Leaderboard

Overall speaking, I quite enjoy the format and atmosphere of this competition. I think the judging mechanism of this competition is good as, 1) Variety of awards/ scoring criteria - It gives recognition to the composers for certain aspects of his music, and allows (specifically growing composers) much specific target/ direction to enhance. Moreover, appreciation to "good" music in some cases where the music is not fitting to the given theme, but is still pleasant to listen to. 2) Qualitative - Please keep the scoring template optional. IMO the scoring template is a benchmark to distinguish the relative performance of each entrants - while the scoring scale may be inconsistent between different judges (i.e. non-linear and subjective), at least that serves as a tool to establish consensus between different judges the rank of each entrants.

Hello everyone! My thoughts about the Halloween competition: 1. The scoring sheet help to me to scored each entries as I review them impartially. 2. I think it will be those who are new to grow. 3. There are so many entries, including me, that wrote in different styles. I think if we had a competition that highlight these styles it push members to write new styles. 4. Maybe we can one in the future that monetary reward. But now? 5. For now, let us keep for fun until members mature enough to do official ones. (Even on here)

In all the years past, the Christmas Event was just an event - not a competition. It was a completely free event with no limitations on ensemble nor duration and no judges, or scoring. The intent was just to channel the spirit of Christmas (or the holidays or winter) in the music in any way the participants saw fit. And there were only two types of badges - participant badges for everyone who submits music and community organizer for whoever bolstered the event through an announcement post and submissions thread. There was never any popular voting or anything like that either. Sure, that's a great idea! Let me know what you think of the Category Definitions in the Competition Reviewing Template that I just added! Thanks for your input!

I come to you with yet another Muzoracle casting. Lisa is a friend who has kindly bought me my own Muzoracle set (which lets me do these castings for people I know) and Chromatic Harmonica. Thanks Lisa! (Muzoracle is a storytelling/divination tool similar to the Tarot card deck, but with cards with musical concepts and 12-sided Musician's dice and Solfege dice.) This time Lisa asked me if her new breath notation (based on harmonica tablature) will help others with aphantasia to learn to read music. This is my biggest casting thus far - with 10 positions, so I had to take two pictures of it to capture the whole thing: My interpretation of the cards and dice are displayed below. The instrumentation of the piece was guided by the suits of the cards drawn. Since there were two brass cards drawn in the 3rd and 4th positions, I included Trumpet and French Horn. Then, in the 5th position we got dealt a card in the suit of Woodwinds, so I used a Flute. Then in the 8th position we drew a triad of strings so I used a Violin. And finally, in the 9th position we drew a Soloist of Percussion card so I used a Vibraphone. If you'd like to find out more about Muzoracle and how castings are interpreted go here: https://muzoracle.net/ This short musical interpretation of Lisa's Casting is about a minute and a half long. The piece is in Eb major since the black musician's die landed on Eb/D#. I then made the following harmonic/melodic underdrawing that I used in the composition of the music. I started the piece on a single solitary A note surrounded by Silence since the first card drawn was the Silence card. Then as the piece progressed, I added more notes (Cb, D, and G) and let the piece fall into a rhythm. I used the brass instruments first since they were the first to be drawn. Then the Woodwind card got drawn in the 5th position so I had the flute trill between F and Gb. The strings card gets drawn in the 8th position so that's where the Violin comes in, playing high E major (Fb major since its based on RA) chords as a triple stop. Then I used the Db and Bb to build a Bb half-diminished b9 chord with the Fb major chord on top since the 9th position is a Soloist of Percussion card (Vibraphone). The whole piece repeats before finally ending on the tonic chord Eb major (which I added simply for the sake of the music and a clearer tonal identity). If you've gotten this far, thanks for reading! And I hope you enjoy listening to this short chamber work I wrote to represent Lisa's 3rd Casting. Comments, critiques, suggestions, or observations are of course, always welcome. Thanks for listening!

Hello there! Before, I had the project in mind of writing 12 piano preludes, and that was just dandy. I don't know how consecutively I'll write more, but a few ideas have lingered lately so I figured I would dabble at it again. Here's a very short one in C, hope you enjoy!

Please fill out the survey to help us organize better competitions in the future! The survey is anonymous so we won't be able to see who voted for what. The poll closes on Monday, November 10th, 2025 at 11:59 pm PST. Thanks for voicing your opinion!

