# Symphony no. 1 "Beethovenian"



## arnerich

A few months ago I was posting here on the forums piano recordings of a symphony I was working on. After hours and hours of work I'm happy to say the composition and orchestration are finally complete and I have the finished symphony here to share with you!

But let me be quite honest about my goal; I wanted, to the best of my abilities, to compose a symphony worthy of Beethoven. Like an actual Beethoven symphony. Crazy right? It was the hardest undertaking I've done as a composer. I studied all the scores of Beethoven I own, the symphonies, sonatas, string quartets, chamber music...

I wanted to get inside his head and compose not just a mere imitation but something truly inspired. A piece that could stand on it's own alongside his other symphonies. I'm very happy with the results and I hope the piece resonates with you.

I'd love to know your thoughts about anything, the orchestration, the music, even the title of the piece - or perhaps theres an error in the music, or the sound recording isn't balanced at a particular spot. Let me know, your feedback is appreciated! Thank you for listening.

Matt


----------



## Phil loves classical

Very ambitious. I think the 4th movement was the most successful, as it is most dance-like. I feel the first mov’t needs longer pauses, and his themes and arguments don’t quite sound like that, although they do sound somewhat Classical in orchestration, the tunes are not straight-forward enough.


----------



## arnerich

Phil loves classical said:


> Very ambitious. I think the 4th movement was the most successful, as it is most dance-like. I feel the first mov't needs longer pauses, and his themes and arguments don't quite sound like that, although they do sound somewhat Classical in orchestration, the tunes are not straight-forward enough.


Thanks for listening to the piece and your assessment of it.


----------



## DeepR

I know nothing of composing but I'm impressed! I enjoyed the last movement the most.
What did you use to make this? You should really get one of those high end sample sets. It's your passion and that's worth some $$ right?  Although I suppose it would be a lot of work to get this to sound "right" with all the articulations and all. Anyway, your music deserves it. Or better yet, a real orchestra. Those strings barely sound better than the Super Nintendo.


----------



## nikola

Nice idea, but I was really never able to listen to the music with those synth sounds pretending to be orchestra. Even the greatest pieces would sound terrible with that. I just don't think that I could experience properly what you wanted to achieve. If there will be real orchestra version or version with synth sound closer to the real instruments, I'll give it a listen then.


----------



## arnerich

DeepR said:


> I know nothing of composing but I'm impressed! I enjoyed the last movement the most.
> What did you use to make this? You should really get one of those high end sample sets. It's your passion and that's worth some $$ right?  Although I suppose it would be a lot of work to get this to sound "right" with all the articulations and all. Anyway, your music deserves it. Or better yet, a real orchestra. Those strings barely sound better than the Super Nintendo.


Come to think of it, it probably would sound better as 8-bit NES music actually  I've submitted the piece to various orchestras who have call for scores for orchestral readings. A recording of an underrehearsed orchestra would still be better than my digital mockups (it's Sibelius 7 btw). I'll continue this effort.



nikola said:


> Nice idea, but I was really never able to listen to the music with those synth sounds pretending to be orchestra. Even the greatest pieces would sound terrible with that. I just don't think that I could experience properly what you wanted to achieve. If there will be real orchestra version or version with synth sound closer to the real instruments, I'll give it a listen then.


Your guy's feedback is very helpful. I know that these midi-recordings aren't ideal but you're helping me gauge just how badly they'd be received by others. I supposed I'd be better offer using my own piano transcriptions when presenting the work to potential orchestras. Thanks for your time!


----------



## Phil loves classical

Phil loves classical said:


> Very ambitious. I think the 4th movement was the most successful, as it is most dance-like. I feel the first mov't needs longer pauses, and his themes and arguments don't quite sound like that, although they do sound somewhat Classical in orchestration, the tunes are not straight-forward enough.


I take back my comment on the melody of the first movement. It does sound quite like Beethoven (the midi sound had me fooled) the earlier period and pretty straight forward, but still sounds rushed to me. Overall very Classical period style.


----------



## arnerich

Phil loves classical said:


> I take back my comment on the melody of the first movement. It does sound quite like Beethoven (the midi sound had me fooled) the earlier period and pretty straight forward, but still sounds rushed to me. Overall very Classical period style.


