Symphony No. 1 in G minor

I have listened to the long first movement, and I must say I'm pretty impressed. The second movement has now started and I prefer it to the first-this is a very interesting symphony. Good job! :)

I Don't usually like alot of works on here

but this one had some good themes i enjoyed it.

It was really long and really good!!! I loved it!!!

I'd have to back Flint on his comments.

I had the same reaction to this piece.

By the way, the scherzo, which I really WANTED to like, has a few quazi-impossible licks for some of the instruments. Those 2nd bassoon octave leaps from low Bb? fuggedaboutit. Won't happen at that tempo. And there's a solo brass section where you have the horns zooming along at 100 miles an hour in triplet arpeggios... yeah, it MIGHT be playable. But it's not idiomatic, and it's going to sound like crap.

Musically, what bothered me about the scherzo was that it reminded me of some pompous circus music wanting to take itself seriously. It wasn't facetious enough to FEEL like a joke. It just had a terrible 2nd rate Rossini feel to it. Cute melodies, most of which gave a "d

My comments are on the first movement, and I discuss structure, not instrumention errors and/or compositional flaws:

I know some people say that your piece lacks depth. Maybe it is just the style you were aiming for, I can understand that. Whether or not any of that was intentional, I found that there were areas in which your piece excelled. This particular movement has many bits of good ideas. Now, take those good ideas and expand on them. I will comment on some points of interest.

• 3:25, I found this part to be fun to listen to. And I loved how you revisited it again at around 14:10. Good job with this.
  
• 6:10 is a nice romance theme. The theme is very well done.
  
• 13:10 sounded too much like I was at a circus. This would have been fine if this was supposed to be a non-serious piece, but considering the tone of the whole piece is pretty serious, this doesn't fit in very well. Be careful how you use your trombones/tubas. If you use them too simplistically in the bass part with only two different notes, it will sound like DUM dum DUM dum DUM dum, making that circus feeling sound.
  
• 13:40 - 14:00 The theme here is fantastic and fun to listen to, but too short. The trick is to expand on good parts of a piece as much as you can, even if it kills you. At 14:07 you should have recapped the idea, with some sort of variation, or even a simple repeat.
  
• 17:20 I like how you revisited your romance theme here again. Very beautiful.

Although there were parts where I felt the piece lacked depth (mainly the stuff in between my points, taken care by flint and qccowboy), there were many good points which I emphasize above. And even if a work has many flaws, if it has even 5 seconds of a good part, the piece would have been worth composing. The important thing is that you learn from your own writing each time you finish a piece. Also, learn from us, heed our criticisms if you wish, and just keep on writing!

Well, I've only heard the first three movements and don't have the patience to listen to the fourth so I will make only a few brief comments.

As mentioned above, this really is just too long. I know Mahler is a big influence and he wrote ungodly long symphonies too but the simple fact is... this is neither contrapuntally or harmonically interesting enough to justify the length. The second movement in particular where one chorale is repeated for almost eigth minutes straight; hardly any variation other than in orchestration. It would've been nice for you to layer a few other voices over the chorale but as it is, it's rather static. And to be frank, I found the second movement to be rather shallow and sort of cheesy.

One last negative criticism, I think you should give yourself a few years before you start justifying everything you do with "Well, that's my style! If you don't understand it then you don't understand it.". People have been hinting throughout this thread that this is a somewhat immature sounding work. You definetly have potential. You know how to handle an orchestra. And while I'm not exactly a fan of your style of music in general, it's a bit different from what I'm used to hearing on this site and I think with some more maturation, you could be a great composer. But you have to show some more humility toward yourself. It IS impressive that you managed to write something of this size; especially at such an early age. And if I spent three years on a single work, I wouldn't take too kindly to criticism as well. However, to improve, you simply have to accept criticism and that your piece is not perfect or that people simply don't "understand" it.

Note: I'm not trying to be holier than thou or some sort of false musical prophet either. I'm younger than you and I still have a long way to go. Possibly even longer seeing as I have yet to write anything succesful for an orchestra (though, in all fairness, I don't have much interest in doing so). Also, I could be misinterpreting your dismeanor since tone of voice can largely affect how words are perceived. But... just two my two cents.

