# Symphony No. 1 in E♭



## soundandfury

The full-scale symphony is a little long for my tastes; hence, I've kept my first Symphony fairly short. Others may find it somewhat compressed.
What do you think of it?
Score (PDF, 356kB)
Recordings (computer generated; Ogg Vorbis format)

Adagio (1:56, 2.2MB)
Andante (1:41, 1.9MB)
Con brio (1:09, 1.3MB)
Allegro; Maestoso (1:36, 1.9MB)


----------



## ricardo_jvc6

Can you make those files into mp3, I can't hear anything though.


----------



## soundandfury

ricardo_jvc6 said:


> Can you make those files into mp3, I can't hear anything though.


Ok, here's an mp3 of the whole thing (6:22, 5.8MB).
However, you should probably get an ogg-capable player anyway: www.playogg.org


----------



## ricardo_jvc6

Great, Symphony.


----------



## Kopachris

Hmm... the texture is kind of muddy, but that could simply be because of the midi. Also, the formatting of the score isn't suitable for an actual performance--transposing instruments need to be transposed (e.g. the Bb clarinet should be transposed from Eb to Db) in the score, the staffs need to be arranged into staff groups by orchestral group, and instruments which aren't playing on a given page (except the first page of a movement) should have their staffs removed until they do play. You've also got some collisions between objects all over the place that need to be resolved. Lastly, just as convention, the copyright notice (in this case, Creative Commons notice) only goes on the first page of the score.

Sorry if I sound a bit negative. The music itself is pretty good--I'm just a stickler about formatting. I think MuseScore can export a LilyPond file. If you want to email it to me (christophkoch93[AT]gmail[DOT]com), I'll see what I can do about cleaning up the formatting for you.


----------



## soundandfury

Ok, sent.

Btw, Thunderbird wanted to spellcheck your name to Kodachrome


----------



## Kopachris

Kodachrome? I guess Thunderbird didn't play with LEGO, then.


----------



## PostMinimalist

I could only listen to about half of it.. It could be used as incidental music for theatre perhaps but sorry to say this is not by anybodys definition a symphony. Get some books on harmony, learn about modulation, tone centres, tonal gravity, tension etc. Then get a book on orchestration and fin out about contrast, economy, orchestral dynamics, balance etc. Then critically listen to classical music for about 5 years before considering to call your work symphony. I have been composing for 30 years and Symphony and Opera are for the absolute ellte (I haven't dared call any of my works symphony yet). Try writing some programme music for plays or short films. Learn about form and structure. Get some serious advice from a teacher and most of all don't give up.

Sorry if this bursts your bubble a bit, but it's better that you know now so you can sort things.
FC


----------



## soundandfury

PostMinimalist said:


> this is not by anybodys definition a symphony


I suspected someone might say this. What you mean is, it's not a symphony by _your_ definition, and probably not Mahler's either. But the huge scope of Romantic symphonies do not define the genre; I suggest you listen to William Boyce's "Eight Symphonies".

I'm fundamentally living in the Baroque idiom, and that means I use terms and naming conventions in their Baroque senses.

If you have any specific criticisms of my music, I'd be glad to hear them, but "Get some books" is not useful criticism, it just boils down to "I don't like it" and has about the same information content.

Sorry if the above seems a little prickly, but your tone was infuriatingly condescending and I couldn't help but bite back.


----------



## PostMinimalist

No, it boils down to "you need to get some chops!"
It was condecending wasn't it.... sorry.
But you put yourself up on the coconut stall of TC so take it on the chin. 
I know very well the works of William Boyce and you should give them a second listen.


----------



## Delicious Manager

I have to agree with PostMinimalist here. I'm afraid you can't just go around redefining musical forms dating back 300 years so that they fit what YOU want them to mean. Also, I don't think Post Minimalist was being condescending. Your music is all _mezzo forte_ with no variation in texture or dynamic. This makes it boring to listen to (surely something you want to avoid!?). It was also interesting to note that _Con brio_ sounds EXACTLY the same as _Andante_. If fact, it ALL sounded exactly the same; bland, lacking in melodic interest, harmonic tension or structure. What you have produced is musical noodling of no substance or purpose (apart from existing for its own sake). As a professional in the music business who has commissioned new works from a wide variety of composers in several genres, I have to say that I asked why this music existed at all. Most definitely NOT symphonic in any sense of the word.


----------



## Rasa

What a takedown.

Why reply to these threads guys? It's obvious what's going on and nothing you say will change something.


----------



## PostMinimalist

In your first movement the doublr basses play an Eflat for over 80% of the piece. This should start ringing a few alarm bells.


----------



## Delicious Manager

Rasa said:


> What a takedown.
> 
> Why reply to these threads guys? It's obvious what's going on and nothing you say will change something.


It's a forum. People post questions/comments, others respond to them; that's what a forum's for, surely. If someone asks me for an honest opinion, I give it. The fact that it's not what the poster wants to hear/read is neither here nor there. If they can't take the rough with the smooth, people shouldn't post in a public place.


