# Composition Contests?



## Majed Al Shamsi

How about it?

Thought I'd throw in some ideas, and perhaps by the end of this thread, we could all agree on a certain structure, format and rules for a composition contest. So here goes:

a) We could start by voting for organisers and judges.

b) Perhaps the organisers could come up with a short key progression that would serve as the basic idea (motif, I believe?) of all the competing compositions, and perhaps set a specific scale.

c) It might help if a certain time limit was set. Competitions that have a short span of time could have a limit of 2 minutes, and competitions with later deadlines could go up to 5 or even 10 minutes.

d) Since beauty is in the eye (or ear, in this case) of the beholder, we would need to identify the criteria by which the composers will compose, and the judges will judge, to make it fair.

I think this is a great idea because:
- It would be interesting to see the different compositions that can come out of the same basic idea.
- It's a great opportunity for composers to try out new things and expand their knowledge.
- Competing against others could serve as a great source of motivation.

As for the grand prize, I have a few ideas, but they're all a bit naughty...

What do you folks think?
Any suggestions?


----------



## Crudblud

We used to have a TC Composer's Competition, each round had a different instrumentational guideline to work with (e.g.: solo keyboard, quartet etc.). People posted entries anonymously here and then people voted on them. We only ever got through two rounds* due to everyone's conflicting schedules and no one being able to agree on specifications, if I recall correctly.

*I only remember two rounds, but apparently there were four.


----------



## Matsps

This previous idea of setting various instruments is a really good idea. It would force you to use instruments you might not otherwise consider. The judging could be done by public poll on here, which would say on the trouble of finding judges. The only thing this requires is an organizer (anyone?), who could actually compete too, if compositions are anon until voting is complete and voting is public.

Edit: Public voting could also decide what instrument(s) the next composition is set in from a set list of quite a few.


----------



## Majed Al Shamsi

This sounds even better than what I had suggested.
I had no idea TC had composition contests before, but then again, I am a new member.
Is it that hard for people to agree on specifications?


----------



## Crudblud

Majed Al Shamsi said:


> This sounds even better than what I had suggested.
> I had no idea TC had composition contests before, but then again, I am a new member.
> Is it that hard for people to agree on specifications?


I recall the problem mostly being to do with what each of us had access to, and some people trying to go for instrumentations others couldn't do, like full orchestra or vocal compositions etc. I remember a lot of competition regulars were especially reluctant to record themselves singing! So that idea got canned pretty quickly. In particular we had difficulty deciding on instrumentation for the 3rd round, and people seemed to lose interest rather quickly because of it.

As for your competition features: I like the idea of each of us having the same starting material to develop in our own ways, though I think we should be careful to avoid being too restrictive. One of the great things about the original TC competitions was that they were rather informal, you had a time limit and some loose limitations placed on instrumentation* and so on, but in general you were free to approach the task as you wished. In any case, this seems like an interesting idea, I hope gets enough attention to come to fruition.

*for example, in round two we had to write a piece for five instruments and a soloist, but we could choose the instrumentation ourselves. This led to some pretty interesting ensembles.


----------



## BurningDesire

I'm down to give this a shot. 

...................


----------



## BurningDesire

Besides just instrumental combinations being a guideline, perhaps we could also have rounds where the guideline is utilizing a particular technique, or exploring different stylistic approaches, like having one where we must compose using serial techniques (but a pretty broad definition there), or one where we have to compose something jazzy. Maybe even rounds where we can only use a certain number of pitch classes, or only certain note durations, or other such things.


----------



## Majed Al Shamsi

Although the limitations will make it more difficult to compose, they will force everyone who's new to composing to get out of their comfort zones and learn new things to be able to compete. I like the idea.
Let's hope this gets enough attention!


----------



## ricardo_jvc6

I'll could give it a shot like usual.


----------



## musicrom

I would also be willing to participate.


----------



## Eviticus

This does sound interesting. I'm not sure what you mean by rounds (whether they are knock-out rounds or not?). If there was a new competition/ theme for each month i.e. March say a serenade for strings in A major, April; 3 minute Nocturne etc where the deadline is the end of each month and the winner announced mid the following month - i'd be interested if i got the time. At the moment I'm struggling for anything more than 5 minutes here or there but hopefully soon i'll get more time.

Would you have to submit a score?? If so, i'd probably need a crash course in sibelius too.