To justin: and I can't say it better than composer Robert Hall Lewis of Peabody conservatory so I'll quote him "Just because you have an idea and realize that idea, doesn't mean its a good idea and certainly doesn't mean it's necessarily a good piece"

Here, replace words like "idea" with "stylistic intent" or "mahlerian" sound. And quite frankly, I don't feel like you've realized your idea of "sounding like Mahler (or yourself in Mahler, whatever) as others have pointed out. I agree with the comments made by flint, maelstrom and cowboy and am not going to bother commenting right now on things that are in contradiction between all of their reviews.

Good first effort, but this is NOT your first symphony, trust me.

Listen to this "first symphony", which the composer still hasn't called his first symphony. This symphony won the symphony in C competition.

Takuma Itoh - Composer

Again, I will clarify:

I did NOT try to sound like Mahler!!!

Mahler and Tchaikovsky were heavy inspirations to the piece, but I in no way tried to be like them. This is my first symphony. Whether YOU think so or not is not my problem. Music is not a game of history, it is an art created by a composer, not the theorists who decide which words are noteworthy. Just remember that Mozart wrote very early symphonies that no one remembers or thinks are good. And yet, Mr. Mozart is more famous than Mr. Itoah.

BTW, how the Symphony in C competition holds signifigant notoriety, I'll never know.

profound comments once again from flint-wrrr

Again, I will clarify:

I did NOT try to sound like Mahler!!!

Mahler and Tchaikovsky were heavy inspirations to the piece, but I in no way tried to be like them. This is my first symphony. Whether YOU think so or not is not my problem. Music is not a game of history, it is an art created by a composer, not the theorists who decide which words are noteworthy. Just remember that Mozart wrote very early symphonies that no one remembers or thinks are good. And yet, Mr. Mozart is more famous than Mr. Itoah.

BTW, how the Symphony in C competition holds signifigant notoriety, I'll never know.

First. It may be a bad idea to see any criticisms as personal attacks against you. the way that you react defensively to constructive and frank comment is more a sign of insecurity than anything else. There are people with a much richer background in music and careers in working their craft for a living. They're looking at your work for free. The proper response is "thank you". Then start taking notes. We're not here to demean you. We're here to encourage you to do better. If you want people to fawn over you, go take it back to high school.

Second. Mahler and Tchaicowsky wrote in huge, expansive forms because 1) they had suitable material to keep a listener occupied for that time and 2) it was appropriate for the time. I love Mahler's use of expansive form, but I also love the way that he constantly interrupts himself, switches instruments to bring out different tone colors, uses insane tonal shifts and (at the time) harsh dissonances to obscure his centre, makes musical reference to culturally significant things, and pushes the limits of orchestration and performance. Composers don't learn how to write big, epic pieces by starting with big, epic pieces. Mahler's only piece from his college years that ever received any mention was not a student symphony; it was a chamber piece. Mozart didn't start out writing symphonies; he started out writing for his primary (piano) and worked outward. Even Bach spent a good portion of his career writing just for organ and for chorale before he tackled large-scale instrumental pieces. You can observe this sort of evolution after the composers became professionals! Why? Because they knew their limitations!

I get requests to take assistantships in different parts of the continent and there's no way in hell I'd think of tackling a symphony. Why? I have trouble writing effectively for more than 9 people, and I know that when I feel like tackling something as big as a symphony, I'd better damn get it right.

Third. I'm not going to be one of those "you need to quit writing in the idiom you do because you're not writing, you're copying" people, but when you start tagging sequential numbers onto your work, you're basically establishing your voice. With as little offense intended as possible, you're not yet in a situation where you know your voice. The only thing culturally relevant that I hear in your piece is that Mel Bay publishes tons of similar pieces every year for concert bands.

