Symphony #2, first movement - March

Wow...true wind ensemble bravura! And.... the March is dead?!?!?!

Originally Posted by EnigmusJ4

Speaking of that tuba solo at the beginning, I don't think it is that necessary to write two staves for the tubas on page two, I've played tuba in band music where the tuba had a solo line and the section piped up underneath all on one staff, and with more stuff going on than what you have here, so writing two staves isn't entirely necessary, I would say you have the choice.

I'll probably end up changing that at some point, when I do the final formatting of the score. Right now I've got 3 tuba staves in the unoptimized score as a preparation for movement 4, which has a section where the three tubas are playing separate parts.

Originally Posted by EnigmusJ4

Your knowledge of instruments really shines here, if I didn't play clarinet, I would probably deem the parts impossible just looking at them. This work of yours shows that people who play the many instruments tend to write more challenging parts for them, while still considering them for playability. As a fellow multi-instrumentalist, I give you a high-five.

*high-fives* Thanks, I really appreciate that!

Originally Posted by EnigmusJ4

There was a small part where I thought it was losing focus, but I won't bother mentioning it since it was only an initial response and you picked up the interesting almost moments later. So good job on that, this piece did hold my interest.

Just out of curiosity, if you happen on that again, would you let me know were? (I always like feedback, and negative feedback is particularly helpful!)

Originally Posted by EnigmusJ4

I would suggest featuring the oboes more in future movements, you haven't really given their section much of a spotlight yet like you have the other sections. In fact, I don't even remember hearing them anywhere. Mmmm.... I can't wait to hear the soprano sax.

I think over the course of the entire work, every section has several challenging and interesting moments. Off the top of my head, I know there's some interesting oboe section work in the second movement, and an extended oboe solo starting movement four. The soprano saxophone is only used in movement three, in a trio, but is quite the star when in use.

Originally Posted by EnigmusJ4

Thank you for separating the horns and saxes, I see way too much wind music where the horns and saxes either share the same part, or the saxes get the interesting parts and the horns, though incapable, are given the boring parts. You showed a lot of balance between the sections, and that really separates the men from the boys.

One of my pet peeves is that many composers don't bother to write separate parts for saxophones. I'm not sure if it's ignorance or just indifference. I've always felt that if you're going to write for an instrument, give it a real part. There's no excuse for filler. While there are indeed sections where the horns and saxophones have similar parts, that's the exception to the rule for me. I generally write quite differently for horn than I do for saxophone.

Originally Posted by EnigmusJ4

An agitato next? I would have expected something quite the opposite. Is that your intention?

There's actually a good minute or two at the beginning of the next movement that follows in the same somber feel as the end of the first, to bridge the two.

Originally Posted by EnigmusJ4

Congrats on this wonderful piece of music so far, I can't wait to hear the follow-up movements.

*chuckle* I can't wait to finish the darn thing so I can work on something new!

Originally Posted by Majesty

I enjoyed your use of the low woodwinds very much.

Thank you! One thing that truly bothers me about most bass instrument writing is the lack of thought given to it by many composers. In the band world, one of most egregious sins against creativity (in my eyes, of course) are composers who don't create separate parts. I've seen too many works where there is a "Tenor Saxophone/Baritone T.C." part - two instruments that could not be more different than each other. Or the combination "Alto Saxophone/Alto Clarinet" part. Or a Bassoon part that is identical to the Baritone Saxophone part that is identical to the Bass Clarinet part. Or the Euphonium part that's identical to the Tuba part, but an octave higher.

In my opinion, all poor examples of writing. One I try not to emulate.

Originally Posted by Majesty

I thought the Tuba writing was wonderful as well. I have not come across much good or exciting Tuba writing in a long time.

The tuba is a much more interesting instrument than most composers have ever bothered to learn about. Tubists love interesting parts and will rise to the challenge!

Originally Posted by Majesty

I very much enjoyed everything about your work. You mentioned that an obstacle for you was keeping up the energy and drive to keep it moving forward. I think you did a good job in conquering that issue because you really can't tell that there was an issue with drive and energy.

Thanks for the kind words!

Yes, I know what you mean about Bass/low woodwind parts as well as Tuba writing. While a student I attended many Tuba recitals and learned so much from my Tuba playing friends. I even started a Tuba concerto for a friend years ago that I never complete.

