Symphony #1 in B-Flat Major

I deliberated for some time before deciding to post this early work. I'm proud of this piece one day and hate it the next. It's the product of a young man trying very hard to do something for which he's not sure he has the skill, and it shows at times.

It is my Symphony in B-flat, written in about six weeks during May and June of 1984, when I was 22 years old.

The initial inspiration for this piece (as evidenced particularly in the tight and orderly first movement) came from my study of the Mannheim symphonists, particularly Johann Stamitz, who pioneered the form in the 1740s and 1750s, as well as his son Carl Stamitz and Christian Cannabich.

Scoring (typical of symphonies in the 1770s):

2 Oboes

Bassoon (mostly doubling the cello)

2 Horns (treated as natural horns without valves - B-flat basso or E-flat as needed)

Strings

The movements:

I. Molto Allegro

II. Andantino

III. MENUETTO: Allegro

IV. Allegro

The first movement is, in a word, tight. It does what it needs to do.

The Andantino is the soul of the work. The fact that it is twice as long as the opening movement is both its strength and its weakness. This movement contains some of the best and most heartfelt music I'd written up to this point in my life. I fell in love with it while I was writing it, and had trouble letting it go. Even so, it achieves some balance and symmetry.

The Menuetto is unremarkable, but the Trio for oboe and bassoon is nice.

The Finale is really problematic. The thematic material is a bit weak, though handled fairly well for what it is. The fughetto B section fails miserably, as does a similar attempt at counterpoint in the D section. I didn't know what I was doing, plain and simple; let this be a warning to others who attempt something similar before they're ready! :( Strangely, when I put the B and D sections together as a double fughetto in the extended coda, they work better. Go figure.

This piece was performed twice during the 1980s, once with me conducting.

Anyway, it is what it is. Bon appetit!

Mvt I - Even if I did not know your preference for music eras, Lee, I would immediately feel from the first note transported back to a Viennese concert in the days of Mozart. Your ability to conjure up that sensation is a testament to your absorption of the music of that era. Your ability to playfully use trills and have them resolve in sucha satisfying way is one of those traits that I hope to learn from studying your music. I think your first and second subjects are both bright and brilliantly handled in both opening and closing sections. I felt a bit cheated that your development section was ot longer. I thought the subtle shifts of colour you employed there were some of the best in the entire piece. If you were to revise this piece, I think extending the development section would be the first place to start.

Mvt II - Okay, you are right, this is the soul of this work. You have soft soothing melodies that neverthless are capable of displaying warmth and a bit of tension at the same time. And you never take the material too hard, but always treat it with a gossamer touch. A few things stand out though. Around measure 50, you have a couple places where the music suddenly becomes uncharacteristically loud, and then immediately becomes quiet again. I was reminded of Haydn's Surprise Symhpony, but it seemed out of place to me. I was left wondering how effective those passages would be if you left the music at the same volume. I adore the transition back into the opening theme around measure 125. That was well done. And measures 250 to the end, my gosh, I swear I was just going to melt into a puddle of ecstacy. That was superb music. Truly the best me3asures of the whole piece. I just want to swim back into their tonal waters and savour each and every colour. Well done!

Mvt III - This piece is not terribly memorable. It works as a Menuet and Trio (the trio section was certainly enjoyable). What I could not help but think as I listened to it was that you have some standard cadences with some standard sounding melody and harmony around them. It sounds like a very good practice work, but after the ending of the second movement, it just falls so flat in comparison. I'm not sure what to suggest if you wanted to refurbish this work except perhaps that a new menuet is needed. This one is fine for a suite, but not in a heftier work.

Mvt IV - Your A section seems to be saying, "Look, we can play lots of notes in the same key without actually playing a melody!". No offence, but it just comes across that way to me. I found it hard to be interestedin the music or to pick upa discernable melody until the B section fughetta began. I thought that was quite clever actually. The C material was very melodic and had a nice relaxed drive to it. The D fughetta material was not as interesting as the B matieral, at least to me, though when you recombine them I thought it sounded quite pleasing. I also really enjoyed the section around measure 140 just before you reprise the A material. That was a very harmonically engaging section with a few tricks tossed in to keep us on our toes. The ending was a little quick for me. I thought you could draw it out and make it more satisfying by tossing ina few more harmoic twists like you had in the first and second movements.

