All Activity

Hi, Jonathon. Please see my evaluation of your submission below. Melodies Themes Motives Harmony Chords Textures Form Development Structure Time Originality Creativity Score Presentation Instrumentation Orchestration Playability Execution of Given Challenge Taste Overall 7 6 7 7 7 8 9 7 7.3 Melodies/Themes/Motives: I noted a couple of melodies/themes in this piece that recurred in varying voices and keys - and you even altered the note lengths to improve the variability. I can tell you've improved a lot in this area since a few years ago (when I was last active on the site)! There were some issues with voice leading, though, where the melody became overshadowed by supporting voices. Harmony/Chords/Textures: You had some good ideas here and I could tell what you were trying to do, but I think that, unfortunately, it fell flat in some places. I liked that the piece didn't stay in one key but instead wandered around into others. I especially loved the polychords (for example, in m. 67) that resolved to the tonic. However, the harmonic motion otherwise felt a bit stale, with too much parallel movement, and many of the tonal centers shifted without effective cadences. Form/Development/Structure/Time: The piece was well-structured and had good development. The emergence of the various themes was handled well, I thought, and they changed voices and timbres throughout. I did feel that the piece suffered a little from poor pacing, where the repeated themes left me wishing for something different. Originality/Creativity: I felt this was sufficiently original, though musically it was relatively tame. Score Presentation: The score was adequate. I felt like it needed a little more spacing in places, but the articulations and directions were nice and succinct. Instrumentation/Orchestration/Playability: This piece is very playable. I do question the choice of English horn (other than for its pastoral vibe, I suppose), since you wrote in the range of the oboe, but, aside from that, everything seems to be written idiomatically. Execution of Given Challenge: The piece did an excellent job capturing the quotidian joys (and worries) of being a Carpathian shepherd. Great work! Taste: Sure, the piece wasn't the best it could have been, but I nevertheless found it quite enjoyable. I'm impressed at how much you've matured as a composer in the past couple of years! Thanks for submitting, and happy composing! Jordan

Interesting, how different the subjective impressions are: That's a good advice. I'll try it out to soften the trills and glissandos of the "nightingales" when I'm going on to finally polish the solo piano version of the piece. Thank you very much! And yes, there is an accelerando/decelerando in tempo, but very subtle (from 8=81 up to 8=96). While I took all noises around me „verbatim“, creating a piece by „onomatopoeia“, I wanted to have the speed change of the train expressed by the rhythmic pattern of the „theme“, where the 13/16 time signature is treated as a compound meter of 3 + 4 + 6, which suggests the idea of acceleration (of the train), and, when reversed to 6 + 4 + 3, that of deceleration (as the train enters the station).

Hello @Tónskáld . Thank you very much for your review, which I consider to be the most thorough, honest, and balanced of them all. I think you’ve literally addressed everything there is to say about my work, pinpointing its weaknesses while also highlighting some of its strengths, and in your final assessment, you’ve acknowledged the ideas and effort I put into it. I really appreciate that, and it helps me a lot to evaluate where I stand with my work—especially with this particular piece. Usually, when composing, I focus primarily on thematic development, since my compositional genre—writing preludes and fugues, that is, the application of contrapuntal techniques—inherently requires this. But for this special competition, I took the opposite approach as otherwise, focusing first on the story and the “soundscapes” to be depicted, with the result that the thematic and harmonic development is indeed somewhat “thin” and “simple.” And interestingly, I was the only participant who interpreted (or misunderstood?) the challenge in this way—translating sounds or noises from nature or civilization into music—and thank you, now I know the technical term for this approach: “onomatopoeia.” 😀 Yes, that’s right. Even though this is a new composition for the competition, I just started to compose the piece for piano solo (since it is easier to it sketch out first, and on the other hand I wanted to include it in my collection of preludes and fugues) and in a second step „enriched“ the piece with the further instrumentation by the strings. Perhaps, if having some more time before the submission deadline, I had elaborated the string parts a bit more to avoid the unisono with the piano, at least there is a theme or motif in the “Nightingale” B section, played by the strings (measures 35–37 by the cello and measures 44–47 by the violin), that does not appear in the initial version for solo piano. Why two pianos while not often playing simultaneously? I’m a bit scared about the playability of such long passages with (fast) tremolos by a single player. Thus the main objective for the two pianos was to give the players/hands enough rests between the tremolos. On the other hand, the two pianos produce a bit more color in the main texture which is, in fact, completely performed by the piano(s). Thanks, but maybe I went a little overboard; I just wanted to spell out the exact execution of the tremolos, glissandos, and trills.

