Symphony No. 1 in G minor

After three years of painstaking work, my first symphony is finally finished. Score and recordings can be found below on my website.

Symphony No. 1 in G minor

Comments welcome!

i was looking for this! I saw you post this in the other thread (Ctrl + V). I liked the first movement. The introduction was nice (a little long, but nice). My favorite part was right after the introduction. It reminded me of Beethoven in a way. My only suggestion would be to return to the faster material and perhaps use it in juxtaposition to the introduction material (which I noticed you spent the majority of the movement with). All in all, I liked it.

I will edit this post by the end of today and after I listen to it. Needless to say (but I will anyway ;) ), when someone of your musical tastes posts music, I feel a special obligation to comment.

EDIT: Of course, this piece is extremely long. Therefore, I'll take a little bit to formulate my ideas. You won't be displeased with the final product.

I listened to the first movement. I thought the introduction beautiful. The fast part after the introduction was great too. I really enjoyed it. In all i think you really have a gift for themes. The transition between the first climax and the softer part after that doesn't work for me. Bt that's really a minor issue. I feel you really did a great job. I didn't expect you had such abilities. I mean i didn't know you were able to write in this amazing manner. Great work Justin. I will listen to the other movements soon.

Thanks all for your comments so far! Keep 'em coming!

I have only listened to the first movement so far... and I really like it! Different from the symphonies I have heard (mostly classical-era). To reiterate...I really like this a lot, the slower/softer section in the middle is great and the section after, very original. I can tell you put a lot of work in it :) Congrats!

Bravo!!! :D

Justin, I knew you were good, but I had no idea you were THIS good. What amazes me is that you

Bravo!!!

Justin, I knew you were good, but I had no idea you were THIS good. What amazes me is that you

Well, I made it through the first three movements with score and audio before I gave up and just read the fourth movement visually. Please be aware that I reviewed your work with the same attention to detail and attempt at a positive attitude that I do for every other composer's work here at YC. Attempts to write off my review as mean-spirited or excessively negative would be folly on your part.

To keep the tone of this review positive and constructive, I will attempt to be what you have utterly failed to be: succinct.

Please feel free to read this points as a never-ending sentence, with the numbers indicating main points.

To summarize this symphony I would use the following phrases:

1. It's two-dimensional.

You have a melody, you have a bass line, and almost without exception... nothing but chordal backgrounds... which sometimes works, BUT -

2. The melodies lack any rhythmic, harmonic, or timbral vitality.

Measure after measure after measure of half note/quarter note melodies, either in block chords or uninspiring, uninteresting -

3. Octaves.

It's like a plague upon your work. Even if the occasional melody sparks some kind of interest (which most didn't), they all invariably sound the same because -

4. There's too much doubling.

I mean, dear god, man. And -

5. Most of your phrases are too long, go nowhere, and bore the listener with a complete lack of vital direction or (for lack of a better term) "spark of interest".

Yes, it's impressive that you managed to put together something of this length. But you have failed to learn what so many bad karaoke singers also fail to learn:

Length does not equal profundity.

Slowness does not equal depth.

Volume (or lack thereof) does not equal expression.

*****

I'll stop the review here.

If you choose to pursue composition (as is apparent from statements you have made), I'm sure you'll revisit this work and learn something positive. After four years of composition in college I'm absolutely positive, however, that you will not use this as your composition final. Trust me.

Hey flint. Thanks for your review. It is quite helpful.

Attempts to write off my review as mean-spirited or excessively negative would be folly on your part.

I've learned it the hard way not to do this.

To keep the tone of this review positive and constructive, I will attempt to be what you have utterly failed to be: succinct.

Hahaha. Well said. Though I will say that this was a style, similar to Mahler, and succincness is nowhere near his top point. I didn't try to be succinct; I wrote what came to my heart and soul, not to appease a particular audience. It's a personal thing, and, in my view, that's what matters most to me.

1. It's two-dimensional.

You have a melody, you have a bass line, and almost without exception... nothing but chordal backgrounds... which sometimes works, BUT -

Ok, I get what you're saying. I think that's a bit exagerated but whatever. What would be your idea of three-dimensional?

2. The melodies lack any rhythmic, harmonic, or timbral vitality.

Measure after measure after measure of half note/quarter note melodies, either in block chords or uninspiring, uninteresting -

It's a style, and I don't see what's so wrong with it. Personally, it works for me. I also think this is exagerating, but that's my opinion.

3. Octaves.

It's like a plague upon your work. Even if the occasional melody sparks some kind of interest (which most didn't), they all invariably sound the same because -

4. There's too much doubling.

I mean, dear god, man.

Specific examples please? I do use them a lot because I love that stuff. What's the problem with that?

5. Most of your phrases are too long, go nowhere, and bore the listener with a complete lack of vital direction or (for lack of a better term) "spark of interest".

