Symphony No. 1 in G minor

I've listened to the first movement only, so my comments are related to this.

First:

1. You have a good grasp of the basics of composition, I would say.

2. Your stamina is incredible for an 18 year old, and will serve you well and might be related to...

3. Your belief in yourself! This can be have a good and bad side, but generally in the creative arts, without it, you are sunk. There are plenty of critics...

I like your orchestration, and many of the melodies you work with. But, as others have pointed out, textural issues and accompaniment is blocky. You are really asking a lot of your listeners to stay with you for 24 minutes with this approach. Variety is lacking, and yet this is critical in a long work (unless youare Gorecki, apparently...)

As a newbie, I find the hardest part is getting an appropriate accompanying figure and counterpoint. But once in place, things move along. So, I feel your pain.

Please don't circle the wagons too early. I think some of the serious comments are accurate, and can be remedied in this piece or down the long road ahead.

Maybe Mahler isn't the best model, starting out. Bach and Mozart could serve quite well. As in chess, and other areas, it is often usefull to retrace historical development, as much of what is new is either an elaboration or reaction to the past...

But honestly, hats off to you for your work. I would call this a good effort, and even better things will come from the time spent on it...

Thanks for the comments guys.

In response to "V defines the key", I was refering to the traditional cadential rule of V7-I defining the key. Schenker makes a huge deal of this. Of course you can imply the key before hand, but for use in analysis, a key is defined by a V7-I cadence. This applies to initial keys and modulations. Now, of course this rule is outdated, and rightfully you called me on that. However, I still think it has application in today's compositions. V7-I is still the most solid progression in tonal music. Weca, there were many nice chords there, but in an establishing cadence, I would be more hesitant to use them.

____________________________________________

So, guys, here's the question that I've been toying with. Do I change the title to "Kindersymphonie" and leave it as is and write a new symphony, or do I do a massive revision of the piece and leave it as my first numbered symphony?

I really like the third movement. It reminded me of kids tunes. So what is your next project?

"So, guys, here's the question that I've been toying with."

No pun intended right? Because it's a kid's symphony. :P

Do I change the title to "Kindersymphonie" and leave it as is and write a new symphony, or do I do a massive revision of the piece and leave it as my first numbered symphony?

I'd say to a mixture of both. You seem to be really proud of this piece so keep it as your first. I've listened to the whole thing and I think you should just move on and start anew.

And I agree with other people on this thread. Try scaling it back first. Get better at harmony, counterpoint, etc. and then move on to bigger scale works like another symphony. I know how much it sucks to have the drive to write something like this but just not be ready educationally. Just have some patience and you'll be fine.

ps. "Schenker makes a huge deal of this. Of course you can imply the key before hand, but for use in analysis, a key is defined by a V7-I cadence. This applies to initial keys and modulations. "

Where have you heard this? Even in regular theory class you are taught that if you just prolong I that defines the key. You don't need a cadence to define it. I'm taking Schenker right now and the same rule seems to apply on bigger scale analysis as well. And what do you mean by modulations as well? I agree with you that cadences help define the key but if they do that so well, then why would someone use a PAC or an AC to modulate somewhere when you are saying "I am in this key" with a cadence? Wouldn't you use something like applied tonality or pivot chords instead?

In response to "V defines the key", I was refering to the traditional cadential rule of V7-I defining the key. Schenker makes a huge deal of this. Of course you can imply the key before hand, but for use in analysis, a key is defined by a V7-I cadence. This applies to initial keys and modulations. Now, of course this rule is outdated, and rightfully you called me on that. However, I still think it has application in today's compositions. V7-I is still the most solid progression in tonal music. Weca, there were many nice chords there, but in an establishing cadence, I would be more hesitant to use them.

Sorry to be so contrarian, but I disagree that V is the strongest dominant! This is some kind of dogma that was drilled into all of us in Theory 101. Thou shalt not offend the Overtone Series!

To me bVIM7 (the first cadence in my piece) functions as a STRONGER dominant than V. Maybe not a dominant to use all the time, or even more than V, but it's a stronger and more dramatic resolution... here are some devil's advocate arguments for that:

1. It retains the sacrosanct V-I root motion.

2. It has stronger voice leading in the upper voices (no major seconds).

3. It's more "explosive" (contains twice as many notes outside the key).

Listen to this, start around 6:40...

"But Artoo, how can the music end if there wasn't a leading tone?" BEEP BEEP TOOT WHISTLE

6:52 - I bVIM7 I bVIM7 etc. Hear it?

Now imagine how desperately BORING that would sound - like the end of an early Beethoven sonata - if it was I-V-I-V-I-V-I.

There is not even anything 20th century going on here. The coda of this piece is straight Bruckner.

TBH I would ignore Schenker if I wanted to be a "Mahlerian." There are plenty of places where Wagner does not bother to V7 his key, he just assumes you're following him and it works. If it's in Wagner it's surely in Mahler. This rule, if Schenker really did write it, was "outdated" before it was written. Following it makes your music sound more like late Schumann, especially the horn/bone pp V7's and grand pauses before each new area. ;)

Justin, I would keep this as your first symphony, and do some hardcore score analysis of any post-Wagner composer before writing your 2nd.

Weca, the problem here is that your so-called bVIM7 is not a dominant chord. It is a polytonal chord. A bVI with a V bass, essentialy a small bitonal episode. It does not function as a dominant, but as a color chord that colors the I.

Now, Schenker's rule applies to analysis of classical pieces i.e. "Schenkarian Analysis." Naturally composers are ahead of the theorists in chords. I don't think the V7-I is as sacred as they think, but to say that any other chords more better is purely subjective since the V7-I is used more than any other cadence ever.

Just sayin'.

Weca, the problem here is that your so-called bVIM7... is a polytonal chord.