Hi, Ferrum. Please see my evaluation of your submission below. Melodies Themes Motives Harmony Chords Textures Form Development Structure Time Originality Creativity Score Presentation Instrumentation Orchestration Playability Execution of Given Challenge Taste Overall 8 8 8 8 6 2 6 6 6.5 Melodies/Themes/Motives: There were a lot of nice, catchy themes and melodies in this piece, but there was also a significant amount of empty space (where there was no motivic movement). Furthermore, the melodies/themes tended to be couched in thick harmonies and textures, which served to detract from their potency (i.e., rarely, if ever, did we hear the melody "naked"). Harmony/Chords/Textures: While I applaud the effort in 250 bars of very textured music, it was simply too much. The rhythms were wild and overused, constantly competing with those of the countermelodies. The harmonies employed were adventurous and exciting - if a little too all over the place. I also felt the dynamics varied too much too often. Form/Development/Structure/Time: This piece was built around a solid form that was easy to follow. Themes were developed masterfully and with many exciting variations. However, I felt it was entirely too long; the themes could've been expressed in about half the time and nothing would've been lost in the music's general presentation. Originality/Creativity: This was a truly original piece with an eclectic array of instruments! Score Presentation: I noted multiple issues with the score. For one, the staves are not a uniform size, and there's a lot of crowding. I also think the piece suffers from over-articulation and too many dynamics. Instrumentation/Orchestration/Playability: This piece is insanely difficult to play, bordering on impossible. The string parts are rife with double, triple, or quadruple stops; left-hand pizzicatos; and rapid pizz-to-arco switches. The horn and especially timpani pose a real danger of drowning out the strings. The piano part is also very challenging. All in all, this would likely take professional musicians more than 20 hours of rehearsal to even come close to performance. Execution of Given Challenge: This did not sound like a ship voyaging under a starlit sky to me, but it did sound exciting - which is an emotion I assume folks sailing under a starlit sky might have. Taste: I liked the exciting rhythms and fast pace, but the length and excessiveness were not to my taste. Thanks for submitting, and happy composing! Jordan

Might go on with this: If I write it tonight, not really in the mood for composition, so it might be mediocre! Cool chord, though...

Hi, Kyle. Please see my evaluation of your submission below. Melodies Themes Motives Harmony Chords Textures Form Development Structure Time Originality Creativity Score Presentation Instrumentation Orchestration Playability Execution of Given Challenge Taste Overall 9 7 9 7 8 9 9 9 8.4 Melodies/Themes/Motives: Your sense of melody and themes is exquisite! I found this to be simple and unobtrusive in all the best ways. I especially enjoyed how you used the mere addition of instruments to build on the sound, gradually and to great effect, as your themes wove around each other. Simply beautiful. Harmony/Chords/Textures: Similarly, the harmony was simple but effective. There was enough counterpoint and differing harmonic motion to keep it interesting - and to tell the "story" you were trying to convey. The single issue I took was at m. 57 when we enter what appeared to be an authentic cadence (an A) only to be jerked into a C major, which did not hit my ears the right way (no matter how many times I listened to it). Form/Development/Structure/Time: The piece had a wonderful flow to it, easily ebbing into sweeping thematic passages where the melody/theme was passed from instrument to instrument. The themes were repeated throughout, but with enough variation that it was (to me) the perfect blend of recognizable and unrecognizable. And the pacing... spot on! Originality/Creativity: This wasn't the most original thing I've ever heard, but it was adequately different that I could likely distinguish it from other ambient soundtracks. Score Presentation: The score was above average, I'd say. I think there was overuse of some articulations - particularly the marcato - when the instrument's natural sound would likely suffice. I also felt the score was too crowded in many places. Instrumentation/Orchestration/Playability: There were no issues with playability noted. The writing seemed mostly idiomatic, with some attention given to each instrument. Execution of Given Challenge: This was very programmatic music and the identified landscape was, to me, easily felt in the music. Taste: The music was well-constructed and flowed beautifully. It was, perhaps, too homophonic for my usual tastes, but it was good music, nonetheless. Very nice job! Thanks for submitting, and happy composing! Jordan