Hey everyone. I have been going back and forth on my first piano concerto for a long time. Unfortunately, I reached a point where my original design has acted as a roadblock for me to finish the first movement. I decided to restart the work and compose from scratch. I will add more context below, however as an introduction, this excerpt is the entire exposition of my first draft. It is five minutes long and I wish to have it preserved here on YCF. So, sit back, and follow along to the work-in-progress of my first concerto! 🎹 ________________ CONTEXT AND FEEDBACK: I started this project back in June 2024 when I improvised the first theme in one of my practice sessions. I fell in love with it and immediately knew I found a theme worthy for a concerto. I am sticking to late classical (and possible romantic hints) for this work. Hummel, Shostakovich, and Rachmaninoff are the main three sources of inspiration for my orchestration. It follows Sonata-form, however using three themes (1st, 2nd and closing theme) in the exposition. Recently, as I have been diving heavily into the works of Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven, it has dawned on me the level of sophistication each composer had in their writing. How Beethoven would use elements of the first theme to make his second theme, and later use the first movement as basis for theme and variation writing or fugal writing in his third movements. So, after a break in the first half of the year, I have been looking at this exposition and tried to add sophistication. However, I noticed so many gaps in the structure. As it stands, it feels like a compilation of several themes versus one long work showcasing the transformation of the motif and form. As a result, I have stopped working on it and grabbed a blank manuscript and wrote down the key three themes I want to use. I have yet to start rewriting, as I want to give my brain a break and simply ask for feedback. I would appreciate comments on form, orchestration and anything you deem fit. Please do not hesitate to be blunt either! (I may try to write pure double exposition instead of this quasi-expo before the first piano cadenza.) Thanks in advance!! 🙂 _________ EDIT: There is no English Horn in this work so far. I used my Orchestral template and forgot to remove the English Horn from the instrumentation page. Also, The score is NOT TRANSPOSED; it is a concert score)

Thanks for the feedback! I had similar thoughts. Since I am aiming for this style, it makes sense to use an even measure count in my phrases. As I am currently at a football game, I will reply in more detail, however, I will move to the discord so I can share a certain photo of my themes.

Hey @MK_Piano! Great ideas so far! I think what I find confusing about the beginning of your main theme (after the short 4 measure introduction), is that at first it seems like you start the piece on an accompanimental one measure vamp in the strings. So the phrase actually seems to start on measure 6 in the Bassoons. That serves as the antecedent phrase of a musical period. It lasts for 4 measures from bar 6 - 10. That's just fine and dandy, but then the consequent phrase doesn't come in until measure 11 in the Bassoons once again. So it seems like you might be including that one measure vamp again as part of the phrase, in which case it becomes an acephalic five measure phrase. I know Haydn and even sometimes Mozart were known for writing five measure phrases. I am not sure if it is working here. If you are happy with it - definitely keep it! But to me it would sound better if you concatenated the phrasing so that the consequent phrase would start at bar 10. This confusion about the phrase lengths continues into the 2nd iteration of the phrase at measure 18. The phrase starts right on beat one, so this time its not acephalic. But then it continues for five measures from measures 18 - 23 with a slight 3/4 hemiola that's then concatenated to terminate on beat one of measure 23. To me this definitely starts to sound awkward and confusing in the phrasing. When I first listened to the piece without looking at the score, it sounded like you changed meter to 3/4 and then abruptly back to 4/4. I felt lost as a listener, not knowing where the phrase was going rhythmically. So although kinda awesome, the piece does have many structural flaws that confuse (at least this) listener. When the piano comes in on the theme later on in the piece (solo), you do concatenate the phrases to 4 measure phrases and I think that does kinda work better. But I think as far as the big form and macro-tonal plan is concerned, the piece seems to repeat too much. I think if you had included the contrasting 2nd theme in the exposition before doing a 2nd exposition with the piano that would have made more sense. But I have personally never written a piano concerto in sonata form before - I've just written two theme and variations pieces for piano and orchestra. So all my experience is in concertante type piano concerto writing. Thanks for sharing and I hope some of what I had to say was helpful/useful!

By sheer coincidence, I just went to a performance of Mozart's Requiem tonight!

Well, it's no big problem, but sometimes you "drag" your cadences! I'll try to find an example, but making spaghetti sauce right now; maybe in the morning.

Would you be willing to elaborate on this point? (meaning, if you would, explain your thoughts on this, by quoting bar numbers or specific phrases where I could improve upon this idea?)

I'm ashamed to admit I did the same 🥶 I did read this though, promise 😄 This was actually one of the most interesting pieces you've written to me. I know you've written lots of music where you had to think much harder, or it's magnitude is superior (where them ff variations), but this was cool because you've imposed self-restrictions with the notes and avenues you're allowed to go. I think as you've done these your intentions have become much more clear and refined from what I remember of the others, and representing the abstract is a path you've become really good at. It's kind of serial music, right? Predetermined notes and instruments, but your composing intentions are all your own. I didn't like the ending at first, but as I listened more it felt charming and worked really nicely. Well done, Peter!

