composer FAIL #32 explained
I suppose I should not bury my face when I receive yet another returned score in the mail, but for this competition, you had the option of receiving feedback on your rejected piece.
Hey, why not take them up on the offer?
My scanner loves to chop off important letters, so it should read "This composition shows definite promise and developing understanding of percussion composition. Keep Working!"
Well, thanks guys! When I initially read this comment, I felt warm-and-fuzzy inside.
But now I'm a little suspicious, especially because the rejection letter was quite generic. If you think about it, this is also a blanket compliment. Why not substitute the word "percussion" with the words "woodwind" or "theramin" or "kazoo?" Pick one; they all fit.
I might be overreacting, but I was hoping for constructive criticism. What works? What doesn't? Is the text setting too literal? Is the formation of the circular percussion station too esoteric? How about the bocce ball? Is this piece more convincing when seen live? And, most importantly, why wasn't my piece selected?!
But hey, I guess I will take the compliment.
UPDATE: I do want to add that I appreciate the time taken to write a handwritten note. This must have taken *days.* (And I also appreciate Fran Richards signing every ASCAP rejection letter, even though I was ornery about scanning the rejection letter.)