Summer – A Song of Beauty and Melancholy – Submission to the YCF 2026 Summer Competition

Dear fellow composers, I’m pleased to present you today my submission to the YCF 2026 Summer Competition!

I must admit, that the task of the competition was really challenging, starting from „Nothing“ and than get the right ideas for „Something“ that is reminiscent to the mood of the summer day as expressed by Paul Verlaine’s poem.

The challenge.

When a composer has trouble coming up with a brilliant idea for a new piece, it sometimes takes several attempts, each of which yields different individual ideas.

And there are some pieces that consist of several ideas that have been “glued” together, ultimately resulting in something like a “collage song.” I’m thinking, for example, of “A Day in the Life” by the Beatles or “Band on the Run” by Paul McCartney and Wings.

However, there also exists such a kind of piece in Bach’s Welltempered Clavier, the Prelude VII in E-flat major, BWV 852. That particular prelude starts with a short section with runs of 32th notes, followed by a „more serious“ part in slow motion, that reminds me at a „chorale“. The third and longest part is a fugato with two subjects that further develops the ideas from the first two sections.

So with this particular Bach prelude in mind, I had thus found the model for my own prelude, which serves as the „sketch“ for the quintet finally presented here as my submission. I always start to compose the pieces for piano in order to – on the one hand, have another piece for my preludes and fugues project, and on the other hand, because I find it to hard to mix the two phases of „composing“ and „orchestrating“ together.

So I have posted the piano version as a standalone piece "Prelude XXI in B flat major" on the „Piano Music, Solo Keyboard“ thread.

The poem.

When I came around to the second part, the “Chorale” section, I faced the challenge of treating the upper voice of this four-part harmony as the melody for a musical setting of the poem.

Since I don’t speak a word of French and have no idea how the syllables are rhythmicized, I looked at Gabriel Fauré’s setting of the poem in his Op. 61, No. 7 to find out which words are pronounced or sung briefly and which are longer. As an interesting fact, I discovered that Fauré had actually chosen the same key, B-flat major, that I had chosen before.

The instrumentation.

Now that the decision had been made to set the poem to music, I wondered how I could orchestrate it so that it would sound like a French “chanson.” My first thought was to choose the accordion as the main accompanying instrument. And since I wasn’t sure, I Googled: “What are the typical accompanying instruments for a French chanson?”—and sure enough, “accordion,” “guitar,” and “piano” came up.

In addition to these, and to take advantage of the possibility of a quintet, I use a trumpet and a cello. Both of these instruments are capable of contributing different timbres (the cello either played with a bow or pizzicato, and the trumpet either muted or unmuted), and during the poem stanzas, I always use the muted trumpet as a substitute for the human voice.

The title.

Another challenge. A title in French would be appropriate, but I do not really trust translation programs in such delicate situations, since I don’t understand the nuances of the possible result. Thus, I’ve chosen the simple title „Summer – A Song of Beauty and Melancholy“. The latter since the piece features more passages in minor than in major and, therefore, does not only express the joy and beauty of the summer day, but is somewhat melancholic, too.

Form and structure:

00:00 (mm. 1-14)

The first section is an „improvisation“ which introduces the warm key of B-flat major.

00:34 (mm. 15-29)

The second Adagio section could be a „chorale“ and is used to set the first stanza of the poem to music.

01:31 (mm. 30-90)

The third and longest section is a fugato based on two subjects, interspersed by further stanzas of the poem (second stanza 02:18 at mm. 48-63 and third stanza 03:37 at mm. 75-90).

The first subject quotes the first four-note motif of the „improvisation“ section and develops it further, paired with the second subject, thus creating a joyful and dance-like mood.

04:22 (mm. 91-114)

The piece finishes with a coda – or better to say – with a recapitulation of the „improvisation“ from the first section. Now in a more melancholic way, meandering between minor and major.

I hope, you’ll enjoy it. Wieland

Finally, as a kind of „non-AI proof“ I also attached my „working score“ from which the MIDI is generated. It is nearly unreadable and of cause not intended for playing but shows in detail all dynamics, articulations, agogics etc. I applied to achieve the final recording.

