Symphony no. 1 Op. 2 in C minor

I will do a proper review when I can actually listen to this symphony, but I wanted to get some technical stuff out of the way. I haven't read the rest of the thread so I apologize if there's repetition here. I know this is nitpicking, but the music really is in the details.

Mov. 1

• Instrument Names: How many of each wind? You have just "Flutes". It should be "Flutes 1, 2" and "Horns 1, 2" and "Horns 3, 4", not "Horn 1", "Horn 2" etc. I'm assuming this is a standard orchestra instrumentation (2222 4331 Timp 3Perc Strings). I have to assume because I don't know from the first page when I should.
• Bar 4: To what dynamic level should the cresc./dim. be to? f? fff? It's unclear.
• Bar 12: How many of each woodwind are playing here? 1 or 2? Also, ppp? Really? Seems a bit extreme. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it seems pp would certainly suffice. Small matter though.
• Bar 21: Funny orchestration there. I like the 1st Clarinet over the oboes, but the 2nd flute won't be heard at all. Also, your high trumpets there will drown everyone out, in the woodwinds especially defeating the purpose of any unusual registration choices. Also, why the timpani as written? Is there one bass note or two? I think it would be more effective as just the low G and low A etc. Also, I'm confused why you used the 3rd trumpet here sort of as a 5th horn. While some orchestration texts figure it that way, its not always true. In this case, I think a triadic trumpet section would be much better than the parallel 4ths you have now which, honestly, are quite isolated up there. They're very little support in the middle register (from about G4-E5).
• Bar 26: How many of each woodwind? If the moving line is solo, they might be overpowered by the brass. Tone down the brass orchestration, possibly eliminating the trumpets or doubling more woodwinds on the line.
• Bar 33: The Flute will be screechy up by those high Cs. How about a Piccolo? Not a big deal for a pro, but non-pro a huge deal.
• Bar 41: pp are all too far below the staff.
• Bar 48: How many of each brass? (You'll notice this is a continual problem. The numbers of how many are playing is very important to mark.)
• Bar 61: Why the alternating timpani? Why not just a roll? (I'm looking for justification here, not a reason not to do what you did.)
• Bar 65: How many of each woodwind?(!)
• Bar 74: Definitely should be a roll in Timpani. Is Fb in Trombone 2 a mistake?
• Bar 91: Where's the 3rd Trumpet?
• Bar 108: Another odd orchestration choice. The 2nd flute (and possibly the 1st flute as well) will get drowned out by that high 1st trumpet. Perhaps pull down the trumpet and pull up the flute.
• Bar 112: Trombone 3 solo? Ok! Unconventional, but cool.
• Bar 119: Notice that you'll get a sudden change in volume here with all the brass playing that quarter-half-quarter figure. At Bar 120, choose whether you want the trumpets as horns or trombones, not both. Triads are good in high register!
• Bar 130: That trombone note is unrealistic by one person. Distribute it between a couple of trombones (or, more appropriately, a couple horns).
• Bar 143: How many woodwinds?!
• Bar 149: The problem here is, its the same as what came 30 bars before. Mess with the orchestration some. Put that third trombone solo in the a4 unison horns for example and have the trombones play the Triplet figure. Double the moving 16th lines in the woodwinds with the strings. Mix it up a bit! Make it interesting.
• Bar 193: Same problem as Bar 21.
• In the recap here, there seems to be a lot of copy+paste. This is a no-no! Mix it up some! Lets see some interesting orchestration choices. For example, at 213, write that mini-canon in reverse order with the basses starting it. Change up the order and combination of entrances.
• Bar 254: Why are the woodwinds all in octaves? Unfortunately, they don't work like Organ stops where you can just add octaves and make it sound louder/brighter. Why is the trombone 3 not joining the others? The last note should be a G in Trombone 3. Those trumpet parts will NOT be able to play pp in that register. In fact, I felt the whole coda to be a little tame. Why not give it a bit more life like the rest of your symphony has?

• Instrument Names: Same problem as Mov. 1.
• Bar 1: Dynamics? I don't see any. That's a bit careless. Trumpet 1 is a bit high here. The brass is a bit thick here. I'm not sure the feeling you want, but I would just get rid of the trumpets and trombones altogether.
• Bar 9: Which note is the bass note? C or F? Your orchestration suggests both, which is really impossible. The Tuba acts very much like the Basses in the Strings, not the cellos. Because of its construction, it will resonate better than the bassoons or cellos. So make sure it is always playing the true bass of the chord (unless its playing a solo part, which is rare anyway). I've had this happen where if a tuba and bassoon (or a bari sax in band) are so in tune with each other, especially in the lower register, their frequencies will actually amplify each other and create a sounding 32' resultant (an octave lower than the written). This also applies with trombones in chords. If the triad above a tuba is very in tune, the resultant can sometimes sound (depending on the type of chord and key, both of which influence resonance). Its a great little factoid that romantic composers exploited. If you look at Tchaikovsky's and Brahms' symphonies, the tuba is written in a relatively high register as if it is a 4th trombone because of this subtle resonance phenomenon. Whether they knew the science of it at the time is doubtful, but it indeed sounds like a posaune pedal organ stop when done correctly.
• Bar 29: There's the high trumpets again.
• Bar 33: More of the same? Bad! Change it up!