I would strongly, STRONGLY consider toning down your form and instrumentation for 3 reasons:

1. Writing for chamber music will greatly help you with part writing, counterpoint, and independence of line.

2. Writing in chamber music gives you a greater chance of performance, which will be a much more accurate judge of your music than GPO (so you can see why certain licks just "don't work". I've learned this the hard way many, many times)

3. Many composers that wrote in big, expansive forms (including our mutually loved Gustav) include elements of small forms within their pieces that they developed from tons of practice in chamber music. Mahler didn't write themes; he wrote theme complexes that could exist as chamber pieces by themselves. His development didn't start with the development, nor did it end with the development. He used every trick of the trade out there, from false forms (false repeat, false recap, false endings), but he also did all sorts of magic with the orchestration of his own and others' works (I suggest, if you're curious, Mahler's settings of JS Bach's music for the NY Symphony or Mahler's re-orchestrations of Beethoven's symphonies. They're pretty phenomenal, and I usually take exception to re-orchestrated Bach).

4. Listen to those who want to help you grow. Mozart lived by Hyden's advice, Mahler spent most of his young life seeking the approval of his elders, and even ASCAP-commissioned composers will spend time running their work past their peers and contemporaries. Peer review can be harsh and ruthless, but it's part of the process. If you can't trust people who know music to comment honestly on your work, then what right do you have trying to pass it off on the public?

Justin, you can at times be an annoyingly tactless poster, but I think this is a great and grand piece that deserves more attention. I think it tells a wonderful story and is very enjoyable to listen to not to mention demonstrates a huge skill and technique. It does often sound like everything from Tchaikovsky to Strauss to Brahms and I think that's a good thing.

You've painted a broad canvas and while I agree with many comments regarding the length of the work, it's also YOUR 'canvas' and your world so you can do whatever you want with it. Length doesn't matter as long as your piece is telling a coherent story of sorts and I feel that yours does for a good amount of the time.

Why would you write a grand symphony in the style of a 19th century German when it is the 21st century, and you're American (or Canadian, I forget)? Is this truly your own creative work or are you just regurgitating a conservative societal norm. Is this really your own creative expression, Justin?

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.

This sort of superior knowledge is something that I wish more humans possessed.

I'm not giving any comments except for: Well done!

Enough bad stuff said. Hope you feel good! :)

On listening more I must ask, why do you love tonic-dominant relationships so much?

Listen to Barber's 2nd Symphony, not a single tonic-dominant relationship in the entire thing. Also listen to Wagner.

On listening more I must ask, why do you love tonic-dominant relationships so much?

Maybe because its the most solid chord relationship in all of music? Also, just perhaps, that it defines the key. Ya know, cadences and such.

Maybe because its the most solid chord relationship in all of music? Also, just perhaps, that it defines the key. Ya know, cadences and such.

You say that like it's a good thing. :P

You say that like it's a good thing. :P

Why is it not a good thing? :eyebrow:

Bruckner and Franck, as well, liked to really stray from and obscure tonal relationships. Chausson, as well, played with a lot of "wandering harmonies" that were fairly fantastic (the double quartet for violin and piano accompanied by string quartet comes to mind). There's nothing wrong with limiting authentic cadences to the start and end of a piece.

Maybe because its the most solid chord relationship in all of music? Also, just perhaps, that it defines the key. Ya know, cadences and such.

In all of music? Are you sure about that? Is that your final answer?

Composers figured this out centuries ago Justin, motivically derived voice leading and fewer instances of traditional root functions allows for more organic and human sounding music. For someone so occupied with this constructed idea of the soul, you sure do ignore a lot of techniques you could be using.

I listened to the 1st movement only. Any 20 seconds of your work isolated from the rest has a well-defined melody, interesting orchestration, etc. However the movement as a whole does not convince me it has a structure, also it is VERY static texturally. Melody, bass, homophonic harmony.

Write something smaller and make each voice a melody. In other words, counterpoint. :cool: Some post-Romantic harmony wouldn't hurt either!

Maybe because its the most solid chord relationship in all of music? Also, just perhaps, that it defines the key. Ya know, cadences and such.

Really? I don't like V too much. Why use it... There are alternatives, here, look...

Sarcasm aside, some of these, especially Ab (or bVI7, generally), Eb (or bIII), D7 (II7), Bb (bVII), etc, are all very good and were used by composers before and since the Wagnerian Romantics. ;)

I listened to the 1st movement only. Any 20 seconds of your work isolated from the rest has a well-defined melody, interesting orchestration, etc. However the movement as a whole does not convince me it has a structure, also it is VERY static texturally. Melody, bass, homophonic harmony.