I agree, hopefully a performance by an orchestra will help the first movement breathe better. I'm glad you gave it another chance, thanks for listening!

The 4th movement seems to be the most popular. Here's a piano transcription of that movement! It's much easier on the ears, enjoy!


----------



## Vasks

While there's a few measures here and there that truly sound like Beethoven, the majority of it does not for me.

As for your audio; it's not that bad. Sibelius 7 sounds are OK; not great, but OK. The audio gives anybody a good idea of your scoring. You can, however, improve the playback by creating a second score (duplicate) and changing items so they come across a little more realistic. Here's some examples of what I mean. The third movement has too many staccato effects. The mechanical clipping that Sibelius does is terrible but the rhythms you wrote are exactly what the conductor/players need to see. So with your score copy for audio only, you tie notes so they are a little longer and you add a softer dynamic near the end of the tie like it would sound with real players. There's a place in the second movement where you notated a timpani trill and the playback literally trills to an upper neighbor tone. In your playback score, take out the trill and just triple slash the notes. Does this mean lots more work for you? Yes, but it's what I do.

Now your scoring is fine. The piece is very playable. So why (so far) has no conductor taken it up? I have a couple of theories based on my own experiences and prejudices as a composer of the last 50 years.

First my mantra that I've stated here at TC numerous times: Serious Art/Classical composers should express themselves. Imitating an older composer's style is not expressing yourself. So why should a conductor play your piece which is merely an imitation of Beethoven when they can play the authentic thing? Now, are there some conductors/musicians that would ignore my mantra and entertain the idea of playing a piece like yours? Yes, but I'd give it only a 10% chance of connecting to such folks as there's not a lot of them out there.

Which leads to me to my second point: There are so many composers out there, putting their works into the hands of potential conductors/performers that they have no choice but to reject the majority they receive. That does not mean that what you sent them is bad, but rather that their time is limited and your score must speak to them immediately and must look professional and be easily playable so as to not take too much rehearsal time to learn.

Which leads me to the third point. Your score looks good, but it's still not perfect. I can not because of the scrolling nature of the score and because I have no more time myself to stop and start the scrolling and study to find them all. But here's one example. Movement I, first page, first measure: You show some woodwinds sharing the first note with two stems (one up; one down- that's good), that is followed by a unison triplet where there's only one stem and after the triplet you go back to a shared note with two stems. The triplet should have had two stems too or the entire passage should have been "a2" with one stem throughout. Now, you say that's nit-picking and the lazy side of me agrees; BUT!!! all those small missed items by the end of your score leave the impression that in general while you know what you're doing, you really don't care to be accurate as possible. Good players/conductors do care about detail (they really, really do) and are not impressed that you don't.

Finally, if the playback is a turnoff for those musicians that get your score and recording, follow my above advice about creating a sound score vs a reading score. But in reality, most highly trained conductors and performers do not need an audio. They can read your score and evaluate it without your sound file. Which is why I decided to chime in as you seem to me more concerned about *that* then anything else.


----------



## arnerich

Vasks said:


> While there's a few measures here and there that truly sound like Beethoven, the majority of it does not for me.


I won't argue but it sounds Beethovenian to me.



Vasks said:


> Now your scoring is fine. The piece is very playable. So why (so far) has no conductor taken it up? I have a couple of theories based on my own experiences and prejudices as a composer of the last 50 years.


I mean the real reason a conductor hasn't taken it up is because they haven't seen it yet. But I'm prepared for rejection if and when it happens. I'm a realist. As a composer you have to throw your hat into the ring, except rejection but take it with a grain of salt. My piece could find favor with no one and I'd still be happy with it.



Vasks said:


> First my mantra that I've stated here at TC numerous times: Serious Art/Classical composers should express themselves. Imitating an older composer's style is not expressing yourself. So why should a conductor play your piece which is merely an imitation of Beethoven when they can play the authentic thing? Now, are there some conductors/musicians that would ignore my mantra and entertain the idea of playing a piece like yours? Yes, but I'd give it only a 10% chance of connecting to such folks as there's not a lot of them out there.