Praeludium-XXI-B-flat-major-accordion-with-coversheet.pdf WORKING-SCORE-P21.pdf

awesome. I’ll do this in two parts my initial thoughts and then I’ll revisit the score and I’ll try to find things to pick out and to justify some rankings which could be positive as well so don’t get scared.

Anyways, I kinda like the idea of this kind of acting like a sandwich with the bread, acting like this nocturne sort of like hymn sort of statement. and then a more wild, more tonically free section. I definitely appreciate the dissonance news here and the initial thought that I couldn’t even swap away was the frustration that you may have gone through, which may have caused this intentional dissonant harmony as a composer myself I also have gone through this sort of phenomenon so treated kind of as “key smashing”. I also appreciate the orchestration as well with the blending within the trumpet with its muted parts with the accordion, and also the blending within the guitar and cello making the sound simultaneously the same instrument. The one lick pic about the orchestration though is that I could barely really hear the cello on its own and pick it apart however, though this should be treated as a good thing, so you have your own justification for that.

I also liked how you did some of the program notes and your ideas with putting “lyrics” to the trumpet part and also achieving that singing voice quality with the instrument that’s not the voice the accordion was especially a nice touch as it’s going to buff your originality score in your orchestration score by tons anyways the only concern is the bow changes which should be achievable due to the low tempo, but just making sure that people will most likely start to miss notes and parts getting cut out around pages 6 to 10 in the cello part.

The supplemental techniques and fingerings provided are appreciated. I always enjoy that pedagogical style that you provide.

score -

average: 9.49

magnificent job here definitely going to be a memorable piece of this competition the only thing I would say though about why your orchestration score got a little bit off was just because of the bow changes, however, though they could possibly be possible. anyways, amazing job.

this production receives the “ fruit hunter award of excellence” !!!

Edited September 16Sep 16 by Fruit hunter

Entry: A Song of Beauty and Melancholy

Average Score:7.5

When I looked at the score at the distance, the first thing I noticed was that Piano and According parts are not separated but connected. It appears as if it one instrument and not two separate instruments. You have to disconnect the bars between piano and the according. Another issue I noticed is that is weird beaming patterns and stems positions. For instance, in the pick-up you have steams downwards, that is not correct. When they are connected like that, it should be up, since the majority of the notes are above the middle line. It looks just nicer that way. Another thing I noticed is you break beams a lot. This makes harder to read! You do this a lot in measures where the meter is 2/4. The only time beams are not connected is in vocal music. I see no vocal part. You have a lot of unnecessary dynamic markings. Hairpins are wonderful things. I would not use mezzo dymanics as much. Possibly changing from F to P is more effective vs F to MF. Also save those tripple markings for special moments.

However, this is highly creative. You have written wonderful textures using different instruments and timbres. I see no problem there. It was just overall engraving.

Total: 60/80

Hello @Kvothe!

Thank you very much for your instant review of my submission.

You have mentioned a number of concerns or suggestions with my engraving, which I now have thoroughly checked out, so that I can give some explanations for some of the decisions I made concerning them:

Piano and Accordion.

21 hours ago, Kvothe said:

When I looked at the score at the distance, the first thing I noticed was that Piano and According parts are not separated but connected. It appears as if it one instrument and not two separate instruments. You have to disconnect the bars between piano and the according.

When I came around with my unusual instrumentation, I asked myself how to organize the score, especially the ordering and grouping of the instruments. In a „normal“ piano quintet (i.e., for example, a piano and four strings) we would have the strings at the top (in their usual order), grouped together, and at the bottom the piano as a single instrument of the „piano group“.

But in my case, the piano is not the prominent or single accompanying instrument, thus I considered my ensemble as an „orchestra“ – while only consisting of five instruments. I Googled somewhat around how to organize such a kind of „orchestra“ (and interestingly, there were various responses, some of which contradicted each other).

So I finally decided to use the answer suggesting the following grouping/order:

1. Brass section – Consisting of the Trumpet only.

2. Plucked string section – Consisting of the Guitar only.

3. Percussion/keyboards section – Consisting of the Accordion and the Piano

4. String section – Consisting of the Cello only.

That kind of grouping/order finally leads to the impression, that the Trumpet, Guitar and Cello are „sole instruments“ (since each group consists of only one) and the only real section or „family“ are the Accordion and Piano together, so that they share the bar lines (as it is usually done for instrument families in an orchestral score). However, I must admit, it might look a bit weird at the first glance.

