Symphony No. 3 in F-Major, I - Moderato expressivo

Here's the first movement of a piece I wrote today. I'll probably rewrite once the whole is finished but I wanted to get some general comments and reactions.

MP3 File: Symphony No. 3 in F-Major, I - Moderato expressivo.mp3 - File Shared from Box.net - Free Online File Storage

Score attached...

Thanks for your time, eyes, and ears! :)

James F. May II

Symphony Op. 1 No. 3 in F-Major, I - Moderato expressivo.pdf

It's very good! Well done. I didn't like that you repeated the melody but it's still good. Do u use GPO or what sound library? :thumbsup: (Anyway I missed the brass section and the drums(!) and there are 2 horn parts instead of 4 but nevermind)

Thanks for the listen and comments! The ideas were coming so quickly that I had to get it out as soon as possible.

On the rewrite I will add a timpini, more brass, and do a variation and mini-cadence on the recapitulation's first theme.

As far as sound goes, I found a copy of Edirol Orchestral online (very small file!) and used it over GPO. The quality is much better and there are so many presets to play around with.

j

Unlike everyone else, I'm not going to be as sunny about it. It's flat out boring and trying to be Mozart (of all people) with too large an orchestra (for a Mozartian style) and a very lackluster harmonic language. I do not like the piece but I appreciate the effort that you put towards it.

Some specifics: Why did you split all the winds into multiple staves if 98% of the time there was rhythmic unity between them? Why did you use to many winds in the first place if you were not going to use them in any way original? I.e. they basically double the strings or they have an accompaniment figure that could be done away with (horns!). The orchestration, well, is, like the other things, lackluster. At least you kept all the notes within range, but that about ends the orchestration's virtues. It's very heavy and some of the wind ranges were quite low in their registers for too long, flutes especially. Why use a contrbassoon and bass clarinet without a piccolo or Eb Clarinet to ballance that? Or even bring the flute parts up an octave (or two)?

As for musical elements, it was boring. The same thing three times essentially. I felt a classical sonata form without a development. Why is there a final barline after the exposition? Where was the second theme? Where was the bridge to the development? Coda? Introduction? All sorts of stuff is missing if you really want to copy Mozart. You can't half-do it or you look like a fool, which, honestly, is what I see in this music. Someone who wants to be Mozart but doens't really understand what Mozart's music really is or how it works.

But alas, this is just my opinion. Good luck fixing this. However, my advice would be to throw it in the bin, rethink your compositional goals, and start over.

Hey there!

This is very good music, i like it very much, very classical and sweet.

Great work!

SimenN

Well...

Justin:

I'll be as sunny as I can. Your works are not of my taste, a bit long-winded (remember, length does not make it more profound, just perhaps makes us want to sleep), and somewhat video-gamish. Withal, I think I've done short of calling you a fool, which in your post you basically called me. If splitting winds and low wind register ranges, lackluster orchestration, etc. is enough to call someone a fool, then, wow...am I really on the right website? I know I sound offended, though in many cases I am, you come off as some cynical composer that is hell bent on pulling everyone to your "standard" of excellence.

At this point in my writing, if you've followed any of my other works (which you probably haven't), I want to become more knowledgeable of the orchestra, its capabilities, what instruments to use for color and to overall have fun with it. Unlike you or like you, I've not had a lesson and have learned/taught myself what I know musically. Taking on whole symphonies as your first compositions isn't an easy task. My music will grow in style and change as I gain more experience and confidence with it. That's not an excuse for supposed bad writing, but I've appreciatively been lauded by some veritable talents here on this site for having great compositions as opposed to bashed and belittled for writing an very impromptu piece in a classical style. With that having been said, this early in my compositional career, you can or should expect allusion to the greats, like Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, whomever. But in know way was my intent on copying, as you say, Mr. Mozart. If I wanted to copy Mozart, I would have added all those "missing" attributes you listed. Can a man write a composition to test classical "sonata" allegro form???

I, however, appreciate your review, positive or not (which is to be expected within the forum), but most it will be thrown in the bin and my compositional goals will continue as unplanned as they are, and I suspect this won't be the last I hear of you.

And finally:

Michael A. Wiktor & SimenN -> thanks for the positive, encouraging reviews. More music to come!

I'll be as sunny as I can. Your works are not of my taste, a bit long-winded (remember, length does not make it more profound, just perhaps makes us want to sleep), and somewhat video-gamish. Withal, I think I've done short of calling you a fool, which in your post you basically called me. If splitting winds and low wind register ranges, lackluster orchestration, etc. is enough to call someone a fool, then, wow...am I really on the right website? I know I sound offended, though in many cases I am, you come off as some cynical composer that is hell bent on pulling everyone to your "standard" of excellence.