----------



## Matsps

I don't see that submitting a score should be necessary. This is a music competition, not a writing competition. I'll also participate in this if it goes ahead.


----------



## Jfong

Matsps said:


> I don't see that submitting a score should be necessary. This is a music competition, not a writing competition. I'll also participate in this if it goes ahead.


Submitting scores is absolutely essential. Its called a "composition contest". Scores tell us a lot, including harmony/counterpoint/tone row(if you compose using 12 tone) and such. It also tells us whether a composer can write scores with accurate notations or not.


----------



## Crudblud

Well then, I won't be participating. I don't do scores.


----------



## Matsps

Jfong said:


> Submitting scores is absolutely essential. Its called a "composition contest". Scores tell us a lot, including harmony/counterpoint/tone row(if you compose using 12 tone) and such.


Scores tell you nothing, other than the notes you need to play if you want to play the piece on an instrument, or the notes you need to work from if you want to do an arrangement of the piece. For the listener, a score is meaningless. If you are seriously listening to pieces of music and saying without the score, you cannot judge how good the piece is, you're not doing it right. It's called music, *not* literature. And I'm saying this as a pianist who is much more reliant on sheet music for playing than memory and someone is who is very comfortable with notating and reading scores. They are a useful tool for the musician, not a method for judging which music is better.


----------



## BurningDesire

Jfong said:


> Submitting scores is absolutely essential. Its called a "composition contest". Scores tell us a lot, including harmony/counterpoint/tone row(if you compose using 12 tone) and such. It also tells us whether a composer can write scores with accurate notations or not.


Nope, we're not doing that nonsense. If somebody wants to submit a score, they can, but that ain't required. That would preclude composers who don't work in notation, and thats not cool.


----------



## BurningDesire

Jfong said:


> Submitting scores is absolutely essential. Its called a "composition contest". Scores tell us a lot, including harmony/counterpoint/tone row(if you compose using 12 tone) and such. It also tells us whether a composer can write scores with accurate notations or not.


Also yeah, they are useful from an analytical standpoint, but really, are you gonna hear a piece and enjoy it, but then you see the score and think "oh! the composer didn't follow the row in a strict, disciplined manner! some of these notes aren't accounted for" or "hey! this voice-leading breaks rules! parallel 5ths and octaves!" and decide that it must be inferior music or something? Or the opposite even, where you don't like how it sounds, but then you see the score and that makes you like the piece?


----------



## Crudblud

BurningDesire said:


> Nope, we're not doing that nonsense. If somebody wants to submit a score, they can, but that ain't required. That would preclude composers who don't work in notation, and thats not cool.


I essentially agree with this. I work pretty much exclusively in piano roll and waveform notations, which are both quite different from standard musical notation. Just as I can't read the notation everyone else would submit, I dare say they would have trouble reading mine too. I think we should avoid such exclusivity, because what really matters is the sonic fruit of our labour.


----------



## Piwikiwi

Crudblud said:


> I essentially agree with this. I work pretty much exclusively in piano roll and waveform notations, which are both quite different from standard musical notation. Just as I can't read the notation everyone else would submit, I dare say they would have trouble reading mine too. I think we should avoid such exclusivity, because what really matters is the sonic fruit of our labour.


Sorry but that sounds like a lame excuse to justify the fact that you can't read music.


----------



## Crudblud

Piwikiwi said:


> Sorry but that sounds like a lame excuse to justify the fact that you can't read music.


And this sounds like a lame excuse to pick a fight over something that ultimately doesn't matter.

No, I can't read standard notation, I have been open about this and my general lack of formal training ever since I first posted my music here. I feel no need to excuse myself for not following everyone else's methods, but I also see no reason why that should be grounds for my exclusion from these competitions.


----------



## Piwikiwi

Crudblud said:


> And this sounds like a lame excuse to pick a fight over something that ultimately doesn't matter.
> 
> No, I can't read standard notation, I have been open about this and my general lack of formal training ever since I first posted my music here. I feel no need to excuse myself for not following everyone else's methods, but I also see no reason why that should be grounds for my exclusion from these competitions.


I honestly don't mind that you kind read music but this part


> I essentially agree with this. I work pretty much exclusively in piano roll and waveform notations, which are both quite different from standard musical notation. Just as I can't read the notation everyone else would submit, *I dare say they would have trouble reading mine too.* I think we should avoid such exclusivity, because what really matters is the sonic fruit of our labour.


is what made me write that comment.