Duh it's good enough lol. Your teacher is awesome, you're awesome... I hope you win!

Yeah, and I think in general you could apply this throughout. Majestic is the right word, and you capture that so well. Some movement in the chords later on would be good to keep your music driving while remaining at a slower tempo. I really like that moment with the cello at bar 38. The color in your music is wonderful as usual!

@PeterthePapercomPoser @Thatguy v2.0 Thank you for the replies! By no means did I mean to dissuade the structure you implemented. You cannot conform to everybody and no competition is going to be "fair" for every entry. You will have to find a system that is both fair, and not overly strict. I believe my logos was not as clear as I intended in my previous reply. Two things can be true at once and it is refreshing to see many different musicians advocate for a low-pressure means to simply write music; or share existing creations they feel have merit. At the same time, I do not want to take away from the people who are less experienced trying to throw in their works with professional composers. I do not see it fair if they do. As you hinted for the next possible event to be a Christmas one, with no limit on ensemble size, would it make sense to lump and judge a symphonic orchestra work to a solo sonata with piano accompaniment? Or a digital work to a sacred-vocal work detailing a hymn? This was the basis of my thinking in my OG reply. I simply wonder if there is a mesh between formal and informal. Here was an alternate take on my idea(s): Keep the judging by poll, and limit the votes to categories; as you did. With using a table for review, I wanted to suggest another addition to all the info you provided. You added a table showcasing the scoring system (7-7.9 = Average / Standard ). I meant to suggest adding a diagram that defines the words being used: Taste, Originality, Textures, Score Presentation, etc. Taste - Your personal score from 1-10 Score Presentation - How the score is organized / How easy it is to understand the score from 1-10 Originality - How unique does this score sound from 1-10 Creativity - How well the submitant made and used a theme from 1-10 etc. I thought it to be a good way to avoid confusion of the terms by defining the language you want to use. I do not believe that add-on to take away the fun aspect of this. Thanks again!

I'm glad most people are favoring the fun part of the competition rather than monetary rewards. I think it's best to keep it that way for now, and your divisions would be good to use as the badge rewards instead of what we did. However, since we wanted it to be a poll instead of actual judging this time (it was thrown together pretty quickly), I like the categories we used as easy fun ways to vote. In hindsight, as I voted, I noticed there wasn't any "most fun" category, which yours clearly would have won to me. @PeterthePapercomPoser pointed it out in our discord, and we should've had that category. These are easy ways to improve managed by experience and feedback. With actual judging, your way is the way to move forward imo. More afterthoughts: I like the poll as an alternative to judging, I think both are equally valid. I'm not a fan of seeing who you vote for, but I know I'm in the minority with that. The framework for assigning numbers kind of got out of hand imo, but I'm glad people seemed to have fun with it. It wasn't necessary, but I'm glad it was an aide for people in determining which pieces they liked best. Being up front about WHAT we would be voting for would maybe be better for future poll based competitions.

Well, I like this so far, halfway through. Starts impressionistic, then goes all poppy, like a well-composed film score. Only criticism I can think of right now is NEVER LET UP THE RHYTHM! Don't take that too literally...Mendelssohn was a great composer in his orchestral writing, but his piano music is lovely yet flawed: he tended to take one figuration and repeat it for the entire piece, and some of those figurations have been called "sugar icing" by the piano in his solo and chamber works, concertos...

haha yeah indeed they are.

Hi @UncleRed99! Clearly I forgot your original post so I will just treat this as a complete new one lol. I think so too, I enjoy this Japanese style music with a slight sadness but not too much. I feel like in b.51 the transition to a louder passage is a bit abrupt, maybe add a gradual transition with a volume crescendo before it? Because for me it's the only place I feel abrupt in the entire piece even though there are other spots with the tacit after a fermata. I feel like the trumpet melody in b.61-63 is too high in its register and will overpower the other instruments. Overpowering is ok but I think it doesn't fit your style here too much personally. And in b.53-57 there's an imitation between oboe and saxophone, but I think the oboe is overpowered by the saxophone so the imitation is not the most effective. And in b.94-95 I feel like the accompanying figure is given too much emphasis particularly with the 1st violin and trumpet. Maybe remove the trumpet? I sound nitpicky, but I do enjoy the piece! Thx for sharing. Henry