At this point in my writing, if you've followed any of my other works (which you probably haven't), I want to become more knowledgeable of the orchestra, its capabilities, what instruments to use for color and to overall have fun with it. Unlike you or like you, I've not had a lesson and have learned/taught myself what I know musically. Taking on whole symphonies as your first compositions isn't an easy task. My music will grow in style and change as I gain more experience and confidence with it. That's not an excuse for supposed bad writing, but I've appreciatively been lauded by some veritable talents here on this site for having great compositions as opposed to bashed and belittled for writing an very impromptu piece in a classical style. With that having been said, this early in my compositional career, you can or should expect allusion to the greats, like Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, whomever. But in know way was my intent on copying, as you say, Mr. Mozart. If I wanted to copy Mozart, I would have added all those "missing" attributes you listed. Can a man write a composition to test classical "sonata" allegro form???

I, however, appreciate your review, positive or not (which is to be expected within the forum), but most it will be thrown in the bin and my compositional goals will continue as unplanned as they are, and I suspect this won't be the last I hear of you.

You misinterpreate. I didn't call you a fool for your orchestration/notation problems. That's petty stuff that can be fixed in due course. What is major is the fact that you are writing in a style that no one wants to hear today. The avereage conductor would pick a Mozart symphony over this to program on a concert, that's my point. You will look like a fool when the other piece which you tried to emulate beat you out. Now, granted, this is a specific situation, and I'm sure you weren't slating this piece for a performance any time soon. Still, the fact remains, that the performer does not exist without the composer. But more importantly, the composer does not exist without the performer. If the performer will not play the piece, then its just wasted paper IMO. I get that this is an "experimental" piece meant to further your compositional style, and I applaud and laude you for that. But just make sure you understand, that if it sounds too much like something else and is compositional inferror to the "something else", it won't get played. If I was to call this a purely compositional excersize in "classical" writing, it's a fair attempt. As a performable piece (I mean actually getting it on the program not its difficulty), not so much. That's my point. I hope that clarifies it for you.

You misinterpreate. I didn't call you a fool for your orchestration/notation problems. That's petty stuff that can be fixed in due course. What is major is the fact that you are writing in a style that no one wants to hear today. The avereage conductor would pick a Mozart symphony over this to program on a concert, that's my point. You will look like a fool when the other piece which you tried to emulate beat you out. Now, granted, this is a specific situation, and I'm sure you weren't slating this piece for a performance any time soon. Still, the fact remains, that the performer does not exist without the composer. But more importantly, the composer does not exist without the performer. If the performer will not play the piece, then its just wasted paper IMO. I get that this is an "experimental" piece meant to further your compositional style, and I applaud and laude you for that. But just make sure you understand, that if it sounds too much like something else and is compositional inferror to the "something else", it won't get played. If I was to call this a purely compositional excersize in "classical" writing, it's a fair attempt. As a performable piece (I mean actually getting it on the program not its difficulty), not so much. That's my point. I hope that clarifies it for you.

Justin, I just had an epiphany. Now I see why you are so negatively critical to everyone except your own works.

You think that composition is all about profit. You treat it as if it's 100% business and that the composer must meet what "today's listener" demands.

My friend, you are so wrong.

Composing is about self expression. It's about expanding your thoughts and your feelings to another person. And frankly, you do not know how the business works. A conductor would not reject this score on the basis that it sounds like Mozart. If he did, then he's a stupid conductor. A good and wise conductor would realize that this is a new piece of work and ok so what if it sounds a little retro?? Have you ever heard of neoromaticism or neocalssicism??

I listened to this piece and I found it rather enjoyable and fun to listen to. The only thing that would not allow a conductor to perform it if he wrote out of the range for the instruments, bad orchestration, etc. You know, stupid things that would slow the rehearsals down because every five minutes someone would raise their hand saying "this is beyond the range...we don't have that in are parts...Rehearsal Letter C is mm.45 for us not 64, etc"

The orchestra conductor at my school is all about student compositions. He understands that we are new music and it when people like YOU say "oh just play Mozart because its superior, oh just play Brahms...etc" YOUR THE REASON why composers today have practically no performances of their pieces and why we have all this wonderful talent that can't be shown. Because for some people like yourself the general consensus is "Oh, in the past, they did it so much better so why bother."

FURTHERMORE, who gave you the right to speak for every listener of western music?! As of now, the overwhelming average of people who commented on this piece seem to like it. So it seems like your opinion isn't even in the majority. So stop acting as if you are the GOD of MUSIC and that your opinion speaks for EVERYONE who has the ability to HEAR.

Again, if you think that composing is all business and zero art and expression. Then get out now.

I just pray to god that you're never in charge of any orchestra.

PS. The only feedback I would give is to play around more with the timbres of the orchestra. Your music is flowing and it works really well. I just think now you need to play with the different colors the orch. can give you. :)

Hmmmm...

