…is it electric piano (as in the audio title), or an organ (as written in the description), or a regular acoustic piano (as written in the score).  I personally liked the electric piano sound, it gives it that mellow, soothing feel…I don’t think it’ll sound too good on an organ. Some parts do look a little difficult to play (measure 20 left hand)…but that’s just me. 15/20

-       Score Quality: Some parts are really condensed and hard to read, and there are clashes between the staves. You should also put some dynamics and a tempo marking. 7/10

-       Audio Quality: Sounds good 10/10

-       TOTAL: 79/100

Double Fugue in E Flat Minor “Leviathan” by Sonataform

-       Creativity: One word…WOW!!!! Anyone who can write a double fugue so well executed (composition-wise and playing-wise) is good in my book. The way you transform the two thematic subjects and sustain them throughout is magnificent. My one teen-y complaint is that maybe it sounds a little too “old-fashioned”…but that’s just me. 39/40

-       Structure and Coherence: I find no faults in the structure. I found the whole piece thoroughly coherent. I just LOVE the sections starting at measure 79! 20/20

-       Instrumentation: You clearly show from your live recording that this very much playable and idiomatic for the piano 20/20

-       Score Quality: Looks fine 10/10

-       Audio Quality: Live recording…well played I might add! 10/10

-       BONUS: 15

-       TOTAL: 114/100

Fugato in F-sharp Minor by Muulka

-       Creativity: A good attempt for your first fugue. I liked the idea of the main subject theme, but I think you got lost harmonically after stating them. Granted, F-sharp minor is not a usual key to write in. You do tend to stick to the traditional “rules”, but you don’t use enough counterpoint to keep things moving and interesting, thus it makes the fugue sound really bare. 29/40

-       Structure and Coherence: As you mentioned, there is very little development here, which hurts the overall structure of the piece. I also felt like the sections were a little disjointed in terms of harmonic progression. I also don’t understand why you wrote the piece in 6/8 and not in 2/4 or 4/4. 12/20

-       Instrumentation: Its definitely playable on the piano, but perhaps a little TOO simple. This is because of the lack of the usual counterpoint development. 15/20

-       Score Quality: Looks good (I think the fffff might be little too much) 10/10

-       Audio Quality: Good enough! 10/10

-       BONUS: 5

-       TOTAL:  81/100

Chromatic Fugue in D minor by Ccolson39

-       Creativity: I don’t think this really counts as a fugue. The only elements of a fugue I can find were starting from measure 43. It wasn’t clear what the main subject was and it felt a little too…”run-on”-y for my tastes. 15/40

-       Structure and Coherence: There is a somewhat loose structure (almost a ABA) defined by the key regions. But those sections are hardly coherent and everything just sounds really random to me. And the ending was a little…bizarre as well 8/20

-       Instrumentation: It’s playable on the piano. Some of the accidentals are weird…but that’s just me 14/20

-       Score Quality: Dynamics/articulations are missing, but other than that looks good. 8/10

-       Audio Quality: Sounds good. 10/10

-       TOTAL: 55/100

Great job to all who entered! Congrats Matthew!

Woohoo! I finally won a YC monthly competition :happy:  Time to strike that off my list of things to do (it took almost a year). Thanks to Stirling for moderating and all the entrants and judges. I will celebrate with a cup of victory coffee  :cool:

I can hardly think of a more deserving winner in any YC Monthly / Bi-monthly Competitions since I joined YC. Especially given the demanding nature of the required composition, and of course the stiff challenge posed by most entrants, especially Xiangyik. Well done, Matt - keep up the good work!

I can hardly think of a more deserving winner in any YC Monthly / Bi-monthly Competitions since I joined YC. Especially given the demanding nature of the required composition, and of course the stiff challenge posed by most entrants, especially Xiangyik. Well done, Matt - keep up the good work!

Thanks for the kind words Robert! May we both continue the good work of making music  :thumbsup:  

Congratulations SonataForm! While I think that 2/20 is a little bit harsh, I'm pretty pleased overall that basic things about the composition weren't criticised.

I think that the verdict has given me a lot of food for thought with which to improve my skills and maybe do better in coming competitions. 

Thank you very much.

Also probably should have mentioned that i wrote it in 6/8 because it was originally written as part of a larger movement which is written in that time signature. It was already complete in open score when I decided to enter it- I simply did not have the time to go through it and rewrite it in 2/4 or suchlike. So it's not silliness which led to the decision!