Symphony no 1 in A minor (I) March

Please note that this is the FIRST movement of this symphony. I will make more movements on the not too distant future.

Please enjoy!

Here is the pdf:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WL7JfQ4C3eoPIUxdXETpMme3a9HIsS_e/view

I recommend you listen to the score here since the mp3 can sound a bit off sometimes (especially at the ending)

I looked at the score.
My advice regarding symphonies would be first master traitional symphonies ideally with traditional orchestra (a whole lot smaller orchestra) in the cannon style of classical or late romantic style before even attempting experimental or innovativ music.

How can you invovate without a good foundation of the tradition?
Brahms spend 21 years on his first symphony and beethoven so i heard spend from sketching to full orchestra 30 years on his symphony no 9.
A symphony is not something you should be doing lightly. 

I don't say this to be rude but just to give some perspective on the symphony.

If you comfortablely can craft a symphony that stand along side Beethoven for example or at least immitate the form style and orchestration then and only then I would say you should try something like this.

Also how are you going to get this performed in the future with a orchestra so large?

Compose for the musicians not the computer.

I would also recomend sketching on a single staff or piano sketch. This is to make something more idiomatic and playable. Only after the whole piano sketch is complete then orchestrate.

32 minutes ago, Bjarke said:

Also how are you going to get this performed in the future with a orchestra so large?

I was trying to make a symphony a bit like what Gustav Mahler would make, that's why the orchestra is so large 

1 minute ago, Musicman_3254 said:

I was trying to make a symphony a bit like what Gustav Mahler would make, that's why the orchestra is so large 

 

That make sense. But i would still recomened starting with smaller orchestra in the start.
Because that will give you far more control over the orchestra later.
If you have complete control over smaller ensemble and can impress the listner with that the full orchestra will only add to that.
Also a tip from Mike verta:
Don't over orchestrate. Only orchestrate what it really needs(something i my self still practice)

How many years of experience composing/orchestrating do you have?(just curious) 

I would recomend taking a look at Ravels:
introduction et allegro pour harpe flute clarinette et quatuor a cordes.

He seems to do a lot with a small ensemble and sometimes make it sound like a full orchestra. 

8 hours ago, Bjarke said:

How many years of experience composing/orchestrating do you have?(just curious)

I think I've had around 1 year of composing 

The first question, that came to my mind is: are the piccolo players you know skilled in circular breathing? If not, the beginning should be revised, no piccolo player can play these high a's without breathing and hence breaking the obvious attempt to maintain the pitch uninterrupted.

I personally believe this is more appropriate to be the movement of a Suite, rather than a Symphony. 

The piece needs some modulations to other tonalities. The varied use of orchestration and dynamics help this music a lot, but there is no real climax or waypoint towards a certain progression of the musical material. 

You are relatively new in the field of composition. I remember my beginnings, and this is more ambitious than mine were though.

2 minutes ago, Sojar Voglar said:

The piece needs some modulations to other tonalities. The varied use of orchestration and dynamics help this music a lot, but there is no real climax or waypoint towards a certain progression of the musical material. 

That does make sense now you say that.

I'll try to use better modulation next time!

If you are aiming to be like Malher, you have huge shoes to fill.  

Per section: Triple or Quadrable woods, 6-8 horns, 4 trumpets, 4 trombones, 3 tubas (I think a wanger tuba); percusion, and strings. 

That is a large orchestra to write for. I recommend not writing for that.  Not at first. Trying writing for string orchestra first.  and then go from there. 

On the one hand, yes, it can be less daunting to work on smaller projects at first.

On the other hand, you don't seem to be daunted, and look at how much helpful feedback you have gotten by making this brave attempt that can guide you going forward!  The bigger the piece, the harder it is to get it performed, but in terms of learning, write what interests you.  That will keep you writing, which will keep you improving.  

1.  If we are never allowed to share what we write until we feel we are on par with Beethoven or Brahms, the world of new music is going to dry up.  2.  No one says you need to stop with this single draft, you too can keep revising this piece for twenty years.  3.  I bet Beethoven and Brahms shared what they were working on during their 21 and 30 years of sketching and revising, it's how we keep finding new things to fix and are encouraged to keep going, so keep writing, keep revising, and keep sharing periodically.

I never learned to knit because though I tried to learn several times, the people who taught me always insisted I start with a scarf, and I would diligently get about a foot in with nice even stitches and be dying of boredom and ask if I could put it down and try a simple pattern for a hat or pair of socks and they would refuse to share the secrets of hats and socks until I had made several more feet of scarf.  

So if working big is what interests you, to me, that's fine, as long as you don't need the encouragement of seeing things performed, which is easier to get with shorter pieces for smaller groups of musicians.  As long as you are interested, you'll keep going, and that means you'll keep learning and improving.