Wieland Handke

I very agree with your approach to create a new piece having a musical idea in mind, if not yet a melody or motif to be used as the main subject, but a rather „technically“ one – here your choice of the interval pattern you described. Even if you did not invent a new chord or a new scale, this is a unique, this interval pattern is a „unique selling point“ of the piece and creates the mood of the piece which is indeed „ethereal“. And with your realization and recording so far, you have really caught this melancholic feeling with the warm timbre of the cello and the soft piano. I especially liked the small details such as the grace notes, the arpeggiated two-note-“chords“ and the triplets. Now, to get the piece continued and finished, I think it’s time to think about the form. Since it is already lengthy and although it has just separate sections, the listener is somewhat lost not exactly recognizing the structure and find out where the climax is. And in that sense it becomes a bit repetitive because there is a lack of contrast to the overall calm and „airy“ mood. Therefore, I would suggest to consider to put the piece, for example, in Rondo form where you could use the existing material for the different A (or A’) sections and there were room to introduce sections with a contrasting mood (in the B and C sections). For such a contrast I could imagine passages with a more dramatic expression or a final, triumphant resolution. Another possibility would be to have a section with a more distinctive and memorable melody (e.g. a „real theme“).

While I was writing my review on your „Contemplation No. 5“ yesterday, I remembered that I did not reply to your friendly review of my fugue. What I especially appreciated is your imagination that there could be vocals added. And, yes, I also had this intention in mind sometimes to have a version with a choir. Not only because of the anthem but also as I can imagine that some of the motifs are suitable as sung syllables, such as the main subject could be „Dona nobis pacem“ and there is also another motif in a transitional passage which could bear the text „Herr gib uns deinen Frieden“ (which is the same in German). I’ve already tried to record a version with a „Choral oohs and aahs“ soundfont which gives a good imagination how it could sound, but with my current technical capabilities and skills it sounds to boring or embarrassing. However, if I once finished my project composing 24 preludes and fugues and I’m really bored, I could decide to compose a mass – so I had the inspiration of at least one of its movements, the „Dona nobis pacem“ (😊 haha, not considered really seriously now, but who knows ...)

Hello @MichaelJohn A beautiful piece with a calm, serene mood which I very enjoyed to listen! I must say that I did not spend many attention – when reading the score – to the harmonic structure of the piece (as Peter did), because I was really captivated and fascinated about the detailed performance concerning articulation, dynamics and tempo! I would love if every piano piece presented here at the forum had that quality. I especially like the accentuation of the melody which is interwoven in the triplets, so that even if the score looks „simple“, I had the impression that were more voices involved as one could think from a short look at the score. I just did not understand completely your comments how you created the score and recording: The recording is a live recording resulting into a midi file which you have now reproduced with a better piano sound. That’s great, so we know that you are not only able to compose or improvise that piece but also to play it in that intense and expressive quality. But what about the „quantized notes“? I can’t imagine what a software would produce for a „score“ from a live recording with such an amount of rubato, fermatas and accentuation … I’m asking such silly questions since my approach to compose is quite opposite. I first write the notes down (even not as a „paper composer“) but using notation software and produce my score and midi files from that input. And, yes, I’ve always the intention in mind how I would interpret it on the piano. Therefore I always maintain two scores, one to print out and one for the recording with a huge amount of additional articulation, dynamics and time changes to achieve a satisfying recording result. And I must admit, it would a hard work to encode that amount of interpretation you gave your piece!

Yes, now it looks fine! The chords and intervals in each hand can be clearly recognized. I would also decide to have the beam nearer to the majority of the notes and adjusting the length of the stems is obviously driven by the means to avoid collisions with the dynamic marks – what you’ve well done in the example. I have also not read „Behind Bars“ and other standard literature concerning engraving. I usually try to follow my aesthetic feeling which has been taught by the good old hand-engraved editions, for example the Mugellini edition of the Welltempered Clavier (Breitkopf & Härtel) which I use to play from. For my note engraving I do not use MuseScore (or other software with a graphical user interface) but lilypond (which has a different approach, you’re typing the score in a sort of „software“ source code in a simple text file and lilypond „compiles“ it to a .pdf and .midi file). However, that might not be everyone’s preference how to work when composing, there is an interesting „essay“ from the lilypond creators concerning what make it so difficult to let scores produced by computer programs look as satisfying as the hand-engraved ones.

