Symphony no. 1 in D major

Hi everyone, I've just joined this forum and I wanted to share my first large scale orchestral work. I uploaded it yesterday after working on it for a little over two months (During the first one I actually composed the music, and it took me yet another month to create the illustration and release the video). It consists of four movements and countless hours of work. I'll gladly hear your opinions on this piece, and I hope that You will enjoy it.

I listened to the whole thing and thought it was pretty good. For future notice, if you can, include sheet music to make it easier to provide feedback. Anyway, to my criticisms.

Movement I

The main theme was quite beautiful and the movement as a whole reminded me a bit of first movement of Scriabin's first symphony, but none of the other material was very memorable. I also thought there wasn't enough variation in dynamics though. The end chord was interesting, and I liked the orchestration of it. Overall, this movement sounded like one big introduction, which I like.

Movement II

I quite enjoyed the orchestration here, and your use of percussion is commendable. I thought it was a little repetitive though, so I think it was smart to make it a pretty short movement.

Movement III

For a moment it had the same problems as the first movement, (not enough variation in dynamics, unmemorable material), but then the pace picked up and led into the theme from the first movement, which was quite beautiful. After that was a little forgettable.

Movement IV

Once again reminded me of Scriabin 1. Very beautiful opening. After this was a bit boring and repetitive, until drama ensued, which led once again into the main theme. I can tell you tried something by combining it with another theme, and it's a good idea, but I didn't think it worked well. the last variations of the theme and the coda were also beautiful.

Throughout the piece it seems you tried to make drama, but from my listening experience, the orchestration wasn't mature enough as you ended up resorting to cymbals. I think your program doesn't give justice to the piece because the audio was very washy and foggy (that's the best way I can describe it). I think that if the program made stronger more articulated sounds, I would have enjoyed it much more, but it was just too soft all the way through. The greatest moments were when that very well written and beautiful theme was present, and the variations in orchestration you made were very enjoyable. I found little fault in the theoretical side of the music, though I think I heard some probably unintentional dissonances in the third and fourth movements. Again, a score would be very useful.

Anyway, thanks for posting this. It was very brave of you, and it was great to listen to fellow student's symphony. Good job with the symphony and the drawing, and having a wonderful day.

21 minutes ago, ComposaBoi said:

I listened to the whole thing and thought it was pretty good. For future notice, if you can, include sheet music to make it easier to provide feedback. Anyway, to my criticisms.

Movement I

The main theme was quite beautiful and the movement as a whole reminded me a bit of first movement of Scriabin's first symphony, but none of the other material was very memorable. I also thought there wasn't enough variation in dynamics though. The end chord was interesting, and I liked the orchestration of it. Overall, this movement sounded like one big introduction, which I like.

Movement II

I quite enjoyed the orchestration here, and your use of percussion is commendable. I thought it was a little repetitive though, so I think it was smart to make it a pretty short movement.

Movement III

For a moment it had the same problems as the first movement, (not enough variation in dynamics, unmemorable material), but then the pace picked up and led into the theme from the first movement, which was quite beautiful. After that was a little forgettable.

Movement IV

Once again reminded me of Scriabin 1. Very beautiful opening. After this was a bit boring and repetitive, until drama ensued, which led once again into the main theme. I can tell you tried something by combining it with another theme, and it's a good idea, but I didn't think it worked well. the last variations of the theme and the coda were also beautiful.

Throughout the piece it seems you tried to make drama, but from my listening experience, the orchestration wasn't mature enough as you ended up resorting to cymbals. I think your program doesn't give justice to the piece because the audio was very washy and foggy (that's the best way I can describe it). I think that if the program made stronger more articulated sounds, I would have enjoyed it much more, but it was just too soft all the way through. The greatest moments were when that very well written and beautiful theme was present, and the variations in orchestration you made were very enjoyable. I found little fault in the theoretical side of the music, though I think I heard some probably unintentional dissonances in the third and fourth movements. Again, a score would be very useful.

Anyway, thanks for posting this. It was very brave of you, and it was great to listen to fellow student's symphony. Good job with the symphony and the drawing, and having a wonderful day.

