Symphony in A

Hello,

I posted an earlier iteration of this work some time ago. A lot has since formed. The general structure of the first movement is complete; I still intend to vary the recapitulation somewhat as I prefer to not simply repeat the second subject verbatim. But it is more or less done.

I have also made a start on the second movement. This movement has a slightly unusual disposition and is on the way for becoming an ambitious piece with its emerging structure in mind.

I am posting here in advance of completion to gauge people's feelings about the musical ideas. Perhaps if anyone has suggestions I would love to hear perspectives. Or even if you like it, that helps to say too. Composing is otherwise an activity for solitude!

Second movement is @ 05:40.

Thanks!

Markus

Symphony in A (Draft).pdf

Edited 16 hours ago16 hr by Markus Boyd
File Edit

Hello! I have completed a first listen and looked over the score. I hope to do a deeper dive and analyze the score thoroughly, and the following are my initial thoughts.

1. Very much classical style, and quite refreshing to hear something in that style again.

2. Check your engraving. Over the entire score, you have rests with dynamic markings.

3. Page layout can be bigger or staves made smaller. At least 4 measures per page.

4. There is key information missing from the score. If anything, the number of instruments as well as copyright information. You just say "Flute, Oboe, Clarinet," however, do you intend for more than 1 player for this part?

5. Between the two movements, in Musescore, you can add a "SYSTEM BREAK" which will end the piece and add a pause after a double bar line. On the next page, it will list the full instrument parts again. (in the layout palette)
   

With the literal music, there is more play you can do with the structure or in your accompaniment parts I think. 5-minutes for a classical symphony is on the shorter side and you can mess with the idea of a repeat after the exposition and utilize a 1st and 2nd ending to propel yourself into the development. It's not a "double exposition" per-say, however very common for the music of the time.

6 hours ago, MK_Piano said:

Hello! I have completed a first listen and looked over the score. I hope to do a deeper dive and analyze the score thoroughly, and the following are my initial thoughts.

1. Very much classical style, and quite refreshing to hear something in that style again.

2. Check your engraving. Over the entire score, you have rests with dynamic markings.

3. Page layout can be bigger or staves made smaller. At least 4 measures per page.

4. There is key information missing from the score. If anything, the number of instruments as well as copyright information. You just say "Flute, Oboe, Clarinet," however, do you intend for more than 1 player for this part?

5. Between the two movements, in Musescore, you can add a "SYSTEM BREAK" which will end the piece and add a pause after a double bar line. On the next page, it will list the full instrument parts again. (in the layout palette)
   

With the literal music, there is more play you can do with the structure or in your accompaniment parts I think. 5-minutes for a classical symphony is on the shorter side and you can mess with the idea of a repeat after the exposition and utilize a 1st and 2nd ending to propel yourself into the development. It's not a "double exposition" per-say, however very common for the music of the time.

Thank you, Mason. I will amend the score layout this morning. I appreciate this will make it easier to scrutinize for those having a deep dive. The current view and lack of repeats is intention for my own eyes and there is often no point having repeats during this phase of work. But yet, with the repeats the first movement will be at least 10 minutes once I am done with it.

You seem to be a guy who knows his stuff. Very much looking forward to your comments. Will check out your stuff too!

Edited yesterday at 07:33 AM1 day by Markus Boyd
🫣

4 minutes ago, Markus Boyd said:

Thank you, Mark.

I think his name is actually Mason..🤣

4 hours ago, PeterthePapercomPoser said:

I think his name is actually Mason..🤣

Yup 😂🥲

18 hours ago, MK_Piano said:

Hello! I have completed a first listen and looked over the score. I hope to do a deeper dive and analyze the score thoroughly, and the following are my initial thoughts.

1. Very much classical style, and quite refreshing to hear something in that style again.

2. Check your engraving. Over the entire score, you have rests with dynamic markings.

3. Page layout can be bigger or staves made smaller. At least 4 measures per page.

4. There is key information missing from the score. If anything, the number of instruments as well as copyright information. You just say "Flute, Oboe, Clarinet," however, do you intend for more than 1 player for this part?

5. Between the two movements, in Musescore, you can add a "SYSTEM BREAK" which will end the piece and add a pause after a double bar line. On the next page, it will list the full instrument parts again. (in the layout palette)
   

With the literal music, there is more play you can do with the structure or in your accompaniment parts I think. 5-minutes for a classical symphony is on the shorter side and you can mess with the idea of a repeat after the exposition and utilize a 1st and 2nd ending to propel yourself into the development. It's not a "double exposition" per-say, however very common for the music of the time.

Just retuning this. I incorporated your suggestions (attached). This was a huge help, actually. I haven't paid much attention to the presentation of my scores - at least during draft stage - but I now recognize that it is a kind thing to do when sharing our work with others whatever stage of the process.

It was also a valuable lesson for me exploring how to do this properly in MuseScore (some functions I have never used).

As part of the formatting I halved the note values and time signature of the introduction to align better with the tempo marking.

I will definitely be exploring ways to make the closing of the exposition more interesting as I feel aspects of this are somewhat formulaic/uninspired; and I will also shake the recapitulation up.

PS - I also make some minor improvements to the voice leading in several areas since the original upload.

Thanks again, MASON!

Edited 16 hours ago16 hr by Markus Boyd

I’ve listened to the current version.