Yes, but not yet as I intended. To clarify my ideas, I have attached a version of your latest score with some annotations. I see that you have marked the notes where the other hand takes over. But the markings (m.g. and m.d.) aren’t very helpful for sight-readers, since the note is still written in the “wrong” staff. Sight-reading is about reading chords and intervals—not individual notes. Whenever a note of a chord or interval is written in the “wrong” staff, the recognition pattern that a sight-reader normally uses to identify a chord or interval is inherently lost, forcing the player to identify a single note and add it to the chord/interval being played, which slows down the process. Consequently, such situations require practice and/or memorization, which contradicts the approach of sight-reading and playing the piece “without practice.” Therefore, I very appreciate scores where the chords/intervals are notated as a complete pattern in that staff where it is to be played by the respective hand. I must admit, that such a score looks sometimes a bit „cluttered“ because of the „kneed beams“ and sometimes cross-staff note stems (producing sometimes problems for the collision resolving with dynamics, slurs etc), but if the player finally makes the respective annotations by hand in its score, the readability is reduced, too. Please do not take my comments as personal criticism of your score; rather, they are intended as general advice or as basis for discussion, since I often come across scores here in the forum—even from very experienced composers—that, while well-suited for analyzing voice leading, leave me with the uncomfortable feeling: “Has the composer ever played this piece himself, and did he pay sufficient attention to its playability?” AnnotatedScore.pdf

Hello everyone! I‘m very excited looking forward to the next competition I would like to participate. The suggestions concerning the the topic in combination with the instrumentation are very interesting, but also challenging. After a quick look, I’m not really sure yet which topic/instrumentation I would prefer, and which musical idea would best fit for any of them, so I need to take some time thinking about, how to vote in the poll. (Hopefully, I won‘t miss the deadline ...)

Hello @Marek , I see, that you have joined the forum recently and now at the first topic you have the fortune – or even the evil – that you’ve received a very detailed review which is not only intended as suggestion on the improvement of your particular piece but useful to all other members in this forum. So I could imagine, that there will be many replies on this topic in the future – perhaps a discussion or even a little dispute about the issues MK_Piano pointed out, especially on engraving. So there is my advice, take that serious, but not personal. I remember on a topic by Frederic Gill where some members had (their own) conversation about details he surely had not in mind and finally was a bit overwhelmed and „overteached“, so that I was a bit afraid he would be too disappointed and would leave the forum at all. Therefore, I now come first to your music, where I only speak from my listening impression: I can really imagine a shore in the morning where the fog is slowly lifting and the sun comes on shining through the clouds. It’s a very calm and serene moment, in which the perception of time seems to be gone away. After you’ve walked an endlessly seeming time at the shore, you turn your head and look back – now discovering the great lighthouse you hadn’t seen before, since it was hidden by the cliffs above, you now have passed. I tell that story to express the sole criticism which I have, and that is the length of the piece in comparison with the things that happen. And in this I can only agree with MK_Piano’s comments on his final pages of the annotated score. Now to the comments concerning engraving: Hello @MK_Piano, thank you for your effort you have put into annotating the score. I think this is helpful not only for Marek, but also to me and many other forum members. There are a few general rules you pointed out which one should follow to achieve a clear score presentation, for example • No dynamics on rests. • Not to prolong notes using ties whenever it is possible to notate otherwise, for example with dotted notes. • No separated rests whenever it is possible to combine them into a larger rest. • No diminuendo to „nothing“ (e.g. unplayable dynamic marks like „pianississimo“). • Some aesthetics (clashing dynamics symbols). And in the examples in that particular score, it is „obvious“ to follow that rules would be a huge improvement. However, as I remember at some of my piano preludes and fugues, there are some situations where I intentionally violated that rules in situations where I find that the score becomes more readable when using tied notes instead of dotted ones or when separating longer rests and put the shorter against the notes of the same length in another voice – to mention some examples. I don’t want to go into detail with this at Marek’s thread here, so I would ask you whether I could discuss that topic with you in the future, for example when I’m about to present that respective pieces here on the forum. One advice I can really emphasize, is to maintain two different scores. One as the „printing“ score to be used for playing from, and one solely for the purpose of recording in your software. I do so with all of my pieces, and the „recording“ score is full of exaggerated articulations, dynamic marks and even micro tempo changes to achieve a satisfying, more realistic recording result wherein I can express my ideas about the interpretation.

Hello @L.S Barros , Reviewing a fugue without a score is a challenge, but if you choose not to reveal it, I fully accept that decision and will try to figure out what I can discover just by listening… The fugue has a short and memorable subject that modulates to the dominant. When I try playing a few notes on my “GarageBand piano,” I’d guess it’s in G-sharp minor, which is one of the most interesting minor keys to me because it has a somewhat spooky vibe (perfect for Halloween) and is a great choice for your energetic and humorous little fugue. I said „humorous“ because the first transitional passage between the second and third subject entry introduces funny repeated notes or intervals which are even more pronounced in the first episode. This somewhat repetitive and homophonic motif is reappears later as counterpoint of the subject, and I enjoy how well it works not damaging the overall counterpoint of the fugue. In the later episodes, you have presented a more traditional transition using sequential motifs, so that the fugue as a whole has an engaging texture that never becomes boring. You mentioned that there are parallels, but aside from the repeated notes or intervals in the first half of the fugue, I always felt to perceive contrary motion in the voices which naturally avoids parallels. Thank you for sharing, very enjoyed.

Hello @Luis Hernández , Thank you for the score! Yes, I’m interested in it and did download it, because it is such a small but great example. Since I’m usually focused on piano pieces, I’m not familiar with orchestration – especially with large ensembles. I only did some arrangements/orchestrations of my preludes and fugues, for example during the last two YCF competitions – which I very enjoyed. So, if there is the next such event, I think I’ll come back to your exercise using it as an inspiration how I could make my piano pieces sound in a larger ensemble. And since my preludes just have some more notes than only two – or better to say more than three, as our beloved Tristan correctly pointed out – it will be very helpful!