 

I'm very grateful for the criticism. I really apologize for the lack of dynamics, my plugin made changing them tedious, so perhaps I should get some better software. You are also right in saying that I need to figure out a way to stop all of the voices from blending into an auditory soup. I'm also quite flattered by You calling my theme beautiful, and the composition theoretically acceptable. As for the sheet music, I wrote this piece in piano roll, so in theory I could transcribe it to sheet music, but I imagine it would take me yet another month to do that. Maybe next time I will use staff notation instead, although I find it less convenient. Anyway, thanks a lot for the comment, I'm quite glad that You enjoyed this piece.

I don't know what software you currently use, but I highly recommend MuseScore 3 if you're looking for something free. The audio is arguably less realistic it's at least more clear and less breathy and it's easy to make scores with.

7 hours ago, ComposaBoi said:

I don't know what software you currently use, but I highly recommend MuseScore 3 if you're looking for something free. The audio is arguably less realistic it's at least more clear and less breathy and it's easy to make scores with.

 

Thanks for the recommendation.

I love the first movement's orchestrations. I love the augur from the piccolo and the harp throughout. I think it is descriptive rather than narrative, and for me it depicts the sunrise of the city in your illustration. The atmosphere is excellent. But maybe the descriptive passage seems long because there is not enough contrast and dramatic passages, that's why it can seem monotomous. Maybe drama can be inserted? Or as @ComposaBoi said to include variations in dynamic. Even in the second movement of Beethoven's sixth where he depicted the river, there are notable motives that's ear catching. For me the ending chord is dramatic, but not well prepared since nothing foresee its coming.

The second movement is so funny and crispy. For the inner movements I think the repetitive nature is fine since it is distinctive.

I think the third movement is even more descriptive, thus lacking focus of the direction.

What does the motto theme from Mov. I to appear in Mov. IV mean? The idea of the combination of the themes is good, but it does not quite give new meaning and insight to the original theme, thus I think it is not quite successful.

I think the atmosphere created is really fascinating in the Symphony, but it persists way too lengthy. I hope there will be more recognize contrasting theme to signify the contrast with the serene first theme, rather occasional contrasting elements whicg are not quite memorable since their appearences are sparse and sporadic. 

But despite my criticism, you are amazing to compose your first large scale orchestral work like this! I am sure your next pieces will be even more successful!

3 hours ago, Henry Ng said:

I love the first movement's orchestrations. I love the augur from the piccolo and the harp throughout. I think it is descriptive rather than narrative, and for me it depicts the sunrise of the city in your illustration. The atmosphere is excellent. But maybe the descriptive passage seems long because there is not enough contrast and dramatic passages, that's why it can seem monotomous. Maybe drama can be inserted? Or as @ComposaBoi said to include variations in dynamic. Even in the second movement of Beethoven's sixth where he depicted the river, there are notable motives that's ear catching. For me the ending chord is dramatic, but not well prepared since nothing foresee its coming.

The second movement is so funny and crispy. For the inner movements I think the repetitive nature is fine since it is distinctive.

I think the third movement is even more descriptive, thus lacking focus of the direction.

What does the motto theme from Mov. I to appear in Mov. IV mean? The idea of the combination of the themes is good, but it does not quite give new meaning and insight to the original theme, thus I think it is not quite successful.

I think the atmosphere created is really fascinating in the Symphony, but it persists way too lengthy. I hope there will be more recognize contrasting theme to signify the contrast with the serene first theme, rather occasional contrasting elements whicg are not quite memorable since their appearences are sparse and sporadic. 

But despite my criticism, you are amazing to compose your first large scale orchestral work like this! I am sure your next pieces will be even more successful!

 

 

Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not familiar with the concepts of descriptiveness and narrativity, in music. Is a descriptive musical element focused on embellishing and decorating the previously introduced material, while a narrative one on taking it in a new direction? I'd love to find out. I think I indeed put more thought into the atmosphere rather than the structure of the composition, perhaps that's just more important to my ears. I wrote a little bit about my rationale for some of the choices I made in this piece in the description of the video, though it's certainly not written from the standpoint of serious, academic music theory. Thank You very much for the criticism, and I also hope that I'll write even better stuff in the future.

