Leaderboard

And, to continue: nobody wouldn't mind all these soliloquys and inklings if there was any logical combination of form and creative musical language in them - although recent few bar pieces of yours are really terrible - sorry, I cannot tell a lie. All miniatures, preludes, nocturnos by composers such as Chopin, Mendelssohn, Schumann etc. are more or less perfect in formal and tonal structure. Believe me, their focus on both terms did not affect their expression at all. How to handle a form is necessary. Imagine the architecture: what would happen if all houses were designed strictly on inner expression of builders? Believe me, you wouldn't dare to try it in person.

Knowing the answer to that question.

Was its 1st movement structured according to the sonata form structural plan (that was my original question, which you didn't answer completely)? Was it proportionate? Did you feel at ease writing the transitions and such? Is the answer to the above questions is "yes, absolutely"? If so, and you've read a treatise about orchestration (e.g. Berlioz's, Rimski's...), then yes, you can absolutely write a symphony, since (in objective terms), it's just an orchestrated sonata. The view of the simphony as a self-contained universe only applies to some pieces, but not all of them by far.

Just to say there is a very good symphonist composer who is always misleading that is Joachim Raff! It is worth! And also Franz Lacher.

How to compose a symphony? This discussion doesn’t deserve a comment, but a book, a huge book! But I will try to be synthetic. There are fundamental aspects: 1- You may know what is your style. A Haydn symphony is very different from a Mahler symphony. But the true is that since Beethoven, compose a symphony is one of the highest stages of the music, like Masses, Oratorias and Operas! 2- Then as Austenite recommended you, is very important to listen the great contributions made by the great genius, I give you twenty examples which I consider fundamental. - Mozart 39, 40 and 41; - Haydn at least the104; - Beethoven 3, 7 and 9. - Schubert 8 and 9 - Brahms 3 and 4. - Bruckner 4, 6, 7 and 9. - Tchaikovsky 6. - Mahler 5, 6 and 9. - Rachmaninoff 2. 3- Gustav Mahler once said that create a symphony is create a new world. I ask you if you are prepared to create a world? It is important first to have composed piano sonatas, then after string quartets are also a great step and help. 4- Then learn orchestration in one (or more, more is always best) treaty, I recommend Rimsky Korsakov. These were the “pre-steps”. Now, knowing what you want: 5- First do the structure and the main themes. 6- After you start from the beginning composing on the piano, still not very worried with orchestration. But always thinking that it is an orchestra work and not a piano work (could be impossible to play for a pianist), it is good and normal that you start thinking in orchestration aspects, but what I want to say is that in this phase it could not be your first problem. 7- Then after have the piano score orchestrate. I give the advice to not use computer programs, use your ear! Don’t forget good themes, good harmonies and good counterpoint! Best wishes.

perhaps knowing that the composition can be improved infinitely and shouldn't be defended with excuses and denial when it comes to rational criticism. artistic conviction is one thing, pride that is driven by delusions of grandeur is another.

The burly lookin feller is the bass clef

To have something to say, or your music won't go beyond a few bars.

i am obviously referring to contemporary tonal music since that's what the thread is about. music based on classical principles (whether tonal or not) is primarily appreciated by the classical audience, which makes up ... 2% of all listeners, generously. experimental music is appreciated both by classical and nonclassical audiences, and is much more likely to act as an influence on pop musicians. look at Ives, Cage, Stockhausen, Penderecki, Xenakis, etc (and first-wave minimalism—Glass, Riley, Reich—which is basically part of the experimental tradition). nonclassical listeners have also heard of Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Vivaldi, Bach, Tchaikovsky, and if they're total hipsters, Debussy, whom they listen to for relaxation purposes.

1.) Music which to some extent acknowledges precedent. More specifically, I think the sense of a musical 'line' is very important. Ideas and development: something must 'stick' (though not necessarily at the immediate beginning of a composition). I really do enjoy music where ideas are developed in such a remote way that the realization of relationships are an exciting moment for the listener. Another thing is that something needs to happen. Consequence. This actually doesn't occur in some of the music I enjoy, but those pieces engage me in an entirely different way. Either way, I'd expect this to be necessary for 'accessibility'. 2.) Naturally, those pieces which avoid what I just described. I also think that the music which fulfills the 'Atonal horror music' stereotype fits the bill as well.

To me, most important is the usage of "good old fashioned" elements of music: rhythm, melody, harmony or at least some sort of vertical organization. I generally like anything within contemporary idiom (atonality, aleatorics, clusters, sound layers) if music is active, energetic and has enough contrasts. My favourite composers of contemporary music are Olivier Messiaen, Henri Dutilleux, Marc-Andre Dalbavie, Erkki Sven Tüür, Magnus Lindberg, some works of Einojuhani Rautavaara. I don't like composers such as John Cage, Morton Feldman, Earl Brown, Karlheinz Stockhausen because most of their compositions are static and boring.