I'd have to disagree on this point also. I played the piece for piano in a concert about a month ago and it had a fantastic reception. A woman came to me afterwards and said "to hell with originality your piece actually spoke to me!". Originality is cheap, I'll take inspiration any day of the week. I think you're underestimating conductors and musicians, at the end of the day they want to connect with their audience. I think believe my piece can do that.



Vasks said:


> Which leads me to the third point. Your score looks good, but it's still not perfect. I can not because of the scrolling nature of the score and because I have no more time myself to stop and start the scrolling and study to find them all. But here's one example. Movement I, first page, first measure: You show some woodwinds sharing the first note with two stems (one up; one down- that's good), that is followed by a unison triplet where there's only one stem and after the triplet you go back to a shared note with two stems. The triplet should have had two stems too or the entire passage should have been "a2" with one stem throughout. Now, you say that's nit-picking and the lazy side of me agrees; BUT!!! all those small missed items by the end of your score leave the impression that in general while you know what you're doing, you really don't care to be accurate as possible. Good players/conductors do care about detail (they really, really do) and are not impressed that you don't.


Thank you for that, I'll definitely take a fine tooth comb and make the necessary changes where you mentioned and other places like it.



Vasks said:


> Finally, if the playback is a turnoff for those musicians that get your score and recording, follow my above advice about creating a sound score vs a reading score. But in reality, most highly trained conductors and performers do not need an audio. They can read your score and evaluate it without your sound file. Which is why I decided to chime in as you seem to me more concerned about *that* then anything else.


Very much appreciated, thank you for taking the time to write your response Vasks. I know my ambitions as a composer may conflict with your mantra and you may not consider me a "Serious Art/Classical composer" because of that. But if you knew how much joy went into the creation of this piece and the sincerity of my efforts I hope you might consider that counting for something.


----------



## Vasks

arnerich said:


> Originality is cheap, I'll take inspiration any day of the week. I think you're underestimating conductors and musicians, at the end of the day they want to connect with their audience. I think believe my piece can do that.


When I say express yourself, I am not referring to originality. Expressing one's self can be unoriginal, but can not be imitative. However, if a composer's work has true originality I would never say that it's "cheap"; instead I would say "Bravo!".


----------



## arnerich

Vasks said:


> When I say express yourself, I am not referring to originality. Expressing one's self can be unoriginal, but can not imitative. However, if a composer's work has true originality I would never say that it's "cheap"; instead I would say "Bravo!".


Originality isn't something to be praised if it has no inspiration. I could compose a concerto for underwater basket weaver, that would be original but I wouldn't say "bravo!"


----------



## KenOC

arnerich said:


> Originality isn't something to be praised if it has no inspiration. I could compose a concerto for underwater basket weaver, that would be original but I wouldn't say "bravo!"


"Your manuscript is both good and original; but the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good." (sometimes attributed to Samuel Johnson)

Note: NOT quoted with the subject of this thread in mind! Just apropos to arnerich's comment.


----------



## arnerich

KenOC said:


> "Your manuscript is both good and original; but the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good." (sometimes attributed to Samuel Johnson)
> 
> Note: NOT quoted with the subject of this thread in mind! Just apropos to arnerich's comment.


That quote is pretty amazing, sounds like something groucho marx would say.


----------



## nikola

You could also find these quotes useful:

"If you want to win you must not lose"
"The one who flies is worthy. The one who is worthy flies. The one who doesn't fly isn't worthy"
"To get the end, you must go back to the start"
"Better to wear down your feet running than to die with unworn feet."
"Better to live hundred years as a millionaire, than one week in poverty!"
"Easiest way to turn defeat into a victory is to put on the enemy's uniform"
"Drugs make you feel you are in heaven, when in fact you are in hell"
"Better strategic retreat than dishonorable defeat"
"My dear Methuselah, you are young and strong while I am weak and old"
"Buy flowers for the beloved woman, but don't forget your own [woman]"


----------



## Captainnumber36

I do hear Beethoven! It's like early Beethoven that was inspired by Mozart. It's kind of difficult to get past all the midi sounds, but I know that is hard to come by a real orchestra.


----------



## Captainnumber36

I am enjoying the piece! It sounds very inspired, even though quite derivative, it feels like a continuation and celebration of an old composer.

