Symphony #3 in A major

Vince: I hardly know what to say to such a sincere outpouring of generous praise. I'm just very glad you enjoyed it so much. It may sound like I planned the piece, but I really planned very little if anything. I tend to let things flow out of me as they will, tweaking things that don't work if I have to. Thanks very much.

P.S. shhhh....don't tell anyone, but I got teary-eyed hearing the 2nd movement

Your secret is safe with me...you ol' softie. :D

Michel: You and I have had our differences of opinon in the past, but I must own that they only got acrimonious because I got too emotional. I'm trying to practice more detachment these days, so I am hearing your comments here with a new outlook and a more open mind.

The way I feel now, in the midst of a transition not only in my music but in just about every other aspect of my life, I feel like almost anything is possible. I can promise you this: I'll keep my mind open. That's been much of the issue in the past - aside from the fact that I just don't have many ideas outside my particular box, and I still don't see why relevance is important. But my evolution into something that's spreading beyond Classicism seems to be happening quite on its own. With the right attitude - and a little less fear - it's anyone's guess what I might come up with. I really appreciate your frankness, your acknowledgement of my ability, your encouragement, and above all, your fine example.

Quite honestly, Lee, if you weren't so overflowing with musical talent, I wouldn't give a crap about what style you were writing in. But I see potential, and I can almost hear what you could be doing that would just blow us all away. THAT is why I care about relevance.

I know some people think that it doesn't matter what year the music was written in, as long as it's beautiful. In one way, yes, this is true.

however, let me give you an example, which on teh surface is VERY insulting - and I don't want you to take this as an insult, it's just a REALLY exagerated example:

You read a novel, and you're told it's written by a 6-yr old child, and it's well-written. You're blow away by how a 6-yr old wrote it.

You read the same novel, but written by an adult. You can't view it the same way as if it were written by a 6-yr old.

You might enjoy the novel, regardless of the author, but it has a completely different impact coming from each one.

From the adult it's a competant novel. Period. You don't expect any less from any student of literature.

But from the child, it's the promise of greater things yet to come.

If you were a youngster, barely aware of the musical world around you, then I would be amazed at your work and overjoyed at the potential of what is still to come.

As an adult, however, I expect you to have come into contact with MORE of the musical world around you, to have been affected by it, coloured by it, influenced by it.

You haven't "just begun" your musical journey. You've consciously chosen to not take the journey. It's with this that I have an issue.

To write a "mozartian" symphony is a great feat. Particularly that this is a VERY good piece, well written, and involving. But knowing that you've chosen to remain at that point brings me great pain.

You might make the best peanut butter sandwich in the world, a peanut butter sandwich that brings people to their knees with emotion... but that will never make you a chef if you refuse to use any ingredients other than bread and peanut butter. It simply makes you a curiosity of sorts.

There are musical works from that era that are masterpieces, which reflect that era, whose quirks and "experimentations" are a direct reflection of that epoch. When we perform those works, we don't do so in a vacuum. We are aware of what they represent on a grand scale of musical evolution. We understand that "that note" was what inspired Beethoven to write this piece, which in turn inspired Brahms, which in turn inspired Faur

First sorry I could only listen properly to the first two movements. Excellent work and definitely something I admire you doing as I haven't gotten to to writing a symphony yet.

I do share some of QC's reservations --- remember the quote of Ravel's when Gershwin asked to study with him? Ravel said why study with me to be a second rate Ravel when you are a first rate Gershwin! Now please, the work is very well done - nothing second rate here -- and this is a more a difference in aesthetics!

Here are my observations -

Excellent counterpoint and nice dialogue with the orchestral choirs. My only quibble is to rely a little less on the horns and woodwinds for pedal points and dramatic harmonic changes (you seems to like to highlight diminished chords with this group). Small stuff though.

Structurally good job though I thought the recall of the opening motif about 10-20 seconds before the end of the first movement didn't feel prepared --- felt like you did it more for stucture's sake rather than musical. This of course is a taste issue. Another case is the second movement where the lacrimosa like motif could have been a fugue as suggested elsewhere that struggles for light and achieves it with the second subject you brought.

Observation - the first subject in first movement is strongly suggestive of beethoven's first theme in the last movement of his second symphony.

Last, I enjoy your active textures and for the most part it works well but once in awhile I get a little tired of string and woodwinds doing alberti basses or countermelodies or a pedal point,etc. I have a feeling that your confidence wanes without them once in awhile (example, the recap of the opening motive in the second movement is a great idea and the spare texture is so welcomed but the resolution though correct and fine structurally seems too expected).

