# TC Composition Competition VOTING Round 1



## Guest

Here are the five submissions I received for round 1.

Vote for your favourite or favourites, please don't vote for more than _three_ of the options, and also tell us what you think of them. Feedback would always be appreciated, especially constructive comments. In a week's time the poll will close and and I will reveal who the winner is and they can start the next round.

Here's a reminder for the guidelines of the first round:



shirime said:


> *Round 1*
> A duo for any two melodic/'single line' instruments (i.e. no keyboards, no harps) that lasts for between 1 and 2 minutes. The theme for this round is _Scherzo_, and you can interpret that however you want.


Hope you enjoy the new music!


----------



## caters

I love how the oboe and flute in both submission 1 and 5 complement each other so well and the flute isn't drowned out, even in the low register. I have problems with the flute getting drowned out by the oboe on musescore when it is in its lower registers because the flute gets mellower and the oboe gets more nasaly sounding. And I love the bassoon melody in submission 4 but I can't really tell what the other instrument for that one is. I think its an oboe but I could be wrong.


----------



## Bulldog

I voted for submissions 2 and 3. The other three were too whimsical for my tastes. Submission 3 was my favorite - had a little mystical quality I appreciated.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Clearly #5 is the winner to me. It had the most interesting interplay, harmony, and counterpoint.

#1 had some nice passages, but the 2 voices didn't really gel to me.
The counterpoint in #2 needed quite a bit of work to me.
#3 affected me similarly as #1. 
#4 made good use of the range. But the 2 voices don't quite gel to me sometimes again.


----------



## EdwardBast

Why was number 5 accepted for the competition? It is more than a minute longer than the time limit. If you aren't going to require submissions to stick to the parameters you've set (or at least somewhere close), don't set them. It is unfair to those who took the parameters seriously.

I eliminated 5 from my consideration for that reason, but would have voted for 4 in any case.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> Why was number 5 accepted for the competition? It is more than a minute longer than the time limit. If you aren't going to require submissions to stick to the parameters you've set (or at least somewhere close), don't set them. It is unfair to those who took the parameters seriously.
> 
> I eliminated 5 from my consideration for that reason, but would have voted for 4 in any case.


They took a risk, but I accepted it knowing that some people might eliminate it for not following the parameters precisely. The composer mentioned that there are many repeated passages from following a fairly strict 'scherzo and trio' form and if this is an issue, you can stop the piece at about 1:20 and judge it from the first scherzo section.


----------



## Tchaikov6

My ranking 
5- really amazing development and harmonies, and the instruments are great
1- very good, hard choosing between this and five. It didn’t seem very connected in its ideas.
3- good, but kind of weak and a bit too shrill, I didn’t like the voicing.
4- pretty good, I liked the motifs but it kind of seemed like a blob of undeveloped phrases.
2- mediocre, it just seemed like a bunch of runs and exercises and I didn’t like the instrumentation.


----------



## EdwardBast

shirime said:


> They took a risk, but I accepted it knowing that some people might eliminate it for not following the parameters precisely. The composer mentioned that there are many repeated passages from following a fairly strict 'scherzo and trio' form and if this is an issue, you can stop the piece at about 1:20 and judge it from the first scherzo section.


Not following precisely? 50% longer than the limit is not a mere lack of precision. You should hope 5 doesn't win, because that would make a travesty of Round 1.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> Not following precisely? 50% longer than the limit is not a mere lack of precision. You should hope 5 doesn't win, because that would make a travesty of Round 1.


I don't think it would be a travesty. 4 minutes I would have an issue with, 3 minutes not _so_ much, but the fact that the composer said that if you have an issue with the duration you can stop listening at about 1:20 and that is what I think would qualify it for the round. Personally, I haven't listened beyond that mark.


----------



## Phil loves classical

shirime said:


> I don't think it would be a travesty. 4 minutes I would have an issue with, 3 minutes not _so_ much, but the fact that the composer said that if you have an issue with the duration you can stop listening at about 1:20 and that is what I think would qualify it for the round. Personally, I haven't listened beyond that mark.


It only took less than 15 seconds for me to pick that one, but I listened to a good chunk of it anyway. I think I have some idea who composed which pieces.  Will the identity of the winner be announced?