----------



## PostMinimalist

@ Rasa
The way I see it is this:
These guys put up a work that they haven't shown to a treacher or a professional musician (maybe they don't know anyone suitable) and they would like to know where they stand. Of course they get touchy 'cos it's their baby, but they put it out there so they should develop a thick skin or take the criticism at face value and act upon it. A thick skin iss good in this business... I got a big score (6days work) ditched after a bad read through and no amount of explaining gets it back on the play list. I ripped it up and never looked back. Self criticism is a valuable tool in this field.

@ Ed. Cree
This thread could have a secondary purpose (apart from improving your autognosia). The discussion could easily vere towards "how good do you have to be." "Can you just write anything and call yourself a composer?" 
Not that you have written just any old trash here, you have done some work but it's got a long way to go. Please don't take this all in the wrong way. Most of the comments here are helpful. Judt don't expect unquanitied praise from everyone...

Knowledge is a good thing in this case, so don't knock the books. As I said before try writing something for less insrtuments (a trio or duet e.g.) and try to get it played by real musicians, then ask them their honest (not just 'that was nice' type comments) opinion. It's your turn to listen to those who have listened to you..
FC
No hard feelings.


----------



## Kopachris

I just have a couple comments, then I'll stay out of this thread and just work on engraving the music.

@PostMinimalist: He said he is using a Baroque idiom. Tonic pedals were very common in Baroque music. Also, the lack of dynamics and tempo changes could come from the MIDI sequencer he was (is) using, which I know from personal experience to be a steaming load of crap.

@Delicious Manager: Isn't "redefining 300 year old forms so that they fit what you want them to" exactly what composers have been doing for 300 years?

Granted, the piece needs some work. (I agree about the modulation thing, and books are most definitely good.) I assume that if he had an actual orchestra to work with, some changes would be made as he found out what works and what doesn't.


----------



## Rasa

I agree with both your statements PM and DM. It's only my experience that people aren't here to get criticism on their work, merely to get a pat on the back and return to their scrapheap tinkering.


----------



## Delicious Manager

Rasa said:


> I agree with both your statements PM and DM. It's only my experience that people aren't here to get criticism on their work, merely to get a pat on the back and return to their scrapheap tinkering.


Then call it a 'reality check'. One is really doing people no favours at all by giving them false praise and hope. It's a tough, unforgiving world out there and there's no place for naive delusion.


----------



## soundandfury

PostMinimalist said:


> Judt don't expect unquanitied[sic] praise from everyone...


I don't expect unqualified praise, indeed Kopachris's criticisms were more useful to me than his praise - I had been under the mistaken impression that my score-engraving was good enough.

I do agree that there's insufficient harmonic variation in the 1st movement, but that's an error of design, not of technique - I was pitching for too much placidity, trying to avoid anything too unexpected. Of course, style is the contrast of expectation and surprise - my mistake was to forget the surprise. Unfortunately, it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to 'retrofit' style onto a work that leans too far in either direction; and having invested the effort I had, I felt it better to see it through to imperfect completion than to get hung-up on unattainable ideals.



> Knowledge is a good thing in this case, so don't knock the books. As I said before try writing something for less insrtuments (a trio or duet e.g.) and try to get it played by real musicians, then ask them their honest (not just 'that was nice' type comments) opinion. It's your turn to listen to those who have listened to you.


I have written many things for less instruments; the last work I posted on here, for instance, was a concerto for recorder and chamber group (string 4tet + hpsd). Unfortunately, the "get it played by real musicians" is rather difficult to achieve for the first time, unless one is either a music student or an extrovert - in which categories I do not, alas, qualify. In fact, that's part of the _reason_ why I post stuff on tc.com - in the hope that someone with a knack for herding musicians decides my music is worth playing.
As for your comment that I should "critically listen to classical music for about 5 years", I would like to place on record that the first time I tried to write a symphony was about 5 years ago, and I threw it away after writing one movement.

Lastly, though, and perhaps most importantly, I want to attack the implicit presumption that one can only use the term "symphony" for top-grade works - "the absolute ellte[sic]" as PM put it. The word is a structural designation, not a certification mark; if you believe otherwise, try listening to, say, Haydn's nos. 1 to 95. Try even _finding recordings_ of them, in fact - they're mostly rather mediocre (without disrespect to Haydn, who was a fine composer indeed). 'Symphony', at least inasmuch as I understand the term, merely means "A _partita_ or collection of works, written with intent to be performed together, typically with some unifying ideas and usually related harmonically; also tending towards larger scale in both the length of the piece and the forces required".

As you say, though, no hard feelings. I just like arguing


----------



## PostMinimalist

Now we're getting somewhere!


----------



## Rasa

Wait, did someone just dis Haydn Symph. 1-95?

Please...









Perhaps not the most memorable (or should I say: well known) tunes, bells, jigs, hornpipes or whistles, they still display a high level of skill, for example in their formal structure (thinking of their themes, developements, proportions in tension movement-wide, cyclical qualities throughout movements, tonal structure....), in the details of harmonisation (which textures are used, which chords are disposed in what what, how themes may be reharmonised...) and much more.

