Leaderboard

It was for me a great honour have all your participations in this competition! I have to confess that was also very difficult for me to find a winner, but after some reflexion I found one! It was for me very hard to be the judge! Although in the next concert which will give, I will only perform the winner piece (because I don’t have much time), I probably will record some of other pieces, because they real pleased me! (It is a pity that I didn’t remember before to do this competition, because if I had remembered I would play more new pieces). I decided to make a podium with the three best pieces. I will start by the ones which aren’t in the podium: Luderart: Thank you for your participation I am really glad with the great enthusiasm you revealed in this competition. For me, your best piece is your Solioquy number two, it has melodic potential and its character with many chords and some what medieval harmonies goes well with the organ, however this piece lacks development, it is more a sample, almost a sketch than a work with structure, beginning and end, then it wasn’t awarded. The Solioquy number 3 it is not so inspired as the second, and it would be a little strange to perform in a Church, it is a little bit weird and I simply do not understand its meaning. As for your forth Solioquy it is clearly better than your third one, this is also more developed than your second one, although this is not so inspired as the second. Your harmonic language is yet too much simple, I advise you to study Bach’s Chorales! But again I thank you your enthusiasm in joining this competition. Austenite: It was indeed an honour for me have your name in this competition, although I must say that this Toccata it is fair for being one of your best works, mainly because it clearly (as many people said before) shows your inexperience leading with the organ. I loved the entrance, which made me remember the beginning of Bach’s 1st Orchestral Suite, which is one of my favourite works from the Great master! (and it is funny because they are in the same key), the middle section was also interesting, although the entrance was clearly what impression me most. It is hard for me to not have this piece in the podium, but the other three are also quite good, then I used the organ technique excuse to not choose this one! But I don’t deny the possibility of record this piece in this summer. I think that it has really very good material, a revision in the technique and in some other details, will certainly be a great improvement to this delightful and smart piece. (which I consider more a Prelude than a Toccata  ) Now the podium, In the third place: Sarastro and its Chacona. A piece which could perfectly have won this competition. And why then it didn’t win? Only because in my opinion the other two did better! Very interesting, it has many many style, I’m a lover of modalism, and you are a master of modalism! Thank you a lot for this piece which mixes perfectly the past with the present! Perhaps a factor that helped to lead you no to the first or the second place is that this piece, although it is clearly for organ it is not completely “churchly”. But I must thank you for your participation and kind contribute with this genial work! In the Second Place: Sojar’s Intrada Picola It is very hard for me to not consider this piece the winner one, because in this explanation it is also almost impossible for me to criticize a work, which is an incredible work, which I with any problem assume that this is a work greater than me. And how may I criticize a work which is greater than me? I feel that I’m judging a work from Handel, or Bach, have I this power? Have I this capacity? No I haven’t. But I only must say, that I have commit myself to choose a winner piece, and I here confess that this was for me the most difficult decision, the best two pieces are very very close, I almost consider this second and the first place, as two first places! Then to forecast, why this is not the winner one, in the justification of the next piece perhaps you could understand me decision. This piece is simply perfect. The harmonies certainly will fulfil an entire cathedral. It is full of dissonances, but its give to this piece so much light! Yes, this piece is light, pure light in sound state! That F major in 17, uauhh! And the final coda with is indeed glorious! So much glorious. The only detail which I disagree totally with you it is the name, ok I know that you called it piccolo because the duration is very brief, although its name should be not Intrada Picola, but Grande Intrata, ou Lumine Intrata! Fantastic! Thank you, thank you very much for this marvellous piece. The winner: Sonata form – fugue! As I previous said it was for me very hard to find a winner, but after a very difficult consideration I found one – you and your fugue. In the presentation of this competition I said that “I love counterpoint, mainly good counterpoint”. And this piece indeed it is full of good, or better, great counterpoint. It is ironic that, in my opinion the transposition to F minor give to this fugue even a better colour. It is so chromatic, and in F minor, it made me remember Mozart last organ fugue in k 608! Which I simple kill only in order to listen it. Like I said to Sojar, your fugue is a work, to which I dare only to look from downside to upwards, it is greater than me. It is real fantastic, it is real a masterpiece, the theme is very dark and perfect, the harmonies are chromatic, dissonant but don’t bother the ear, by the opposite it almost tighten the soul, the counterpoint is impeccable and simply ingenious! And this piece fits perfectly in a Church concert. What a power! What an honour to premiere such incredible masterpiece! Thank you all, congrats to all, mainly congratulations to Sonata Form!

Thanks for the competition and detailed comments on the entries. I enjoyed the four non-luderart entries, and I'm a bit sorry that this competition did not attract more attention and participation, and that due to time constraints and perhaps a lack of real motivation the contestants resorted to perfunctory, tried and tested formulas, without taking great risks (well, to be fair, your guidelines did not seem to encourage wildly avantgarde stuff, but still, compare what Sojar Voglar can achieve - the piece that got disqualified because it had pedals - with the formulaic piece he submitted. Or Sonataform, who explored modes of limited transposition in a fugue context, yet submitted a rather conventional fugue. I'm not saying that those pieces are bad, just that the composers did not want or dare to work at their full potential, which is kind of disappointing. Also, I'm sorry that due to the tight deadline Austenite did not have a chance to polish his entry; idiomatic issues aside, and even though the music does not live up to Austenite's potential, it is still a pleasant, audience-friendly piece, lighthearted and humorous yet still well-behaved enough for church. I hope he does revise it so that it could be usable in the future. Regarding my chacona, your opinion that is not fit for the church is the best compliment, and the very reason you should have selected it regardless its actual worth :evil: . Whatever, it is most generous of you to program pieces by other composers when you could just perform your own music, and it is also very commendable that you are willing to take risks premiering new music. Best of lucks with the recital, and I hope this will not be your last call for scores! Congratulations to Sonataform!

