Symphony in C

This is a Classical symphony I recently finished.  I started off with the idea of writing something in the style of Stamitz and the Mannheim school, but more Haydn/Mozart influence came in as I went along.  It's not really a pastiche, though; there are some harmonic things in the developments that are not really characteristic of the style, and it's very much written with modern instruments in mind.  Any feedback would be most appreciated.

The is great. The music flows remarkably well, and is developed with style and art. I enjoyed it very much. I wish the sounds were better. But even with the cheesy sounds it's obvious that the composer writes with a sure hand with the listener in mind. I noticed trills on the timpani. I think those rolls could be better notated with tremolo markings, unless I've missed something.

The first movement is not always orchested well and the tonality changes are too slow. The opening C major lasts for a full minute which I too much for what the progression of the form offers. The development is far better and offers significant changes of tonalities and instrumentation - it is by far the most successful part of the first movement.

The opening of second movement sounds a bit empty without 2nd violins - the important notes of selected harmonies are missing significantly. Otherwise the movement flows nicely and uses some good metrical issues. The repetitive tuplets remind me too much of the second movement of Mozart's piano concerto in C major though.

The third movement shows you deal well with instrumentation (flute nicely doubling 1st violins) and polyphonic features are done well. It is probably the most coherent movement of the symphony.

Finale sounds like it was composed in a bit of haste. I really miss more developed instrumentation - moments with strings only sound empty. Pages 6 and 7 are an acute example. When you use winds with strings it sounds much better. In total the final movement is a bit too long for what it offers.

Despite the flaws I spot in the symphony, it is a good pastiche-like opus. However, I always doubt such music has any significant future when imitating styles from the past unless composers use such style as training in form and orchestration and not trying to make a work they believe it would turn into a popular masterpiece. :/

Thanks for the reviews!

On 11/12/2016 at 8:19 PM, Ken320 said:

The is great. The music flows remarkably well, and is developed with style and art. I enjoyed it very much. I wish the sounds were better. But even with the cheesy sounds it's obvious that the composer writes with a sure hand with the listener in mind. I noticed trills on the timpani. I think those rolls could be better notated with tremolo markings, unless I've missed something.

 

I'm very pleased that you enjoyed it.  I know what you mean about the sounds.  I used Reason for the audio, but it's not great for this sort of thing.  I wish I had access to a better sampler.

I've seen conflicting advice on whether to write timpani rolls with tremolo markings or with trills, though I certainly agree that tremolo marks are more logical.

20 hours ago, Sojar Voglar said:

The first movement is not always orchested well and the tonality changes are too slow. The opening C major lasts for a full minute which I too much for what the progression of the form offers. The development is far better and offers significant changes of tonalities and instrumentation - it is by far the most successful part of the first movement.

Can you tell me where in particular you see examples of poor orchestration in this movement?  I'd like to learn how to improve in that respect.

Quote

The opening of second movement sounds a bit empty without 2nd violins - the important notes of selected harmonies are missing significantly. Otherwise the movement flows nicely and uses some good metrical issues. The repetitive tuplets remind me too much of the second movement of Mozart's piano concerto in C major though.

I think you're quite right about the beginning of the second movement.  There's too much space between the harmonic filler in the viola and the melody in the 1st violins. 

Quote

The third movement shows you deal well with instrumentation (flute nicely doubling 1st violins) and polyphonic features are done well. It is probably the most coherent movement of the symphony.

Finale sounds like it was composed in a bit of haste. I really miss more developed instrumentation - moments with strings only sound empty. Pages 6 and 7 are an acute example. When you use winds with strings it sounds much better. In total the final movement is a bit too long for what it offers.

I see your point.  I think some of the string passages could be easily improved with a touch of wind, and possibly the movement would not overstay its welcome so much if the repeat of the exposition were omitted, as it is in the second movement.

Quote

Despite the flaws I spot in the symphony, it is a good pastiche-like opus. However, I always doubt such music has any significant future when imitating styles from the past unless composers use such style as training in form and orchestration and not trying to make a work they believe it would turn into a popular masterpiece. :/

 

 

Well, I can assure you that I am well aware that nothing I write will ever be a popular masterpiece.  I write music in styles that I enjoy, for my own enjoyment.  This probably isn't the place for a philosophical discussion, but I don't feel the need to apologize for writing Classical works, nor to view them as merely training for writing other music.

Thanks again, though, for the comments!  I do greatly appreciate anyone taking the time to listen and give me feedback.