Hi, HoYin. Please see my evaluation of your submission below. Melodies Themes Motives Harmony Chords Textures Form Development Structure Time Originality Creativity Score Presentation Instrumentation Orchestration Playability Execution of Given Challenge Taste Overall 5 6 6 7 9 6 5 5 6.2 Melodies/Themes/Motives: While there were themes and motives present throughout, the melodic writing was unconvincing and never supported by harmonic structure beneath. This made the piece seem to lack musical direction, instead sounding like a mixture of competing and unrelated themes. Harmony/Chords/Textures: There was no effective use of cadential structure that I could find, causing the piece to swing randomly from one key to the next. Harmonic motion was varied and there was counterpoint throughout, which helped give the piece some substance. The textures, I felt, were too random, with the strings and flute dropping and changing registers frequently and with abandon. Form/Development/Structure/Time: Aside from verbatim repeated themes, sometimes in different keys, the piece didn't really have any development. It seemed to be in a hurry to get somewhere from start to finish, but nothing seemed to serve a purpose. There was nothing predictable or patterned in the music, it just sort of... happened. Originality/Creativity: You've been around on this forum long enough for me to recognize your style, and this piece was no different. However, nothing in this submission stood out to me as new or exciting (it sounded a lot like other pieces of yours I've heard). Score Presentation: Very nicely done, nearly professional quality. I noted some hairpins and crescendos that lacked dynamics, as well as an overabundance of articulations, but those were mostly negligible issues. Instrumentation/Orchestration/Playability: There are too many stops in the string parts, and while they're likely playable, many of them will require rolling or arpeggiation to execute, which disrupts the flow of the quick tempo. You also have passages that swap very quickly from pizz. to arco, even some in the middle of stops (like m. 143 in the 2nd violin). These may not be impossible to perform, but they increase the difficulty of the piece (and, in my opinion, not justifiably so). Execution of Given Challenge: This didn't feel like anything in particular to me. Taste: As far as soundscapes go, this is a compelling piece. I, however, prefer more structure and stronger melodic involvement and development. Thanks for submitting, and happy composing! Jordan

Yes, Tuberculosis, a pretty good guess for someone who died in 1736 at the age of 26. Simply horrible. Einfach schrecklich, if I may be permitted to use my horrible German.

𝐒𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬 | A Sequential step-up in semi-tones SINCERELY YOURS.mp3

A deathbed piece: without looking it up, I would tend to think Tuberculosis, and it is to me both beautiful and painful to listen to. It is expressive yet minimalistic; right up my alley! I'm not going to do any sort of analysis, because the composition really needs no analysis. Thoughts? Giovanni B. Pergolesi - Stabat Mater (1736) {Kirkby/Bowman}

That's kinda a Satie-like title, three pieces in the shape of a pear, sonatina bureaucratique,,,

Hi, Wieland. Please see my evaluation of your submission below. Melodies Themes Motives Harmony Chords Textures Form Development Structure Time Originality Creativity Score Presentation Instrumentation Orchestration Playability Execution of Given Challenge Taste Overall 8 7 7 9 9 6 8 6 7.5 Melodies/Themes/Motives: The melodies were purely mimetic (i.e., attempting to portray the actual sounds in music rather than an emotional interpretation or representation) and therefore did not lend themselves to good melodic writing. Nevertheless, your use of themes and motives was very strong throughout, as meticulously noted in your score. Harmony/Chords/Textures: On the one hand, you employed a couple of devices - tremolos and trills - to depict the train's acceleration and birdcalls, which was innovative. This texture, though, began to feel overused after a couple minutes into the piece. Because this piece was more onomatopoeia than programmatic music, the harmonies you used felt arbitrary. Moreover, the use of actual chords in this piece was more limited than what I thought at first listen; a great number of lines was doubled by another instrument, either in unison or at some octave above or below. All in all, I felt that the five instruments you used were "under tuned" for a piece of this caliber. Form/Development/Structure/Time: There was good structure to this piece, though, again, because the piece was onomatopoeic, it didn't truly develop as much as it simply progressed from theme to theme. The break in tempo roughly midway through was appreciated, but the piece ironically lacked any sense of motion (to me, at least); the glue holding this together were the descriptive texts in the score that very unsubtly described what each motif was meant to portray. Without the score, the piece becomes a soundscape of seemingly disjointed musical themes abruptly changing from one to the next. However... from an objective standpoint, that you are able to conceive of these things in your mind and then organize them into musical sections is quite extraordinary. Originality/Creativity: I've not heard anything similar to this, and even if I don't agree with your choice of chords and harmonies, this is a voice that is your own, and for that, you get the highest marks. Score Presentation: Meticulous and thorough. Very close to professional quality, though a little crowded and over-articulated at various places for my taste. Instrumentation/Orchestration/Playability: In my opinion, this is the piece's weakest aspect, though I do not wish to be harsh here. I strongly question the decision to use two pianos, when for the vast majority of the piece, they either A) do not play simultaneously, or B) when playing simultaneously, they do not use all four hands. Furthermore, the string parts frequently double either each other or one of the piano parts. Taken altogether, this suggests that the piece could be more succinctly written for a smaller ensemble, such as a piano trio (violin, cello, and piano). The 13/16 time signature present for most of the piece is already difficult to count out and, when coupled with the onomatopoeic nature of the themes, makes me wonder if perhaps an ametric approach would be more appropriate. Lastly, but maybe most importantly, the string parts do not add much to the piece, which is carried entirely by the movement in one (or both, at times) of the piano parts. It might have helped to give the strings some passages without the piano also playing. Execution of Given Challenge: Again, I have to award high marks here simply because of how well you put this together. There's no question as to what your music depicts! Taste: I lean strongly into the impressionist camp and, I suppose by definition, do not take much interest in mimetic music. I would normally give music like this a much lower score, but your command of tone and texture makes this considerably more enjoyable. Nice work! Thanks for submitting, and happy composing! Jordan

