Leaderboard

Although I hold that AI music is still technically music, however unethically created it is, AI music is certainly not composed. It's more so generated, and this site is arguably about the composition of music, not the music itself (although, it seems that many users haven't grasped this). For that reason, my mind is most open to being changed on Question 2. Currently, I've selected the second option—creating a sub-forum and barring AI submissions to be entered into competitions—but if someone was to push hard for banning all AI music on account of it being against the spirit of being a composer, then it's not like I'm gonna push back too hard. However, I'm sympathetic to the idea that AI is here and will be here for a while, if not permanently, so banning it outright feels a little close-minded when there's still things to be learned from it (more socially and economically than practically), just not strictly composition. I'm seeing a lot of exceptions being made for vocals/SFX creation after something has been written and making rules that are clear and foolproof to distinguish that is going to be hell, but I think it's better to have the word of another person as to the extent AI was used rather than just trying to use an AI checker or a filter. As pointed out before, those things are really murky and spotty. I don't really care about the “emotions” behind it, because—let's be real—tons of music gets written for a paycheck with no emotion or humanity. That's not a measurable quality, as far as I'm concerned. I also don't really care about the amount of effort or time put into a piece; some things are just easier for different people. As for feedback, have you seen Google AI? It could tell me the sky is blue and I'd look out my window to go check. No way in hell is that level of intelligence going to have reasonable critiques beyond just telling me what Roman numerals are being used, which isn't analysis in the first place.

@chopin Glad you liked it! Yeah, the whispers of the old theme coming back was a really captivating idea for me, but the best part is that I'm sure another talented analyst could analyze it in a completely different way than I did! @Luis Hernández Thank you! @Thatguy v2.0 Nonsense, the fact that you're able to even listen to it—let alone enjoy it—means that you're worth your salt! And yes, it's why I have so much solo cello rep... I can actually play it. 🙂 @Wieland Handke Thank you so much, that's a great image! And wonderfully wholesome for something that be construed as being so eerie. My respects and humble thanks to all of you!

Hey, this is great and has a lot of potential; I hope you keep writing! Lots of very cool moments and bits like the way you harmonize the very first “Shew me thy ways, O Lord”; vii˚7/vi–vi? How cool is that, especially since it's a lot more harmonically standard the second time around. I'll mainly focus here on “Shew me...” since it's a little easier to parse the score quickly: 1. m. 5's two-beat long semitonal dissonance is already striking enough, but having the suspension resolve upwards is even more noticeable. Not a strict problem, per se; it's just maybe a little overly noticeable. 2. m. 7, V7 without the third except in an ornamental figure, approached by 4-5 motion in first species. 3. mm. 8–9, “Shew“ is three quarter notes for a one-syllable word. There's a couple other measures where you have one syllable sung on repeated notes. 4. m. 11, unnecessary whole rest break in V1. 5. mm. 14, 17 & 22, similar issue to Point 2. Also, unnecessary breaking of the quarter rest in vocalist's part in m. 14. 6. m. 26, “O Lord” breaks the more natural setting of the scansion you had in mm. 10–11. 7. Keep “teach” as one word spelled correctly (don't double the “e”). 8. I would add some bowings; some are great, like the one you have in m. 13 in V2, but take a little time to make sure that the most natural style (down bow at the beginning of the measure, especially with all of these quarter notes) is preserved unless marked otherwise. Of course, Points 2 and 4 can be fixed with a continuo part with figures; I heard it in the background, but it just seemed to double the celli and bassi. Again, it's exciting to see where this could go! Solid start!

