The consistent writing style contributes to the high level of completion as a work. I also appreciated the intelligence conveyed throughout the piece.

The differentiation of dynamics inside the piano seems difficult to realize perfectly in performance. The double stops in the strings also seem a bit too demanding. Even though it says ‘ad lib.,’ with the rhythms written so precisely, it is not easy to ignore them. Still, if the intention was to express ‘fierceness,’ then it may have succeeded. The "J" section felt the most compelling, perhaps because of the accumulated intensity leading up to it. After that, however, the "K" section felt too short in the overall context.

This is a very accomplished score. The notation is highly skilled and convincing, yet it evokes a sense of closeness to the scores of older Italian contemporary composers such as Luciano Berio or Luigi Nono. The writing resembles what one might call standard contemporary music notation: it is well-executed, but, for example, despite the very careful placement of the notes, there is a lack of variation. There is a lack of variation in the sound, and although the music is in motion, the sounds sometimes feel somewhat constrained. For instance, consider the movement of the violin and cello from rehearsal letter J. The passage continues with the same sextuplets repeated throughout, and I feel it would benefit from a bit more variation rather than simply repeating the same pattern. Later, some variation is introduced at letter K, but by that point, the notation becomes very improvisatory, leaving much to the performers. When writing with such precision, it seems that it might be better to simply notate the music directly. This is a common challenge for composers: the completeness on the score does not always correspond to the actual completeness of the music. In this work, the score slightly surpasses the actual music. Considering the composer’s high-level technical skill, it is expected that with more attention to both the actual sound’s variation and the consistency of the score in terms of notation, the work could reach an even higher level of completion.

The meticulously notated score in the first half can be said to express the tightly bound tension of the modern era. The clarinet, which relaxes the music in the epilogue, is also beautiful.
However, if the "screams" in the [E] section are intended as a representation of modern human anguish, I would have liked to see a more fully crafted expression, rather than one presented in such a half-hearted way—whether that means pushing it further in a caricatured way or more musically.

I loved the rhythmic sensibility here — very precise and well-considered. I thought the composer executed the program note very well, but the question for me then becomes “why does this want to be a piece of music?” — it felt, often, unclear if the music was meant to be received as gestural (or shapes) or as individual pitches; to me, the feeling of being stuck in exactly the same pitch-cluster for a while is ultimately sort of unpleasant, even if that was the point of the piece. However, the rhythmic writing is incredibly skilled and very taut and exciting.

Each gesture has a clear intention and draws the listener in. I would like to highlight the composer’s strong command of writing.

Very interesting! The pages depicting volcanoes and flames made me laugh out loud. The graphic notation is also very skillfully done. The score is full of elements that make the ensemble performance enjoyable, which may explain why the recording was so excellent. The somewhat Kodály-like melancholic section is also beautiful. (One practical issue is that with modern high-end pianos, you can’t slam the lid shut, which could be problematic in live performance.) In fact, looking at the score might even be more entertaining than listening.

I feel that, overall, the piece has cohesion as a musical composition. The sound itself has warmth, and in that respect it leaves a very favorable impression. However, I also sense a tendency to rely a bit too much on sonic effects.
For example, the notation of the opening—using notes and lines—inevitably leaves a great deal to the performer’s discretion. When you indicate like “play this section in 10 seconds,” performers will generally count it as tempo 60. So, depending on situation, it might be more effective to use conventional notation and specify the details more precisely.
As an extension of the notation style that leaves a certain degree of freedom to the performer, the score later introduces graphic notation. It personally reminds me of Terry Riley’s scores, which I find interesting—but it does place a considerable amount of responsibility on the performer. Terry’s music is rooted in improvisation, so such “image-based” notation works well. However, if your aim is to present the piece as a composed work, it may be worth considering how clearly this kind of notation conveys your intentions to the performer.
There are also many passages where instruments are struck simultaneously. Taking that into account, the piece as a whole gives the impression of leaning toward sonic effects. I felt that it might be beneficial in the future to build a firmer connection and structure between sounds.
That said, I want to reiterate that I genuinely appreciate the coherence of the whole piece, the warmth it conveys, and the process through which the piece develops into a coherent whole.

This piece should ideally be judged by a different criterion than the other three works reviewed in this competition. Its challenges are numerous: the graphically-notated score that makes creating parts impossible, the duration far exceeding the prescribed seven minutes, expressions that tend toward monotony, and an excessive burden on the cello.
Nevertheless, I ranked this piece first because of its almost ritualistic allure, which might be better described as “Schwarzemagie” (black magic) rather than “rot” (red) - which leaves an unforgettable impression after just one listening. Moreover, the existence of this piece can be seen as a challenge to the very act of composition judging.
The strong expressive will emanating from music written instinctively cannot be restrained, much like the volcanic eruption shown in the graphic score. While the graphic notation presents challenges, the performance instructions in German are clear, so performing this piece is not impossible.

This is a great piece and one which I hope many ensembles play. I was constantly surprised by it — page 26 in particular was a delight. I thought the drama of the extended notation worked very well. The only thing I felt was that there could be more drama between the shapes. Once we got into the material, it was really good, but I often found myself being very aware of being in a transition. My suspicion is that it’s more of an 8-9 minute piece rather than a 10-11 minute piece, and a tiny bit of work on the transitions would be what makes it even better.

There is a definite strength in the way the story unfolds. This is the piece I most wanted to hear performed live.

The sustained tones produced by striking the piano with mallets are intriguing. The piece has a Japanese-style austerity. The viola’s sul ponticello technique sounded almost like a shakuhachi. However, including the approach to preparation, the overall writing does not strike me as particularly experimental.

The idea of using the special device, the eBow, is interesting, but overall, the piece feels somewhat reliant on sonic effects. The overall sound structure is still somewhat unclear, so I think the piece would improve with further refinement. The movement of the sound is quite simple in a sense, and it feels as if the piece relies too much on certain sonic effects, including extended piano techniques, to make it work. This approach isn’t very effective, which makes the continuous development in the part with various transitional motifs feel insufficient.
Furthermore, for example, from rehearsal letter D onward, the same sound as at the beginning is recapitulated. This causes the overall structure to sound like a simple three-part form, which comes across as very classical. I think further refinement in this aspect is necessary.
Considering the instrumentation—clarinet, viola, and piano—the piece has great potential to become excellent if more attention were paid to the construction of its sound. I think it would be good to compose more works in this instrumentation, or in a similar series, in the future. I’m looking forward to it.

The piece presents a highly interesting and engaging experiment in sound and resonance, defying the conventional trio instrumentation by employing a novel combination of clarinet, viola, and prepared piano.
However, the gamelan-like textures in the middle [C] section felt somewhat stereotypical compared to the originality of the surrounding sections. One might even describe it as "mechanical.

I liked the program note for this very much, but, I’m not sure that the piece of music offers a real sense of drama. I think you could put any section of it anywhere and it would have the same effect; in some ways I felt it was more of a compendium of (very cool!) sounds. The program note promises this (“evolves as a sequence of sonic states”), but there were moments where I would get so excited about the way a transition was happening (the lead-up to figure C being a prime example) and then you’d have two empty bars (77-78) which made me check out and think about something else. I feels like tightening some of the transitions is the key to making this really good.