Results of the competition.

[Kevin]

The Inordinate Claims of a Drunken Dullard
1 2 1 2 3
Total: 9
Sonatina for Trombone
2 6 5 6 9
Total: 28
Nocturne in Blue
3 3 4 3 2
Total: 15
Muieira
4 1 3 4 5
Total: 17
Lazy Bone
4 7 6 11 7
Total: 35
Decision
6 4 9 5 9
Total: 33
Pentiloquay
6 5 7 1 3
Total: 22
X-Cursion
8 10 2 9 8
Total: 37
Rumbafolia
9 11 8 8 5
Total: 41
Largo for Piano and Trombone
10 9 11 10 11
Total: 51
Lullaby
10 8 10 7 1
Total: 36


The top three were:-

1. The Inordinate Claims of a Drunken Dullard
2. Nocturne in Blue
3. Muieira

You can work the rest out.

The numbers are the markings from the judges. I am sorting out the comments and will add them shortly.

[Kevin]

Judges Comments

Judge 1

Trombone Composition Competition 2012 Remarks


Overall
This has been a rewarding but difficult test. A lot of work has gone into the pieces and there is much to complement them. It has been enjoyable task for me.
When marking the pieces I looked for the following points:
Does the piece suit the trombone?
Is there a sufficient development of ideas?
Is there good interplay between the piano and trombone?
Are there a variety of moods showing the versatility of the instrument?
Where a piece is difficult to play without a trigger I have pointed it out, but marks have not been deducted.
Thank you to all the entrants for the time and effort that you have put in. I hope that you find my comments and notes useful, they are all meant to be constructive – whether or not you agree with them!

Results

Pentiloquy for Trombone

Good stylistic variation and use of differing tone colours. Watch for the music stopping in bar two – perhaps it should be 2/4 changing the F# to two beats.
The interplay between piano works well, for example letter C.
I realise that letter E recapitulates the opening, but bar 55 adding G/B crotchets in the right hand would lead logically from bar 54 and help the line to flow better.
Bar 64 – consider a change of phrasing in the quavers in the trombone to 3+3+2.
G – I don’t think that the 5/4 is effective. I suggest either removing the crotchet rests and changing the time signature to 4/4, or adding something on beat 3 in the piano.
Bar 88 – effective mood change.
Bar 118 is inconsistent with 120 – I suggest slurring the F to Ab in bar 120.
Figure K would hand over better if there were a quaver in the piano at the start of bar 136, perhaps three A (naturals) in octaves (two in the left hand) would work.
Bars 167/168 – I suggest adding rall into figure O.
A well-rounded piece which draws the listener in; once it had finished, I found myself wanting to listen again.

The Inordinate Claims of a Drunken Dullard

Wow – this looks good on the score. I can tell this is an effective work before I even begin to study it.
Bar 8 – last two semi-quavers are very awkward to play without a trigger. This is also true of the slurred semi-quavers in bar 13.
Bar 27 and following – accents on the first of each set of four semi-quavers would give the music drive.
Bar 41 – good mood change.
Bar 49 – I suggest more interplay between the F and F# rather than the progression. End the bar on F# and in bar 50 change the F# on beat 2 with an F natural.
Bar 58 – Consider adding a statement in the trombone alone.
I would have liked to have seen a bit more variety of tone colour.
An interesting and novel idea that works well.

Nocturne in Blue

82BPM is rather on the fast side for this work – it would float along more at 76. That would also enhance the nocturne feel.
Bar 49 – the rest will not be silent because the pedal is down. I suggest changing the first note to a crotchet.
The final flourish in the piano in bars 74/75 are out of character. I would suggest something similar to bar 72. And rather than cresc., I suggest a niente in a nocturne.
I had hoped to see more tension in the middle of the piece, either by rhythm, melody, counterpoint or tempo.
An atmospheric piece that works well.

Muineria

Atmospheric and intriguing opening brings in the listener well.
130 dotted crotchets at bar 13 is fast, which makes this work very technically demanding and beyond the reach of most players.
Good melodic line in the Prestissimo.
Bars 20-30 – use tenor clef, not treble clef.
Bar 59 – avoid a four-square feeling by adding a C quaver before the D in the trombone.
Bar 68 is very difficult with the large jumps and shifts from 5th to 1st position at this speed.
Bar 79 – the key change is effective.
Around 107 I think that the trombone player needs a rest, perhaps resting the trombone here for 4 bars 107-111?
Bars 116 and 117 are difficult to perform.
Bar 130 works well – a good mood change.
Bar 133 – you can add rhythmic interest by changing the crotchet rest to a quaver rest and brining in the trombone half a beat earlier.
Bar 147 is also difficult to perform.
A good piece of music that I enjoyed – however I don’t feel it’s appropriate for the trombone unless aimed at the virtuoso.