Stem direction.

21 hours ago, Kvothe said:

Another issue I noticed is that is weird beaming patterns and stems positions. For instance, in the pick-up you have steams downwards, that is not correct. When they are connected like that, it should be up, since the majority of the notes are above the middle line.

There are different rules applied determining the stem direction for different instruments/staves:

• For the homophonic or single-voiced instruments (that are the Trumpet, the Guitar and the Cello), I used „neutral stem direction“ where notes below the middle staff line have upward stems, and notes on or above the middle line have downward stems (which is exact the opposite of that you have supposed). I think, my Lilypond software did it correct, since I did not declare that there is a particular voice for that staves.

• For the treble and bass staves of the Piano part and the treble staff of the Accordion part, I used „voice stem direction“, since those parts are derived from the original piano composition which has a strict four-part voice leading. Thus, the „pickup“ you mentioned (e.g. the first four notes of the Piano) are in the alto voice which always has the stems down. I must admit that the four-part voice leading is not recognizable everywhere, since lots of the notes of the original piano composition have been removed, since they have been „handed over“ to the other instruments.

• The bass staff of the Accordion uses the „Stradella Bass“ system where notes below the center of the staff are bass notes and notes above the center of the staff indicate chord buttons (labeled with M, m, 7, or D (or d, or dim) to a signify major, minor, dominant seventh or diminished seventh).

21 hours ago, Kvothe said:

Another thing I noticed is you break beams a lot. This makes harder to read! You do this a lot in measures where the meter is 2/4. The only time beams are not connected is in vocal music. I see no vocal part.

Yes, you’re right. There are passages with „unbeamed“ eights and sixteenth notes, especially in the trumpet part for the reason that this is the vocal part where the poem is set to music (with the muted trumpet as a substitute for the human voice).

Other occasions of „unbeamed“ notes have been introduced intentionally, as the result of the texture of the second fugue subject and its counterpoint – whereas that is, admittedly, not easy to recognize in the orchestrated version.

Dynamic markings.

21 hours ago, Kvothe said:

You have a lot of unnecessary dynamic markings. Hairpins are wonderful things. I would not use mezzo dymanics as much. Possibly changing from F to P is more effective vs F to MF. Also save those tripple markings for special moments.

Perhaps, I somewhat exaggerated with the dynamic markings. But I’ve listened to many orchestation/scoring tutorials where hairpins without a starting and ending dynamic were considered as an error. Thus, all my hairpins lead from a distinct dynamic to another one. And, yes, „mezzo“ (either mp or even mf) isn’t always welcome.

Edited September 17Sep 17 by Wieland Handke

Hello @Fruit hunter !

23 hours ago, Fruit hunter said:

this production receives the “ fruit hunter award of excellence” !!!

I wish, I could press both buttons, „Thank you“ and „Ha, ha“, but since that is not possible, I did a simple „Like“.

And even though the “fruit hunter award of excellence” will not really appear in my collection of badges, I’ll collect it in my mind! Thank you, very much.

23 hours ago, Fruit hunter said:

I also appreciate the orchestration as well with the blending within the trumpet with its muted parts with the accordion, and also the blending within the guitar and cello making the sound simultaneously the same instrument. The one lick pic about the orchestration though is that I could barely really hear the cello on its own and pick it apart however, though this should be treated as a good thing, so you have your own justification for that.

It’s nice to hear, that you don’t find the use of the muted trumpet as „too annoying“. And yes, this time, I tried to blend the instruments together (as it is done in a full orchestra) as far as possible and not only to simple distribute the four-part voice leading of the original piano work to the instruments.

23 hours ago, Fruit hunter said:

the only concern is the bow changes which should be achievable due to the low tempo, but just making sure that people will most likely start to miss notes and parts getting cut out around pages 6 to 10 in the cello part.

Unfortunately, I have no practical experience how fast a cellist can change from bowing to pizzicato. I hope that it is possible in the relatively slow tempo. I remember discussions on that topic on even faster tempo, where finally came around that nowadays string players would be able to do so, even in relative fast tempo. And, by the way – ha, ha – I remember that you’ve earned similar concerns with your mallet changes in your „On Pastel Skies“ submission ...