Overall this is an enjoyable work, and it does have a sense of the early Mozart and Haydn about it. I hear many traits in this common to their works, though there were definitely places that I tihnk it could stand a little more effort. I think with what you know now, you could really make this piece sing and steal some hearts.

One point though. Is it just me, or do you seem to steadfastly avoid legato playing? Almost every note in these works was played staccato, and that began to bother me greatly the more I listened. The only time you held the notes for the full duration (at least according to the MIDI) was at the end of the second movement, those measures 250 and on that I so adored. Frankly, that's the best part of the whole piece. I think you ought to consider using a bit more legato in your works because it is with the legato playing that you can really make the music sing instead of just dance.

That's my impression at any rate. I greatly enjoyed listening to yet another of your major works, Lee. :(

Once again, Matusleo, I thank you for your thoughtful and insightful commentary. Revision of my works is not something I usually allow myself - I believe in leaving a complete record of my development as a composer, and I'm not ashamed of where I have fallen short or even failed - yet some of your comments may give me pause to reconsider. I'm pleased and gratified that you enjoyed the piece overall, and it's interesting to see where you concurred with my own assessment in some places, and had the opposite impression somewhere else.

I felt a bit cheated that your development section was ot longer. I thought the subtle shifts of colour you employed there were some of the best in the entire piece. If you were to revise this piece, I think extending the development section would be the first place to start.

Agreed. I admit I was fearful of development sections at the time...they're difficult to do well.

Around measure 50, you have a couple places where the music suddenly becomes uncharacteristically loud, and then immediately becomes quiet again. I was reminded of Haydn's Surprise Symhpony, but it seemed out of place to me. I was left wondering how effective those passages would be if you left the music at the same volume.

I recall these dynamic spikes working better in live performance than they do here...I'm not happy with them in the MIDI, either. I think I may need to work on the MIDI by pulling the adjusted "play" score into Finale 2005, which does a much better job of interpretation. This MIDI was made in Finale 2000, I believe. I had to write out all of the ornaments and make strange adjustments all over the place. I'll see if I can spend some time on it.

I adore the transition back into the opening theme around measure 125. That was well done. And measures 250 to the end, my gosh, I swear I was just going to melt into a puddle of ecstacy. That was superb music. Truly the best me3asures of the whole piece. I just want to swim back into their tonal waters and savour each and every colour. Well done!

Thanks sincerely. So you don't think the movement is too long? I'm relieved, because I just can't cut it.

Mvt III - This piece is not terribly memorable. It works as a Menuet and Trio (the trio section was certainly enjoyable)...This one is fine for a suite, but not in a heftier work.

These and all your other comments on this movement I concur with completely. I was never particularly happy with it even then. I may have to do just as you say and perhaps insert something more interesting here, moving this into my "Sundry Dances" suite as a sixth Minuet (there are already five).

Mvt IV - Your A section seems to be saying, "Look, we can play lots of notes in the same key without actually playing a melody!". No offence, but it just comes across that way to me.

None taken. I agree.

I found it hard to be interestedin the music or to pick upa discernable melody until the B section fughetta began. I thought that was quite clever actually...The D fughetta material was not as interesting as the B matieral, at least to me, though when you recombine them I thought it sounded quite pleasing.

Very interesting. I'm beating myself up because these little fugues don't "follow the rules"...I didn't know what they were yet. Another set of ears often hears things differently.

The ending was a little quick for me. I thought you could draw it out and make it more satisfying by tossing ina few more harmoic twists like you had in the first and second movements.

You're probably right. I remember being in a big hurry to finish this piece. I might have to give that some thought.

One point though. Is it just me, or do you seem to steadfastly avoid legato playing? Almost every note in these works was played staccato, and that began to bother me greatly the more I listened...I think you ought to consider using a bit more legato in your works because it is with the legato playing that you can really make the music sing instead of just dance.