----------



## Crudblud

Piwikiwi said:


> I honestly don't mind that you kind read music but this part
> 
> is what made me write that comment.


It seems like a perfectly reasonable statement to me, I'm really not sure why you take issue with it.


----------



## BurningDesire

Piwikiwi said:


> Sorry but that sounds like a lame excuse to justify the fact that you can't read music.


Sounds like somebody just doesn't want to have to compete against Crudblud's kickass music :3


----------



## Piwikiwi

Crudblud said:


> It seems like a perfectly reasonable statement to me, I'm really not sure why you take issue with it.


Because piano roll format is for producing electronic music mostly. You can't give it to musicians and expect them to play it.

Just to clarify I have absolutely no problem with you writing music using this method but implying that it is someone even remotely similar to standard notation is just absurd.


----------



## Guest

What ultimately counts is the music as it passes through the ear and is filtered/decoded by the grey matter. I'm OK with a score, I'm OK without. I'd like to play in this game too, but my problem will be the time (deadline?) limit. I'm generally OK with deadlines - when I'm paid in hard cash to meet them. When it's for the fun, I'd need a much wider temporal margin. Dig?


----------



## Crudblud

Piwikiwi said:


> Because piano roll format is for producing electronic music mostly. You can't give it to musicians and expect them to play it.
> 
> Just to clarify I have absolutely no problem with you writing music using this method but implying that it is someone even remotely similar to standard notation is just absurd.


In what way is it not similar? Like any system of musical notation, it is a means of communicating instructions to a processing unit which will then translate those instructions into a sonic event. I don't see that it makes much difference whether the processing unit is a human brain, a computer, a player piano or whatever else.


----------



## Piwikiwi

Crudblud said:


> In what way is it not similar? Like any system of musical notation, it is a means of communicating instructions to a processing unit which will then translate those instructions into a sonic event. I don't see that it makes much difference whether the processing unit is a human brain, a computer, a player piano or whatever else.


Okay fair enough, my apologies. I hated working with it so that might explain my strong reaction :')


----------



## juergen

It seems to me as if preparing discussion on this new competition drags on as long as last time. :lol:


----------



## ricardo_jvc6

Do a competition mainly starring sheet music and not sound (EWQL, VSL, Cinesamples, etc)! Let's try to do something related with sheet music for once!


----------



## PetrB

Jfong said:


> Submitting scores is absolutely essential. Its called a "composition contest". Scores tell us a lot, including harmony/counterpoint/tone row(if you compose using 12 tone) and such. It also tells us whether a composer can write scores with accurate notations or not.


At Talk Classical, School Is Out.

Since sometime in the mid 1950's or later 1960's, copyright laws were changed: from that time on, a recording, without notation, has been acceptable to get a work copyrighted. This was primarily due to the intense lobbying of many a contemporary electronic composer, more specifically, those in and around the Darmstadt 'school,' whose works were not notated but assembled.

Myself, being old school, think anyone _should_ know how to notate music, even if they are going to dwell in the house of electronics or midi which require no notational skills to produce a work. That said, I have at least one work composed for digital playback via midi piano (or an acoustic digital player piano if that technology ever catches up to the density of number of notes at a time the work demands); a suite of 12 movements with a prelude and optional ad libitum postlude, total duration ca. 40 minutes; as it is, it is not 'notatable,' and was never conceived of as a notated piece.

Knowing first-hand what real work goes in to any such piece, notated or not, I am not about to discount those composers, trained or autodidact, who either do not know notation or are working in media not requiring it.

If you have a piece meant to be performed by players, then of course a score is necessary, but even then, the all important part that counts is in the hearing


----------



## PetrB

Piwikiwi said:


> Sorry but that sounds like a lame excuse to justify the fact that you can't read music.


Make music as Crudblud does, then maybe, just maybe, a comment on whether this composer can or cannot notate music might have a tiny bite, though it would be gnat-sized, I think.


----------



## PetrB

Piwikiwi said:


> Because piano roll format is for producing electronic music mostly. You can't give it to musicians and expect them to play it.
> 
> Just to clarify I have absolutely no problem with you writing music using this method but implying that it is someone even remotely similar to standard notation is just absurd.


NOT WRITING FOR PERFORMERS. I know, that may strike more than one of us as radical, but I, a former performer who composes, has done just that, write for electronica and facsimile samples played back via electronica, without one thought or need as to performers (And I compose for performers as well, and then produce, natch, a score.)