That's just not correct, Justin. The G in AbM7 is borrowed from c minor just like the three other chord tones. There is no polytonality here.

A bVI with a V bass, essentialy a small bitonal episode.

There is no "V bass." Any inversion of AbM7 can resolve to C, just as any inversion of G7 can resolve to C - although 5-1 root motion is strongest.

It is easy to prove that the G is nonessential to the dominant effect. Take it out! The resolution is still satisfactory. You can even try Ab dominant 7 (with a Gb!!) and you'll see it can also resolve to C with satisfactory effect. This is because Ab7 is also a borrowed chord..... from C Locrian. :O:cool: (because of that, resolutions to i are somewhat better than to I).

All these variations on bVI are heard as BORROWED chords. More specifically they're heard as chromatic mediants, which are extremely common devices in late Romantic music!!

Weca, the problem here is that your so-called bVIM7 is not a dominant chord. It is a polytonal chord.

How can one chord with one tonality be polytonal?

Poly=many

One=one

You should review applied tonality and borrowed chords when you can.

Just sayin'.

Very nice mate.

I listened to all 4 movements and although there were some parts I personally disliked or felt were "boring" It was still wonderful in it's entirety.

If this is your first I look forward to what you do next.

After I istened to Tokke's symphony, I can sense that he is getting off a very strong start. I know that it can tedious and difficult, at times, inventing(or compsoing) a whole symphony. Myslef, I am learing orchestration and orchestra wriiting. Both, in my mind, are very haunting and taunting to me. I give Tokke two thumbs up for this composition. Great Job. What's your next master piece?

A nice symphony you have here :). People have gone over the limitations and to be honest the only one i felt stuck out was a lack of counterpoint, but that is purely for my tastes. Aesthetically you've created a good work in my opinion, which at the end of the day is what counts :)

Great work :thumbsup:

Ferret

Wow, this was really smooth. Reminds me of Beethoven a little after the introduction. Thanks for contributing.

I liked this symphony a lot though it is a bit long winded. Dont get discouraged over peoples criticisms, Bruckner discarded two of his own symphonies before he wrote his fourth.

I love Bruckner. Just had to slide that one in.

I think that for a first symphony this is great. I still haven't written a symphony. I need more work in quartets and chamber writing before I'd even consider attempting one.

That said, my criticism is this: your piece needs counterpoint. It needs lines. It needs to be guided not by the chords but by the lines. Chords will result from the way that the lines collide. Sometimes they will be beautiful. Other times, if you want, they will create tension. This will create interesting harmonies and tension and relaxation.

All great music is a careful balance of tension and relaxation.

Well, I think it's absolutely fantastic, but I'm nobody. Good job though. I find it interesting that a symphony from the eye's of a child would begin in minor, but it does make you think. Impressive length as well.

Hi Justin, I've been wanting to listen to the whole thing and review for a very long time, and I finally have the time now, so here I go:

I didn't like the opening two bars, but when the french horn solo came in, I forgot all about it, because it was so lovely. The violin's coming in was unexpected, so that bugged me, but only for a moment, until I got used to it and liked the melody. I think the french horns should be lower during the violin section. I then loved how seperate insturments came in by themselves or in groups, even with the whole notes, adding to the uprising suspense.

At 1 I thought the violin and flute was heavenly, especially when it went really high later, but the triplets sounded muddled. At 33, I hated the triplet of quarters. So far, amazing piece, with a few minor details that you forgot about as time passed.

Finally, I didn't enjoy the two bars of descending clarinet, the solo, and I didn't like how the woodinds ended abruptly right before 2.

1 to 5 was my favorite part, I absolutely loved it! I didn't like when the trumpets came in at 90, because it the speed was so fast you couldn't tell if they were seperating the notes. Up until 7 it was great, a few things I heard wrong but whatever. Then after seven it was even better, as the suspense kept coming. The call and answer before eight was a bit muddled.

9 and 10 were nice, but I think you should've held the big part up more, as there wasn't much tutti. I'm glad you brought the horns in after 10 because it was getting a bit repetitive.

I enjoyed the trumpets and oboes, but the trumpets should be louder, and I didn't like 205 when you lost the trumpets and then they came back. Finally the transition to the first melody was confusing.

I liked the fall into silence, but before fourteen with the strings was simply annoying. All the way to sixteen I disliked, actually. But then sixteen was another of my favorite parts, I loved it! Seventeen was good as well, but some parts swallowed others, and eighteen was brilliant, I liked the glockenspiel especially through these parts!

20 was great, but the call and answer between bassoon and clarinet sounded off. As did the cymbals at 21, though honestly I hated the sound of the cymbals the whole way through, but you can't fix that (Can you?) The placement was good.

All was good through 22 to 25, except the little extra notes, forget what they're named.

gotta go, great song, I loved it. All these things are things to improove on, not bad things.

Listened to the first half of 1st movement. Very long piece wow.

Are you living in the 21st century? or the 19th?

Beautiful schlogging melodies, great Romantic orchestration, dramatic organization, a great accomplishment for 18 yrs... I think of Vaughn Williams or Bruckner or Mahler on opium or something...

You should push the limits of rhythm and tonality and harmonic techniques and instrumental techniques. Listen to more modern classical music. Do you want to sound like cheap a Bruckner imitator?

The music kind of "sits" there very majestically. For my taste, it needs to get off its donkey more and shock and surprise.

Any live performances?

I listend to the 1st and the 2nd movement.

it was abit hard for me to understand the story behind the symphony.

It is abit slow in parts and it makes you ask your self if there is any surprise here. it felt like a slow hill climbing.

The notes you chose are nice. the instruments you chose as characture or situation made it a little bit interesting. you need better sounds! :)

Ricardo Gidon