Again, this was less of a problem in live performance, and what you're hearing is a problem with the way Finale "interprets" music. I use articulations in my compositions only sparingly - the style dictates amply what articulations should be employed; I don't need to gild the lily. By interpolating staccatos into the "play" versions of these movements, I was attempting to replicate the singing yet airy brush-stroke bowing that string players would automatically have employed in music like this. Unfortunately, there is no middle ground between the full value and a clipped, secco staccato in the version of Finale I was using at the time, and even now, Finale 2005 has some considerable shortcomings.

I'll see if I can spend more time with the files in Finale 2005 (time is in short supply in my life just now, but it might be worth it). I don't think these MIDIs are representative enough of my intentions.

Thank you again for being so generous with your time.

Thanks sincerely. So you don't think the movement is too long? I'm relieved, because I just can't cut it.

Definitely not too long. I'm listening to it again now as I write it and smiling because it is my favourite movement of the whole work. Some folks say that the adagio is the true soul of a work like a Symphony. In the case of this piece, it certainly is.

Very interesting. I'm beating myself up because these little fugues don't "follow the rules"...I didn't know what they were yet. Another set of ears often hears things differently.

Absolutely. Sometimes it's the only way we can really understand how our music will be received.

By interpolating staccatos into the "play" versions of these movements, I was attempting to replicate the singing yet airy brush-stroke bowing that string players would automatically have employed in music like this. Unfortunately, there is no middle ground between the full value and a clipped, secco staccato in the version of Finale I was using at the time, and even now, Finale 2005 has some considerable shortcomings.

Ah, okay that makes sense. Still, my favourite part of the piece was where you used legato notes at the end of the second movement. So I'm more disposed to legato playing. That is my personal preference though.

Thank you again for being so generous with your time.

I'm just impressed that you've managed to write as much music as you have, Lee. I personally would be quite pleased with myself to have written something like this. I struggle mightily to compose anything.

hi Lee! amazing work!!!! i am surprised with such faithful re-creation of the classic world you have made here! very pleasant piece! i am not the right guy to criticise classic works but it has delighted me in many special points and i think it has a fine overall sound! congrats!

you have said that the last mov. is the weakest of all, but for some reason i liked it more than the others. i think the fugatos are the main appeal for me....except for the first one, IMO a little "empty", all the others i think fine and effective.

Thanks, Franz! Glad you enjoyed it.

Hi.

Im new here - found this peace.

I just want to thank you for helping recreating the Mozart-style. You've done a quite good work. Maybe the modukalation should be some longer and better. But very good! I'm also glad that you want to compose this stuff. Many people, even my composingteacher, wants me to quite it and find my own style.

One of my golds in life is recreating the Classicm. And you helped me with this beatifull theme.

Thanks.

Daniel van Fladmose.

You're very welcome, and welcome to the forum. Thanks for taking the time to listen and comment on this piece. It was my first completed symphony, and I was very young, so there were a few problems. I may yet revise it despite my preference to let my early works be what they were. We'll see.

You're very welcome, and welcome to the forum. Thanks for taking the time to listen and comment on this piece. It was my first completed symphony, and I was very young, so there were a few problems. I may yet revise it despite my preference to let my early works be what they were. We'll see.

How old are you now?

I am 44 years old. I wrote that piece in 1984, when I was 22.

I'm not theoretically a "young" composer, but you'll find I'm fairly young at heart most of the time. There are a few of us like that here. :wub:

Wow, you wrote that when I was 5. That was the first time I ever dinked on a keyboard.

Its definately a finely structured work. Hey write another 40 of these and I will say you're as good as Mozart! :glare:

The first movement of your Symphony in G major is my most loved work of yours.

How did you go about notating this one though, way back in 1984?

Us modern Sibelius/Finale users may have never notated such a large work without a program. I haven't anyways, which is a bad thing.

Jeremy

Thanks! I notated this the old fashioned way - pencil and paper. All straight from my head onto the page. A lot of this piece was written while I was supposed to be working. Heh, what else is new. I'd never have been able to finish it in 6 weeks otherwise.

I still do a lot of sketching with pencil and paper. Sometimes a different part of my brain is engaged when I write things out by hand.

I didn't get Finale until 2000, I believe, so before that everything was done by hand.