Mov. 3:

• Instrument Names: Same problem as Mov. 1.
• Bar 1: Yes! Dynamics! I like the triadic Trumpets, but why the Tuba as well? There's a huge hole in between them. And no, the strings won't fill it adequately.
• Bar 4: How many woodwinds?!?!
• Bar 39: Trumpets 1, 2 might have a hard time holding that note piano. I suggest just an 8th note.
• Bar 41: Are the 1st Violins just supposed to hang from the dissolving tutti? It won't be as effective with them coming in mid-phrase. I would bring them holding their high note at Bar 39, altering for harmony if necessary.
• Bar 50: HOW MANY WOODWINDS?!
• Bar 71: Woah! High D in trumpet? That's gonna "blow" everyone away.
• Bar 72: NO!!! No Tenor clef in Trombones! If you're writing to need Tenor Clef, you're writing too high. The high C there is a bit overdone. While certainly not impossible, why do it when its more comfortable elsewhere? Stick that in a horn.
• Bar 80: Here I would have the moving line that's currently in Trumpet 1 put in the woodwinds. The trumpets would be better served pushing the harmony forward with the halfs and descending 8ths. Trombones have a mistake in bar 70, its a 4th too high.
• Bar 91: Here is an exceptional case where I think the alternating timpani notes are very effective. I would write solo with fff in the part though. It gives the timpanist a moment to shine.
• Bar 99: Same problem as 39/41
• Bar 107: More of the same! NO! BAD BAD BAD!

That's all I have for now. I will do a musical review soon! Feel free to ask me about any of these problems and/or disregard them. It is, after all, your symphony, not mine. But these choices are the ones I would make.

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!

Some musical thoughts on the symphony. These comments are mostly concerned with melodies and form to the overall movements.

Mov. I

Wonderful use of canon throughout. I loved the dissonances (whether intentional or not) that resulted from several lines of the same melody rubbing each other and causing tonal chaos. I thought the development was very Beethoven-esque, almost too much so. Also, the thematic material was also Beethoven-esque, but not. The themes themselves are very good, simple and consice, but complex enough that you get some interesting development happening, especially in canon. The biggest gripe I have was perhaps that you could have gone much farther with development than you did. I would have loved to see some more remote tonalities (like F# major, or Eb minor) for moments in the development. Also, some more fragmentation of the melodies would be nice, and more variation on the melodies such as inversions or even retrogrades on the theme. The reason I say this is because the recapitulation was a bit too expected. You didn't really, for lack of a better analogy, take a sledgehammer to the themes and then put them back together again even more elegantly and perfectly than in the exposition, which is what Beethoven and Brahms always did. They were masters at bringing it back home, often unexpectedly (Eroica 3rd horn anyone?). I think this piece could use a bit of that spirit. Otherwise, it was great! Good job!

Mov. II

This one I cannot say I liked. Actually, I found it very boring. Using the same theme from the 1st movement, while admirable, just didn't seem to fit here. A better suggestion would be to bring in some new themes and allude to the 1st mov. theme quietly and imperceptibly, i.e., don't blare out saying "THIS IS THE FIRST MOVEMENT THEME! DID YOU CATCH THAT?! I'LL PLAY IT AGAIN FOR YOU!!!" (exaggeration) Beethoven does this in his 5th symphony brilliantly, where the main themes are completely new (seemingly so) but uses inklings of that 4-note motif subtly. In fact, unless you have studied the score and know it is indeed written, you may not notice the connection at all, at least at first. The orchestration was also far to heavy throughout. It needed some soft beautiful music, not loud and homogenous music, which is what this movement offered.

Mov. III

This was better than the 2nd movement, but not better than the 1st. I think your use of the same 1st movement material was handled much better this time. Your opening section is good, for the most part. The section from bar 10 on gets a little boring too quickly and some of the notes aren't agreeing with the sequence harmonically. A very nice moment in the movement, however, was starting at bar 50 where you have another canon with this nice melody. I like how the rhythmic emphasis almost changes with all those beat 3 accents. I would question some of your orchestration choices here because certain lines will be drowned out or overpowered (as I mentioned in my last review). (i.e. Trumpet 1 would overpower here.) As this section continues on it gets stormier, which was really good. Again, somewhat Beethoven-esque, but unique too. I actually liked the quiet ending to bar 106. However, you again recapitulate. I was frustrated because this was the third time you did it in this symphony without contributing anything truly unique to the recap. Try something completely new, or, even better, don't recapitulate at all. If you insist on a recap, try an "implied recapitulation" where you don't actually do a copy+paste of the entire exposition, but you twist things around, change registers etc. I refer again to Beethoven 5 where he does this expertly in the last movement where he has three different elements happening at once. He has the bass register playing that 4-note motif, a grand countermelody in the middle register and the main theme in the high register. Then, in the recapitulation, he completely flips it putting the same material on top of itself. He puts the 4-note motif in the piccolo, the main theme in the basses.

It really is a stunning effect and something like that would be great here.Those are my musical thoughts. Good job and happy composing!

Thanks Tokke. I'm surprised you were bored by the second movement - and you actually heard the themes. The theme that connects this movement to previous movements is hidden in the bass and underlying progression... I really didn't want it to be THAT open for that movement.

i like this work very much

good job

Wow, I really enjoyed that! listened to the 1st and 3rd movements- no time atm for an in depth critique, but im listening to it here as i work.. marvellous neo classicism going on, as already said, like a choirless, neo-mozartian requiem! also liked the sound of the instruments,,which library is that youre using?

That was rendered with Finale Smart Synth (Sound Synth) in finale 2009.