Symphony no. 1 Op. 2 in C minor

This symphony has taken me quite some time to gestate and compose. I posted the first movement in the archives about 2 weeks ago and have since moved on to finishing the third movement and have now finished the final movement.

Symphony no. 1

Hi :)

I liked the music, it all.

It is very nice, there are good motives, especially in the full orchestra crescendos that are well placed, even if I have to say that when you put the "PPP" markings, in those areas, like between page 6 - 7 and the other one for the recapitulation, well I think that you should work better that part.. I know you wanted to give the super-silent spot leading to the boom of the orchestra, but I feel like there's something missing in there maybe you need a fermata or some kind of pause to make the waiting longer enough to give a more unexpected feel... you know?

Other than that, I think that the work flows quite good, again the ideas are well distributed, the themes are nice and varied, and quite remarkable, and there's a nice feel overall, some peace but also the shaking that disturbs that apparent calm of the piece :)

bravo!

Hi :)

I liked the music, it all.

It is very nice, there are good motives, especially in the full orchestra crescendos that are well placed, even if I have to say that when you put the "PPP" markings, in those areas, like between page 6 - 7 and the other one for the recapitulation, well I think that you should work better that part.. I know you wanted to give the super-silent spot leading to the boom of the orchestra, but I feel like there's something missing in there maybe you need a fermata or some kind of pause to make the waiting longer enough to give a more unexpected feel... you know?

Other than that, I think that the work flows quite good, again the ideas are well distributed, the themes are nice and varied, and quite remarkable, and there's a nice feel overall, some peace but also the shaking that disturbs that apparent calm of the piece :)

bravo!

Yes, I had thought about doing that on that passage.. but I felt that it would overall effect the flow. The interplay between the softer passages and the forte passages are quite nice, imo. Thank you so much for giving my piece a listen! I may post the other movements on here a little later.

very good. Sometimes it's hard to hear... and it sounds muffledish... but that is ok, it's the notation programs fault probably. Very good. I like the long cresc.

Yes, I use my headphones to listen to it when I do. It's a very soft and subdued movement despite the orchestral tuttis that occur.

Okay, so like I was saying in the shoutbox, you have grown on this site. It's awesome.

I've listened to several works of yours. This is the first one where I felt like your ideas were more fluid and less rigidly combined. One idea flowed into the next, each idea seemed to have a relationship with the previous idea, and everything seemed to grow from it. So, overall, I'm pleased with how this has demonstrated your growth.

Now, without criticizing your ideas, I just want to give you a few things to tuck away in the very back of your mind and just let these things be more suggestions than advice. At this point, me giving you advice is sort of like a homeless guy giving advice to a janitor. These are just things that more or less filter from some of the finer moments of -my- education experience (that's right, it wasn't ALL doom and gloom), and let's see if any of it helps.

You're writing in a style that comes with some 'expectations', if you will. An audience will hear things and begin associating what they hear with the kind of syntax you're creating. When you go from something so distant as Classicism to something as contemporary as the strange melodic material I heard near the end of the Exposition and Recap, well, I knew exactly what you were trying to do. I won't say you didn't execute it "well" because, quite frankly, I'm not the authority on music. No one is. No one should presume to be one. As a listener, though, when I hear such a stark contrast without any preparation, I hear it as 'wrong' or 'out of place'. Just as you might -prepare- a dominant, you should consider the larger soundscape that you prepare listeners for. I don't really think there's anything you can do in this piece to 'prepare' listeners for what you gave them in those measures (I don't have the score up or I'd tell you measure numbers) using this sound-scape alone. If you want to work in another idiom, and by all means do so, consider how we do such things in music overall.