Thank you for sharing this wonderful Prelude-and-Fugue piece. Since I also compose preludes and fugues, I am very excited and interested in reviewing such a pair. And indeed, I really enjoyed it and have now a few thoughts or comments which are not to be considered as „criticism“, but rather intended as an advice or idea how this beautiful piece could be improved further and finally made „great“: When listening to the prelude for the first time, I clearly recognized the Baroque style of a French overture with its double dots and 32nd runs, but there were something stylistic that differed from a typical Baroque and counterpuntual piece. Now, after listening multiple times and with the help of the other comments, I figured out that this is due to the repetition of measures 1-14 in bars 15-27, which means that up to this point there is no real modulation away from the tonic G minor. There is nothing wrong with it, but I would agree with the suggestions of @muchen_ and @Willibald to possibly change something concerning the modulation and recurrection of the material, also with respect that usually the prelude is not longer than its fugue. The fugue subject is very memorable and expressive, I especially love the „wedge-like“ ending in mm. 68, which, in my opinion, implies that the theme should not end with the first eighth note in bar 68, but should extend over the entire four bars. In the comes in bar 72, you have already quoted the “wedge,” even though this bar is a variation of the original, while in the third entry in bar 76, the “wedge” is completely lost, which I regret. In measures 80-85, 87-95, and 96-103, you have created three (or even four) sections with sequences based on different contrapuntal material—for example, quotations or parts of the theme—which would be perfect as interludes or episodes between further development (or exposition) sections of the fugue theme. And that is exactly what I would like to see: at least two further developments of the excellent fugue subject. I also could imagine a coda with a pedal point and perhaps a recurrection of the 32nd notes texture from the prelude as ending climax! With this in mind – to shorten the prelude and to extend or „complete“ the fugue – your piece could become a marvellous pair – Prelude and Fugue in G minor!

Thanks to all 20 participants who submitted a whopping total of 26 submissions to the 2025 Christmas Music Event! They will be the recipients of the "2025 Christmas Participant" award! - A Christmas Mash-up by @PeterthePapercomPoser Jesus was Born this Day by @Vonias Another Christmas Mash-up by @PeterthePapercomPoser My submission to the 2025 Christmas event!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! by @therealAJGS Song for the Fallen (2025 Christmas Music Event Submission) by @Musicman_3254 Submission to the 2025 Christmas Music Event by @TristanTheTristan March of the Gingerbread People (2025 Christmas Event Submission) by @Crescent Roulade Fugue on "We wish you a Merry Christmas" (2017) by @J. Lee Graham Motet a 8 "O Magnum Mysterium" in E-flat Major by @Fugax Contrapunctus fantasia on jingle bells (2025 Christmas Event Submission) by @Monarcheon March of the Snowflakes - 2025 Christmas Event Submission by @Vavrinec O Soul, Seek Revelation 14:9-11 by @SeekJohn14v6 (Very Casual) Christmas Mesh Up by @HoYin Cheung The Empty Church - Submission to the YCF 2025 Christmas Event by @Wieland Handke Highland Shepherds - Submission to the YCF 2025 Christmas Event by @Wieland Handke Jingle Bells and Dashing Through the Snow by @chopin Christmas Carol by @Aiwendil Instead of Christmas (Submission to 2025 Christmas Event) by @Luis Hernández Coventry Carol (Christmas 2025) by @mercurypickles With Every Beat My Heart Knows by @HoYin Cheung A Christmas Scherzo by @PeterthePapercomPoser I composed a Christmas Song! - It went great! by @raymond doerr My Christmas Submission by @Mooravioli Christmas Mash-up No.3 by @PeterthePapercomPoser Glory to God by @SeekJohn14v6 Nutcracker inspired final by @Tunndy And thanks to all the reviewers who ardently and painstakingly reviewed all the entries to the event! (the AI generated ones aren't required): @chopin, @Henry Ng Tsz Kiu, @Wieland Handke and @PeterthePapercomPoser. They will be the recipients of the "2025 Christmas Reviewer" Award! - (Note that if people still want to review all the submissions after December 31st, they are free to do so and be added to the list of "2025 Christmas Reviewer" Award recipients ex post facto. Check how many more reviews you need to make before getting the badge in the 2025 Christmas Music Event Reviews Spreadsheet. If you're not on the list yet I will add you once you review a more substantial number of pieces.) And thanks to @PeterthePapercomPoser for the event announcement thread, managing new submissions, creating the Christmas calendar event, advertising the event in various discord servers as well as making this conclusion thread! He will receive the "2025 Christmas Organizer" Award! - And we all hope that you had a Merry Christmas and that your 2026 year will be great!!! To see the 2025 Christmas Music Event announcement thread go here:

Hello, I recently finished a piece, Introduction and Waltz, and am wondering if the score is MOLA ready. I'm submitting to a competition thats due on the 10th (parts are not required til a later date). Thanks a lot and feel free to also listen and give feedback!