I just finished my little vote. I had a fun time, even if I didn't "win," I still feel I gained some experience. Heck, it gave me a passion to make new music and make more music of similar instrumentation. I was happy to see that I was not the only one who did a Piano Quartet with Strings to pair. It was refreshing to hear how different 3 people can make contrasting music with the same constraints. I will reference them in the future when it comes time to do more. 🙂 About the grading or reviewing aspect, I think a simple solution is to keep brackets or divisions for submissions. We saw a complete mix of tonal and post-tonal, amatuer and professionals. It can be hard to grade them all at an equal level when you have to conform yourself to a different standard for each person. I want to be the first to suggest this idea: I think before the next competition, you should categorize users by division based on an entry poll or application. Like most real festivals, forums or competitions, each user will have to file an application to enter with their work. Some places in the US are now asking for cover letters and resumes to pair. Since the point is to keep it fun and more informal, I suggest making a poll asking for people to help gauge their experience: "Have you seen your works performed?" "Have you taken music theory before?" "How many years have you been writing music? "Do you have the ability to write sheet music?" "Will you submit a post-tonal (Without key-center) or tonal (with key-center) work for this event?" Etc. Similar to existing competitions, we can categorize people before hand, create divisions and judge more accurately. Some divisions such as the following: Amatuer Professional Post-Tonal Tonal This was my only gripe with the formatting. It felt hard to review everyone to a level standard when the goal-post was never consistent. I do not want to feel like the bad guy for using language or concepts they are not aware of, or risk being redundant if it is clear they have experience. The table used for reviewing was a little vague as it felt more subjective. I do not mind that when rating music, however, it may be nice to specify what you mean by "Originality" or "Textures". Someone may have a different understanding of what those words mean and it will affect their reviews. Defining some of them beforehand will also standardize the ratings. Thoughts? 🤔

First of all, I have to say that I really enjoyed this competition! It was an intense two weeks—on the one hand, to finish my own composition/arrangement, and on the other hand, to listen to such a diverse range of great musical works. I think all the participants invested a lot of time, effort, and passion to achieve such a result! I must admit that – puh – reviewing seems to be harder than composing! We have seen a lot of atonality and non-traditional musical structure (to mention some, but not to be exhaustive all "Dima’s National Dance" by @Dima, "From Above, Now Below" by @Thatguy v2.0, "Diptych for Piano Quartet" by @Cosmia, "Aos Si" by @HoYin Cheung, "American Cryptids" by @Micah, "Fumage" by @Justin Gruber, "Clowns" by @sebastian Pafundo, "Woodwind Quintet" by @Maxthemusicenthusiast, "The Mist" by @Kvothe, "A Hollow Theme for Halloween" by @therealAJGS) and – on the other hand – more „beautiful“ and „well-behaved“ pieces (for example, "Ghost Town Requiem" by @UncleRed99, "Bagatelle No. 6" by @Omicronrg9 and "Dance from the skeleton ball" by @MK_Piano), which I very enjoyed, too. As „balanced“ between this two poles I would consider "Daunting Steps" by @ferrum.wav, "Trio Variations" by @TristanTheTristan and – lol - my own piece. Therefore, the decision was very hard and due to the subject of the competition, Halloween, the more outlandish pieces were in the better position. The dedications of the badges „spookiest/scariest piece“, „strangest/weirdest/most outlandish piece“ and „biggest thriller“ were – in my opinion – not so easy to distinguish, so that we have one glorious winner in nearly all categories, "From Above, Now Below" by @Thatguy v2.0, my best congratulations. Special thanks to @PeterthePapercomPoser for organizing that funny contest! What did you think of the official competition reviewing template? For me, the competition reviewing template was very useful, giving the focus what to review a clear structure. Even if I did not give a textual review according to the eight categories but only a general one, scoring according to the definitions (i.e. between 0 and 10 points) and calculating an average was useful and helped to determine the winner(s) for the different badges. I could also imagine that in future competitions, the template and the numbers will be used in an official sheet to determine the overall winner. In such a case, however, it would be necessary to formulate more precisely how we should award the points in order to achieve a fair result that can be used for such a calculation. I noticed that some of the reviewers often awarded 10 points to pieces/categories they liked, while I was a bit stingy with this top score (apologies to all participants). I would like to say that such differences in the use of scores between different reviewers, although consistent in their own assessment, could lead to a kind of injustice. What would you like to see in future competitions? I think, the most revenue of the competition is getting a lot of review in a short period of time. Therefore, I would like to keep the competition „just for fun“ without monetary awards. An interesting variant could be to keep the competitors and judges anonymous. Such a rule could be combined with the mandatory use of the template and its usage for the calculation of the winner, as mentioned above. In such a case it would be necessary to require that all participants review all the other entries to achieve comparability and fairness. However, such a strict set of rules could imply that some members would hesitate to participate, thus we could try out that for one competition, but should not apply it to all future ones.