Decision

Effective opening.
Bar 8 – I suggest adding some movement, perhaps changing the bass line from a B dotted minim to a B to B octave jump (crotchet to minim).
Also bar 20.
Bar 36 – moves well in to the 7/8 feel, however I would like to see more counterpoint between the piano and trombone throughout this section.
Bar 61 – The sequential feel against bar 59 could be enhanced by changing the G# quaver into a G# semiquaver followed by a G natural semi-quaver.
Bar 68 – I suggest a longer break before the trombone comes in.
Having the trombone play alone around the tempo primo would add anticipation. For example, the piano could rest the last beat of 87, and in 88 the dotted minim could become a minim on the 2nd beat, with the left hand not playing the first quaver.
Having some changes in the end against the opening would add interest – for example the C# in bar 95 – try a high A instead.
The last note is too long for the trombone to play. It’s an effective ending in the piano, so consider having the trombone rest the last 5 and a half beats.
Well done – a good effort, more counterpoint in the middle section would help this work a lot.

Sonatina for Trombone

A lot of good thought and effort has been put into this piece.
Adding rests in bars 1 and 3 to the trombone would add counterpoint and rhythmic interest. I suggest resting the first 2 and a half beats in both bars.
The bass line is static in bears 8-11. I suggest adding interest such as quaver octave leaps on the last beat of bars 9 and 11.
In bar 10 in the right hand and the trombone, the rhythm is the same.
The harmony in bar 27 isn’t consistent with the other bars.
Resting the trombone at sometime would add a sense of motion – for example, the last beat of bar 39 and all of bar 40. Similarly, the right hand in bar 58 adds nothing by playing the same as the trombone. I suggest holding the first chord on for 4 beats rather than 1, so that bars 58-59 creating interplay between the parts as bar 59 in the piano would echo bar 58 in the trombone as it plays a new figure in 59.
At bar 82 the piano is louder than the trombone – did you mean that? Perhaps 81 should have a diminuendo to piano at the start of bar 82.
Bars 93-96 sound repetitive – if you mark bar 95 mezzo piano you create interest and contrast.
Bar 130 – why not also mark the 3rd beat in the right hand as an arpeggio?
Bar 132, I suggest resting the piano for a bar. This focuses the attention of the listener onto the trombone part whilst also adding contrast and sense of “coda” to this section if the piano’s entry is delayed until 132.
An enjoyable piece with much potential that would benefit from more counterpoint between the players.

Lullaby

I found myself wanting more counterpoint between the players. Where it has been written (for example the last quaver in bar 6) it needs to flow better.
Bar 25 would be helped by some embellishment and development of the melody.
Having the piano rest for two bars at 50-51 works well as does the piano only section starting at 35.
A pleasant work that would be helped by more development, especially of the rhythm, and interplay between the trombone and piano

Rumba Folia

The trombone dynamic (fortissimo) is too heavy. Forte or even mezzo forte would work better.
The piece would benefit from more variety, for example embellishment the second time around.
Bar 18 – the clash of C# in the trombone against D in the piano doesn’t work on beat two – perhaps the piano should be E rather than D?
Bar 32 – slur 2 tongue 6 would sound lighter and work better than slur 2 tongue 2.
More development and less repletion could help this piece to realise the potential that it has.

X-cursion

A work of this length needs to show more the different characters of the trombone and changes of style and mood.
The pedal Bb is difficult to hold on for that long for many players.
Good piano writing at bar 15.
The legato marks in the right hand are not consistent between bars 41/42 and 42/43.
There are consecutive octaves in bar 57 between the trombone and the bottom of the left hand. Contra-motion between the left and right hands would remove that and add interest working well with the crescendo.
Bars 71-77 shows good interplay between the trombone and piano.
A rall in bars 70-71 followed by a poco piu mosso section starting at 72 with tempo primo at 137 would give extra shape to the work.
Bar 97 has difficult slide play between a 7th position then a 1st position slurring cross harmonics to a 5th position. Even players with a trigger will need to work on that bar.
Bar 118 is not playable without a trigger trombone.
Bar 128 has a cross harmonic glissando which is impossible to play.
A good idea and a piece that nearly works, but needs more development.