Such formal structure (and all that other jazz) is more or less what is expected in symphonies, whether it comes in sonata cookies, rondo cake or whichever hidden and obscure form of pastry is used. Usually a composer would be very confident in his abilities before he attempts to create such a large work. Known symphonies usually have intrinsic qualities.

Calling a work such as OP a symphony seems absurd, because it doesn't display any qualities or scale one associates with existing symphonies. It serves as an indicator of some self-delusion going on.

Also, for illustration, an excerpt from Haydn's first symphony, 2nd movement with some scribbling.










Call me a streber, but I hear Haydn likes the number 7...


----------



## Kopachris

I do agree with most of what you said, but just because something doesn't fit your definition of a symphony doesn't mean it _can't_ be called a symphony, especially considering the OP was going for a Baroque style, as they didn't use the same definition for "symphony" that we use now. As long as the OP knew what he was doing by combining the Baroque sinfonia with the classical four-movement symphony (you did know what you were doing, right soundandfury? Right? Please say you did), I see no problem with it. If I was going for a Baroque idiom, I personally would have labeled it as a sinfonia or a sinfonietta, but that's my own personal decision.

And just a point of clarification: your "first phrase 4+4+2 bars" is actually a sentence. And I don't think "contrapunctual" is a word; I think you mean "contrapuntal."


----------



## PostMinimalist

I got my automobile out to go for a ride in the woods but the chain came off and the saddle wouldn't tighten after that so I had to push it by the handle bars until I found a repair shop. Now what's wrong with this sentence.
I refered to my bicycle as an automobile to begin with, and only after getting confused and spotting the error did it make any sense. 
This is what our friend is doing with the word 'symphony'. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a bicycle until I try to claim that its a automobile. 
Q.The word automobile literally means 'self moving', so why should I not use it? 
A. Because the word 'automobile' as used today is a much more specific term than it's etymological derivation would imply.

The same goes for the word 'symphony'. Language is not up for grabs to any old potshotter that doesn't like the current usage.

@Ed Cree
As for the helpfulness of Kopachris's comments, they are indeed useful from a copyists technical point of view, but reading over them you will find that up to that point in the thread the only musical comment he had made was that there was a muddiness that could be due to your midi.... 

As Captain Kirk would say " For God's sake man, you're trying to write music here."
Don't get side tracked! Go back and do it again, and again.
Don't let this stuff discourage you, quite the opposite, get a fire in your belly for this - a thurst for improvement and don't be afraid of failure. 

I wrote dozens of 'Symphonies' (by your definition) before I actually thought I came up with something I could share with some stranger.
FC


----------



## paulc

You have more to show for your efforts than I do atm. Keep practicing!

I agree with those who have suggested that your work might benefit from more variety, through modulation and textural (timbral) variation. The work sounds a bit repetitive, as is. Still, it is well done and you are on the right track. 

Paul.


----------



## Kopachris

I agree that I haven't properly critiqued the music itself. This is mostly because the recording is so muddy that I find it difficult to distinguish individual instruments. As I can't hear the music properly, I would rather not critique it on that front.

So, if you wouldn't want this piece to be called a symphony, what would you call it?


----------



## Delicious Manager

Kopachris said:


> So, if you wouldn't want this piece to be called a symphony, what would you call it?


I would suggest a 'suite'.


----------



## Rasa

I'd suggest an "Esquisse"


----------



## PostMinimalist

suite's good.


----------



## soundandfury

Whereas I'd strongly argue that it's _not_ a suite, because it doesn't have a Prelude, Allemande, Corrente, Sarabande and Gigue. Of course, a Classical or Romantic suite wouldn't need to follow the _suite de danses_, but a Baroque suite certainly would - and as I said, I was working from a Baroque perspective. (My _Concerto for Soprano Recorder_, for instance, follows this structure)
On reflection, it _may_ be that a more correct name for this piece is a _sinfonia_, but I didn't wish to create confusion with my earlier _Sinfonietta for Concert Band_ (wh. see elsewhere on these boards).
Anyway, I've taken on board the criticism about 'muddiness' (I think I know why: my synth is still set up for writing computer game soundtracks which means plenty of verb) and repetitiveness; I shall continue to resolutely ignore the criticism of my nomenclature until such time as it shows more historically-informed grounding.


PostMinimalist said:


> I wrote dozens of 'Symphonies' (by your definition) before I actually thought I came up with something I could share with some stranger.


I value peer-review highly, and don't believe in burying things just because they're not yet 'publication standard' (whatever that may be). I've learned much more by posting this piece than I would by sitting on it forever. I don't mind being told my music is bad, but the suggestion that I should be _ashamed to show it_ is frankly silly.


----------



## Rasa

> I shall continue to resolutely ignore the criticism of my nomenclature until such time as it shows more historically-informed grounding.


Coming from the man who posted the OP as a symphony. Legend.


----------



## PostMinimalist

No one has said your music is bad. Take the criticism in the spirit it is given (positively) and get on with it.
FC


----------