Hi, Musicbro456. Please see my evaluation of your submission below. Melodies Themes Motives Harmony Chords Textures Form Development Structure Time Originality Creativity Score Presentation Instrumentation Orchestration Playability Execution of Given Challenge Taste Overall 6 7 7 7 3 3 8 6 5.9 Melodies/Themes/Motives: Great use of themes and melody in this submission! There were, unfortunately, quite a few issues with voice leading in which the solo viola would be completely drowned out or washed out amid the surrounding chordal textures, but your themes were solid... if a bit repetitive. Harmony/Chords/Textures: There was not a lot of harmonic movement: the piece remained mostly in G minor with some C minor chords sprinkled throughout, which sapped it of most of its harmonic strength. I noted excursions to D minor and A minor, as well... perhaps a journey along the circle of fifths? I felt your use of dynamics was compelling; emotional swells followed by quiet, captivating moments. This was good work! Form/Development/Structure/Time: The piece had great "bones." You effectively worked in several motifs that reappeared when expected, and the whole thing worked to a climax at rehearsal mark IV, followed by a denouement and resolution. The music really told a story. Originality/Creativity: The fact that you chose viola as the solo instrument gives you several more points in this category (I am a violist). Jokes aside, the instrumentation and musicality was, I felt, sufficiently original. I can tell you're trying to develop your own voice. Score Presentation: The score was chaotic and, at times, nonsensical. For example, it starts out with dynamics markings "mf expression," which perhaps was intended to mean espressivo. There were modulations to key signatures that were unnecessary. The note stems were randomly in different voices rather than all the same voice. The score was also very crowded in places, with directions from one staff bleeding over into the one above or below it. For some reason, solo viola was written in the treble clef, even though the viola section was in the alto clef and had higher notes written for their part. It's conventional to split the violins into two sections - violin I and violin II - but here they remained undivided. Instrumentation/Orchestration/Playability: There were multiple serious problems noted here. The solo viola would undoubtedly become overwhelmed by the divisi strings accompanying it in well over half the passages of this piece. Furthermore, the viola section was more technically challenging than the solo viola part, which is unconventional (but not illegal). There were also multiple passages intended to be played at an octave or double octave above what was written, some of which is technically impossible, especially at the dynamics supplied. It would probably help you in the future if you dedicated some time to learning how to write for strings. Execution of Given Challenge: This was solid, programmatic music, in my opinion, and sufficiently reminiscent of the blazing glory - and eventual hushed quiet - of a sunset. Taste: I liked what you were going for! I think your writing could be helped dramatically with more attention to music theory and (in this case) string part writing. Thanks for submitting, and happy composing! Jordan