2 minutes ago, Miodzio102 said:

Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not familiar with the concepts of descriptiveness and narrativity, in music. Is a descriptive musical element focused on embellishing and decorating the previously introduced material, while a narrative one on taking it in a new direction? I'd love to find out. I think I indeed put more thought into the atmosphere rather than the structure of the composition, perhaps that's just more important to my ears. I wrote a little bit about my rationale for some of the choices I made in this piece in the description of the video, though it's certainly not written from the standpoint of serious, academic music theory. Thank You very much for the criticism, and I also hope that I'll write even better stuff in the future.

 

I think he’s talking in terms of program. Like how berlioz symphony fantastique is describes the program very strictly and thoroughly through music while liszt symphonic  poems are more describing the vague feeling of the program

7 hours ago, Miodzio102 said:

. I think I indeed put more thought into the atmosphere rather than the structure of the composition, perhaps that's just more important to my ears. I wrote a little bit about my rationale for some of the choices I made in this piece in the description of the video, though it's certainly not written from the standpoint of serious, academic music theory.

I do not read your description of video, but yeah I do feel like your rationale of the piece is to create the atmosphere and describe the scene rather than narrating. My standpoint is not from serious, academic music theory, but only from a listener.

7 hours ago, Miodzio102 said:

Is a descriptive musical element focused on embellishing and decorating the previously introduced material, while a narrative one on taking it in a new direction?

Yes. Descriptive focus on staying in the moment, while narration is more on moving forwards.

7 hours ago, ComposaBoi said:

Like how berlioz symphony fantastique is describes the program very strictly and thoroughly through music while liszt symphonic  poems are more describing the vague feeling of the program

Just like what@ComposaBoisaid, Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique mainly moves forward following the program of love and hate. But there's moment of description too, like the beginning and ending of movement III, where the English horn and oboe (later timpani) have dialogue to describe the quite but lonely pastoral scene. Later, the oboe disappears and replaced by timpani to signify the thunderstorm coming, both in terms of weather and what's coming to the narration. In Liszt there are so many descriptive passages, but there is an underlying current to move forward, rather than just lingering in the moment.

I think the contrast of and between the first and fourth movement is not distinctive enough, and the driving power to move forward is not too strong. When listening to it, I think it keeps staying in the moment and the time doesn't flow much. The atmosphere is really beautiful, but sometimes you will be bored by the beauty if it's unchanging for seveal minutes. In the final moments of Mahler's ninth, even if the tempo is really slow and atmosphere is so serene, there is still power to move forward to attract listeners to a tour of time.

7 hours ago, Miodzio102 said:

and I also hope that I'll write even better stuff in the future.

I am sure you will! There's so many things to consider in a large orchestral work, and I am not sure whether I will write like how good you are in my first large orchestral work.

12 hours ago, Henry Ng said:

I do not read your description of video, but yeah I do feel like your rationale of the piece is to create the atmosphere and describe the scene rather than narrating. My standpoint is not from serious, academic music theory, but only from a listener.

 

Yes. Descriptive focus on staying in the moment, while narration is more on moving forwards.

Just like what@ComposaBoisaid, Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique mainly moves forward following the program of love and hate. But there's moment of description too, like the beginning and ending of movement III, where the English horn and oboe (later timpani) have dialogue to describe the quite but lonely pastoral scene. Later, the oboe disappears and replaced by timpani to signify the thunderstorm coming, both in terms of weather and what's coming to the narration. In Liszt there are so many descriptive passages, but there is an underlying current to move forward, rather than just lingering in the moment.

I think the contrast of and between the first and fourth movement is not distinctive enough, and the driving power to move forward is not too strong. When listening to it, I think it keeps staying in the moment and the time doesn't flow much. The atmosphere is really beautiful, but sometimes you will be bored by the beauty if it's unchanging for seveal minutes. In the final moments of Mahler's ninth, even if the tempo is really slow and atmosphere is so serene, there is still power to move forward to attract listeners to a tour of time.

I am sure you will! There's so many things to consider in a large orchestral work, and I am not sure whether I will write like how good you are in my first large orchestral work.

 

Thank You for the clarification. I probably should do some very in depth analysis of my favorite long form compositions before i write something like this again.