Symphony No. 1 (Second Attempt)

A while ago, I posted an attempt at a symphony in F minor. It sounded pretty disgusting, and I scrapped it.

I've made a second attempt, starting fresh. The scoring uses the Chamber Music template from Finale PrintMusic's template repository, but I plan on modifying some of the instrumentation. As most of the first movement is incomplete, a lot of the instrumentation is left blank.

This is what I have so far of the first movement. There are some organisational problems, but I believe this to be a pretty good attempt so far.

Thanks for your responses.

EDIT: For whatever reason, the MIDI file confuses the oboes as violas. Just do a good job pretending they are oboes. Also, toward the middle of the draft, there is a fermata'd rest; that's not the end of the draft. Keep listening until the file's over.

well that was interesting,, something didn't sound quite right,.,.

but it still is alright.

What form are you using?

Please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please


primopdf.com

Originally Posted by gms5287

Please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please


primopdf.com

Thanks for your profound input.

Originally Posted by Zetetic

What form are you using?

At this moment, none. However, it would be possible to use Sonata form for the first movement - I'll continue researching.

Originally Posted by Magna Carta

Thanks for your profound input.

At this moment, none. However, it would be possible to use Sonata form for the first movement - I'll continue researching.

I can't say anything if I can't see the score

I've updated the first post with a new score.

Also, one word: I have not specified the registration of the Timpani at all as of yet - mostly because Finale will not let me rename the Timpani staff to let me specify a registration. Don't worry about this yet, however; there are no written parts for Timpani as of yet.

I can hardly call it a symphony if it doesn't start with sonata form. I can't really think of one symphony that doesn't start with Sonata form.

I'd rather call it... an orchestral piece...

At 1:03 to 1:24ish, you repeat that sequence 4 times. I don't think you need to repeat it for than three. Further, the ending is so plane. With all the great stuff you added during the rest of the piece why did you chose huge block chords to finish the piece? I think you could work on the ending a little more. Other than that it's a nice piece.

Originally Posted by Morgri

I can hardly call it a symphony if it doesn't start with sonata form. I can't really think of one symphony that doesn't start with Sonata form.

Can't think of one?! How about most of the symphonies by Simpson and Pettersson, Rouse's 1st (haven't heard the second), Penderecki's 8th and countless others. In the 20th and 21st centuries form has become far less strict and so we don't really need to use sonata form at the start of every symphony. I know that when I write I don't tend to adhere to a strict form - that's not to say I just write impulsively, I just continually expand on and develop an idea. And there's nothing structurally wrong with that.

On to the actual piece, there were some very good ideas in there - I loved the chords and some of the melodies had great potential (especially the double reed trio starting at bar 16). However, I think the piece was lacking some depth, and there were a couple of seemingly random ideas that didn't really go anywhere. Example, bars 5-7, not a bad idea, and it could work well if used correctly, but I didn't hear any restatements or any developments of this motive. It kind of just briefly appeared and then went away. The same goes for a few ideas later on as well (the woodwind idea at bar 35 could have been expanded upon a bit more).

I also felt it could have used more counterpoint, and less long chords with no movement. A good example is bars 10-11. My ears wanted a timpani/low brass funeral march rhythm on beats 2 and 3 of each bar but that's just me. However, I think that those bars, and some later on do lack some depth. Just my opinion though - you may wish to keep these sections simple, and save counterpoint for later.

And just a small orchestrational thing, why the cellos and double basses in unison? Most of the time you either a) give the double basses a separate part, b) if you want to strengthen the cello line, double the cellos in octaves with the double basses or c) omit one or the other.

Anyways, that's my incredibly long list of suggestions. There was plenty to like about this - it's not a bad start. It just needs a bit more work.

- ClassicalSax

P.S. Liked the DSCH at bar 14!

Classical Sax, I can't say i've listened to or much less even heard of Petterson and Simpson; however, since you have evidence, I will retract my statement.