Good topic! And I agree, I think the "why" is as important of the rule. Otherwise, how do you know when to break it? (Get's hammer, looks around with joyful expectation...) (: To add another to the list: For triads in 1st inversion, if the bass note (the 3rd of the chord) is a tonal degree, double it. If it is a modal degree, (the 3rd or 6th degree in the scale for your key) double a tonal degree instead. Otherwise you risk confusing the key if you have a lot of 1st inversion chords. They will be heard as root inversion triads with the root doubled of a different key. Although, as long as you realize that's what you're doing, it may be an effect you want to play with.

Philip Glass /thread

One of the things that really bugged me when I first came across the "rules" was that nobody ever explained to me the actual musical reasons for these rules to exist in the first place. It was just a case of "Bach, Handel, Haydn etc. did it. So should you." I think it would be good to offer some explanations for the existence of each of these rules. I'll offer what I understand the reasons for each one to be. Feel free to elaborate/correct me. 1) Parallel Unisons and Ocatves: This one stems from the idea that in polyphonic vocal music, all parts were thought to be of equal importance and should therefore be equally distinguishable and individually defined. As 2 notes an octave apart are fundamentally the same note, two voices moving in parallel octaves or unison lose their independence and effectively become one voice. 2) Parallel fifths: Same reason as 1). After the unison and the octave, the fifth is the next most consonant interval. Parallel fifths have the same effect of diminishing the individuality of voices. 3) Never double the leading note: The leading note wants to resolve upwards to the tonic. If you double it, you will either find yourself with parallel octaves/unison by resolving both upwards, or one of the leading notes will have to fall a 3rd to resolve onto the fifth of the tonic chord (This kind of resolution actually happens quite often in Bach chorales when a dominant 7th chord is used at the perfect cadence to ensure that the tonic which follows contains all 3 notes of the triad. It is resolved in this way for a good reason and never because the leading note has been doubled.) 4) Never double a sharpened or flattened note: Same principal as 3). A sharpened note naturally wants to continue upwards to resolve, while a flattened note naturally wants to resolve downwards. If you double either, you run the risk of parallel octaves/unison or an otherwise poor resolution that sounds unnatural. 5) Never double sevenths/ninths: Again, this is the same principle as the previous two rules. Added notes, such as sevenths and ninths, are suspensions that naturally want to resolve downwards. Doubling will lead to parallel octaves/unison or poor resolution. 6) Melodic augmented seconds are to be avoided: I was never 100% on the reasons behind this one. These are some of the possible reasons for it that I can think of: 1. Stylistically, it sounds out of place in Western classical music (though a lot of composers have made use of it). The reason for this may have something to do with the fact that the interval isn't found in any of the ancient modes that modern tonality developed out of, so it would sound odd to ears that weren't accustomed to it. 2. Some may argue that it is enharmonically the same interval as a minor 3rd and should therefore sound okay, but before equal temperament developed (which is when most of these "rules" were actually being put into practice), enharmonic notes such as G#/Ab, or C#/Db would have actually been noticeably different in pitch from one another. So the augmented 2nd, F-G#, would sound out of tune compared to the minor 3rd, F-Ab. 7) Avoid the Augmented Fourth melodically: The interval was avoided simply because of its dissonance but this rule was observed less and less in music as time went by. It would certainly sound out of place in a Bach chorale but it has often been used melodically since then. 8) Skips larger than a sixth must be followed by a change in direction: This is just a general guideline for good melodic writing. The ideal contour for a melody should be a wave or an arch shape. This can be heard in vocal music. A vocalist naturally wants to exert energy, i.e. move upwards in pitch, towards the climax of a phrase, before resolving tension and recovering to end the phrase, i.e. descending in pitch. Another reason for turning back when specifically skipping a sixth, is that if you move a step in the opposite direction, you form a perfect fifth with the first note, so it is basically a decoration of a melodic fifth. 9) The interval of a fourth against the bass is forbidden: The interval of a fourth isn't naturally present in a triad that is formed in accordance with the harmonic series. While the fourth is viewed as a consonance (this wasn't always the case), it is only used as a consonance because it is the inversion of the perfect fifth, and therefore can't realistically be avoided. It should be avoided where possible. The really obvious exception is the 2nd inversion tonic chord that often occurs before the dominant chord in a perfect cadence. The "dissonant" effect is exploited in that case for musical reasons, with the fourth resolving to a major third in the dominant chord. 10) Dissonances such as sevenths should resolve downwards: Again, this relates to the releasing of tension, which is more naturally achieved by moving downwards rather than upwards. 11) Always double the root of a root position triad: I don't really have a reason for this one but it sounds like a good rule of thumb, though breaking it is often unavoidable so it shouldn't be worried about too much I guess. 12) I would say that if there is a 12th rule it's this: These shouldn't be thought of as rules. They are guidelines for writing successfully in a certain style from a certain era. They are necessary for any composer to know and be able to put into practice but be aware that to obtain the best musical results, every single one of these rules will need to be broken at some point or other. That's what I understand the reasons for these "rules" to be. I'm sure some others here have some insights they could add that could be of use to beginners.

Nah.