Symphony in A Major - 2022-?

1st movement only so far (started June 2022, finished December 2022), will probably be several years before completely finished.

693 measures, 21 minutes, based on 17 random themes

Scoring:

2 flutes, 2 oboes, 2 clarinets, 2 bassoons

3 horns, trumpet, trombone

2 violins, 2 violas, cello, double bass

Piano, harp

Hi and welcome to the forums! 

That's a decent chunk of material. Before diving in it, let me ask:
 

5 hours ago, Jaden Davidson said:

based on 17 random themes

Why 17?

And now, to the score:

• Not a harpist, but this  seems pretty uncomfortable to read (or at least one could say it has room for improvement in the engraving field) and the last bar has redundant silences. Apart from that, see how the arpeggio indication overlaps the silence in the first bar of the image.

Actually, the same goes for the piano staff. In the very first bars my guess is that you wanted to make the bass continue thorough the first four bars. You might already know this but in case you did not, you can engrave this by using the Sost. Pedal  which does exactly what you want to (maybe not in playback depending on the software you're using). I would also recommend the use of 8va. bassa in certain parts of the score such as the ones just below the harp part I took a screenshot of.

• I suppose the first theme ends at M66; It didn't really convince me because:

1. The question-answer structure you try to make at the beginning sounds too disunited to me. There's no question —to my ears— neither answer, and specially the end of each answer (the mordent) is very unsatisfying.
2. There's barely intervention from other instruments.
3. The register in both the harp and the piano is kept low in the whole passage, but this might not be necessarily bad if the phrases were more convincing. Not the case in my opinion.
    

• The sound in the playback doesn't help the second theme AT ALL, but that's independent of the score. For what I'm listening to up to now, this seems more like a piano concerto than a symphony.

• There's much chaos, lots of voices, each one wants more prominence than the others thorough this second (or already the third) theme. That often goes against the piece and not in its benefit.

• I believe the material you bring near minute 6 is really good. It needs polishing though, as well as the whole score actually.

• Again, not an harpist, but this is wrong and absolutely not idiomatic to my knowledge: 

1. C clef? Why? You put it twice in the staff without clef changes in between, too.
2. For how the harp is built (how pedals work), writing D and D# in the same chord is just not the way to do so. My recommendation: as I assume this is a work you would want to be as better engraved as possible, change those D# for Eb (the same for every other conflicting note); consider that the harpist needs to switch pedal positions for doing anything outside the natural alterations of the tonality, which is not really an issue unless you want them to do so during the execution of a single chord. For more info, I would recommend you to read Samuel Adler's "The study of orchestration", specifically the harp part of course.

• Sorry if I'm mistaken, but I am past the tenth page and I have not seen a single dynamic marking, which is almost compulsory in works of this density and length unless you intentionally want everything to sound with the very same volume. Summing that with the fact there are often lots of voices trying to get more prominence than other, this ends up as —in all honesty— a mess.

• I must insist: consider that we are talking about quite a big work, more than 20 minutes only the first movement and there's not variations in the volume of each voice overall. I haven't reached the tenth minute and I'm getting overwhelmed, exhausted and even a bit stressed already. I see neither a clear direction, nor significant chunks of good material as whenever they appear they rapidly get burdened by tons of notes of different voices that erase their momentum one another. Perhaps the only moments of contrast are the parts when there's barely any other instrument than the piano or the harp.

• The comeback to the first theme is a good choice in my opinion, regardless of the problems that lie into it. I would have ended the piece in M609, but instead you chose to continue and add another theme with poly-rhythms. All in all, the very, very last bars sounded interesting though replacing the left hand on the piano for a drum would have been a wiser choice.

In summary:

1. Very chaotic and unreasonably dense movement, with lots of voices trying to get prominence at the same time and no dynamics from what I've read.
2. Very questionable scoring: strange clef choices; non-idiomatic engraving for the harp; very messy piano engraving with —likely— redundant notes that get its voice dirtier and —also likely— nearly impossible passages; questionable scoring of the horns too, as in my opinion, more than one staff (just like you did with violins) would improve readability for the performers; notes, silences, clefs, etc. overlapping one another; badly split voices; too much unjustified "out of the staff" notes that may make its study more difficult (extended use of 8va. bassa and alta would be encouraged).
3. Despite its comeback to the very first theme nearly at the end of the piece, there's no recognizable structure other than one theme after another (I think, as some parts get too messy for me to know on a first and/or second listen) and linked together with more or less fortune. Probably, having a clear structure is not compulsory in a symphony nor in many other genres, much less abiding to a strict set of rules, but most of them have at least significant traces of one, and this is for a solid reason.