It's kind of like Eric Clapton and similar artists who keep the blues tradition alive for new audiences; it may not be the most original, but it is definitely inspired!


----------



## Captainnumber36

I really love this!


----------



## arnerich

I made a piano transcription of the 3rd movement Scherzo. I call it "With Defiance", it's the stormiest movement of the symphony. Definitely has a hint of Schumann. Enjoy!


----------



## Billy

I am listening, and from what I can tell, you have painted a very realistic and enjoyable Beethoveian piece, even with the midi player playing it back.


----------



## arnerich

Billy said:


> I am listening, and from what I can tell, you have painted a very realistic and enjoyable Beethoveian piece, even with the midi player playing it back.


I spent probably too much time tinkering with the midi playback to make it sound as good I could. That and editing are such a drag. I'm glad you enjoyed it!


----------



## Captainnumber36

arnerich said:


> I spent probably too much time tinkering with the midi playback to make it sound as good I could. That and editing are such a drag. I'm glad you enjoyed it!


Interesting how different our editing must be since you do it with a staff in front of you, and I do it sitting at the piano. I bet the greats of the past would've loved having some of the technology you use!


----------



## arnerich

Captainnumber36 said:


> Interesting how different our editing must be since you do it with a staff in front of you, and I do it sitting at the piano. I bet the greats of the past would've loved having some of the technology you use!


Technology is a great tool without question and making a full score isn't too bad. But editing individual parts for every instrument is the time vampire; making sure page turns make sense, putting in cues and just making sure each part looks nice takes a lot of time. And if there are two instruments to a part making sure it's clear who's playing what when or if they're playing together or solo. All that stuff needs to be clear.

But this is the work of lowly poor composers like me. John Williams doesn't do this, neither does Philip Glass probably. Even in Beethoven's time he could easily hire copyist to this work. Could you imagine if Wagner had to edit and copy out the entire Ring cycle?  :lol:


----------



## Vasks

arnerich said:


> Technology is a great tool without question But editing individual parts for every instrument is the time vampire


Technology sure is great ! I started composing in the mid-60's. Paper & pencil sketches, then good scores in ink (no automatic transposing; you had to do that with your brain) and each part separately inked. And I won't get into what happened when you make a mistake with ink copying (oh and we all did make mistakes). We have no reason today to complain about the tweaking of parts we now do. And actually I moved to computer generated composing by the mid-80's and yet back then there were still many things the best programs could not do, making work-arounds a bear. It wasn't until the later 90's that programs like Finale came along and made the entire process so much better.



arnerich said:


> making sure page turns make sense, putting in cues and just making sure each part looks nice takes a lot of time.


It warms my heart to see one actual young composer here at TC addressing these points. We can't place our music in the hands of musicians unless it looks good, is helpful and is absolutely correctly notated. Right now I'm having to put bow markings in a grade 3 string orchestra piece I just finished at the request of the conductor. So add that to the list of pain in the butt extras.



arnerich said:


> And if there are two instruments to a part making sure it's clear who's playing what when or if they're playing together or solo.


I hope you're talking about two flutes sharing a staff in a score; otherwise don't make the players have to share that single score staff in their parts. Wind players really do not want to see someone's else part on theirs. It makes it far easier if the Flute 1 player only sees Flute I and not also Flute 2's notes.


----------



## arnerich

Vasks said:


> I hope you're talking about two flutes sharing a staff in a score; otherwise don't make the players have to share that single score staff in their parts. Wind players really do not want to see someone's else part on theirs. It makes it far easier if the Flute 1 player only sees Flute I and not also Flute 2's notes.


Thanks for your response Vasks! That comment was referring to flutes, oboes and clarinets. There are times, typically during tutti sections, when I'll have both play in unison. In which case I mark a2 in those passages. When their parts are separate or if a solo occurs I make sure it's clearly notated as such. From my experience reading full orchestral scores I just assumed that both players would read off the same part and one would pick flute 1 and flute 2 for example. Your comment leads me to think that both parts are notated on their own respective staves...? In which case I foresee more editing in my future. Thanks again for your response, greatly appreciated.