Hi, Chenfeng. Please see my evaluation of your submission below. Melodies Themes Motives Harmony Chords Textures Form Development Structure Time Originality Creativity Score Presentation Instrumentation Orchestration Playability Execution of Given Challenge Taste Overall 4 5 4 6 5 N/A 0 4 4.0 Melodies/Themes/Motives: No real sense of melody was present, and themes/motives were simply repeated with little to no variation. Harmony/Chords/Textures: The piece remained in A major; in fact, it was largely just one A major chord. There was a brief transition to E major but without an effective cadence, this felt contrived and a bit jarring. Harmonic movement featured an overuse of parallel motion and therefore felt stagnant. Form/Development/Structure/Time: Despite the title, this was not a fugue; there was no subject or species. There was little development noted and owing to an utter lack of cadences or breaths, the music felt monotonous to me. Originality/Creativity: This submission was, perhaps, different than most other entries; however, I didn't feel it did anything to distinguish itself from existing traditional Chinese music nor did it adequately take on the composer's voice. Score Presenation: The score was readable, but no dynamics and very few articulations were supplied. Instrumentation/Orchestration/Playability: I do not feel qualified to evaluate this criterion, as I know next to nothing about traditional Chinese instruments or how they're played. Execution of Given Challenge: Unfortunately, the submission did not meet the competition's time length criterion. But length notwithstanding, I did not feel this piece evoked the image supplied (aside from the fact than both artists performed in traditional Chinese media). Taste: I love fugues, but this piece was merely pentatonic writing that had very little color. It sadly did not pique my interest. However, I think with more dedication to voice leading and harmonic movement, you'll drastically improve your writing style! Thanks for submitting, and happy composing! Jordan

The TEST-LINK below shows that the PDF displays correctly OUTSIDE of this forum https://www.filemail.com/d/ldqfzysyewxfjmz

The Crew-Team-Developers have analyzed and found the fix for the : 16-or more -Instruments "page-cut" error..........which they state was functioning in REVERSE. Special thanx to UncleRed99 for being partially correct. Despite the Pdf "page cutoff" being fixed, when SENT as an email or displayed directly on-line. The HTML CODE in this forum "Scrambles" the Pdf, which was also noticed in a few other composers compositions too therefor this FIX does not function correctly on "THIS website-forum" . Barry Manilow - Looks Like We Made it - V.I.P. Symphony Orchestra Rendition.pdf

This is amazing, thank you!

just incase i need to review my own piece for that heavyweight badge Melodies Themes Motives 0 Harmony Chords Textures 0 Form Development Structure Time 0 Originality Creativity 0 Score Presentation 0 Instrumentation Orchestration Playability 0 Execution of Given Challenge 0 Taste 0 Average Score: 0 this sucks never compose again

i'd say this piece does a good job at portraying a somber afternoon. the simple viola melody guides the piece straightforwardly while the accompaniment of the orchestra stills. the score is a bit confusing to read, i feel: random ottava lines, inverted beams of the notes.i also question the playability of some of the violins passages but overall, its not bad!! some of the contrasts work well and they're effective! good jobb Melodies Themes Motives 8 Harmony Chords Textures 3 Form Development Structure Time 5 Originality Creativity 3 Score Presentation 5 Instrumentation Orchestration Playability 4 Execution of Given Challenge 5 Taste 3 Average Score: 4.5

even worse than my random pauses lol!

i do kinda hear the vision with the motifs, and it is recognizable. but thats kinda it ngl its a bit of (sry if its too mean lol) kinda fun to listen to though Melodies Themes Motives 3 Harmony Chords Textures 3 Form Development Structure Time 1 Originality Creativity 10 Score Presentation 1 Instrumentation Orchestration Playability 3 Execution of Given Challenge 1 Taste 3 Average Score: 3.12

Entry: Lamentare Ciobanului - “The Shepherd’s Lament” by @ComposaBoi Melodies Themes Motives Harmony Chords Textures Form Development Structure Time Originality Creativity Score Presentation Instrumentation Orchestration Playability Execution of Given Challenge Taste 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 8.5 Average Score: 9.81 Review: Great job! I think your use of space in this piece really helps paint the picture of a lone shepherd in the mountains like you intended. The cello solo near the beginning of the piece followed by the English Horn solo with underlying soft pizzicato chords really sets a very tranquil and pastoral vibe. I feel like your musical voice has matured since the last time I’ve heard. There is a very beautiful use of unresolved non-harmonic tones or extended harmony in this piece. The melody very often emphasizes the 7th or 9th of the underlying harmony on a weak beat which I find very affecting. Well done! Thanks for your participation and I hope you win the “Pastorale” award that I created specifically for this piece!