Perhaps you do not agree with me in anything I have commented and criticized here (though, there are some points that are not subject to opinions such as the harp engraving), and I totally respect it, but this is my honest opinion and I think this is what usually people desires to get. 

Before proceeding any further with your piece, please consider revisiting this movement extensively.

Kind regards,
Daniel–Ømicrón.

When I listen to a symphony or a big orchestra, I expect to hear all of the different instruments clearly when they play their part. And if the composition commands all the instruments to be playing, it must do it in such a way that makes sense for the composition. Also, it must be done sparingly, otherwise you exhaust your players, your conductor and your audience.

Your introduction and ending actually were the best parts, because I could hear the instruments very clearly. The harp had its moment, the piano had a solo part, and the cello chiming in was amazing. Then you got into the body of your piece, and I almost forgot the piano was a part of your movement. A concert piano is what, around $125K to $150K? And to have it not take command at any point seems to be a waste of a pianist, and an instrument. Most of the time the piano did not really have any breaks, but  I couldn't tell that it had any part. If you took out the piano, it wouldn't be missed. This is in stark contrast to something like Rachmaninoff's piano concerto 1. If you took out the piano section, it would be very noticeable.

Think about when you are painting a picture, and you use all the colors in that painting. If you use too many colors, they start to get muddled and you get black or brown. Your picture starts to lose its shape. The same can happen with music if you use too many instruments without a purpose. The ear becomes desensitized and doesn't know what it's listening to. This is why I say your intro and ending is where you nail it. You are controlling which instruments come in at specific points, the piano has a purpose, the harp has its purpose, and the beautiful cello line helps to accentuate your harmony. But I couldn't even tell you had violins and violas. And the cello got lost as the piece moved on.

As for your instrumentation, this is really important because you are using solo instruments where you should be using ensemble instruments. If you were to update your instrumentation to ensembles, you will have a much softer sound which your audience will thank you for. You should only use solo strings / woodwinds for chamber works.

Ok. I listened to it, and I gotta say I think you should put it on hold.

A symphony is a big deal and before you write one you should probably have atleast a basic knowledge of things like voice-leading, counterpoint, melody, form, orchestration, development, etc. I don’t know if you have done some research into any of these important theories, but if you have it doesn’t show. So the only thing I can say is put this on hold and study, it will be worth it.

I really don’t want you to be disappointed with your first symphony like I was with mine, (if this is your first that is, I’m making a pretty big assumption.)

Don’t take this the wrong way, I really mean the best for you and your journey as a composer and I don’t want to be the one to make you give up or discourage you. 

Good luck to you.

Would this represent reasonable dynamics for m1-29 (and 581-609)? I've never written dynamics before.

When theme 1 (m1-4 or m1-8) reappears, like in the piano bass at m92, what would your policy be on dynamics?

Completely depends on what are you looking for. How many pieces have you written, out of curiosity?

The approach you have taken in this section seems to work on those two instruments alone, regarding M92 it all depends on how much prominent you want the piano to be. There's no single, easy answer, sorry if I cannot be of further help in this specific part. 

Kind regards!

 

Hi @Jaden Davidson,

Welcome to the forum and thanks for joining the community!

I agree with @ComposaBoi's comment. Writing a Symphony is no big deal! You have to handle many instruments and if your basics are not rooted well you will probably find it really hard to continue. I suggest you to write piano works first since you can write good piano passages. In there you can practice writing on harmony, melody, form and development, and possibly counterpoint. Then you can start to write for chamber music and learn to employ different instruments and add interactions between the instruments. Then finally if you are familiar with different colours of different instruments and orchestration you can start writing symphonic pieces!