----------



## PetrB

ricardo_jvc6 said:


> Do a competition mainly starring sheet music and not sound (EWQL, VSL, Cinesamples, etc)! Let's try to do something related with sheet music for once!


What will the prize be for, calligraphy? LOL. O.K. let's make that then for _*handwritten scores only, and those with the requirement of being written with pen nibs using India ink.

*_Sheet music _does not sound._


----------



## PetrB

I find this contention of score vs. no score a bit surprising, and funny... and me of a certain senior citizen age and rather old-school-- having near no objection to non-scored pieces.

A person is either well-musical or not, musically trained or not, and in varying degrees of those two things. 

It is the piece which counts, not the way the composer got there.


----------



## guy

Instead of setting a motif to compose off of, why not give a form? (Fugue, Sonata, Theme and Variations, etc.)


----------



## guy

"Sorry but that sounds like a lame excuse to justify the fact that you can't read music."

Music isn't the notes, it's the sound.


----------



## PetrB

guy said:


> Instead of setting a motif to compose off of, why not give a form? (Fugue, Sonata, Theme and Variations, etc.)


Fugue is not a form... just sayin.'

Then too, some more than feel if a sonata in form, it can not be at all modern / contemporary in its nature.

Nope. Duration, scope, is about all one can make as a requirement. The availability or lack of midi samples, real players, recording equipment -- all too much in the way and blocking many who could otherwise participate.


----------



## guy

PetrB said:


> Fugue is not a form... just sayin.'


Compositional method. Whatever. You got the point. 

And who said it had to be in the contemporary style?


----------



## PetrB

PetrB said:


> Fugue is not a form... just sayin.'
> 
> Then too, some more than feel if a sonata in form, it can not be at all modern / contemporary in its nature.
> 
> Nope. Duration, scope, is about all one can make as a requirement. The availability or lack of midi samples, real players, recording equipment -- all too much in the way and blocking many who could otherwise participate.


I think a motif or cell, or row, might be interesting in that we would then have all the variety of what different people have made of it. Trouble there is -- recalling when I was a comp student, and our teacher would provide the class with basic musical material (the guy was an expert in handing out, say, two hexachords that were bound to yield something interesting if you worked them at all) -- whose motif, then, between all the TC users, who are anything from the most raw self-taught beginner to trained and practiced composers?

If a motif is provided by another, can you call what was written entirely _your piece?_]

Better I think, just let people compose, and leave the parameters a bit specific yet quite open.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> Fugue is not a form... just sayin.'


I've always considered it a form, though a quite flexible one. Wiki: "A fugue usually has three sections: an exposition, a development, and a recapitulation containing the return of the subject in the fugue's tonic key... The form evolved during the 18th century from several earlier types of contrapuntal compositions... Fugue is the most complex of contrapuntal forms."


----------



## Mahlerian

guy said:


> Music isn't the notes, it's the sound.


Then does that make every single performance of Beethoven's Fifth a different piece of music? No two sound exactly alike.


----------



## PetrB

Piwikiwi said:


> Because piano roll format is for producing electronic music mostly. You can't give it to musicians and expect them to play it.
> 
> Just to clarify I have absolutely no problem with you writing music using this method but implying that it is someone even remotely similar to standard notation is just absurd.


"Music notation or musical notation is any system used to visually represent aurally perceived music"

Piano roll graphic, then, is a legitimate notation. Somewhere in the (I think) earlier part of the 20th century, an Italian musician / educator tried a system called _Scrivo_, which is directly the graphic analog of a piano roll. the notation ran vertically, just like a piano roll, and people did learn to play from it directly at the piano.

Standard notation, ala Guido d'Arezzo, as we now have it, is certainly one of the simplest, yet highly sophisticated and compact ways of notating music, and because of its collective attributes and the huge variety it has a capacity to render, nothing else near comparable has taken off successfully.

If you have not worked with piano roll graphic notation in a desktop writing / recording system, you would not know how readily one can write in specifically what one wants, or locate particular activities or notes for editing purposes -- not that I would ever, as a trained pianist, want or hope to want to read from it, but it is a very direct and practical way of working, and accessible for those who just did not have the luck to get around to standard notation.

That said -- one and all -- standard notation is so simple to learn that even children basically 'get it.' The trickier parts come along with proper spelling as per harmony and tradition, and rhythm outside some very conventional expectations.