So, again small stuff - excellent job. I also think I hear some nascent new directions in the second movement (Somewhere around 2:30 - 2:45 in the recording)

Michel: You don't seem to be debating here - you're trying to encourage me (and very effectively, too) to move in a more modern direction because you see potential. Maybe if more of the people who criticised me for what I do early on had been so positive in their persuasion, I might have been more of the mind to try harder. The key is, I think, that you're not derisive or condescending, whereas many of those I showed my early work to were a whole lot of both.

I'm taking what you've said seriously going forward into whatever this transition is that I'm in.

Composerorganist: Thanks for the comments!

My only quibble is to rely a little less on the horns and woodwinds for pedal points and dramatic harmonic changes

This is something I would do somewhat less of with a larger orchestra (such as in my 2nd symphony), but in this style, with such a small ensemble, and writing for natural horns (without valves) playing only harmonics of their fundamental (or modifications thereof), there isn't a whole lot else I could have done. If you listen to the symphonies of other classicists who used this size of orchestra back in the day, they do much the same thing, which is what I heard and was emulating. It's a very limiting ensemble to work with, and I probably will not use it again for that reason; but I find that limitation is great exercise, mentally and artistically. I've never thrived on absolute artistic freedom as others do. I'm at my best overcoming limitations.

Observation - the first subject in first movement is strongly suggestive of beethoven's first theme in the last movement of his second symphony.

Hah! you're right! The opening interval is different, there is an extra note in it, and metre is different, but otherwise very suggestive. I suppose it's nearly impossible to avoid similarities in a style this well explored. I've lost sleep over stuff like this in the past, but I'm not really worried about this one...they're different enough.

Another case is the second movement where the lacrimosa like motif could have been a fugue as suggested elsewhere that struggles for light and achieves it with the second subject you brought.

What an interesting suggestion. I'm big on fugues...might be something to think on for a revision.

Thanks again!

Lee -

Thank you for your response. And thanks for the info about the restrictions imposed by your ensemble -- sounds like a cool limitation actually.

One more bit of advice --- DO NOT REVISE THIS PIECE! It stands very well on its own and I do not think it wise now to alter a note. If you like the idea of a somber fugue struggling for joy and the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel, then start entirely fresh. Here is a challenge - take Beethoven's Grosse Fugue from his late string quartet (or something like it - just a non-baroque fugue, one exception being Zelenka) as a model of study and then use my suggestion to improve on Beethoven or whatever model you use (hey, why not be a little ballsy!). Lastly, you said you explored a little of Brahmns' techniques in your second movement. Well, that is another path to explore.

Continue the good work and look forward to more of your works.

WOW! I can't stop listening to this masterpiece! It is magnificent, it is as if I am listening to something fresh out of the Classical Era, I understand that was your intention?

Anyway, the only thing i can say is that i belive the fermarta in the first movement is far too long, but i understand from previous posts that it was your music writing program that set the fermarta to a long default pause. Regardless, i just thought i would point it out again =P

Thanks for giving my ears a real treat!

Anyway, the only thing i can say is that i belive the fermarta in the first movement is far too long, but i understand from previous posts that it was your music writing program that set the fermarta to a long default pause.

Indeed...something I have little control over, and not enough patience to experiment with overcoming in the PLAY version of the file...maybe if I put the fermata over an eighth rest instead of the quarter rest...yadayadaydada...I just let it be. What I heard in my head was basically an extra quarter note of time, not three or whatever it is in the playback.

Glad you enjoyed it!

I agree completely with what QCC said

I thought it was a little melodramatic, BUT, it's good advice.

I don't know if the issue is writing "in style" or that you're afraid of trying other things. Taking some risks can be very rewarding, but you will never know unless you try.

So, I'd say that the choice of idiom is personal and I have no problems with someone writing "like Mozart" until they die. The only issue I find is when they only did so because they were too afraid to venture outside what they knew they could do well.

I'm not saying this is the case here, but it's something to think about.

I thought it was a little melodramatic, BUT, it's good advice.

I don't know if the issue is writing "in style" or that you're afraid of trying other things. Taking some risks can be very rewarding, but you will never know unless you try.

So, I'd say that the choice of idiom is personal and I have no problems with someone writing "like Mozart" until they die. The only issue I find is when they only did so because they were too afraid to venture outside what they knew they could do well.

I'm not saying this is the case here, but it's something to think about.

