Leaderboard

Notice that I said "I perceive this as a bit uninspired" and "I perceive this piece as a-thematic." I'm not accusing you of anything but simply trying to convey my experience of listening to the movement as a listener. I think my experience is valid and telling me that I've "missed the point" isn't going to change it. I offer up multiple theories and explanations as I search for a reason why this may be happening. I usually try to explain why I perceive the music a certain way by referring back to the music itself. But there are also internal reasons for why I perceive your symphony movement this way - that I am myself a very thematic composer. I usually find it difficult to justify the presence of sound in the absence of themes/melodies. I perceive the 3rd movement as definitely being more driven and motivically based. You repeat the motives more here, I think giving the movement more coherence for me. There are some very lyrical sections with long leading melodic lines in the middle slower part, with many contrapuntal lines interweaving. There is some beautiful interplay between the Strings, English Horn and French Horn. There is also some striking use of dissonance. On the whole I enjoyed this movement much more - great job! Edit: some of those really fast pizzicato passages near the end of the movement seem very unidiomatic and impossible to play!

Please forgive me for being a bit defensive! It can be difficult not to leap to die for my choices when I feel I’ve done something right, but like I said, there is different art for different people, and I greatly respect and appreciate your following up. This is my favorite movement in the piece! I’m so glad it came across well for you, I’ve had some very mixed reactions to that movement because of the rather unusual form. (Ternary and sonata form superimposed with the sonata form layer have a reversed recapitulation.) Yes they are! I’m aware and I need to fix them but I haven’t quite figured it out yet - if you have any suggestions I’d love to hear them.

Thank you for taking the time to listen and leave a comment! All I have to say about this is that I feel you’ve missed the point of the movement. Yes, it is rather abstract, and that is by design. This movement was originally written as a contrapuntal exercise which simply grew into something more. As such, it simply doesn’t rely on traditional melodic mechanisms or standard-fare romantic period harmonic structures. In many ways this piece has much more in common with renaissance counterpoint than most other symphonic music I’ve come across. If you’re looking for a “big tune” try listening to the finale, though if you consider this first movement incomprehensible then you may have a difficult time understanding the form of the finale. As for the accusation of, “indiscriminately entering notes into the sequencer,” I take some frustration. You do not know my process, so why insist on saying something so blatantly polemical? I fail to see the value in repeatedly saying things like that, as well as calling the music “a-thematic.” For your information, this movement took me nearly 8 months to complete, it was a tremendous amount of work, and I don’t take what seems to be largely unjustified criticism lightly. If you don’t like a piece of music, that’s fine! There’s plenty of music by very famous composers that simply doesn’t speak to me that I largely find no value in. Not all art is for everyone, we all have different things we prefer over others and I would hate to be someone that would force you to listen to something you don’t enjoy! But with that said, find something more grounded in the score to criticize than something along the lines of, ‘well, it’s not Tchaikovsky and there’s not a big obvious melodic gesture so the composer must not know what they’re doing.” (Yes I realize that’s not word for word what you said, but it’s not exactly far off either.) Again, thank you for taking the time to listen, as well as giving me the opportunity to spell out my feelings toward critics. 😉

Hi @olivercomposer! Great piece and tutorial! To clarify, I think that the part between 0:20 and 0:52 should be in 6/4. The reason for that is because the harmonic rhythm and phrasing seems to be encapsulated in 6 beats not 3. But the rest of the piece does work with 3/4. Thanks for sharing how you made this!

Hi @mercurypickles! 1st movement - I perceive this as a bit uninspired. Throughout the movement there is scarcely any chromatic inflection to the material. It's mostly diatonic and falls flat in sustaining melodic interest. I just finished listening to the movement and I can't whistle or hum a single theme. I think it's not very memorable because the pitches have been treated a bit indiscriminately. It lacks direction from the material itself. The crescendi and tutti sections aren't justified by the melodic material and instead serve to ornament a piece that lacks drive and direction. On 2nd listen I think that you start developing and over-complicating the orchestration and counterpoint before you allow the listener to really absorb the themes first. That might be why I perceive this piece as a-thematic. This might also arise out of just indiscriminately entering notes into the sequencer. It doesn't seem like you've streamlined this composition to really achieve its maximum effect with the notes you have. There is both not enough repetition and too much repetition. You repeat mundane and unimportant seeming ostinati while creating giant crescendi that don't really lead anywhere. But you don't seem to repeat (repetition with variation is very important in establishing the main themes) the themes enough for them to seem substantial and important enough to the listener to be remembered. It gives the movement a sort of sense of marking time. These are my thoughts about this movement. Thanks for sharing!