I can't recall a piece like this one. It's unique in many ways because of how you do it, but I'm not sure if that's a credit to you or not at this point. I think what you can do to prepare such sonorities is to listen to some more works from the other idiom you're drawing from (whatever it was that inspired the non-diatonic melodic line) and find, from that influence, examples of materials that might help 'prepare' your audience for hearing it. I think you could really expand Neo-Classicism into a much broader array of incorporated styles even more than you're doing. You're taking baby steps, and that's great. I really enjoyed the non-diatonic melody, but in context, I did not enjoy how it was 'prepared' for me. It's like you fed me a beautiful delicious Chicken Caesar Salad but the chicken was raw. Does that make sense?

It's not a criticism so much as a lesson I learned as a composer at the masters level. It's something that I think requires a lot of openness to other genres of music and as critical as it might sound, I want you to take it constructively, because this is great movement for you as a composer. It demonstrates your willingness to explore, appreciate, and perhaps respect styles that many other people out there don't respect, much less do they even know about them. So, I hope you won't take my comments on this piece as negative, because I feel like this piece is a monumental achievement for you on many levels. I think you can do more to prepare the incorporation of whatever idiom appeals to you into your soundscape, and I really look forward to your next piece. I hope you are able to find a way to do that with the tools you have, and if I can give you any suggestions for that, I'll be happy to. It will have to be in context, though. So, maybe your next draft or something might be a good opportunity to explore that if you want.

Great work!

Thank you so much for your well informed comments. I'm very glad you enjoyed my work! I will take your advice to heart. Thank you for listening.

While I do defer to the expertise of others posting, I would like to add that I greatly enjoyed this movement.

The whole thing strikes me as Beethoven-meets-late-romantic-and-impressionist composers. I say Beethoven because of your "angry key" choice of C minor. Have you started work on the other movements? A 2nd movement in Ab Major would complement the tonality of the first extremely nicely. As I said, though, I defer to the expertise of the other posters - I learned a plethora of new things just from reading Antiatonality's response.

Excellent work!

Thank you so much for viewing my work. I have started the second movement. I chose to set the movement in F major instead of the relative major. It and the third movement, I'm not planning on being that long - to be honest. I'm shooting for quite a long 4th movement however (I want the 4th movement to be unlike anything I've ever written...so the size of it has to fit that.) Again, thank you for your comments.

Hi! I listened with great attention to your work. There are no particular things that I can say about orchestration that is linear and with no problem because is simple. Everything is referred to late romantic german music a part some armonic digression. I think that you are in a good way walking in the street to be a composer because we have to write a lot a lot a lot. When you will be sure about yourself you will find your personal way even with orchestration :santa:

Cesare

Thank you so much for your comments. I hope you enjoyed my work.

Quite an ambitious piece, Woodruff! I appreciate the time you take to develop your musical themes and ideas, and I like the way the piece flows with cohesion and thought. Also, your transitions into your other movements are seamless, and the movements build up well into the semi-climactic 3rd movement. Most impressive! My only criticism is that the piece lacks some musical "identity", in my opinion, and tends to wander more than it should, instead of establishing a recurrent, grounded motif, but that's probably a matter of personal taste. Good job!

Quite an ambitious piece, Woodruff! I appreciate the time you take to develop your musical themes and ideas, and I like the way the piece flows with cohesion and thought. Also, your transitions into your other movements are seamless, and the movements build up well into the semi-climactic 3rd movement. Most impressive! My only criticism is that the piece lacks some musical "identity", in my opinion, and tends to wander more than it should, instead of establishing a recurrent, grounded motif, but that's probably a matter of personal taste. Good job!

Then I must've done my job well if you can't see or hear the material connection between movements. Each movement contains material that is based on earlier movements. In the first movement one can hear the initial theme in the exposition and development sections. In the second movement the theme is hidden away in the B section. In the third movement, in the quasi-fugato section, it makes an appearance as a countermelody. There are other connectors as well. I'm very glad to hear though that it wasn't out in the open!

Hello-

I think that this is and traditional. That's a good thing, because after all it is your fist symphony. However, in all this traditional-ness, you do some really interesting things... It's really good, I think! And the scores are clean (thank goodness)

In the second movement, I saw that you had your name, and under it arranger. Why is that?