Yes. Not succinct. I disagree that phrases go nowhere and such. But if you give specific examples, I'd understand what you're talking about here.

Length does not equal profundity. / Slowness does not equal depth. / Volume (or lack thereof) does not equal expression.

The complete antithesis to Mahler's way. Perhaps that's why this symphony caused you to say that. That aside, what would be a "better" example to each of these and where in the Symphony is is "bad".

Hate to break it to you, kid, but you're not Mahler.

Hate to break it to you, kid, but you're not Mahler.

I didn't say I was Mahler. I likely never will be. I love Mahler's music, so I emulate his style. Is that so wrong?

What I'm asking is for more specifics. Making overall claims doesn't really help me; it's just pointing out the obvious, so to speak.

Making overall claims doesn't really help me; it's just pointing out the obvious, so to speak.

Hi Justin - congrats on finishing the symphony, how long did it take to finish it?

I've only listened to the 2nd movement. I'm pretty neutral about structure but just as an observation, it's quite 'sparse'. The harmonic language reflects a significant pop influence, particularly the hymn-like passage towards the middle. If that's what you're aiming for more power to you, but some may consider it a faux pas in the symphonic genre.

There was no pop reference. I just randomly improvised it on the piano and I liked it. It does conicidentally use one of the most common chord progressions ever. Johann's Cannon anyone?

1. It's two-dimensional.

You have a melody, you have a bass line, and almost without exception... nothing but chordal backgrounds...

Ok, I get what you're saying. I think that's a bit exagerated (sic) but whatever.

Take your first and second movements and save them to fresh Sibelius files. Then go through and delete your melodies. Then force yourself to listen to the first two movements without your melodies.

What's left? Block chords.

Like I said, I'm not exaggerating. Your work clearly delineates a foreground and everything else is unexceptional, uninteresting background. Which, when you have 90+ musicians onstage, is quite unacceptable for 30+ minutes. It demonstrates quite a poor use of the orchestra.

Very quick note, before I find some time to have an honest listen and provide further feedback:

(this is to back up flint, not that he needs any of that, but anyhow)

There is a difference between choice and ignorance, Justin. And to those who know, it shows.

Justin,

I commend you on creating such a large work at a young age, however I must agree with flint and Nikolas, the lack of variety in the middle and background planes is overwhelming (or rather underwhelming). Another rule that I learned long ago and continues to serve me well today: "Less is more". That doesn't mean that you can't craft a composition of the same length that you have. What it means is that you must be succinct in what you are trying to say. Without this you run the risk of losing the attention of your listeners, and that after all, is the very reason we write music that is to be performed in the first place.

Secondarily, you need to look at your choice in voicing many of the elements within the piece. For example, mm. 128 in the first movement, the descending eighth notes in the trumpet and trombone.

First, the trombone. The voicing of thirds particularly below Bb1 is likely to be muddy particularly when playing marcato. Sometimes this is a desired effect in more avant garde music but we would all agree your music does not fall into that category. Ironically, since you are a trombonist it would seem that you should know this better than most. When voicing any instrument in this range (tonally), a good understanding of the overtone series is paramount, particularly in the brass. Study examples of Holst, Shostakovich, Williams, etc.

Next, the trumpet. In general, your use of the trumpet could be better served with say, the horn, or even trombone. In many of your passages you take the trumpet down to their written G2. Functionally, it's playable but there doesn't seem to be any real context for it.

I hope these comments were helpful.

-Ray

Hi compilotrc - welcome to the forum!

I commend you on creating such a large work at a young age, however I must agree with flint and Nikolas, the lack of variety in the middle and background planes is overwhelming (or rather underwhelming).

Even though I quoted your post specifically, this is a rather general observation really, that due to forum format early reviews tend to influence later ones, hence they are less than independent reviews. In this case compilot, Nikolas' reviews actually are not in yet, so it would be difficult to agree with him unless one has ESP :)

To Justin in particular and others in general, I think anonymous advice from internet source should be taken with a grain of salt.

I liked the work for what it is - a first symphony. Very few first symphony's are considered masterworks - and even fewer are considered a 'good' representation of the composers mature sound. I think here, Justin, you started in a very good position. I found a few of the slower passages, however, to be monotonous and boring - But, I like faster more livelier music. Your faster section was very nice and something, I thought, you should've developed more in depth than what you did. Your orchestration - from my viewpoint - didn't seem that bad (QC/Flint would be better judges of that). Keep up the good work - and I can't wait to hear your 2nd.

I commend you on creating such a large work at a young age, however I must agree with flint and Nikolas, the lack of variety in the middle and background planes is overwhelming (or rather underwhelming). Another rule that I learned long ago and continues to serve me well today: "Less is more". That doesn't mean that you can't craft a composition of the same length that you have. What it means is that you must be succinct in what you are trying to say. Without this you run the risk of losing the attention of your listeners, and that after all, is the very reason we write music that is to be performed in the first place.