23 hours ago, Fruit hunter said:

The supplemental techniques and fingerings provided are appreciated. I always enjoy that pedagogical style that you provide.

Yes, always after finishing one of my piano pieces, I try out the fingering (and test the playability). Perhaps my fingering instructions are somewhat exaggerated, but it is not as easy even in passages one might find simple at the first glance, so that I often struggle which fingering marks are redundant and obvious.

Another fun was for me to learn about the notation for the Accordion, applying registration hints and the notation for the bass.

Avg: 8.5

This is one of those pieces where you have to listen to it a few times to understand it. But once you do, it's very rewarding.

The improvised intro is a nice touch, what a dramatic opening! It sounds like your subject is trying to come to form in this section, but it's not quite there yet. Then you form it in the middle sections (the intro to your fugue) and that's when this piece starts to really shine. Anyone who has a hard time with fugues, must learn to train their ear on the main subject, and listen for that subject in the fugue. Once you do that, you realize how awesome and clever this piece is. Also, another strong point is that your harmony is very well done!

Does it remind me of summer afternoon / evening? I'm not sure, maybe the end of summer or a rainy summer afternoon since this quite melancholic!

Hi Wieland,
I am in the process of my reviews and would you believe it if I said doing a review at this stage is very hard? There are already so many good comments that it becomes hard to place one I feel would amplify the discussion. I will do my best regardless!

SCORE:

To be brief, you do not need brackets for individual instruments (Tpt, Guit, etc.). Single stave parts can just be shown by themselves unless you have multiple staves depicting that part or multiple instruments/ an instrument section. To add, the bar lines for the accordion and piano parts should be separated. Lastly, you also do not need a bracket for the keyboard instruments:

Moving on, the score order feels a little asymmetrical. It is in concert order for large ensemble, however, in chamber music, it is quite common to put the keyboard-based instruments on the bottom and single stave instruments on the top. The correct order should be the following:

Trumpet, Guitar, Violoncello, Accordion, Piano

ENGRAVING:
My biggest concern is the amount of dynamic information in the score; It feels suffocating look at all the dynamic information. Truly, I wonder if you leave any room for the performer to interpret or add their understanding in the music? It seems like you are trying to control everything they do purely based on the dynamic info. Another picky thing is your rest placement in the score:

There are several moments where the score has little spots like this and it'll be good to do a once-over.

MUSIC:
With the music, I found it really creative to be honest. The idea of a fugato was so fun and I enjoyed this work. The only critique here is that overall, the work seems to keep going without any distinct climaxes. There are clear arrival points before each section, yet there is no apex for the journey in my opinion. To add, it does seem to utilize the same ensemble textures throughout, which amplify this sense of monotony.

Good job on this work! Again, I must say the fugato was my favorite part!

Hi @Wieland Handke !

For the accordion, probably only @Omicronrg9 can talk about the accordion since he's an accordionist (I'm summoning you here Daniel). Btw, the instrumentation of this piece is almost exactly the same with Daniel's group.

I think you are using an orchestral mind for this chamber work. There are lots of careful doublings of melodies and countering parts. I think the texture of this piece is the most varied in the entries I have listened to so far! What is your purpose to introduce fugato in this piece? Is it related to the narrative strcuture?

Just one thing: I actually do not really like the ' pulse between the passages which I think it will hinder its flow. My favourite passage is section F when the texture and harmony are less complicated, it really gives good contrast with passages before it.

I at first don't like too much of the harmony since I think the dissonance is not neccessary, but after my 2nd listening I suddenly find they are necessary to convey the melachony with the usage of accordion, good job on that!

Thx for sharing!

Henry

12 hours ago, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

For the accordion, probably only @Omicronrg9 can talk about the accordion since he's an accordionist (I'm summoning you here Daniel). Btw, the instrumentation of this piece is almost exactly the same with Daniel's group.

Yes, that would be interesting to find out what he thinks of my „funnyly placed“ register symbols and my bass notation. I think, the accordion is often too underrated, and so the challenge of that competition was a great opportunity to compose a piece for the accordion as well.

12 hours ago, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

I think you are using an orchestral mind for this chamber work. There are lots of careful doublings of melodies and countering parts. I think the texture of this piece is the most varied in the entries I have listened to so far!