Thanks, good luck on the last movement! Can't wait to listen to it :)

Heckel

Edit: Traditional form, not music. And listening over again, not as safe as I thought before. Looking over your score again also made me think that

Yes, I am a neo-classicist. I've utilized a lot of non-traditional techniques in these movements. I think last work you heard of mine.. the orchestration wasn't this good.

Hi Jason, I have enjoyed listening and will re-listen with headphones later. Looking forward to the finale!

Hey jawoodruff. I like this very much, the first movemnent sounded abit like a requiem without choir The second movement was very nice. The third movement was the best in my opinion. great work I realy liked it

I'm glad both of you enjoyed the work. I'm still finishing the finale of the symphony and will most likely post it in a day or so. It's going to be much longer than the 2nd and 3rd movements - as I planned.

Hi Jason

I am listening to it now, while reading the forum posts. I hear a lot of classicist things. You say you utilized a lot of non-traditional techniques. Can you point some out for me? I'd like to see them...

In the first movement, as Anti pointed out in his review, I utilized a serial row as a transitional passage - to good effect, I think (I barely notice its what it is). In the third movement, I utilize polytonality as well as extended harmony. I realize, btw, that the third movements incorporations are nothing new - many of the neo-classicists of the 20th century utilized those techniques.

Edited December 30, 200916 yr by jawoodruff

ok, then i'll listen to the 3rd movement (sofar only heard the first). and I didn't notice the serial row.

ok, then i'll listen to the 3rd movement (sofar only heard the first). and I didn't notice the serial row.

It is there - But - it mainly serves as a transitional passage (for the most part). Measures: 12 - 16 in the oboe.

So, I listened to the other two movements now. Personally I like the 3rd the most. Especially the chromatic downward motive. Harmonically the most interesting.

Some orchestrational issues: It is not clear in the score when woodwinds play solo and a2. Maybe I say this all the time, maybe I've never said this. But it is for some importance. As in the 3rd movement the fugue starting at ms 50. the first two entries have one ww with a string group. The third has oboe and flute. But there are some balance issues here. I would set the 1 entry to 1 bsn and the celli, the second 1 cla and 2nd Violins. The 3rd entry (if you want to keep it ww only) 2 oboes and 2 flutes, to stand clear against the strings in the other voices. But for a better polyphonic balance I would give the 3rd entry also a Violin section to play along...

Another question concerns the form. At a certain point in your movements I think: OK all the material has been presented, nothing new is going to happen. Maybe I am less neo-classical orientated, but I like development of the themes, same theme but new harmonies; something to surprise the listener. Or intertwine the themes. Maybe I overlooked, or maybe you did this intentional?

The orchestrational issues with the woodwinds I will correct once I tidy up the score. I posted the scores online as I was completed with the composition of the movements - without tidying up. The fugato section in the 3rd movement I will try your suggestions.

The form of the first movement is sonata allegro. The form of the second and third is just a basic binary (AB). I have a little thematic development in each of those movements - not to much though as I wanted those to be mainly lighter movements sandwiched between the first and fourth. I intended at first to utilize a codetta for each of the inner movements but felt after I got to a certain point that the movements themselves were complete. Mind you the overall thematic structure of the entire symphony is quite stringent. I've utilized the same material for each of the four movements - so overall there is plenty of development of the 2 - 3 thematic ideas.

Since the link between the network and here is broken... here are the reviews from the Network:

Davison said on January 1, 2010, 3:59 pm: FOR 3rd Mov't in the third mov't, I found (in my opinion) the bass part to be boring. I looked and saw that majority of the time, the bass was either playing the roots of chords, or the arpeggio's of those chords, which is a little boring. I looked and it looked like they were only playing about 30% of the time. I feel like their parts could be a little more complex (this is in my opinion). One thing I really liked was how you went from G minor (I) to D major (V). I really enjoyed that!

blackballoons said on January 3, 2010, 6:12 pm: It's very Gothic and neo-Mozart. I like it! Keep this up.