Hallo @PeterthePapercomPoser ! Thank you. I always highlight the subject entries in the „colored score“ which I use for the videos and even for myself when composing, since it helps me recognizing the subject and I enjoy if it is helpful for the visitors, too. I’m not quite sure which exact subject entry you meant, the first one (of the original, non-diminished subject) is in bar 46 in inversion as accompaniment in the transition section to the anthem (and from there on, the subject appears several times with that shift). While analyzing the fugue (which I’ve composed four years ago), I found out a few more interesting „shifts“ (which I did not remember furthermore). For example, in the exposition there is a recurring countersubject which starts together with the first subject entry as Comes, but is than shifted a half bar (for the second) and a whole bar (for the third occurence). Astonishingly, it seems to work and those „shifts“ help that the fugue is not repetitive in its rhythmic texture, but has a continuous flow – which is required to resolve the dissonances I use heavily in this fugue (somewhat contradicting the consonant style of Palestrina) but which I find appropriate given the serious programmatic backdrop of war. As far as I remember, a ricercar is an „older ancestor“ of a fugue, dating back to the Renaissance; while it is “close” to the fugue, its structure is perhaps less rigid. I have chosen the slow note values to be reminiscent on the style of Palestrina and not thought at a ricercar which also employs long note values as the „stile antico“. But yes, one could call it ricercar, especially since due to the introduction of the Ukrainian national anthem in the second part, the piece became „multithematic“ as early ricercars are.

Hallo @TristanTheTristan , Haha, F-flat major, a key with a double flat in its key signature … But thanks for the link; interestingly, it included some examples where composers actually used F-flat major, at least in certain passages or movements of their works. So you brought me to an idea: Since I have not yet composed my E-major fugue, there might be a spot where I could use F-flat major in a passage with a mood that calls for flats rather than sharps (I associate the mood of flats with „darker“ and „somber“, but also „warmer“ and „mellow“.) But to take it a step further, I should not use F-flat major, but F-flat lydian, so that I could make a key signature change in the score to seven flats in order to stay within the common range of usable accidentals. And the mood of F-flat lydian must be completely confusing: As „dark“ as possible due to the seven flats and „luminous“ at the same time, from the Lydian mode.

I like this „petite“ piece for just four instruments (which is not for a large orchestra). It doesn’t require sophisticated orchestration skills to achieve the desired effect; instead, it works well with its “simple” four parts. Starting already in the first three bars, all four instruments have the equal right and equal importance in playing the melody. None is the soloist, while the others are „degraded“ to accompany only. Although I would not call it „counterpoint“ in the academic sense, it works. Sharing the melody or the various motifs among the voices creates an atmosphere of „dialogue“ between the instruments that captivates the listener.

I very enjoyed this dreamy prelude with its nocturne-like charm. What I was especially excited for is the tonality, e.g the use of both F-sharp major and G-flat major. (I mention this because my last recently posted composition is in G-flat major/F-sharp major, too, while not a prelude but a fugue …). I guess you’ve chosen that key change to emphasize the different nuances of mood in the piece, the sharps for the brighter passages and the flats for the melancholic ones. The texture is well balanced and I like that you decided to present the score with revealing the five-part movement. As you yourself noted, there are some large chords which are playable with arpeggiating only. When I’m looking at the score at the first glance, there are – beside the large chords – some intervals that seem to be uncomfortable to be played. However, many of them are playable when taking a note in the other hand. I would appreciate, if such situations would be written out or marked in the score (even if it would look somewhat cluttered) for an easier sight-reading experience.

Hello everyone, I don’t know whether this is the correct section to post concerning „technical problems“ and suggestions, but I’ll try it. Congratulations to the software refresh of the Young Composers Forum! However, since I’m working in the software branch, I know that customers can sometimes be a nuisance because they’re the first to notice what isn’t working or seems not to be working, or when something has changed from what they’re used to. So I'll have to get used to the new layout first. What I really miss – and I am sure I’m not the first one and that the staff will be already on working around that problem – is, that the attachments, i.e. the PDF files with the scores and the MP3 files with the recordings seem to be lost, which is a big problem for reviewers. Apart from that „bug report“, I noticed that there are a number of placeholders which await to be replaced by real pictures to make the forum „colored again“. Since I’m working for a while on my own website – which I would to present to the members of the forum, too, once published – I have done a lot of „artwork“ during the last few month, so that I could contribute a few pictures as well, if appreciated.

Hello @Luis Hernández, I’m sorry, but today I’m writing only silly comments …. For the first moment I thought it were a piano exercise how to play a crescendo on a long, tied note and how to perform a tremolo just on a single note … 🤣 But no, its seriously! And your solution is a great example what can be done with orchestration if the underlying piece of music (or sketch) is well crafted! Thus it shows, that one should first compose the piece for piano (for example) or for a small ensemble before going to the full orchestration. (Unfortunately there was no score and reading from the video was a bit uncomfortable, since relatively small ...) Very enjoyed.