I’m very glad you noticed noticed and mentioned that. Indeed, since I this year did my first exercises in orchestration for a full orchestra, I have tried to apply those experiences to the “Quintet.” So I didn’t simply take the original piano composition and translate its four-part voice leading literally to—let’s say—a string or woodwind quartet; rather, I tried to distribute the four voices among the instruments in such a way that the melodies and textures flow more seamlessly from one to the next, as is often found in the magnificent orchestrations of Romantic composers.

And that’s exactly the reason - considering the ensemble as an „orchestra“ - why I have chosen an orchestral notation rather than one used in chamber music, which has led to the somewhat unusual instrument groups or families (where the brass, plucked string, and string sections consist of only one instrument each, and the percussion/keyboard section includes the accordion and piano); the bracketing of that „groups“ and the connected bar lines between accordion and piano have already been criticized therefore.

12 hours ago, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

What is your purpose to introduce fugato in this piece? Is it related to the narrative strcuture?

Just one thing: I actually do not really like the ' pulse between the passages which I think it will hinder its flow. My favourite passage is section F when the texture and harmony are less complicated, it really gives good contrast with passages before it.

The idea for the fugato came to me while I was looking for a form or a “model” for the piece. As I described earlier in my introduction to this post, I recalled the prelude from BWV 852, in which Bach apparently faced “the same challenge”—namely, moving from “nothing” to “something”—and therefore combined three different musical ideas: an introduction in a rather improvisational style, a “chorale,” and finally a fugato in which the first two ideas were ultimately developed together. And since I’m a “counterpoint guy,” I always feel comfortable when I can develop melodies in a fugal manner, even though it was difficult this time, as the flow was somewhat interrupted by the passages where the second and third stanzas begin. T So I finally didn’t end the piece with an ever-escalating fugue, but rather recapitulated the introduction, beginning at rehearsal mark F.

12 hours ago, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

I at first don't like too much of the harmony since I think the dissonance is not neccessary, but after my 2nd listening I suddenly find they are necessary to convey the melachony with the usage of accordion, good job on that!

Thank you very much. Often, you don’t even notice the dissonances yourself anymore once you’ve listened to your own piece dozens (if not hundreds) of times.

Hi!
Just assessing Henry here, I guess.

@Henry Ng Tsz Kiu note that accordionists overall, specially those who are amateur, or just interested in performing, will know as much as any non-player (but musician) of the ways this instrument may be properly engraved.
More often than not, as it happens with many other instruments, we "convert" the information to our format on the go.
I fear something similar would happen to the piece you've brought to my attention.

Now, in regards of the accordion scoring of this PDF I'd say that :

• RH specified at the beginning of the piece do not match with the provided sounds (LH could, but I'm not certain, it sounds like a Soft Bass and it definitely has no soprano voice sounding in those very first bars that I'm discussing right after this bullet) MMM or MM for the RH are the ones you're looking for, at least judging by the soundfont which appears to be a french musette, so it's either that or open violin register. Note that no registers work for providing thirds neither accordionist spawn them on the go. I'm seeing the working score and I just don't get why there are so many notes that are just not present.
  
  Note that not all accordions have these, some 3-voice Piginis and other famous italian concerto accordion brands prefer the dry sound of the harmonium register, LMH. or 4' + 8' + 16'. Your sound is 8'+8' or 8'+8'+8', assuming it's the one you are seeking for.
  
  

• Chord movements by semitones are to be avoided if possible. Otherwise, you'll be inflicting tremendous pain to the accordionist, assuming Stradella system since it's the one you're using. So, without extending myself much, let's just review some examples.
  
  These are M15 to M18 if I'm not mistaken. RH register, according to the audio, should be MMM or MM as I mentioned. Bass voice doesn't sound like Soft Tenor but that's minor. What's not minor is that F#dim and Bdim are so far away from each other and from the G7 and C buttons, demanding unneeded agility. Here there's no other option than to briefly discuss voicing.
  The voicing on standard 6-row stradella accordions with 2 rows of basses and 4 rows of chords is root+m3+7dim (and depending on the register, that can be doubled or tripled in octaves above and below).
  