Largo for Trombone

Too often the music stops. It is an effective device when used sparingly.
Nothing is added by repeating the first 4 bars.
Bar 10 – I suggest marking this poco piu mosso, with tempo primo at 24, to add interest and to give form to the work.
The piano plays throughout. A phrase with the trombone only would add tension, especially if placed close to the end.
The bass line is the second most important line after the melody and it needs careful thought. For example, adding quaver octave leaps on the last beat of 41 and 42 would add interest to it.
A piece with potential; more rhythmic development is needed throughout.

Lazy Bone

Pay more consideration to tension and relaxation – where are the climaxes in each phrase. For example, the shape of the right hand in bars 1 and 2 is up, up, up, down – which is repeated in bars 3 and 4; however by adding a D on the 3rd beat of the 4th bar the shape of the second group becomes up, up, up, up which, by differing from the first two bars, adds tension which is release by the trombone especially if the trombone where to enter on the D alone at the end of the bar and not play the first C.
Think more about counterpoint, for example bars 14 and 15. Think also of rhythmic variety. I believe am right in saying that all bars, except for the last bar, relies on the same pulse (a quaver).
A phrase without the piano would add tone colour.
The shape of the piece needs to be carefully considered.

Judge 2

1.The inordinate Claims of a Drunken Dullard

Pretty difficult. But logic and consequent stilistics. Sort of preceeding Serocki's concerto for trombone and orchestra.


2. Sonatina for Trombone

A few intro bars by the piano would be helpful. Little bit Piazolla.


3. Nocturne in Blue

Interesting piano part but difficult. Bars 45 and 71 sounds a bit strange.


4. Muieira

After the modern sounds of the beginning I do not like the I-V-I Beethoven phrases like from 79 etc


5. Lazy Bone

(he should add something like Ballad or Dreams of a ...)
A bit Auld lang Syne stylish, but is probably what audiences like


6. Decision

Works well till bar 29 on beat 2? Bar 36ff dissonances are not that systhematic. 74ff one Reprise would have done it. Dissonance in bar 87 on 2 contrasts bar 29? Piano tremoloat the end, hm...



7. Pentiloquy for Trombone

Acceptable till bar 72. Little bit Chopin in bar 78? 88-104 OK, 109 starts a visit to film music. 125-129 modified quote from "All the things you are". End to abruptly. Different styles doesn't mix really.



8. X-cursion

Too long, dissonance in bar 36 sounds like a typo


9.Rumbafolia

Repeatings are superfluous, sounds a bit like an arrangement of a South American or national anthem. The arpeggios at bar 51ff doesn't fit for me very well.


10. Largo for Piano and Trombone

Piano part to uncreative. Dissonance on bar 27 on 2?


11. Lullaby

Don't like the dissonance bar 8 on 3


Judge 3

Trombone Composing Competition

1 The Inordinate Claims of a Drunken Dullard

”This is a real composition – great way of treating both instruments – great humour”

2 X-cursion

”Talented and original – could benefit from being shortened”

3 Muineira

”I like the music – though the format seems to be a bit messy here and there –more developement of the material”

4 Nocturne in Blue

”Nice and original tune – like it”

5 Sonatina for trombone

”Talented – original material – could develop the material more”

Lazy Bone

”Pretty and honest tune – respect”

7 Pentiloquy for trombone

”Tons of good ideas – but a bit too rhapsodic – stay with the ideas more and develop them”

8 RumbaFolia#3

”Initially a good tune – but it doesn´t really get any where – develope the theme more and check out the form”

9 Decision

”Sounds a bit backwards to me – original ideas but it never really caught me”

10 Lullaby
”I lack the good tune – or the great harmony – when writing so slow and mellow”

11 Largo for trombone

”Needs to be written through again – very rhapsodic – but doesn´t really catch
me”

Judges 4

I have just spent and very enjoyable couple of hours listening to the entries for the Trombone competition. I must say at the outset that there is great merit in all the submitted works and given the diversity of styles and some extremely creative writing it was very difficult to come up with a winner let alone a pecking order. Below is my adjudication in order of merit. I have not apportioned any marks and will leave it to you to sort out that side of things.