As I have said before, succinctness was not my intention here. I wrote what came to my heart, mind, and soul. It is not meant to please any particular audience, which, IMHO, is the most important factor in "absolute music", or music without a programatic purpose.

First, the trombone. The voicing of thirds particularly below Bb1 is likely to be muddy particularly when playing marcato. Sometimes this is a desired effect in more avant garde music but we would all agree your music does not fall into that category. Ironically, since you are a trombonist it would seem that you should know this better than most. When voicing any instrument in this range (tonally), a good understanding of the overtone series is paramount, particularly in the brass. Study examples of Holst, Shostakovich, Williams, etc.

This was completely intentional. Yes, I play the trombone, and I know what it sounds like. I disagre that it would be muddy when marcato. Heavy, yes, but not muddy. It was my intention to have a heavy and low texture.

To Justin in particular and others in general, I think anonymous advice from internet source should be taken with a grain of salt.

That certainly applies when you're trying to learn how to do a brain surgery over the internet. But when dealing with art, where "qualifications" generally don't mean much anyways, it usually matters less who advised you, but merely whether it makes sense.

Even though I quoted your post specifically, this is a rather general observation really, that due to forum format early reviews tend to influence later ones, hence they are less than independent reviews. In this case compilot, Nikolas' reviews actually are not in yet, so it would be difficult to agree with him unless one has ESP :)

True, I do not posses ESP ;)

As I have said before, succinctness was not my intention here. I wrote what came to my heart, mind, and soul. It is not meant to please any particular audience, which, IMHO, is the most important factor in "absolute music", or music without a programatic purpose.

Nevertheless, I get the impression that the piece begins to "Wander" at times. That is reason for my comment.

This was completely intentional. Yes, I play the trombone, and I know what it sounds like. I disagre that it would be muddy when marcato. Heavy, yes, but not muddy. It was my intention to have a heavy and low texture.

If this was your intent then great. Lastly (and I should have said this at the outset), I am impressed by what you have accomplished. At any age it would be an achievement.

-Ray

That certainly applies when you're trying to learn how to do a brain surgery over the internet. But when dealing with art, where "qualifications" generally don't mean much anyways, it usually matters less who advised you, but merely whether it makes sense.

Very, very true.

-Ray

Hello :)

After listening to this massive work twice, I must say that I am both impressed and depressed. Impressed by how much closer you took this to its potential than other first symphonies, but depressed that your first symphony had to fall under such a name. I suggest that you don't call this your "first symphony" if you are going to pursue composition... you should probably wait a few years until you reach your musical maturity before you make something into your first symphony.

I'll comment movement by movement.

First movement - This is possibly the hardest movement to sum up my thinking of. The orchestration choices throughout the whole movement were certainly to my liking and seemed to work well in context. I can see that you intended for it to be breathtaking, but there were a few things which limited that, in my opinion. The first would be contrast... although you have contrasting sections, your climactic material wasn't placed in conjunction with enough contrast. I don't mean just instrumentation or volume, though... I mean through musical texture. The contrast of textures is something you can improve upon in your later pieces. Next, your harmonic vocabulary could definitely have been improved upon to support your material. There didn't seem to be enough harmonic movement to keep my attention and that's my subjective view point.

Second Movement - I found this one to be quite lovely and considerably easier to comment upon. Going with what I said earlier, your effects will be expounded upon massively if you do contrast your sections. This second movement started off seeming to be like more of the first, but the character did change as it went on. Contrary to what other people said, I didn't think that this seemed overly "poppish". You're the composer. You have the vision. It's alright if your vision is executed in such a way. The orchestration and harmony are what really shined in this movement, but I'm sure you're aware of the near obligation (in my opinion) to ornament your introductory theme as you recapitulate it? I think there could have been more daring harmonic changes or melodic changes.

Third Movement - With this being the movement that I listened over and over again least, you can be safely assured that I really enjoyed this one. It was exactly the contrast which was needed up to that point. Not much I can really say on this one besides it was necessary.

Fourth Movement - Well, you didn't disappoint with the way you ended this, but you did disappoint in my expectations for the last movement. You did a pretty good job on it overall, but I think there could have really been more focus of a contrapunctal nature. That would REALLY give me the kick in the pants to keep me interested. There were some harmonic changes which I didn't especially like near the middle of it, but that's just my taste.

Overall, I concur that the texture could really be thickened up. In addition, I think that you should spend more time developing your ideas instead of simply repeating them. There should be moderation in the amount of thematic material you throw at the listener.

Good, enjoyable, long work.Please do improve in the future! :D