Symphony in E-flat: Mov. 2 [OLD VERSION]

This is the completed 2nd movement of my new Symphony in E-flat. Comments welcome![EDIT!] This is the old version! You can see the new version here: http://forum.youngcomposers.com/t29021/symphony-in-e-flat/

Symphony in E-flat: Mov. 2 [OLD VERSION]

Beautiful work, I especially like the tutti crescendo at 87 that will linger on through the switch to pianissimo clarinet and violin at 88. I'm always cautious about suggesting changes to another's composition, and here I have very little to say because you're orchestration is solid and I think you accomplished what you set out to do, plus the music is clear and interesting enough. What may be important now is how this movement relates to the others and why.

Here are some things to think about in relation to the score. Do you ever add harp pedaling? Do you really want the low string cautionary accidentals in 35? Another thing you might consider, if you haven't already, is your use of double and triple dotted notes (like in m. 78). It is more typical to divide the beats for the performer (for example, a triple dotted half note would become a dotted half note tied to a dotted eighth). At 87 you might move each "dampen" inside the margin. There are other small things but your score is quite clean!

I thought this was very very beautiful. I really like the opening horn dialogue. The 4th horn has some weird jumps right there, but a mature-enough hornist should have no problems there. This sounded absolutely fantastic the whole way through, but I kind of lost interest halfway through because the piece moves so slowly to me, but overall this really sounded great!

Since you asked for a review:

Some of your chromatic choices make absolutely no sense... for example bar 22: you have a Bb and then an A# - enharmonically, I see no reason for the A#. Your overall structure is also very bewildering. The theme really doesn't change much throughout the movement - was this intentional? Your overall build is good - but nothing to really 'draw' the listener in much. This is a moot point and could possibly be a subjective thing - mind you, I'm a neoclassicist and I am more drawn to neoclassical styles of structure and development - which this piece completely neglects. The orchestration is pretty safe as well - none that I can see as being a problem (though your harp passages may need some work... I see a few instances where you have harp competing against very impassioned strings). Overall, I like it.

nice to see you are still writing

I felt the lines were sometimes a bit to static for me, long I64-V-I cadences, that was a bit over the top, but thats a mater of taste. I liked the way you did some nice harmonical things in the beginning.

I doubt if the passage at ms 60 is now the best as it could be. But I am not certain. I think the dovetailing would work better is you wrote if for 2 flutes and 2 oboes, I doubt if the piccolo is fitting in? I think it is to low for a piccolo to stand out against the oboes. Well. Not certain about this, any thought on why you did it this way?

Then the molto maestoso section. I think I feel how you want there a huge grandiose sound. I think I would add some moving chords in tuplets somewhere. Make the texture a bit less chordal, and give a bit more notes, so the conductor can make his ritenuto's for the wanted "heartfelt feeling".

just an idea...

score looks very neat and tidy. Nice to see you show a lot of orchestral skils

Quite possibly the best work you've written.

I didn't see the need for a change in the theme. Textural differences in the harmony and accompaniment served as well enough variation for my ears. I really have no complaints at all, except for in the molto maestoso section there were a few chords that didn't seem to lead enough into each other, but that's just minor and up to interpretation.

Very enjoyable

this movmenet made me cry , it remind me tchaikovsky no 5 the second movement , and i also want to know where is the first movement

Well agree with Anant - this is the best thing you have written so far that you have posted here. Why?

A. Far greater degree of interesting counterpoint - nice suspensions and allowing your them to linger. Especially good through the opening third.

B. The stasis works in your favor in that there is SO much more nuance in the orchestration than what you have posted here previously. Even when you do your favored orchestrated climax you do a great job cutting it back to smaller forces to continue the overall narrative of the piece.

C) Because of A your intermediate harmonies are more interesting. I agree that you still favor traditional cadential formulas a bit too much at times but these work much better due to the intermediate harmonies you have and counterpoint. In fact this aspect of your writing is reminiscent a little of Richard Strauss' less experimental works.

D) As I mentioned in B, one reason your orchestration sounds so nuanced is you really show more adeptness at creating chamber ensembles within the orchesta - the oboe and violins holding the melody while the clarinet offers an interjection is a good example of doing more with less.

So very good Tokke! Keep up the good work.

Sounds like long distance telephone commercial music with what has to be the most obvious and predictable "climax" ever written in history (congratulations, even Rossini knows a thing or two about pacing!)

In fact I burst out laughing when I heard it, so much so that I had to go back and hear it again. Like four times. Good times. Honestly you could as well shave the rest of the piece off and leave those five or six bars, it'd save everyone the time since it's obviously the entire point of the movement.

So much so in fact that I don't really understand what you're trying to accomplish before it. I mean yeah I guess it's a kind of "build up," but honestly you aren't really sticking to any motives or anything too characteristic- or as far as I could gather from listening to it once and looking over the score.

Speaking of the score. What's with the entire bunch of measures where everyone is in FF and the crescendo to FFF? You do realize that not all instruments sound just as loud with the same dynamic (hell you'll probably drown out your woodwinds, specially if they're playing divisi.) But really the orchestration is playing it safe so there's not much to say, it's OK for what it is.

Oh well. So this is part of a bigger thing I gathered from the tired'ol "Symphony" in the title. I think it would be cooler if the entire symphony is really that climax and nothing else. Shave off the other two movements and the rest of this. In fact I'm tempted to do that myself now, hahaha.

But I don't want to be too mean, so I'll say this would work OK as a soundtrack to some cheesy romance film or something, but that's really all I can see this working as. Otherwise, I'd much rather listen to Beethoven or Brahms if I wanted to hear something like this (but I really never do.)

SSC - a bit harsh wouldn't you say? Especially as his tastes are quite different from yours? But I'll grant you you are very honest. Sometimes it is is much preferable to people saying they like your stuff and then they never play it.

Tokke has been lucky though - he has gotten his orchestral stuff played by a few orchestras.

Well if you're writing replacement pieces in case people get bored of listening to the same Beethoven or Mahler, your chances are much greater than if you're actually, say, trying to do something that may involve offending someone's delicate sensibilities that orchestral music should always sound like this.

And yeah, it's sort of sad that crap like this gets played, again, since it's stand-in and sounds practically the same as the other viable stuff for orchestral repertoire. This is mostly why MOST composers don't write for orchestra these days, you only get played if you sound like other things already getting played constantly (Beethoven, Mahler, etc.)

Sad as it may be, Tokke may be as well successful in that respect, but only in his copying since he's competing after all directly with them warhorses. Guess who'll eventually win?

Well SSC, true about a good deal of commissions for new orchestral music (well for that matter even vocal and choral writing opportunities too and to a lesser extent liturgical music). But I do know there are occasional competitions and orchestras that are willing to try really new things. I mean Bernhard Lang gets his stuff performed and you can hear it on the Kairos label- albeit in Germany the environment is more accepting of avant garde I assume. Side note about Bernhard Lang - not really sure I like him or not yet. I love what he achieves but I have difficulty listening to it for long periods right now - it is such concentrated music despite the repetition.

I'll stand by my positive review as in context of Tokke's past works this shows an effort to get away from emulating older styles.

I like the piece! I'm not an experienced composer enough to give useful advice - I hear throughout the harmonic flowing something not entirely convincing, but I am unable to suggest a better move. The parabolic evolution of the piece is maybe common but certainly effective.

Did you already wrote the first movement? I expect as first course something starting brilliant and the beginning and then going more obscure to the end, and have this second movement is the revenge.

Great instrumentation, great development and very emotionally!

Fantastic!