From what I know about Lee, he chose to write in a classical style, not because he's afraid to try other stuff (I remember him saying he had tried composing in a more modern idiom) but because it's the music he likes the most.

I didn't think this composition sounded particularly like any composer I'd heard before, except perhaps, well.... you! I wouldn't have attributed it to Mozart, Schubert or any of the aforementioned composers. The best advice I can offer is that you write in the idiom with which you feel you have the closest affinity. Audiences can detect ersatz modernity as quickly as they can detect ersatz Mozart, and unless you actually feel inclined, inspired or driven to write in a more modern idiom, the results are unlikely to be impressive. I would however concur that an exploration of more modern repertoire couldn't be anything less than beneficial, if only to lure your unconscious closer to the 21st-century.

From what I know about Lee, he chose to write in a classical style, not because he's afraid to try other stuff (I remember him saying he had tried composing in a more modern idiom) but because it's the music he likes the most.

Spot on. Or rather, Classicism chose me. And yes, I have tried composing in more modern idioms with varying degrees of success. The vast majority of ideas that occur to me are Classical. That seems to be changing, gradually and without my willing it; I'm going to embrace it, but I'm not going to force it. All in good time.

The best advice I can offer is that you write in the idiom with which you feel you have the closest affinity.

I think that's good advice for almost anyone. It just so happens that most composers have an affinity for musical expressions that are at least relevant to their times. I've been one of those who didn't. My modern experiments mostly felt uninspired and artificial, with only a few exceptions, so I chose to stay true to my instincts.

I would however concur that an exploration of more modern repertoire couldn't be anything less than beneficial, if only to lure your unconscious closer to the 21st-century.

I don't sit around listening to contemporary music, I admit, but I have performed a vast quantity of it. Most of the ensembles I have performed with over the last 25 years have been devoted to the promotion and exploration of contemporary music, and I've been proud to be part of that tradition. It's surprising that more of it hasn't rubbed off on me, but it hasn't really.

Spot on. Or rather, Classicism chose me. And yes, I have tried composing in more modern idioms with varying degrees of success. [/Quote]

I would be interested to hear your take on more recent musical idioms! I am very impressed by your work and it is clear that you have a huge amount of skill and ability since your music is very accomplished and you can 'hear' the music you write. I have often wondered what Mozart or Beethoven would have made of the late romanticism of Wagner/Tschaikovsky and/or the impressionism of Debussy/Ravel. While it is impossible to ascertain whether you are the reincarnation of Mozart or Beethoven from just one listen to your work (!) it is obvious to me at least that you are a very talented and able composer. I would therefore love to hear your take on more recent music, and I instinctively feel that even if you simply listened to some more recent music, that you would probably find yourself with a great understanding of 'newer' harmonies. I have found from my experience that hearing new harmonies positively affects my ability to improvise be it in my head or at the piano. If you hear the 'tristan chord' a few times, for example it suddenly becomes very easy to conceive of. Of course the tristan chord is just the tip of the iceberg!

The vast majority of ideas that occur to me are Classical. That seems to be changing, gradually and without my willing it; I'm going to embrace it, but I'm not going to force it. All in good time. [/Quote]

A similar thing happened to me. A lot of my ideas used to sound very 'Tschaikovskian', but have moved forward a bit since then. However, if I want to I can still imagine Tscahaikovskian-esque music, so you shouldn't worry that writing newer music would inhibit your ability to write such wonderful classical-esque music!

I don't sit around listening to contemporary music, I admit, but I have performed a vast quantity of it. Most of the ensembles I have performed with over the last 25 years have been devoted to the promotion and exploration of contemporary music, and I've been proud to be part of that tradition. It's surprising that more of it hasn't rubbed off on me, but it hasn't really.

Rather than listening to contemporary music, I think you should listen to music with a stronger resemblance to classicalism. Tschaikovsky, Wagner or Brahms would be a good start, and then of course you could try Mussorgsky, Rachmaninov and maybe Ravel and Debussy.. Of course these are just a few ideas, and there's some even more recent music that you might well find appealing.

That's my take on the situation! However, whatever you decide to do, you will always write wonderfully accomplished music; that much is clear!

Rather than listening to contemporary music, I think you should listen to music with a stronger resemblance to classicalism. Tschaikovsky, Wagner or Brahms would be a good start, and then of course you could try Mussorgsky, Rachmaninov and maybe Ravel and Debussy.. Of course these are just a few ideas, and there's some even more recent music that you might well find appealing.

lol

Yeah Lee, you can always start with Brahms. :P

The sketches I have so far for my Symphony #4 in G minor sound like Mendelssohn and Brahms had a love-child together.