----------



## aleazk

I voted 5. I think the repeated sections are unnecessary and actually somewhat contradictory to the aesthetics of the piece. I think it was an unhappy choice to do them from the part of the composer, both because it goes against the requirements of the competition but also because of aesthetic reasons.

Anyway, I still think it was the most interesting one and also a valid entry since the repetitions don't make any crucial difference in the piece.

Congratulations to most of the participants, since they have provided competent entries.


----------



## adrien

I listened through all 5.

I didn't vote for any. None are my cup of tea. I couldn't really feel a significant difference, they all sounded a bit disjointed and jumbly to me - no melodies I could discern in any of them. So I couldn't ascertain one I liked more than any other, and didn't want to listen to them all again another 3 times to see if this would lead me to a conclusion.


----------



## Swosh

I voted for no. 4, and really liked it.
No. 5 sounds to me like a bunch of cats running around on a musical device lol.


----------



## Swosh

I only liked 4.


----------



## Alexanbar

adrien said:


> I listened through all 5.
> 
> I didn't vote for any. None are my cup of tea. I couldn't really feel a significant difference, they all sounded a bit disjointed and jumbly to me - no melodies I could discern in any of them. So I couldn't ascertain one I liked more than any other, and didn't want to listen to them all again another 3 times to see if this would lead me to a conclusion.


I suggest to organizer of competition to add a point "Not liked nothing".


----------



## Art Rock

1>4>3>2 for me (as a consumer, I know nothing about composing).


----------



## paulc

To the person who submitted no. 2 and received fewer votes -> don't despair! There is nothing wrong with your ideas. The main problem I can hear is that none of the individual parts are rhythmically unique. They all play at roughly the same tempo, thus sound jumbled together. That can be fixed.

Try to use a wider variety of notes such as eighth notes, quarter notes, half notes, whole notes etc.. and offset the parts so that each has a chance to lead at times. That will allow each a chance to breathe. Syncopation and suspensions can make things sound less mechanical.


----------



## Guest

paulc said:


> To the person who submitted no. 2 and received fewer votes -> don't despair! There is nothing wrong with your ideas. The main problem I can hear is that none of the individual parts are rhythmically unique. They all play at roughly the same tempo, thus sound jumbled together. That can be fixed.
> 
> Try to use a wider variety of notes such as eighth notes, quarter notes, half notes, whole notes etc.. and offset the parts so that each has a chance to lead at times. That will allow each a chance to breathe. Syncopation and suspensions can make things sound less mechanical.


This is really good advice! I agree. Thanks for your comment.


----------



## Phil loves classical

paulc said:


> To the person who submitted no. 2 and received fewer votes -> don't despair! There is nothing wrong with your ideas. The main problem I can hear is that none of the individual parts are rhythmically unique. They all play at roughly the same tempo, thus sound jumbled together. That can be fixed.
> 
> Try to use a wider variety of notes such as eighth notes, quarter notes, half notes, whole notes etc.. and offset the parts so that each has a chance to lead at times. That will allow each a chance to breathe. Syncopation and suspensions can make things sound less mechanical.


I would say the counterpoint could use some work. There were quite a few instances where the voices rose and fell together at different steps, which seemed to clash at points, for instance. Around :26 and :37, it sounded the most awkward to me. For the style I don't think it suited.


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda

I don't know if I can say I completely enjoyed any of them. I think the first one managed to capture the scherzo spirit more though.


----------



## Guest

This poll closes in two days, by which time I will announce the winner of this first round.

It looks like 4 and 5 are both very popular, with 5 just slightly ahead as 9 out of 16 people voted for it, the only one to have an absolute majority of votes. 

Everyone who entered a piece, can you please send me a PM telling me if you would or would not like me to announce your TC usernames if you don't come in first place?


----------



## Guest

With 9 out of 16 voters, the winner is *pkoi*. Congratulations! Pkoi can start the next round.


----------



## aleazk

Pssst... the poll says 16 vote*r*s, not 'votes.'


----------



## pkoi

Thanks for everyone who voted me! I'll get the next round started tomorrow. Also, thanks for the other participants, great music! Especially submission 1 was something I really liked.


----------



## Guest

Excellent! Looking forward to entering the next one.


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda

My entry was no. 3, if anyone wanted to know.


----------