1. Muieria

2. The Inordinate Claims of a Drunken Dullard

3. Nocturne in Blue

4. Decision

5. Pentiloquay for Trombone

6. Sonatina for Trombone

7. Lazy Bone

8. Lullaby for Alto Trombone

9. Largo for Trombone and Piano

10. X-Cursion

11. Rumbafolia



I have based my adjudication on originality, musical form and of course those I found to be enjoyable. As I say, there is great merit in all and frankly difficult to place a playing card between some of them.

Judge 5

Trombone Composition Competition

Nocturne:
There are some awesome effects in this piece and plenty of really very classy passages, particularly in the piano part (I love bar 30!) The lazy, nocturnal quality the title suggests you are going for really comes across well, and the theme that grows in centrality to the piece as it progresses is wonderfully effective through its simplicity.
For me, the piece actually improves a lot as it goes on. It is as if you really found your grove about a third of the way through and go with it, whereas at the opening it feels as if you are not quite sure where the piece will end up. In a piece like this, with high levels of jazzy chromaticism, I think it is quite important to present something more tune-like and memorable than the one you open with. It feels like lots of meandering, short half bar melodic cells that have very little connection to each other. It would take very little to fix, and would help the opening immeasurably. The only other observation I have, connected in a way to the above is that, for me, the opening is too busy in the piano part. There are a lot of fast flourishes, big registeral shifts, and heavy dissonances that become quite difficult and less pleasurable for the listener to follow. As the piece progresses, again, you find your voice and use the effects more sparingly and to better effect. The ideas themselves are great, we just don’t need them all at once – simplicity is the key, I think.
But these are all small, nit-picky points and don’t stop it being a good and original piece. Nice one!

The Inordinate Claims of a Drunk Dullard:
I love it! A very imaginative and clever portrayal of a drunk ‘dullard’s’ strange, rather topsy-turvy world. The textural shifts as the piece progresses are great; almost like moving into different concepts in the Dullard’s claims (the legato hemiola passage from 41 is fantastically written, and provides good contrast). As to the piece I really have very little to say: it all works. Perhaps for a competition though, where one has to judge on compositional skill, it might have been better to send in two movements: maybe, say, the dullard’s dreamy internal thought processes when sober before the drunk movement - that would be fun to try to reflect in music! It is difficult to reward someone for a piece and concept that can break all the rules of composition in the name of a programmatic idea, even though in performance it would certainly work well. Putting another movement that is a little more coherent in would show a more varied range of compositional skills, not just total insanity and rule-breaking!

Decision:
There are some superb effects in this piece. Much of the melody works well; structurally the piece makes sense and is easy to aurally follow; the harmony is great; it is idiomatic for both the instruments and well presented on the page. For me, however, it never quite gets off the ground. The harmony and structure are strong, no problems there, but what may be worth looking at are the contours and harmonic basis of the melody itself. The piece relies, as much post-modern music does, on a fluctuating but non-the-less present tonal system, with A as the central tonality (with a perhaps unresolved battle between major and minor triads – that was cool!). For me, because of that harmonic basis, the melody sometimes became just too atonal and ‘random’. The listener needs, in music like this, to be able to make at least partial sense of the melodic line – an extended tonality doesn’t just mean “no rules”. Also, the piece would gain more scope from extending the range of the trombone part. It is totally centred on the middle register, and by the end becomes slightly samey. Extending that, both further up and further down, would make the piece more exciting on the listener’s ear.
Since the piece in general is very good, and there are no ‘errors’, I would suggest leaving it for a while and coming back to it when it is not so ‘fresh’, and you can look at it more objectively. Once you’ve forgotten it a bit, you might see what I mean about the randomness of some of the melodies, and be able to change it. It will be easy to sort. Other than that, great piece!