I love how ambitious you are to write with grand scale. But you have to first ask yourself why. Why do you need to write with 17 random themes? It's not a problem ifself if you know clearly why you have to, but it will be too ambitious if you don't. Second, you have to present the themes clear enough, but here it's not. It first suffers from the blurred tone colour as comments above have mentioned, and second it suffers from the lack of structure and directions. I am not going to lie, I lost my direction even reading the scores while listening. I heard lots of themes and modulations coming but I honestly cannot recognize them. It maybe clear for you to know which themes go where, but you have to make sure audience having clear perception of the themes. We can always add new materials and themes but we should have a reason for this, and develop the themes rather than just letting them appear and disappear.

The opening is actually quite strange for me despite being the clearest part, since it is very concerto like but not symphonic.

There are quite a number of scoring issues as well. First in b.187, b.311 and similar passages, violins and violas cannot play those natural harmonics. Many parts in the piano is unplayable e.g. b.239-241.

You should also engrave your score well, especially an orchestral one with many instruments. Many details should be added apart from the dynamics, for example the slurs, staccatos for the articulation, musical terms for the general mood, a2, uni, divisi, tutti marking for the indication of the instruments playing different parts etc. 

How many string players do you have for each part? The violins are very unclear in this excerpt. Maybe you should add more numbers to them.

I really suggest you to listen to more orchestral pieces! I have just listened to two amazing orchestral pieces here by @Quinn and @gmm:

I am sure you have many to learn from these two amazing orchestrators!!! Look at how they use the distinctive colours of each instrument and you can try to use them in your works, instead of just fill ups!!

You can take your time visiting other posts here as well!  I am sure you will learn much from our talented member!!

You have received many comments from us and maybe you will feel upset about it. But please don't! Please keep trying to write, probably with smaller scale works first and I am sure you will have progress! Even Beethoven could not have written his Ninth Symphony without writing his first eight, right?? 

Thanks for sharing!

Henry

This is not my first composition, although it is my first serious attempt at an orchestral piece. I started composing back in 2015 but until 2019 I felt like I was only writing nonsense, I never took any music theory classes or anything like that. I did start with just solo piano pieces, then wrote a quartet for piano and strings before moving on to this. I've generally always been relatively abstract with regards to the overall structure of a piece. Here's all the pieces I've written so far and deemed more than just nonsense: https://musescore.com/user/36365999

I am not at all upset by this, I just know what needs to be done to finalize the score and new tips for the other movements in the future. Dynamics will probably take a while to figure out for the first movement. Also, what do you mean by impossible harmonics in m311 and 187? Is it open strings that can't have natural harmonics? I've never played a violin or viola, so I'll probably need help understanding how harmonics work there.

Would these dynamics work for the first exposition, m66-104?

2 minutes ago, Jaden Davidson said:

Would these dynamics work for the first exposition, m66-104?

Those dynamics really help give it a nice sense of direction. So yes, that works very well.

And I think that adding dynamics overall will greatly help the piece, because the main problem, I think, is that it doesn't feel like it has direction or momentum. Though when relistening to some parts I can see what appear to be attempts at momentum that go unnoticed because of the lack of dynamics.

Something else that I think would help with direction and momentum would be to have stronger cadences (if strong cadences align with the style you wish to write) and having moments of climax and rest. Moments of climax and rest is perhaps the most important thing here as having high contrast between the dynamics of sections will keep it from being boring, as long music tends to become. (I love long music by the way, and I mostly like writing things a half hour or longer, so I'm not saying long music is boring, just that it is easy for it to be).

I also briefly thought that losing some of the density might be beneficial, but I feel that you want your music to be dense and that is perfectly fine. Scriabin's late orchestral works and Sorabji's Jami Symphony come to mind since they are also dense, long, dense, and don't have a strong sense of tonal direction, and yet they have a very strong sense momentum because of the climactic sections and moments of rest.

Don't take my comment too seriously either, I'm just sharing my thoughts.

Good luck to you and thanks for sharing.