  There's no fifth sound, neither in the 7 button chord, allowing the accordionist to essentially do a Xm6 or a Xº by using the dim button and the proper bass, and some other interesting combinations.
  
  And thus, all these red notes are... Not quite accurate, to say the least. According to the register you are using in the score (soft tenor), chords should be an octave higher with the proper voicings. No chord button alone produces more than 3 notes. M/m -> 1-M/m3-5, and for the other two (7, d), you take the 5th.
  
  You can find more information about Stradella voicings here in case you be interested in making it right.
  
  
  
  I have briefly talked about this for a reason, since you're not doing the complete Xº tetrad, the symmetry of chords marked "d" is in principle broken. But since I don't think it's gonna be a problem because the F# is already being played by another instrument, in that excerpt I would change F#º by Cº, which is very close to the G an C chords you're gonna play afterwards, and also, on a similar fashion and by using a similar argument, I would change Bº → Fº. Note that similar occurences happen throghout the whole piece.
  
  Finally, there are many register changes that are not reflected in the audio at all. In fact, since the very beginning it's clear that there's no "Clarinet M" sounding, but a French musette. While I can understand the limitations because most usual accordion soundfonts come with musette or in two voices already, there are plenty of incorrect examples. Here I tried to point out some. M26-28. The "Master" register uses 5 voices in the bass buttons, 5 because the contralto doubles the alto voice in half of the octave and the tenor voice in the other half, adding to the previous Soprano (2') + Alto (4') + Tenor (8') + Basso (16'). The website I shared notes C to F in alto and F# to B in tenor, but truth be told, this depends 100% on the manufacturer. On the right hand we got a fair deal of strange stuff too. You write "Musette Imitation", which consists on 2 middle voices (8'+8', one lightly detuned forward, usually) and a voice that's an octave higher. And that's for all notes, not jut for the ones you'd like to double, sorry.
  
  What's usually the benefit of changing registers that much in a piece? Little, unless you are Gianfelice Fugazza and you know exactly, and I mean exactly what you're doing, in the context of a pedagogic piece, an étude, an example, or a concerto piece.
  So I can assure you that with no loss of sound quality or musicality, had you removed all RH register changes and replaced them by an open violin (8'+8') and/or a musette (8'+8'+8') register, the sound would be closer to what the audio depicts and probably to what you were seeking for, since:

  On 9/16/2026 at 9:12 PM, Wieland Handke said:

  “What are the typical accompanying instruments for a French chanson?”—and sure enough, “accordion,”

  Accordion, yes! Any accordion? Nein! A French musette accordion, a Cavagnolo, a Mengascini. Not a dry Pigini and if you wanna be just right about the french sound, not even a Hohner would do the trick.
  Ah, and these are often traditionally button accordions, not keyboard accordions, but you'll find a handful of them too.
  
  By doing what I suggested, you'll get rid of difficult/uncomfortable sections. Apart from the chord issues, we'd clean up things like these:

  

  Not impossible at all. But if you don't have one of these expensive accordions (that won't sound like French musette) that come with chin switches, you'd better pray these three registers are close enough. And just in case, the other hand is busy handling the bellows. And again, your working score (which I assume you used for the audio) doesn't correctly notate the passage according to the registers of choice.
  
  That said, the piece was nice to listen to. Not my turn to evaluate it, and I don't really want to bore you further, but the "Engraving" and "Playability" parts (which are definitely related in my opinion... Something may be possible to perform but its actual playability could be demeaned by its poor engraving) would not get a pass from me, sorry Wieland.
  
  I mean: your score frontpage looks very nice, it's original, and imo shows great care for it (though, why does it say 15 of 24 if this is the XXI? Or I'm in the wrong?). So, what happened here?
  
  Why none of that permeated into the score itself? Lack of time? Perhaps indolence? Lack of inertia or eagerness cause many may not make use of it for judging?
  I'm sorry if I'm being hard, but I'm not ill intentioned at all here, I just do not understand. I may not agree with every engraving choice you made in your XXI Praeludium for piano solo but that shows how you could have got a way cleaner score out of this.
  Or maybe not? If you don't mind, Weiland: what software are you using? Musescore 4?
  
  I think this reply is long enough already. I wish you the best for this competition. May you find any of this of help.
  
  Best regards,
  Daniel–Ø.