Thanks for your support and compliments, guys!

Interesting, can't wait to hear it! While you're at it, put some Tschaikovsky in for good measure..!

Oh my god! That's so revolutionary for a classicist! I'm excited.

The sketches I have so far for my Symphony #4 in G minor sound like Mendelssohn and Brahms had a love-child together.

Thanks for your support and compliments, guys!

I can't wait for your forth Symphony!! I love Brahms and I cant wait to see what you do to him.

I also am unworthy to critique your 3rd Symphony! Its Amazing:thumbsup:!

I especially like the second movement reminds me of the lacrimosa.

Also have you done any choral symphonies? I am sorry but I haven't listened to any of your other works yet.

The sketches I have so far for my Symphony #4 in G minor sound like Mendelssohn and Brahms had a love-child together!

JLG, your modesty is astounding! I'm sure the composition will be brilliant, and I'm more than prepared to wait.

On a marginally different note, if one looks at other forms of artistic expression, some of the best moments occur when people try (and inevitably fail) to replicate precisely those aspects of the past they most adored. It's what gave us the Renaissance, it's what gave us Victorian neo-Gothic architecture, it's what gave us American neo-Classicism. I am, in fact, hard pressed to find a single piece of architecture I admire that doesn't draw incredibly highly upon precedent.

America's third favourite building is actually almost a replica - the Washington State Cathedral.

Wow!

What an amazing piece of music and a great accomplishment! This is a beautifully crafted work of art all around. Drama, lyricism, beauty, and dynamics express themselves to their highest potential in the Third Symphony. In a style that is completely your own, yet brings to mind Mozart, Haydn, and Boccherini, you excel greatly and bring to life passion and art in it's highest form.

And to quote Robert Schumann:

"Hats off gentlemen, a genius."

BTW: Did you take your other off the site? I can't find them in your attachments, but I'll search for them.

Hi Edgar! Thank you for your very generous compliments. You heard Boccherini influence in this piece? How very cool! :D The others are obvious, but I hadn't realised that my admiration of Boccherini had made its way into my own work, however subtly.

I've been in the process of making new MP3 renderings of many of my pieces for some time, which is partly why you're not seeing live links for my 1st and 2nd Symphonies. When I finish them, I'll bump their threads. Thanks for your interest, and I'm glad you enjoyed this piece.

Hi!

I find it very interesting that you choose to compose in a classical style. Not many people choose this particular era. It is mostly replaced by bumptious Romanticism or fake Baroque. Or just weird contemporary. I am very indecisive and I flit between styles. I wish I could choose one. Am I rambling? Yes. Alright then, I'll close this up.

I'm looking forward to your other symphonies!

And good luck with the fourth! :)

I've been what I call a "Classical Revivalist" my whole life. I do dabble in other styles, most notably Baroque - convincingly enough, apparently, that I was accorded membership in Vox Saeculorum, a society of Neo-Baroque composers - but Classicism is the music of my heart. The vast majority of all my musical thoughts are in this vein. As I have often said, I might compose more contemporary-sounding music if I had more contemporary thoughts.

By the by, if you censor your 50 words or so as rambling, you may be in for a bit of a surprise around here. ;) Welcome to the forum! Hope you'll enjoy your time here.

Hi!

I find it very interesting that you choose to compose in a classical style. Not many people choose this particular era. It is mostly replaced by bumptious Romanticism or fake Baroque. Or just weird contemporary. I am very indecisive and I flit between styles. I wish I could choose one. Am I rambling? Yes. Alright then, I'll close this up.

I'm looking forward to your other symphonies!

And good luck with the fourth! :)

So uh.... Composing a new work in classical style is cool, but composing a new work in baroque style is fake? Why is that?

I see you have a baroque experiment up. hmm.

Funny how people argue only in their own interests.

Well, my words may have been a bit much. I was observing that some people who compose in those styles embody those tendencies.

I didn't mean anyone in particular, and I didn't mean to cause an argument.

;)

I'm sure this was an unfortunate misunderstanding. Edgar, meet Grant Colburn, one of the foremost American composers of the Neo-Baroque movement.

Grant Colburn

What you've probably heard, Edgar, is the plethora of ersatz Baroque out there, and there is plenty of it. Grant is one of those guys who really knows what he's doing. He's one of the founders of Vox Saeculorum and the guy who put my name forward for membership. Check his stuff out! :D