----------



## Vasks

arnerich said:


> From my experience reading full orchestral scores I just assumed that both players would read off the same part and one would pick flute 1 and flute 2 for example. Your comment leads me to think that both parts are notated on their own respective staves...?


Yes, you create a separate Oboe 1 part and a separate Oboe 2 part, so neither sees the other's notes. On scores, a shared staff is quite normal for space-saving purpose.

This is not to say that Oboe 1 and 2 might be forced to read both parts of the score's single staff with some pieces. I'm just saying it's not only infrequent, but more importantly they don't like doing it.


----------



## arnerich

What it feels like to edit and notate a symphony


----------



## arnerich

Last week I performed the final movement of the symphony in concert. A lot of people enjoyed this particular movement so I wanted to share it with you. Follow your creative bliss and happy listening!


----------



## Phil loves classical

You got really piano good technique. I could hear some echoes of Beethoven in a few passages, his Les Adieux comes to mind.

Whatever is your goal in music, just follow it, I would say. I'll be honest here and say I feel there are a lot of notes for what I am getting out of the music, where there is technically nothing wrong. Just my opinion. I would prefer to express something ugly or not. The general listening audience is easy to please, I find. There is stuff I wrote that I don't like that people (on or offline) like a lot more than stuff I do enjoy listening to myself or view is much better. But I don't care to make a financial career out of it, and is all for my own satisfaction in the end.

I'm wondering what is your goal? I'm not pushing Vask's view here. Just curious.


----------



## dzc4627

We are of the same ilk, you and I.


----------



## MarkMcD

Hi Arnerich,

You're not going to be surprised to hear that I always love your work, and this no exception. It really is a beautiful piece.

However, I think your biggest mistake is in your explanation and your title. What I mean to say is that, even though your inspiration and intention was to write a "new Beethoven symphony", no one needs to know that. There are things about your creative process that you should not let your audience in on. A magician never reveals his tricks. By doing this, and giving it a subtitle of "Beethovenian", you've already prejudiced your audience into thinking that this is an imitation, and it really isn't. This a beautiful work in it own right and quite possibly deserves to stand along side some of Beethoven's work, but not as an imitation or a homage or any other similitude. This is an Arnerich Symphony, and whatever inspired it is your own business. Don't give your audience any expectation other than that they're going to hear an Arnerich work. If they decide it sounds like it could be a new Beethoven piece, then all the better for you to know you hit the mark you wanted, but tell them before hand and it will be judged by a criteria that it doesn't deserve and will ultimately hinder what your work truly has in it own right. I personally think that it does have an air of Beethoven about it, but perhaps not so much that I would point it out if I didn't know your motivation.

Having said that, I can completely understand why you have done it. I also wright poetry on and off, and one day I decided I wanted to set myself the challenge of writing a piece that used exactly the same meter, line and word count, cadence and have each line start with the same letter as the original, Samuel Taylor Coleridge - Xanadu, and to have the poem make complete sense, but being about a completely different subject. I like to think it worked too, it certainly got good reviews. Anyway, the point, I couldn't wait to tell the readers what the parameters were for writing the piece, to demonstrate the work and thought that had gone into it under such tight constraints. I didn't reveal the truth for some time but just teased that there was something "other" to notice about it, and it was killing me, but as I said, it got some really great reviews and only a hand full of people even twigged what the source material was before I told them. After I told them, they were still impressed, intrigued by the challenge but now it had lost a touch of originality, and somehow, it was probably better before they knew.

Anyway, a whole paragraph you didn't need to know lol.

One last piece of advice, and I really can't recommend this highly enough BUY "NOTEPERFORMER" it is 100 times better than the sib7 sounds. It's not really expensive either, around £100 if I remember correctly. Also I think it was Vasks that mentioned about the 2 scores. I suffer from the opposite problem to you here, my music theory has never been very good, but I know how I want my music to sound. Unfortunately that make a real mess of the score that I find hard to tidy up to present, and it does sound like you presented a very legible score, but that's not is needed for Sib to play it properly.

I have no doubt I will listen to this a few more times, it really is a great effort, but it would be soooooooooooo much better with a Sibelius "play" score and Noteperformer.

Best regard
Mark


----------