Largo:
This is a wonderfully cinematic piece that that reflects many of the compositional styles currently popular with film composers - the opening sort of reminds me of the Poirot theme, I like it! There are some good ideas and effects in the piece, but they are not always used technically ‘correctly’ and to their full potential. One comment generally is that I think the tempo is too slow. This might have just been a mistake when writing on Sibelius and perhaps you wouldn’t perform it so slow, but there just isn’t enough interest within each bar for that slow a tempo (to that end, I would argue the opening repeat isn’t necessary), and not enough flow for some of the accompaniment figures you’ve written.
A piece like this, basically in a tonal style, needs to roughly follow the rules of traditional tonal composition. Having created such strong chord feelings, you need to be more aware of the harmonic tendencies of each chord. For example, bar 5 and 6 with the movement from Gm to Abm is harmonically a move from tonic to root-neapolitan and back to root, which doesn’t make too much sense to the ear and isn’t in keeping with the ‘tonal’ cinematic style. Along with this, you have created some hugely obvious parallels in both trombone and piano parts, such as in bar 6 (parallels aren’t only problematic in Bach chorales!) where the ear really wants contrary motion in trombone and piano parts. The rising semitone is extremely effective as a melody, but I don’t think it is what you are after harmonically. Other (small!) points:
The parallel 4ths in bar 43 stick out and don’t really work – again, be wary of parallels!
The piano part is, on the whole, too chordal. Try using a mix of chords and melodic single lines for more variation.
The Db in bar 33 should be a C# - it seems like a tiny thing, and is so boring, but it’s technically wrong and easy to fix so it makes sense to get it right...
Other than a few technical considerations to hone, the piece has plenty of potential. I loved the way the trombone and piano line split for that one beat in bar 37 – a very popular technique throughout history and I think it sounds really subtle and great!

Lazy Bone:
There is a great feel to this piece, and the mood certainly lives up to the title! Some really nice moments – the opening theme is great and immediately put a smile on my face (even with the rubbish midi file!) and the small piano interlude right near the end, bar 28, is classy. The only limiting factor of the piece is the constant use quavers in the trombone part (and occasionally in the piano as well). What is a great ‘lazy’ idea becomes overworked and ends up sounding a bit like an exercise. It will be simple to fix, and if you leave the piece for a while and then come back to it you’ll sort it in a flash. Little things like extending the A on the downbeat of bar 13 to a dotted crochet and actually just removing some of the busyness from the part in the middle section will, I think, fix it. The only other point is that very occasionally the texture becomes over-complex and thick – bar 13, for example, with the dissonant chords, quaver trombone figure and quaver piano figure. The listener doesn’t want to have to work hard while listening, especially after you have so convincingly reflected laziness! All small things – the piece in general really works.

Lullaby:
Clearly you really need no compositional comments from someone my age, and someone who is more a performer than a composer. There are no ‘errors’ I can spot, and I really admire your compositional skill, so I think it may be best for me to just fire a couple of things I noticed, for you either to reject or have a little think about. I love what is going on harmonically at the beginning and end – the suspensions at bar 35+ that soften the dissonances, and the mixture of soft and harsh crunches that create much of the expression. Perhaps think about softening some of the harmony a little around bar 17 – it is the only place that, when listening, I thought didn’t quite work and was a little too uncomfortable on the ears for a ‘lullaby’.

Muieira:
This piece is academically persuasive, cleverly thought through and very good to listen to. It really works on almost all levels. The jazzy harmonies style chosen for the piano opening is extremely well followed up in the ‘classical’ vein, with the presention of whole-tone melodic-cell that returns later and the main motif of both the largo and the prestissimo (though, as an aside, it feels more like a ‘presto’ than prestissimo). The one small issue I would take issue with is simply the highly differing levels of ‘inspiration’ between trombone and piano part. After such a clever opening complete with metric modulation, the trombone’s scalic opening feels a little of a letdown. You pick it up again (the slip to Gb in bar 25 is great), but the level of innovation drops a level. Making it slightly less four-square and injecting it with just a little more interest would, I think, really help the piece – especially because it returns so many times. A chromatic grace note would probably do – it really won’t take much! Other than that, I really liked the piece.
Pentiloquy: This is a great piece, full of imagination with plenty of varied styles. I love the slip into swing in the middle – it is fantastically written and really very convincing. There really is little to say, and no specific ‘problems’ as such. The only problem, and a nice problem to have too in some ways, is that the high level of imaginative composing is not consistently applied. For me, the piece grows and improves as it goes on. The opening is simple and effective, but the trombone’s opening statement at A is actually rather commonplace and not a patch on the later themes of the piece. A little spicing up is required, especially since the rest of it certainly raises the level up a notch. It wouldn’t take much, and perhaps the answer isn’t even in the melody itself, you could explore more syncopation between trombone and piano parts, it just needs something extra!
Having said that, my only other reservation came from exactly the opposite extreme: letter A fell (slightly – these are very small points!) into predictability, while for me, letter C went too far the other way into random progressions of notes. I don’t know how you set about composing the piece, but that passage sounded like you wrote it directly onto Sibelius, considering what sounded good after the note you’d just written. It lacks the sense of phrase and conformity that you achieve so well in the rest of the piece. Perhaps you did do this and all it needs is a little tweak, but it is actually often a good idea to draft ideas at a piano rather than at a computer, especially for the meandering sectional type at letter C.
But these are small niggling things to make a good piece even better, and can obviously be rejected if not liked. A really cool piece!
(p.s. you’ll need to check in performance if the last bar needs a plonk in the piano too to clearly define that it is the end. I can’t decide if it needs one, and you’ll only know once/if there is an awkward moment in concert!)

