Please read the following, before listening to the award winning compositions:
The award ceremony concert for the first edition of the contest took place on the 27th of September 2015. On our website you will find the YouTube links to some of the pieces played during the concert, including the first and second prize winners for each contest category (A/B).
However, we have to mention a few problems that occurred during this concert:
1) Unfortunately, due to the small size of the theatre stage, it was necessary to considerably reduce the orchestra. The stage could not host more than 20 musicians, and we had to adapt to this limit. For the award ceremony concert of the second edition we will use a theatre with a larger stage, so as to be able to present the winning compositions with a bigger orchestra.
2) Award winning pieces from the first edition required maximum 15-16 instrumental parts in category A. This means that it was possible to present these compositions even with a relatively small orchestra. The orchestra was carefully composed to fit the needs of the award winning compositions. In any case, we will do our best to organize further concerts in bigger theatres with the same repertoire, in particular the compositions of the contest winners.
3) Another unexpected limitation was that the theatre stage was much higher than the audience level, because it once used to be a cinema. As you will see in the video, this caused a little visibility problem. Only the first row of musicians was visible, while most of the second and third row was impossible to see. From the video it might look like there were only 6-7 musicians playing, while there were 20. Only at the end of the concert, when all stand up together, it is possible to see many more musicians, although not all of them. However, from the audio it is clear that there are many more instruments playing than those visible. Considering these limitations we could have uploaded just the audio part, but it seemed nicer to upload the full video, after this explanation to clarify the problems encountered.
Further clarifications about the jury's choices:
After listening to the award winning compositions, the other composers might say (or think) “my work was much better”, or “the jury could have chosen better”. This is almost inevitable, but the very fact that most musicians might share the same disappointment makes one think. Please remember that the jury's evaluation mirrors the opinion of some people, some musicians, but a different jury might have selected different pieces, maybe even among those that were completely excluded in the first edition.
Music is a great Art, like painting, sculpture, poetry, dance, etc., and like all arts, it might receive diverse or even contrasting judgements, and a certain evaluation is impossible to reach. Think about how certain people affirm that Bach was the greatest composer of history, while others say it was Mozart, or Chopin, or Verdi, etc. This lets you understand how diverging each person's evaluations may be: a fair solution would be to just accept contest juries' evaluations without too much criticism, independently from personal opinions.
In any case, judges consider many factors when evaluating a composition, not just how much they liked it at the first impression. First of all, it should be remembered that this contest is open to all kinds of musical expression, not just a few genres: you will find that award winning pieces span from classical to contemporary, from melodic to dissonant. In addition to this, jury members consider several other aspects: the harmony construction, the combination and synchronization of different instruments, the piece's rhythmic contrasts, dynamics and interpretation, possible writing mistakes, and the realistic possibility for the piece to be played by the orchestra or instruments chosen by the composer.
After this premise, we leave you to enjoy the award winning pieces of the first edition of the contest, as well as all the other pieces played during the concert.
1st Prize (category A): Arthur Malk (Ecuador) - Meditación Profunda "VIDEO"
2st Prize (category A): Robert Saul (Uruguay) - Canción Angelical "VIDEO"
1st Prize (category B): Oblux (Indonesia) – Andante "VIDEO"
2st Prize (category B): Sabrina Sanchez (Venezuela) - Paraíso Perdido "VIDEO"
Anna Inozemtseva (Russia) - Rain story "VIDEO"
Francesco Spina (Italy) - Nostalgia "VIDEO"
Maurice Ravel - Pavane pour une infante defunte "VIDEO"
Antonio Vivaldi - Concerto in D Major (RV 93) Allegro - Largo - Allegro "VIDEO"
Charles Gounod - Ave Maria "VIDEO"
Franz Schubert - Ave Maria "VIDEO"
Frédéric Chopin - Valzer in Si minore op. 69 N. 2 "VIDEO"
The award ceremony concert for the first edition of the contest took place on the 27th of September 2015. On our website you will find the YouTube links to some of the pieces played during the concert, including the first and second prize winners for each contest category (A/B).
However, we have to mention a few problems that occurred during this concert:
1) Unfortunately, due to the small size of the theatre stage, it was necessary to considerably reduce the orchestra. The stage could not host more than 20 musicians, and we had to adapt to this limit. For the award ceremony concert of the second edition we will use a theatre with a larger stage, so as to be able to present the winning compositions with a bigger orchestra.
2) Award winning pieces from the first edition required maximum 15-16 instrumental parts in category A. This means that it was possible to present these compositions even with a relatively small orchestra. The orchestra was carefully composed to fit the needs of the award winning compositions. In any case, we will do our best to organize further concerts in bigger theatres with the same repertoire, in particular the compositions of the contest winners.
3) Another unexpected limitation was that the theatre stage was much higher than the audience level, because it once used to be a cinema. As you will see in the video, this caused a little visibility problem. Only the first row of musicians was visible, while most of the second and third row was impossible to see. From the video it might look like there were only 6-7 musicians playing, while there were 20. Only at the end of the concert, when all stand up together, it is possible to see many more musicians, although not all of them. However, from the audio it is clear that there are many more instruments playing than those visible. Considering these limitations we could have uploaded just the audio part, but it seemed nicer to upload the full video, after this explanation to clarify the problems encountered.
Further clarifications about the jury's choices:
After listening to the award winning compositions, the other composers might say (or think) “my work was much better”, or “the jury could have chosen better”. This is almost inevitable, but the very fact that most musicians might share the same disappointment makes one think. Please remember that the jury's evaluation mirrors the opinion of some people, some musicians, but a different jury might have selected different pieces, maybe even among those that were completely excluded in the first edition.
Music is a great Art, like painting, sculpture, poetry, dance, etc., and like all arts, it might receive diverse or even contrasting judgements, and a certain evaluation is impossible to reach. Think about how certain people affirm that Bach was the greatest composer of history, while others say it was Mozart, or Chopin, or Verdi, etc. This lets you understand how diverging each person's evaluations may be: a fair solution would be to just accept contest juries' evaluations without too much criticism, independently from personal opinions.
In any case, judges consider many factors when evaluating a composition, not just how much they liked it at the first impression. First of all, it should be remembered that this contest is open to all kinds of musical expression, not just a few genres: you will find that award winning pieces span from classical to contemporary, from melodic to dissonant. In addition to this, jury members consider several other aspects: the harmony construction, the combination and synchronization of different instruments, the piece's rhythmic contrasts, dynamics and interpretation, possible writing mistakes, and the realistic possibility for the piece to be played by the orchestra or instruments chosen by the composer.
After this premise, we leave you to enjoy the award winning pieces of the first edition of the contest, as well as all the other pieces played during the concert.
1st Prize (category A): Arthur Malk (Ecuador) - Meditación Profunda "VIDEO"
2st Prize (category A): Robert Saul (Uruguay) - Canción Angelical "VIDEO"
1st Prize (category B): Oblux (Indonesia) – Andante "VIDEO"
2st Prize (category B): Sabrina Sanchez (Venezuela) - Paraíso Perdido "VIDEO"
Anna Inozemtseva (Russia) - Rain story "VIDEO"
Francesco Spina (Italy) - Nostalgia "VIDEO"
Maurice Ravel - Pavane pour une infante defunte "VIDEO"
Antonio Vivaldi - Concerto in D Major (RV 93) Allegro - Largo - Allegro "VIDEO"
Charles Gounod - Ave Maria "VIDEO"
Franz Schubert - Ave Maria "VIDEO"
Frédéric Chopin - Valzer in Si minore op. 69 N. 2 "VIDEO"