----------



## Jfong

I am truly sorry if my "score is essential" comment started any kind of fight ._.
Anyways, this is why I made that comment:
Whenever I participate any kind of composition contest/competition, it always asks for scores because they can then understand the compositions better.
Same for music schools. You will need to submit a composition portfolio if you are willing to get in their composition programs.
Because of all that experiences I had, my immediate reaction to this thread is to point out why we should make scores.
However, it seemed like most of you people do not like the idea of submitting scores, which is fine >_>


----------



## guy

Mahlerian said:


> Then does that make every single performance of Beethoven's Fifth a different piece of music? No two sound exactly alike.


I never said anything about interpretation, unless I'm mistaken, which I am not.


----------



## PetrB

guy said:


> Compositional method. Whatever. You got the point.
> 
> And who said it had to be in the contemporary style?


Unless the point is a model exercise in some period style (school stuff), it is expected to be "some sort of contemporary," since it is now, we're all writing now -- what else would be the point of it?


----------



## guy

PetrB said:


> Unless the point is a model exercise in the periodstyle (school stuff), I think it should be some sort of contemporary, since it is now, we're all writing now -- what else would be the point of it?


To compose music the composer wants to write with set requirements, I suppose.


----------



## PetrB

guy said:


> To compose music the composer wants to write with set requirements, I suppose.


Almost _every real_ music composition contest expects _only_ something contemporary. I see no reason for TC to be any exception to the norm / rule.

Yes, most composition competitions have set requirements, duration (length) and often the numbers and type of instruments.

Maybe instead of trying to include one and all, the instrumental parameters should instead be 'whatever they are' and those without the resources, live or midi, would just have to sit out that round / those rounds. This too, is like 'real life,' i.e. if you're not willing to write a ten-minute long piece for brass ensemble or brass quintet, and that is the specification of the competition, you just have to pass that one by.


----------



## Mahlerian

guy said:


> I never said anything about interpretation, unless I'm mistaken, which I am not.


Well, you said music _is_ sound, period. The sound is in fact different with every performance.

Let's go further. The sound of a recorded performance coming out of one set of speakers is, in fact, different from that same performance coming out of another set of speakers.

Music is not equal to sound.


----------



## Yardrax

Mahlerian said:


> Let's go further. The sound of a recorded performance coming out of one set of speakers is, in fact, different from that same performance coming out of another set of speakers.


I think this is overstated, although in an absolute sense, one never steps into the same river twice, unless the piece in question comprises mostly of chance and improvisatory elements, any two performances of a certain competence will be recognisable to the lay listener as being of the same piece. If one isn't able to recognise a performance of Beethoven's fifth from the sound alone, then the appropriate course would be to seek out a specialist in memory loss.

Anyway, you are confusing the question of the identity of an individual piece (What makes a performance of Beethoven 5 specifically a performance of Beethoven 5), and the question of what music is in general. Given that a piece is not necessarily equal to any specific performance of it, it in no way follows that the medium of music isn't sound. How else are we to judge that a piece isn't a performance of Beethoven 5 other than by hearing it? And further, if the medium of music isn't sound, then what, precisely, _is_ it?


----------



## Mahlerian

Yardrax said:


> Anyway, you are confusing the question of the identity of an individual piece (What makes a performance of Beethoven 5 specifically a performance of Beethoven 5), and the question of what music is in general. Given that a piece is not necessarily equal to any specific performance of it, it in no way follows that the medium of music isn't sound. How else are we to judge that a piece isn't a performance of Beethoven 5 other than by hearing it? And further, if the medium of music isn't sound, then what, precisely, _is_ it?


I never said that music does not use sound as its medium, but you should realize that this formulation is not identical to "music is sound". Music is _expressed in_ sound, but there can exist music that has not yet been played and is, of course, still as fully music as any other piece.


----------



## BurningDesire

Okay, can we please take all this philosophical discussion out of here? This has nothing to do with the contests, and is just a boring distraction.

Shall we go about figuring out how we're going to set parameters for our first round, or what?


----------



## Piwikiwi

BurningDesire said:


> Okay, can we please take all this philosophical discussion out of here? This has nothing to do with the contests, and is just a boring distraction.
> 
> Shall we go about figuring out how we're going to set parameters for our first round, or what?


Are you saying that philosophy is boring?


----------



## Eviticus

I sure hope the compositions are a combative as the posts have become on this thread. 

I feel this prefight hype hotting up...


----------



## Matsps

We could do like a tour of instruments like this? 