Entry: The Voyage of a Lone Ship by @ferrum.wav Melodies Themes Motives Harmony Chords Textures Form Development Structure Time Originality Creativity Score Presentation Instrumentation Orchestration Playability Execution of Given Challenge Taste 10 10 6 10 10 7 10 10 Average Score: 9.13 Review: Your piece, despite being of very high quality and being well developed and conceived overall, highlights both kinds of disqualifications that we’ve encountered in the competition this time around. The piece is too long (although by no means am I saying you should have somehow tried to shorten it just for the sake of the competition) and uses too many total instruments. The timpani player can be expected to play up to 6 (sometimes some pieces call for 6 individual timpani drums) timpani and given that Fruit Hunters “Sacrificed to the Wilderness” was disqualified for the same reason I think the same rule should apply in your case. It’s a shame, because I was hoping to give out two more badges - a “High Seas” award for your piece and a “Nature is Wild” award for Fruit Hunter’s piece. But alas, under the current rules, the theme-ing and creation of the badges was limited to pieces that strictly qualified under the contest rules. Perhaps in future contests we can opt to allow multiple percussion instruments per player as counting as just one “polyphonic instrument”, but we didn’t think of it this time around. But I love your piece from many sides. My favorite part is perhaps the solo timpani hammering out the preview/teaser of the main theme fragment at 4:20 and 5:05. The piece overall is very melodious and easily gets stuck in my head - it’s very lucid. I’m glad you took this composition so seriously that you decided to work the piece to its natural conclusion despite it being over the time limit. I can really imagine a galleon or clipper sailing through some rough seas with this music. And the use of the timpani and horn was very idiomatic for such a context. I think your instrument choices were driven by the conception of this as being a kind of miniaturized orchestra. Great job! As much as I would have liked to vote for your piece for 1st place I can’t in good conscience do so since I had to mark you down in the Time and Instrumentation categories. Thanks for your participation and good luck in the popular voting polls!

Entry: “Warmth” by @UncleRed99 Melodies Themes Motives Harmony Chords Textures Form Development Structure Time Originality Creativity Score Presentation Instrumentation Orchestration Playability Execution of Given Challenge Taste 6 9 7.75 8.5 10 10 8 8.5 Average Score: 8.47 Review: A very affecting and heartfelt piece of music! Although the piece has a certain pop music vibe, very often repeating 4-bar, 4-chord structures over and over with variation and some modulations which bring a momentary sense of brightening, it does adequately portray the sense of “Home and Hearth” which is the badge/award that I created for this piece! I can imagine this kind of music used in one of those hidden object mobile games. The player is presented with a room from inside a cozy home with a fireplace burning and has to find objects strewn around and hidden in plain sight. Great job although my chief complaint is that the piece lacks melodic substance. But it’s a very good, easy listening, feel good, cozy piece perfect for the purpose you intended it for. Thanks for your participation and good luck in the popular voting polls!

Entry: Alishan (for Flute Quintet) by @HoYin Cheung Melodies Themes Motives Harmony Chords Textures Form Development Structure Time Originality Creativity Score Presentation Instrumentation Orchestration Playability Execution of Given Challenge Taste 8 9 10 10 10 10 7 8 Average Score: 9.00 Review: For me this piece suffers from poor balance and doesn’t create a clear hierarchy of importance in sound. The piece sort of washed over me after hearing it multiple times without the score. The score is engraved well but hard to follow (for me) because it wasn’t clear what I was supposed to focus on. You could have used your dynamics to bring out the important parts more imo. I expected the flute to be the main soloist/attraction of the piece but it’s in the background most of the time. After listening a few times these things don’t bother me as much. Perhaps it was because the focus and most important aspects of the composition are constantly shifting that I found it hard to find the focus on my first couple of listenings. Another thing is that the moving voices very often overlap each other in register creating confusion for the listener. If the voices are of a different timbre then they retain their individuality more but if the strings are overlapping with each other rather than with the flute then they lose their distinctiveness imo. And the quickly moving voices are often buried underneath the other ones when imo they should be given the foreground since they are the motivic backbone of the piece. The piece is sort of hard to imagine as an accompaniment to your chosen landscape. It’s a good piece of absolute music - I just find it hard to imagine the programmatic context. Despite that I still think your piece deserves to win the “Forest Echoes” award that I created specifically for it, so I’m going to vote for it. Overall though, I still very much enjoyed the music - it’s very intricate and well structured! Thanks for your participation.