Exactly. Completely agreed. It wouldn't be appropriate to post, say, a Haydn string quartet in the "share your work" forums, because it's not your work. In exactly the same sense, it doesn't make any sense to me for someone to post an AI-composed piece here, because it's not the poster's work. What would be the point? Best case, you fool people into thinking it's your own work. What then? People give you feedback, assuming you wrote the piece, and that feedback is totally useless to you since you didn't, in fact, write the piece. I suppose maybe somebody will say, "Good job," to you, and OK, congratulations, you tricked someone into praising you. (Though, I must say, to date, I still have not heard an AI-composed piece of music that I thought was anything better than mediocre). This is exactly what I can't understand. What would anyone expect in response to a piece of AI-generated music? Sure, I could pretend that a human actually wrote it and write a critique of it based on that fiction, but I can't imagine why I would ever do that, nor can I imagine what use that would be to the person who posted it.

Follow up: If there is sub-forum for AI, how will that impact the forum as a whole? How do you review entries with AI? See, this is dilemma we are facing. My position stands: We should regulate and monitor if users Suno. Ban it from competitions. And not have a separate sub form AI. If AI is abused, then ban it. If it is used in with other sub forums, @UncleRed99 idea is great. Industry standards should be allowed. As usually, provide a score (if there is one) and an audio file.

Did you get the joke? Your title reminded me of “It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas,” so I wrote a small parody.

Thank you all for your feedback. I have nothing to disagree with, and I will certainly put the tips into practice if I ever rework on the piece.

“I’m beginning to write a small oratorio, Everywhere there’s notes! Take a look at the fifths and tenths, some intervals are immense, At half past three my laptop screen’s aglow!”

Hi @Cafebabe, I like the recurring March like turn figure in your prelude, it reminds of the D major fugue in WTC I. For the fugue, nice Dido and Aeneas like subject. If you are writing in Baroque style, usually the 3rd entry of the subject (in b.73) will be in tonic G minor instead of dominant D minor. I agree with @Willibald that there can be more appearances of the fugue subject, and to me especially there should be more appearances of the subject in the tonic G minor! Good counterpoint throughout though. Thx for sharing! Henry

Hi @Kvothe! The waltz is fine and I think you can add a contrasting section to it, probably in a major key or something. Also the false relation in b.12 sounds a bit harsh in this context to me. Thx for sharing! Henry

Thanks for sharing this prelude and fugue, both of them a joy to listen to. The beginning of the prelude is especially very charming. However, the passage in m. 12 and 13 (and similar ones) with those notes of different length tied to semidemiquavers in both hands running in parallel seems difficult to play, especially to get the timing right, but I am a rather bad pianist. After the cadence in m. 14/15, the verbatim repetition in m. 15-27 is not that unusual, but would have been easier to notate with a repeat sign. The following passage brings finally the modulation everyone is waiting for (you could try and modulate already in the first part of the prelude; it increases momentum as the prelude then has to find a way back) 😉 , and with it some harsh harmonies which you handle tastefully. At the end, for a short moment it sounds like the opening phrase would come back in d minor, but in a clever move, we are disappointed; the return of g minor is, however, a bit too surprising for my taste; a e.g. "motivo di cadenza" or a similar adapted cadence could be used to flesh this more out. The fugue has a good and versatile subject and I just identified three full instances of the subject (m. 65, m. 69, m. 73) and two partial ones (m. 77, m. 93); it would have been nice to have fewer instances of the sequences and more instances of the subject. But of course this is a well composed fugue, so this is more a matter of one's preferences.

This is really lovely. I don't have time to analyze the score in depth, but as others have noted, it sounds very clear and smooth for eight-part counterpoint. I'm sure that if I tried to write pure counterpoint like this for eight voices, I'd find them getting in each other's way constantly and I'd end up with a thicker, muddier sound.

Still need you guys’ and gals’ opinion! Henry