Hi @Jaden Davidson,

12 hours ago, Jaden Davidson said:

Here's all the pieces I've written so far and deemed more than just nonsense

Of course I am not going to deem this as just nonsense. I look into your Musescore and find the Piano Quartet you have mentioned, which lasts 56 minutes. I think with pieces that extended (and this symphonic movement) we should have clear planning and structure before and during composing, instead of composing what we want. I have composed a Clarinet Quintet which lasts 62 minutes and I have used so much time to plan those sections and make sure the themes are clearly presented and developed and audience can acknowledge it. Whenever I add new passages I would have thought and evaluated so many times whether it fits into the context of the music and whether it coheres. It's never difficult to compose long pieces but the hardest thing is to make sense of it and have a reason for it. 

12 hours ago, Jaden Davidson said:

I never took any music theory classes or anything like that.

Even though you have never taken music theory classes, you can at least some books on it which teach you harmony, rhythm, counterpoint, voice leading and form and structure. For harmony you can read Harmony and Voice Leading by Aldwell and Schachter and listen to the examples. The series of Cambridge Assignments in Music is also very great for novice to have a basic understanding on music and composition, for example Form and Design for understanding musical forms, General Musicianship for having basic musicianship, History of Music for basic music history. They are books I had read and been taught when young, and I find them very useful and crucial reading as a novice. You don't necessarily follow all of those advice and guidelines but you have to first know the basics of music in order to write huge pieces of music in an hour and orchestral pieces!

12 hours ago, Jaden Davidson said:

Also, what do you mean by impossible harmonics in m311 and 187? Is it open strings that can't have natural harmonics? I've never played a violin or viola, so I'll probably need help understanding how harmonics work there.

You can consider using artificial harmonic in those passages if you want to have that effect. For a natural harmonic can only works for notes of the open strings under the overtone series, but the G sharps cannot be made with a natural harmonic. 

You can also post your pieces in Musescore here as well!! I am sure you will find many valuable and constructive comments here!

Henry

Another dynamics sample, m433-452:

51 minutes ago, Jaden Davidson said:

Another dynamics sample, m433-452:

Indeed the music is now clearer now, except for the cello and double bass since they are quite inaudible. Now I think it's more like a piano concerto here instead of a Symphony though. 

On 2/10/2023 at 2:34 AM, Jaden Davidson said:

Would these dynamics work for the first exposition, m66-104?

I still find the violins merely audible here. Do you use only 2 players for violins or at least a dozen of them?

Henry

18 hours ago, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

Indeed the music is now clearer now, except for the cello and double bass since they are quite inaudible. Now I think it's more like a piano concerto here instead of a Symphony though. 

I still find the violins merely audible here. Do you use only 2 players for violins or at least a dozen of them?

Henry

 

I clearly hear the cello and double bass throughout the m433-452 clip, maybe the piano volume should be lowered after 0:16.

In the m66-104 clip, the violins only get pizzicato notes. There are only 2 sections, but the total number of players isn't specified, should be at least 12 between both.

20 hours ago, Jaden Davidson said:

Another dynamics sample, m433-452:

It's crazy how much dynamics make the musical direction clearer. This sounds genuinely nice.

55 minutes ago, Jaden Davidson said:

should be at least 12 between both.

It looks like you use musescore and you're using the solo string sounds. Musescore has string section sounds which sound much nicer and would fit alot better if you know how to change that.

What I have so far on the 2nd movement: full dynamics included.

This movement is in a slower tempo (quarter = 30) in 5/4 time, with the key signature marked as A Phrygian. Final length planned to be 15-20 minutes.

Hello @Jaden Davidson,

Thanks for posting your update here!

With the dynamics the music is much clearer now! I love your usage of polyrhythm here as well which adds more more motion to it.

What will be your intended structure of the movement? For me this is quite Piano Concerto-like as in the first movement The wind instruments are not featured here right now and I hope more will come! 

Henry

Just wanted to tell how much I like and value the efforts on keeping up with this piece, both you ComposaBoi and Henry for the tips & constant reviews and of course you, Jaden. I look forward to check what you bring us in the future.

Kind regards!

2nd movement complete, with full dynamics.

96 measures, 17 minutes, 12 themes as well as a few taken from the 1st movement. Key signature is A Phrygian, mainly in 5/4.

I wonder if this movement is too simplistic, to be honest.