Write something smaller and make each voice a melody. In other words, counterpoint. :cool: Some post-Romantic harmony wouldn't hurt either!

Really? I don't like V too much. Why use it... There are alternatives, here, look...

Sarcasm aside, some of these, especially Ab (or bVI7, generally), Eb (or bIII), D7 (II7), Bb (bVII), etc, are all very good and were used by composers before and since the Wagnerian Romantics. ;)

Yeah there's some real nice stuff in this progression, the sort of polytonal aspect really works in some parts. Good colors. You can learn a lot by listening to people, Justin : - )

Guys, I'm going to be honest and think that this entire thread is almost needlessly scrutinizing. You're criticizing him for using V-I? I understand that there are better alternatives nowadays, and I'd join you in urging him to find those himself and expand his musical craft, but throwing at him a bunch of nearly polytonal cadences isn't going to solve his problem. It's like telling a kid that he sucks at Algebra, and then you hand him a Calculus textbook. Also, you're not really suggesting to him ideas, more punching him in the face with reasons why his piece isn't great. Which, for all intents and purposes, I think it is. Certainly in the 80-90th percentile of pieces on here. Not to say it isn't heavily lacking in some areas of music I find personally relevant, but I think this entire thread reeks of sour grapes. Don't pay attention to it too much if I were you, Justin...make wine out of it

Couldn't agree with you anymore!

Great job Justin :)

Guys, I'm going to be honest and think that this entire thread is almost needlessly scrutinizing. You're criticizing him for using V-I?

Also:

I listened to the 1st movement only. Any 20 seconds of your work isolated from the rest has a well-defined melody, interesting orchestration, etc. However the movement as a whole does not convince me it has a structure, also it is VERY static texturally. Melody, bass, homophonic harmony.

Guys, I'm going to be honest and think that this entire thread is almost needlessly scrutinizing. You're criticizing him for using V-I? I understand that there are better alternatives nowadays, and I'd join you in urging him to find those himself and expand his musical craft, but throwing at him a bunch of nearly polytonal cadences isn't going to solve his problem. It's like telling a kid that he sucks at Algebra, and then you hand him a Calculus textbook.

Wow, I really really disagree with your statement that these are "polytonal" cadences.

Not to derail the thread, but almost all of those cadences can be analyzed traditionally. Here's the first line... The first dominant chord is a major seventh on borrowed bVI. The second is an augmented major seventh again on borrowed bVI, the third is borrowed bVII, the fourth is V/V, the fifth is borrowed bIII, the sixth is just a diminished seventh on the first scale degree!

Borrowed chords are a STAPLE of Romantic harmony alongside secondary dominants, dim7s, and aug6s.

Just because a chord has tones outside the key, like nearly all the "dominant" chords I used, doesn't mean it doesn't have a dominant TONAL quality similar to that of an accidental-ridden diminished seventh or augmented sixth.

(I'm actually a little confused as to HOW a cadence could be bitonal or polytonal, wouldn't that mean it resolves to multiple keys at once?! LOL)

Also, you're not really suggesting to him ideas, more punching him in the face with reasons why his piece isn't great.

Well, I wasn't intending to browbeat him, I was just shocked by his statement that "V defines the key" and was showing some of the alternatives that I know/use, to V. I'm sure there are lots more that I'm not familiar with but would leap on in a second if I learned about them. I learned most of these from studying filmscores, which stay strongly in a key but then create extremely bright colors by using fancy chromatic dominants like bIII or bVI. But I'm sure that these same chords are all over the place in Wagner and Bruckner!

If you don't recognize any of the chords on the first line, maybe you should incorporate them into your own vocabulary! :) or at least try them out and see if you like them.

If you want to continue this discussion let's start another thread so it doesn't litter up the thread for this symphony.

I think this entire thread reeks of sour grapes. Don't pay attention to it too much if I were you, Justin...make wine out of it

I said I liked the way he wrote melodies and orchestrated. Just not the absence of counterpoint and a large developmental structure.