# Writing a symphony



## DaDirkNL (Aug 26, 2013)

Since about 2 months I've been trying to write a symphony. It was going pretty good, but the problem is that I think it's way too short. How would I be able to fix this?


----------



## ricardo_jvc6 (Dec 8, 2010)

For me writting symphonies is about polyphony, texture and most important of all timbre. I don't write symphonies because of this. I'm not suited for this type of works. I work with orchestra music (my own style) not symphonies. I can't help you very much in this one. I atleast tried to help you. I wish very good luck writting music. Out of curiosity, could you name me all the instruments you are using for this symphony and style?

Ricardo


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

DaDirkNL said:


> Since about 2 months I've been trying to write a symphony. It was going pretty good, but the problem is that I think it's way too short. How would I be able to fix this?


Have a look at the proportions of each section in terms of duration and add more bars accordingly. Spend more time developing motifs perhaps?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

DaDirkNL said:


> Since about 2 months I've been trying to write a symphony. It was going pretty good, but the problem is that I think it's way too short. How would I be able to fix this?


Is it shorter than this?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

violadude said:


> Is it shorter than this?


or this?





Anyway, if you are being formal about it, what qualifies it as a Symphony is symphonic form, not length.


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

If you make the piece long just for the sake of being long, it will probably get boring. Say as much as you have to say, then give it a title that fits the length. There are pieces for orchestra of all lengths.

If you haven't already done so, consider starting with smaller-scale works first. Fewer instruments and shorter length. They are easier to develop, not to mention easier to get done. The great composers started with things like 16 bar minuets for one or two instruments and gradually worked into greater length and complexity from there.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

hreichgott said:


> If you make the piece long just for the sake of being long, it will probably get boring. Say as much as you have to say, then give it a title that fits the length. There are pieces for orchestra of all lengths.


Exactly. Don't feel like you have to make it into a symphony if the music you've written is not symphonic. If you haven't had experience putting together a shorter piece, a large-scale one will most likely not hold up very well.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

First piece I ever wrote (practically) was a symphony. It was about 15 minutes, and others wanted to call it a symphonietta - which I disliked but put up with.

What does it matter anyway? Years on, and it's a lot less terrible than some of the rubbish I wrote afterwards (including a symphony of 40 minutes length, written so long to make sure it wouldn't get renamed).

But best to keep it the length it should be. I also think it would be much better to add at the end than to extend from the middle, if you must make it longer.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ramako said:


> I also think it would be much better to add at the end than to extend from the middle, if you must make it longer.


Unfortunately, regardless of period and style, what 'works' on people is the longest movement first, a less lengthy middle movement, the third with the shortest duration. Psychologically, this is what "sits best" with listeners. Just about anything coming to an end or culmination will have that last episode take the least time compared to that which went before.

From what you say, any extensions will not ring true, and take away, not add to, what you already have.

If it is your first, it is your first. Finish it. Then try another, or as suggested, a chamber work, which could be a very brief and zippy piece as demonstrated by the Milhaud Chamber Symphony link, in an above comment.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Unfortunately, regardless of period and style, what 'works' on people is the longest movement first, a less lengthy middle movement, the third with the shortest duration. Psychologically, this is what "sits best" with listeners. Just about anything coming to an end or culmination will have that last episode take the least time compared to that which went before.
> 
> From what you say, any extensions will not ring true, and take away, not add to, what you already have.
> 
> If it is your first, it is your first. Finish it. Then try another, or as suggested, a chamber work, which could be a very brief and zippy piece as demonstrated by the Milhaud Chamber Symphony link, in an above comment.


Well, yes, it is usually best to just leave things as they are - apart from usual editing of course (which is just as likely to leave things shorter rather than longer though), and I don't think that shortness is a problem as I tried to say in my previous post.

However, a bit on the end which doesn't fit is better than 'extending' the middle, with the very real possibility of ruining everything already written, imo. I guess putting more on the beginning might be even better, (as you say, longest first is usually best), although I think a bad beginning worse than a bad end.


----------



## DaDirkNL (Aug 26, 2013)

ricardo_jvc6 said:


> For me writting symphonies is about polyphony, texture and most important of all timbre. I don't write symphonies because of this. I'm not suited for this type of works. I work with orchestra music (my own style) not symphonies. I can't help you very much in this one. I atleast tried to help you. I wish very good luck writting music. Out of curiosity, could you name me all the instruments you are using for this symphony and style?
> 
> Ricardo


The following instruments:
Flute, oboe, clarinet in a, bassoons, trumpets in c, timpani and strings. I am writing in classical/early romantic style.


----------



## pluhagr (Jan 2, 2012)

So, why are you writing for clarinets in A and trumpets in C? These are uncommon in most amateur orchestras and just seem like an odd choice.


----------