One of my fav instruments is the Bass Clarinet. I had a friend who was a wonderful player and lover of the insturment. She was part of a masterclass with the Bass Clarinet Player of the Boston Symphony Orchestra and I made sure to attend not to only support her but to learn a great deal which resulted in understanding and loving the instrument as well.

Perhaps you should consider giving a masterclass specifically on composition for low woodwinds and Tuba.

I know QC does an orchestration masterclass but I think a concentrated course wouldn't hurt.

This piece has a lot of good sections in it but it doesn't quite hang together overall. Maybe my expectation is too traditional. But while this is not intended to be a sonata movement, calling it a symphony first movement does suggest some expectations for the listener. The fanfare is really attention grabbing and generates a lot of momentum. The second section is able to continue the momentum but seems to close on the tonic as if the piece is finished. I thought the development 6/8 section sounded like another piece altogether. I haven't looked at the score so maybe it is more evident in notation. But I wouldn't close on the tonic and have a GP after the exposition. You need a better transition here. The development works for me up until the flute and harp section where we seem to move into another section. There is nothing wrong with the ideas more what you have labelled them. I thought there was enough material in this movement for a whole symphony. I was surprised that you didn't try to work back to your fanfare to close the piece rather than end on a quite note. But as I say maybe my expectations are too traditional.

Originally Posted by Majesty

Perhaps you should consider giving a masterclass specifically on composition for low woodwinds and Tuba.

I know QC does an orchestration masterclass but I think a concentrated course wouldn't hurt.

I think it would be great if flint would do a complete concert-band orchestration class. I've always wanted to write for concert band, since it's the main ensemble I play in, but I don't really know where to start...
I loved your writing. It doesn't sound very "band-y", which is something I appreciate. As much as I love wind ensembles, much of the repritouire consists of annoying concert marches and mediocre "folk song" arrangements.

Thanks for the compliment, P.J.!

I would actually be happy to share some of my theories on orchestration for the band, but if you really look closely at what I write, I use the exact same principles that QC does in his orchestral class. I would fully recommend absorbing everything QC has to offer in the orchestration masterclass, because writing for a wind ensemble is of the same difficulty, complexity, and conception as writing for an orchestra. QC's methods and approach are really quite brilliant and effective.

The reason "much of the repertoire consists of annoying concert marches and mediocre 'folk song' arrangements" is that in the past 50 or so years, most composers for band have done the "educational, safe" music path... with a lot of doubling and cross-cuing and block voicing, which makes it possible for varying ensembles (since there is no standard configuration for a wind ensemble) to play their work.

The trade off for playing it "safe" is that the music all starts to sound the same. Too much band music has all the instruments (or most) playing all the time - which, just like an orchestral tutti, sounds fantastic the first 3 minutes, and then quickly becomes tiresome and timbrally bland. Don't get me wrong... of course the tutti has its place and can be used to fantastic effect.

Think of it like ketchup... a little bit, used judiciously can make a food taste even better. But when you've got ketchup on your burger, ketchup on your fries, ketchup on your chips, ketchup on your eggs... all you taste is ketchup. It causes you to lose interest quickly.

Actually, the subject of boring band music is quite topical for me at the moment. I just resigned from an ensemble for that exact reason... every piece we played sounded the same. No independence of lines, no expression. Every piece was a) full band all the time throughout the piece, b) brass tutti with woodwinds playing noodle-y 16th note runs in the background, or c) woodwind tutti with the brass tacet. And while those can be effective when used sparingly, when the entire concert program is exactly like that, it's dull. Dull to play, dull to listen to, and simply not challenging or enjoyable. And when your music folder is full of music that high, fast, loud, or some combination of the three, it's pure torture.

But I digress...

Originally Posted by ablyth

This piece has a lot of good sections in it but it doesn't quite hang together overall. Maybe my expectation is too traditional. But while this is not intended to be a sonata movement, calling it a symphony first movement does suggest some expectations for the listener.

This has actually been on my mind for a while. As I've gotten further into the piece, it's become apparent to me that the first movement is structurally more akin to an "overture" to the remainder of the piece, as several of the themes are introduced there and developed in later movements. Perhaps a renaming is in order. I'll have to think a bit more on that.

I was surprised that you didn't try to work back to your fanfare to close the piece rather than end on a quiet note.

That was a conscious decision on my part. The conclusion of the work is to be like that, so I tried to avoid being redundant by ending the first movement in a different manner.

Who knows... if I embrace the "overture" concept, I may write an alternate ending.