Rumbafolia:
I really have very little to say about this piece, since there is virtually nothing to work on with it. I love the grove it creates, and the way you haven’t been afraid of the monotony of the ostinato-like accompaniment – it really makes the piece dance. The tunes are all catchy and work well within the style, and harmonically almost everything is sound: the 6ths/3rds in the left hand and trombone parts at the opening are particularly effective for the style.
The two comments that I have are tiny, so consider or dismiss as you please. Firstly, there are a couple of places where the certain passing notes or chords in the piano don’t quite fit with what is going on elsewhere. They don’t show up on the midi file at all, so you can’t hear the potential problem, but when a live pianist plays the part you might well hear the odd written ‘wrong’ note. I won’t point them out, just in case I’m exaggerating the problem, it’s just for you to be aware of! Secondly, I think you should rack your brain for a more exciting ending. For me, the ending is the weakest part of the piece, and just when it would be amazing if the syncopation went into overdrive and got busier rather than just falling back on rapid figuration and a loud perfect cadence. What you have is fine and works, but considering the level of skill at other points, I’m sure you can think up something a little more inspired! But whatever you decide, it really is a great piece.
Sonatina: This piece has great cinematic style with some lovely ‘filmic’ effects. I love the simple harmonic shift at 84-86: it isn’t overworked or overused, and just works perfectly within the style. There are just a few things that I think would help the piece and progress you as a composer. Firstly, the piano writing is fairly limited in scope. Although the opening of the ‘con moto’ section provides a little relief, there is too much chordal writing and an overuse of right-hand harmonisation. An arpeggiaic left hand and a chordal right is a good effect, and you certainly use it well, however it should be just one effect of many in your compositional vocab to fall on. Developing more compositional options for the piano would aid another observation I have about the piece: that it would benefit from a more autonomous piano part in which it partners the trombone, not just accompanies it. Simply giving the piano a melody more often would present it as a more dominant voice.
One small issue is the request of a ‘lip gliss’ at the end of the piece. What do you mean by that? There are numerous ways to go about a glissando such as this and none of them are perfect – it might be an idea to specify with an asterisk exactly what you require the player to do. But great job with this piece: once some further scope is added to the piano part, it really could be fantastic!

X-cursion:
A very good piece - you clearly don’t have ‘writer’s block’ or anything like that, it all seems to flow incredibly naturally! I like the way the piece is happy to meander before reaching its important melodic and structural goals. Being able to write like a novel rather than a poem (if you’ll excuse the rubbish analogy!) is an extremely good skill to have – it’s something I know I struggle with. However, for me at least, you over-milked the amount of material you had pre-planned for the piece. I liked the almost sardonic returning theme, particularly its appearance in the piano at bar 125 (that was great) but really for a piece this length we need more marker points for the structure and greater contrasts in style. What would really help the piece sustain its interest for the length is if you were to spend longer developing a melody that is both memorable and refined. Yours are fine, but feel rather developmental - as if thought out as intervals rather than whole arches. Even in a highly-extended tonal piece that sometimes ventures into atonality, melody is still hugely important and worth the effort of slaving over for a while.
In general, the harmony is fine, though some of the stronger discords work less well than others (many of them don’t actually show up particularly strongly on the midi file – watch out when you perform it live, some of them might not work as well when played properly), but I like how daring you have been with it all.
One small trombonistic issue in the piece: the pedal Bbs at the beginning would not be possible in one breath by anyone, no matter how big their lungs (unless circular breathing is used, and I’ve never heard of anyone being able to do it for pedal notes!) Other than these few small points, the piece is essentially very successful. Nice job!


Well there you are. Many thanks from me to all of you. I hope that you have all enjoyed the experience.