I do not think any of you should be attacking Justin for his review. In essence, you are all being quite hypocritical for doing so.

Now on to the music.

First of all.. Your music is mainly homophonic. And homophonic centering around I, IV, V, and vi too.. unlike the homophonic music of the late romantic era that used quite interesting harmony.

Second of all.. You must have used copy and paste at least 20 times in the first fifth of the piece. Periodic development works in moderation.. not done so many times.. In fact, you use so much periodic development that there is a very diminished sense of direction and the voice of the composer.

Thirdly.. Your orchestration is very very very bland. The higher instruments have the melody and the fast music. If I heard sixteenth notes, I would be correct 90% of the time if I said they were in the first violin and oboe. The middle instruments have slow moving harmony. The lower instruments have the sustained harmony. Your wind parts are almost always doublings of the string parts, which does NOT work in an orchestra of this size. It works in a Neapolitan orchestra, if anything. Your wind parts are almost all the same in each instrument. Why have two parts when only one part is being played? As for your flute parts.. they are almost always way too low. If they are meant to double the strings, at least place them on an equal footing and not near the bottom of the staff. Measure 94 and 95, for example.. flutes are too low to have an equal share in the sound.

Fourthly.. The voice leading is mediocre.. there are too many parallel fifths to get a strong sense of harmony in the lower voices.. leading to a very top heavy texture. Measures 85 - 88, for example.. the Cello and Basses are playing E ... Viola playing B natural. Then the low strings go to A and the Viola plays an E. This similar movement from a tritone to a perfect fifth should be avoided so that there is a density balance on the low end.

Lastly .. The music had very little variety at all.. you took the same idea and repeated it over and over again except a few times in closely related keys in the middle...

I strongly encourage you to step back from composition and evaluate your goals. Do you really want to continue writing hobbyist music like this that you wrote over the course of one day (and it shows), or do you want to spend time planning out your music and bringing musical ideas to satisfying ends? If all you really want to do is learn music, then please take the second option, as you will most likely find out more about composition that way instead of the one-day copy and paste session. You say that you want to have fun writing, yet you genuinely seek approval from listeners. Not everybody will like your work, but getting positive feedback from listeners involves listening to your critics as well.

I'm no music expert.. I'm self taught. But I've managed to observe quite a few things over the years. I started writing believing that I could write symphonies too.. but as I've studied more scores, I've realized that that is all but impossible. I hope you come to this realization soon as well.

EDIT: Sorry.. I didn't read Justin's review in full... I'm repeating a good chunk of what he said. Sorry again!

I wasn't criticizing Justin's review of the music in general. I'm criticizing his reasoning as to why he thinks it is a bad piece outside of the musical properties of it. (I think you should read my review in full as well)

Kukes, at best you are putting words in my mouth. I never said Composition was all buisness and no art. Stop assuming you understand my motives. If you are willing to continue this discourse, start a new thread.

Lots of discussion.

Bottom line, my intentions were to get some pointers and to have the piece rewritten eventually over time. It was written in a short period of time and we all agree needs a lot of work. I take fault in posting a piece that was unfinished and undeveloped. In the future, I'll refrain from doing so. Criticism good or bad, like I said, was expected. However, just watch and be careful, Justin, how you might come across in your cloudy reviews to new composers. You overgeneralize when you say I've created music in a style that no one wants to hear today. You've achieved a lot and that's great. You've accomplished things that many of us are working towards. I can tell that you're very passionate about music.

I don't expect sugar-coated reviews and critiques, but leave the fool references out next time. That was really my only qualm.

But I digress, cheers to all...it's music!

/James

Discussion ruined by not acknowledging music's subjectivity.

It's nice that you point out that Justin's criticisms (some of them) were subjective and too general to apply to someone who might differ in opinion.

But then a slew of people responded and essentially said that Justin was in the wrong for saying what he did, which just perpetuates the problem. It makes me so frustrated that the solution in so many peoples' eyes is to crush all criticism and label it as invalid. As if "new music" will flourish and grow if it is uninhibited by negativity. All it will do is make it frail and weak. Havent we seen enough of that? We set up for art music a world in which it is immune to criticism. If someone does like it, they simply dont understand it or havent taken the time to appreciate it. Or worse, it doesnt matter what the listener thinks in the first place, because after all, we arent still having it performed in the same concert halls that hold the same connotations it did during the romantic era when it was established. Lastly, if someone does not like it, the composer is entitled to their opinion. Period.

It blows my mind that nearly everyone who posts a piece here and receives criticism immediately concocts a post justifying (more for themselves than anyone else) all of their decisions (or lack thereof) that they received negative feedback on.

If you want to get down to the nitty gritty and figure out what principles and values you differ on that is causing you to dismiss their criticism, then by all means...

but enough of this "I'm entitled to my opinion" BS without any need for justification. Can we move on and start learning?