Leaderboard

This is a piece that I consider to be special. I have spent weeks working on it bit by bit, making one decision after another. It is Prelude No. 10 from Debussy’s Second Book, entitled ‘Canope’. A canope is the vessel in which the remains of mummies were stored in ancient Egypt; these were sealed with small sculptures of Anubis’s head. The piano piece is spectacular, with harmonies that defy all logic within the tonal world. I’m providing the score in concert pitch and in transposed pitch. Canope.mp3 Canope concert pitch.pdf Canope transposed pitch.pdf Link to the piano original version:

@Markus Boyd Thank you for the detailed reply and the kind words, and your voice-leading examples.

Unsure why this hasn't had much attention yet. There is a lot of music here to unpack after listening. You have some great ideas, particularly during those moments of counterpoint & dialogue between the parts. So, you have my respect! You say it is 'Haydnesque' but I beg to differ. The structure is particularly quirky. You have three movements but within each there are multiple distinct tempo changes with new ideas introduced and some of these new subsections are individually repeated. So the structure does not say "sonata form" to me. However there are some moments where classical oriented ideas dominate that definitely veer the Viennese school. Voice leading is generally good. But some areas could benefit from attention. Lets look at an example: Your choice of progression here is V-V7-I. Usually with a so-fa-mi descent at a cadence I would utilize a Ic-V7-I harmonisation. It isn't incorrect what you have done - it works - but the question I would put forward concerns the added value of choosing a V instead in this context, particularly if the prior measure also contains dominant harmony. In traditional voice leading many of the best solutions depend on optimum harmonic decisions. Against the so-far-mi descent, there is an opportunity for contrary motion in an outer part. Having the F#-G ascent in the bass offers a better contrast arguably than in the inner voice (presently in the alto). In addition, while perhaps defensible, the bass and alto in your realisation both ascend to a perfect consonance (the G). The alto would be better descending in thirds with the soprano (B-A-G) - effectively both in contrary motion with the bass - while the viola maintains oblique motion on the D throughout the progression. This way you also do not omit the 5th of V7 (A) that - while permissible - is preferred if there is a means to include it and does not undermine the underlying ascetics: Omitting the 5th of a chord generally occurs when ascetically optimum. For example, if the upper voice had a 1-7-1 pattern: Disclaimer: In no way am I implying you are "incorrect" in your decisions. I cannot speak on your behalf as composer; but just be aware that where other solutions exist, justifications may become necessary...

Sorry for the delayed reply. I gave it a listen. It has gotten better. The progression doesn't feel boring at all, and it maintains a consistent, calm atmosphere. At the same time, combined with the repetition of the melody, it actually started playing in my head on its own while I was doing other things. Also, regarding the awkwardness at 3:22 that I mentioned last time (which is around 3:15 in this version), in this new version, instead of feeling like a disconnect from the overall vibe of the piece, it now feels like an interesting twist in the progression. Best, Lithl.

I wrote my first string quartet. I liked it while I was writing it, but now listening back I'm not so sure it would keep the attention of listeners. Maybe I regret opening with a slow movement. I think 2nd movement is best. I like the section in 3rd mvt. from 15:25 to 17:08, because of those chords and the counterpoint. And maybe I should have used more modern harmony in places to spice it up. 00:00 Movement I. 07:27 Movement II. 13:22 Movement III. Od. G. - String Quartet No. 1.mp3 Od. G. - String Quartet No. 1 [2026-05-29_06-41-34] .pdf

When you write for orchestra, you should consider the role each instrument should play in communicating your ideas. Unusually, much of your writing for the bassoon part is not aligned with the bass (taken by the cello's and violas). For instance from bar 29 the oboes, clarinets and bass are all doubled in such a way that is laden with consecutive octaves and 5ths. This is not good orchestration at all. Woodwind passage from bar 29 (bass clef at the bottom) As a basis, I would encourage you to use the bass parts as a guide for your bassoon writing and which should ideally contrast with the upper voices. Furthermore, the below central motif is uninspired/plain without some rhythmic interest. Perhaps consider adding syncopation between different parts to embed some form of dialogue. My feeling is that if you are not thinking yet in terms of that kind of dialogue, you are not ready for symphonic writing. Stick to chamber music - as I have done for much of my work - until you are comfortable with counterpoint and voice leading before going larger scale, is my suggestion!

I tried it one more time, and it worked. Thanks for your help!

Hi Petr, I did some research, and the reason it wasn't embedded might be due to the link format. Right now, yours might be a link from the YouTube share button, but when I pasted the unsimplified link directly from the address bar, it worked! I didn't know that either, so this was a great learning opportunity for me. It might be worth editing your topic! And please continue with your own composing style. It is so unique and interesting.

I like what you have done here by essentially utilizing a well known (and somewhat cliched) sequence off the baroque period (Handel comes to mind) before demonstrating the range of tonal and chromatic possibilities with emerging romanticism. I admire your work. It at times feel they read too much as a technical exercise in counterpoint and voice leading. Your melodies need to sing! As Luis pointed out, the excessive use of arpeggios in the midi betray the experience. You could change the instruments to woodwind or strings to allow the suspensions to be sustained clearly, and utilize a quality sound set like the musescore library. You’re always on point with the technical delivery. But this doesn’t always guarantee that we ‘feel’ it. Just a suggestion ☺️ ps I’m Markus, nice to e meet!

Hey guys! Here is the best part about the Non-monthly competitions: They can be ANYTHING you want them to be. No stipulations except for one very important one: There must be some kind of prize. And, the good part is this: you get to decide what that prize may be. It may NOT be anything worth Money. For that is a legal issue I do not want to breach. However, if you host a competition OFF-SITE and post it here, then you may of course use whatever prize or no prize you wish. Which brings me, briefly, to Off-site comps. This is where these go. The proper format for posting them is this: This is to differentiate before opening a thread whether it is a competition hosted HERE or elsewhere. There are NO guidelines or stipulations for off-site competitions. This is a place to advertise them and get good views. :) My forum gets a decent amount of competitive traffic weekly! Now, for the ON-SITE comps! There are a few restrictions I'd like to remind everyone! You do not have to get these pre-approved by me. But, know that if I have questions about it, I will be PMing you. And, I will be VERY scrutinous. Remember: YOU must come up with some kind of prize (examples: performance. good rendering. Professional Composition lesson on the piece that won. Whatever works. Be creative. If it is creative, I will most likely say yes.) :) Have fun with these, guys! I cannot promise there will always be competitions active at the site. But, I will do my best to post off-site Competitions here weekly! -Mori. (if you have questions or if the forum doesn't work for you, please PM me!)