First round: Woodwinds
Second round: Strings
Third round: Brass
Fourth round: Free selection


----------



## PetrB

Matsps said:


> We could do like a tour of instruments like this?
> 
> First round: Woodwinds
> Second round: Strings
> Third round: Brass
> Fourth round: Free selection


Who provides the instrumental samples so "the playing field is even?"

Bit of a problem there, and it is probably necessary to repeat "No score required," and "the jury is comprised entirely of the TC members, many of whom do not read a score, let alone 'hear the music' when looking at a score.

...really just playing the devil's advocate a bit here.


----------



## Majed Al Shamsi

So I guess it's settled then. Scores are *not* required.
Where do we go from there?
I liked Matsps's idea. As a person who's new to composing, a competition that forces me out of my comfort zone, giving me the chance to continuously learn new things, sounds most beneficial.
Shall we begin fighting about instruments and forms/structures, now that the score's issue is out of the way?


----------



## Guest

I'm game, but I say again: I'm a bit worried about deadlines / time constraints. How long would we have once the competition is launched?


----------



## Matsps

A month seems like a good amount of time?


----------



## Guest

OK Matsps, I can handle that. Short pieces, though, OK?


----------



## PetrB

Majed Al Shamsi said:


> So I guess it's settled then. Scores are *not* required.
> Where do we go from there?
> I liked Matsps's idea. As a person who's new to composing, a competition that forces me out of my comfort zone, giving me the chance to continuously learn new things, sounds most beneficial.
> Shall we begin fighting about instruments and forms/structures, now that the score's issue is out of the way?


Personally, I would not be at all interested if form were part of the parameters.

*Duration and instrumentation should be enough to help any composer arrive at a form, without imposing a set form on a submitted work.* _(The composer should also be able to choose and use a preexisting form without its being a disqualification, of course.)_

If they are thought of as not having to slavishly follow older traditional forms, the _idea / concept_ of serenade, nocturne, prelude, suite, etc. are open enough to be a qualification while also leaving plenty of room for variety, creative thought, and coming up with an interesting piece... but I would advocate most no particular forms as requirement.


----------



## DaDirkNL

I think form would be best filled in by the composer him/herself.


----------



## PetrB

Piwikiwi said:


> Are you saying that philosophy is boring?


I've never gotten far enough to find out if it is boring; it gives me a headache so quickly I've never had the time to find out


----------



## Majed Al Shamsi

Fair enough. You make a convincing argument.
So what's left for us all to agree upon, other than instrumentation and duration?


----------



## DaDirkNL

Who will organize the polls for: 
1. The judging 
2. The instrumentation


----------



## musicrom

^ I would be fine with creating the polls (if nobody else wants to); the only problem is that I don't know what I would put in the polls. What are our options for judging and instrumentation?


----------



## DaDirkNL

musicrom said:


> ^ I would be fine with creating the polls (if nobody else wants to); the only problem is that I don't know what I would put in the polls. What are our options for judging and instrumentation?


A fine question. For the instrumentation I don't think we should get too specific. For example: Wind ensemble, instead of: 2 oboes, 2 clarinets, 2 bassoons, 4 horns or something like that.

As for the judges I suggest we pick people who are often commenters in the Today's Composers section. That gives them some sort of experience already in the judging of works written today. People like PetrB.


----------



## musicrom

DaDirkNL said:


> A fine question. For the instrumentation I don't think we should get too specific. For example: Wind ensemble, instead of: 2 oboes, 2 clarinets, 2 bassoons, 4 horns or something like that.
> 
> As for the judges I suggest we pick people who are often commenters in the Today's Composers section. That gives them some sort of experience already in the judging of works written today. People like PetrB.


Sounds good, is anyone willing to be a judge?


----------



## BurningDesire

Actually I think it would be good to be specific on instruments. It would force people out of their comfort zones more-so than allowing them to pick their own palette.


----------



## DaDirkNL

BurningDesire said:


> Actually I think it would be good to be specific on instruments. It would force people out of their comfort zones more-so than allowing them to pick their own palette.


You do have a point there. What we could do, is give a list of, for example, 10 sorts of wind instruments. Then the participants are to choose 5 or something. That way we get people out of their comfort zone and at the same time we give them some freedom in the choice.


----------



## Crudblud

DaDirkNL said:


> You do have a point there. What we could do, is give a list of, for example, 10 sorts of wind instruments. Then the participants are to choose 5 or something. That way we get people out of their comfort zone and at the same time we give them some freedom in the choice.