I must say I loved it.

And I’ll make a little confession. I like all musical styles and periods, from early music to contemporary. I have my favourite periods (the Baroque and Galant periods, late Romanticism, Impressionism and Expressionism, and in contemporary music, some things I like and others less so). The truth is that when I took the time to study music a little chronologically, I discovered how things develop.

I say this because the Classical period is one of the ones that appeals to me the least. I think it’s down to the aesthetic they use, which is somewhat restrained – and well, we all know what this style is like.

Your symphony seems to be in the Classical style, with hints of early Romanticism. It’s not that I’m obsessed with categorising things, but it helps to find points of reference.

Regardless of that, when someone writes something like this with creativity, inspiration and a lot of hard work behind it, I love it, whatever it sounds like.

Here I notice that the orchestra is of an early style; the woodwinds aren’t even in pairs and there are no brass instruments. But the way it sounds, it isn’t really necessary, to be honest. One of the things I’ve really liked is the clarity with which all the instruments sound when they have to stand out against, at times, a denser texture.

There’s a moment when the bassoon takes the lead and it’s brilliant (bar 58).

There are some lovely moments of counterpoint, such as the woodwinds from bar 20 or thereabouts.

I think the score has been very carefully put together. What’s more, the music library sounds brilliant (is it the one from MuseScore?).

Best regards.

2 hours ago, Luis Hernández said:

Your symphony seems to be in the Classical style, with hints of early Romanticism. It’s not that I’m obsessed with categorising things, but it helps to find points of reference.

Regardless of that, when someone writes something like this with creativity, inspiration and a lot of hard work behind it, I love it, whatever it sounds like.

Thanks, Luis. I am definitely being pulled towards early romanticism, and I am glad this is apparent. In recent years I have begun to listen to more Beethoven (generally early Beethoven, though) and his contemporaries (Like Reis, Anton Eberl). But I have also become increasingly influenced by the Sturm und Drang tradition.

As such,Kraus Is one current influence, particularly his c minor symphony that Haydn, after hearing, declared Kraus a genius. Sudden dramatic shifts are a hallmark of this style; the intention is often to keep the audience on edge, unsure what is coming next - despite remaining in the 'confines' of common practice. At least in historically informed performance today, top orchestras utilize stacatissimo technique in the strings (especially in the bass) during such moments in the minor that generates a kind of "badass" or "rogue" vibe that conveys an immense attitude that quite often overwhelms my own senses. If you listen to the Kraus, you will hear this effect in the climatic opening from around the 3 minute mark.

There is also some late Mozart. I first thought it was derived from Beethoven's slow movement from symphony 1 but is in fact Mozart's Prague symphony (compare the passage from bar 29 of his slow movement with 51 of mine). It essentially serves a modulatory function. Quite often these influences are subconscious and I find only later where they came from. Borrowing should be acceptable provided it is aligned with my own motivic development (hence my own unique spin rather than verbatim that might otherwise be out of place).

2 hours ago, Luis Hernández said:

the woodwinds aren’t even in pairs and there are no brass instruments. But the way it sounds, it isn’t really necessary, to be honest. One of the things I’ve really liked is the clarity with which all the instruments sound when they have to stand out against, at times, a denser texture.

You have found a weakness of mine. Orchestration is not a skill I have cultivated nearly as much as counterpoint & voice leading. This is why I tend to write chamber music only. Writing this work is intentionally out of my comfort zone. There is brass in this work but is used sparingly. And the woodwind pairings is something I should explore. The main thing is that the voice leading is outlined; the rest should largely be a doubling exercise. I will have to do some studies into this, however.

2 hours ago, Luis Hernández said:

I think the score has been very carefully put together. What’s more, the music library sounds brilliant (is it the one from MuseScore?).

Best regards.

The winds, brass and percussion is the default muse library (the base subscription package). The strings are the 'spitfire' package that cost me around £40.

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by Markus Boyd

I think transitional periods are very interesting.

This is the case with the galant style, which is firmly rooted in Baroque conventions but where dense counterpoint begins to give way to clearer melodies and accompaniment.

Something similar happens between the Classical and early Romantic periods.

I’m listening to your recommendation of Kraus, whom I wasn’t familiar with (Symphony in C minor), and it’s fantastic.

I think the choice of instruments in your symphony is spot on.

It depends on whether the approach is more chamber-music-like, as seems to be the case here, where there are many independent lines. As if it were an expanded quartet…

It’s true that as soon as you move on a little in the style, chronologically speaking, you already come across flutes, oboes, bassoons and horns in pairs.

Besides, if you don’t know what to do with so many instruments, you’re bound to get it only half right.

This reminds me, albeit in a different context, of the fantastic versions of Chopin’s two piano concertos with a string quartet or quintet. Although it seems that Chopin himself used this arrangement for the music salons of the time, there are versions arranged by other composers.

What I mean is that some pieces lend themselves to different approaches.

Others do not lend themselves to interpretations that stray too far from their original spirit. Like when Wagner reorchestrated Bellini’s Norma in a ‘massive’ style, and then disowned his own version (it’s never performed; Bellini requires lightness, not a Wagnerian orchestra). Anyway, I’m getting off topic.

Best regards

@Luis Hernández Yes I know Chopin's piano concerto's well. Some immense moments those particularly in the minor!