I am now chasing publishers for the winning entry.

If you have found the competition don't forget to tell your friends about us here at SOS.

Details of the next competition will follow!!

[adrianallan]

Well done, David.
Interesting comments. A few surprises (for me), but a lot of good advice nonetheless.

[juan]

Wow! Congratulations to the winner! Very well deserved first place! My bets were in this piece from the start.

I love the detailed comments! Lots of things to ponder consider for a revision or for future compositions. As per my entry, I'm not surprised to be told that it is almost unplayable (it was meant to be a clarinet piece...) I'll rewrite it for clarinet, as intended, and I'll try to inject more variety and take out some of the "squareness" (as a matter of fact, I have some variants of melody, harmony and patterns in my preliminary clarinet sketches, but I dediced to simplify things in the trombone version.

Thanks to Kevin, the judges and the participants. Oh, and I hope the judge who is ill gets well soon.

[Deleted]

Must admit I feel a bit gutted to come dead last, but its only a push to do better next time. Thanks for the comments, and to Kevin for getting me to participate in the first place! Every time I write another piece, I always end up learning something new, so thanks for the experience!

[Kevin]

Publisher sorted, details will follow.

[John Biggs]

Apologies to those who didn’t enter this – and are probably glazing over – but to those who did Congratulations – I’ve really enjoyed checking out the music. Its been brilliant, and been looking forward with hope and trepidation to what feels like my first school report in 32 years!

Thanks to the Judges – fascinating to hear there diverse views and positive critiques – Its been a great opportunity to get this level of feedback.

Obviously Kevins done a great job in coordinating this here – Marvellous Job!

Well done David – you deserved to win on the title alone! – and to Peter (My money was on you) – and Juan – Good job.

- And Jamie – Well done mate!

[Joseph]

Congratulations to the triumvirate!

[juan]

Congratulations to the triumvirate!

Thanks! It is a bit silly thay my not so trombonistically composed piece got third place, while others that are better written for the trombone (according to the judges) did not fare that well, though...

Some of the comments on the different entries are a bit subjective, or do not make much sense, or are too generic to be actually useful or meaningful, while others are quite spot on, so we must take everything with a grain of salt of three...

Joseph, I could never manage to listen to your entry (MP3 too low and possibly some hearing loss); please let me know if you post the score and a powered-up MP3 on Score Exchange.

[Deleted]

Phew! I've just read all the comments, and decided to try again some time when it's not quite so long past my normal bedtime . . . It's great to have such detailed comments, though, & I shall enjoy going through them with a fine tooth comb when my brain is not quite so tired.

In the meantime, I think thanks are due to all the judges - and also to Kevin who must have put in a lot of work organising everything.

[ttw]

I'd like to thank the judges for the great work they did. The comments are helpful. (I'll probably do a bit of modification the put the result on soundclick.)

[Kevin]

Sent the winning score to the publisher. So check out your in box David!

[michaelm]

Congratulations to the winners; I listened to all of the pieces, excellent work everyone. Well done!

Mike

[djh255]

Thanks for posting full results and comments Kevin - great constructive criticism - makes interesting and helpful reading. Congrats to the winners.

[David Stowell]

Great.

Believe it or not, this is the first competition (of any category/discipline) I have won in over 50 years.

Thanks to Kevin, for organising the competition, and to the judges for their interesting comments.

[Kevin]

Have you heard from the publisher yet David?

[Joseph]

Aug 24, 2012 9:33:15 GMT David Stowell said:

Great.

Believe it or not, this is the first competition (of any category/discipline) I have won in over 50 years.

Very apparently, you were just entering the wrong competitions! ;D

For sure this is a well deserved achievement . . .

[David Stowell]

Aug 24, 2012 9:34:18 GMT Kevin said:

Have you heard from the publisher yet David?

Nope, not yet, Kevin.

[Kevin]

I have sent him your email, home address and the score. I will contact him next week then David. Let me know if you hear before then.

[Kevin]

He will be in touch very soon David. Fame and fortune awaits!

[David Stowell]

Aug 27, 2012 6:24:42 GMT Kevin said:

He will be in touch very soon David.

Yes, he has now emailed me a contract.

Aug 27, 2012 6:24:42 GMT Kevin said:

Fame and fortune awaits!

Ah, if only life were that easy......

[Kevin]

Glad he has been in touch