I think this is a better idea.


----------



## DaDirkNL

Well that's settled then. Musicrom: you said you were interested in organizing the polls?


----------



## musicrom

DaDirkNL said:


> Well that's settled then. Musicrom: you said you were interested in organizing the polls?


I can post the polls if nobody else wants to, but I still don't know exactly what to put in the polls. If you want to organize them, feel free to do so.


----------



## DaDirkNL

I see now that earlier in this discussion we already decided to do the judging by polls, so that's what I suggest we do. Musicrom is only doing it if nobody else wants to. I want to, so I will do it. I'll create a new thread to make everything clear.


----------



## PetrB

DaDirkNL said:


> A fine question. For the instrumentation I don't think we should get too specific. For example: Wind ensemble, instead of: 2 oboes, 2 clarinets, 2 bassoons, 4 horns or something like that.
> 
> As for the judges I suggest we pick people who are often commenters in the Today's Composers section. That gives them some sort of experience already in the judging of works written today. People like PetrB.


Oh, no, no, and no. Judging, as prior site competitions had it, should be by general voter poll, regardless of the member's musical background or knowledge -- that more specific qualified jury business is quite legitimate, but unless Mr. Magle, qualified working professional composer, and other working professionals all want to volunteer themselves, I think we should leave it to the "hoi-polloi" who are -- it can be safely assumed -- the ultimate end-goal listeners and potential consumers of any of the music submitted.

Since this is TC, that "hoi-polloi" jury is already a number of cuts above "the jury" for, say the classic FM favorites poll.

There may be those who just can't stand much of anything contemporary (proven, in spades, to exist in numbers) but it is hard to imagine they could substantially 'corrupt' the vote, and besides, they are a real part of the general listening public


----------



## PetrB

BurningDesire said:


> Actually I think it would be good to be specific on instruments. It would force people out of their comfort zones more-so than allowing them to pick their own palette.


Then just make it more 'generic,' i.e. five strings, five winds, etc. Leave which ones up to the composer.... or, I suppose a very specific designated palette is realistic, since so many competitions, and just about every commission ever done, run along that line.


----------



## DaDirkNL

PetrB said:


> Oh, no, no, and no. Judging, as prior site competitions had it, should be by general voter poll, regardless of the member's musical background or knowledge -- that more specific qualified jury business is quite legitimate, but unless Mr. Magle, qualified working professional composer, and other working professionals all want to volunteer themselves, I think we should leave it to the "hoi-polloi" who are -- it can be safely assumed -- the ultimate end-goal listeners and potential consumers of any of the music submitted.
> 
> Since this is TC, that "hoi-polloi" jury is already a number of cuts above "the jury" for, say the classic FM favorites poll.
> 
> There may be those who just can't stand much of anything contemporary (proven, in spades, to exist in numbers) but it is hard to imagine they could substantially 'corrupt' the vote, and besides, they are a real part of the general listening public


I know, that's why I changed it.


----------



## Eviticus

I agree with PetrB.

I personally feel nominating a couple of judges is not the best idea. A judge may have already made up their mind regards a certain individuals music and their subconscious judgement would only find reason to reinforce their belief - therefore the competition would be limited by the belief of a select few. So to me it seems more fair to: 
a) Have the pieces submitted anonymised and placed on a poll and voted for by TC posters within a certain time frame.
b) Perhaps vote for a first (3 pts), second (2 pts) and third (1 pt) to potentially limit the effect of composers messaging 'chums' to say 'psst my composition is xxx on the poll - make sure you vote!' _Not that I'm implying this would common practice - it's a just in case..._


----------



## DaDirkNL

Eviticus said:


> I agree with PetrB.
> 
> I personally feel nominating a couple of judges is not the best idea. A judge may have already made up their mind regards a certain individuals music and their subconscious judgement would only find reason to reinforce their belief - therefore the competition would be limited by the belief of a select few. So to me it seems more fair to:
> a) Have the pieces submitted anonymised and placed on a poll and voted for by TC posters within a certain time frame.
> b) Perhaps vote for a first (3 pts), second (2 pts) and third (1 pt) to potentially limit the effect of composers messaging 'chums' to say 'psst my composition is xxx on the poll - make sure you vote!' _Not that I'm implying this would common practice - it's a just in case..._


Again: I know, that's why I changed it.


----------

