Symphony Nº 18, "Mesquite Mountains"

Movement 1, The Advance

A normal day, the advance from the army had funneled into the city, and many had preceded their breath.  The courtly dances had wagered a great time, today, but the army had invaded our city; it was amazing how incredible watching the army interact and play with our citizens.  We mingled, played, and danced in every way possible forgetting our worries, and instead made possible comfort in any way.

Movement 2, My Heart  

Our city was attacked.  My heart sustained when the allied forces arrived.  The byilding had been destroyed just like my dear friend had mentioned.  I'm relieved he's okay in our presence.  He talked of rhe weapon being transported.  I went so far as the night sky so I can play my piano.

Movement 3, Night Sky  

The night sky was prime collecting for shooting stars.  I collected many for my girlfriend back home.  She and I, can only tolerate so many wishes before we're not pure of heart.  It's something of a slip to take a wish, but I wish I knew how, sometimes.  The cities halfway destroyed.

Movement 4, Sun's Piano

My piano survived the wreckage.  I plucked out a melody of my favorite song, "Timber Fugue."  One can almost smell the pine.  The variations made for more, faltering at every stop; I wonder how my dear friend fares. .

I am curious. Why is this a symphony to you? Just because you wanted to call it like that? Because it's a multi-movement piece and technically has many instruments perhaps?

I did not expect anything like this with that title, it surprised me (neither for bad nor for good). It does sound good to me, let's get just a little into details:

• The first movement sounds good but it's very static. I guess you wanted it like that. It's interesting how that scarce material you brought allows you to define the movement that good.

• The second movement, which I believe that starts around 6:25, creates an ambient of tension and possibly stains it with some muted despair very successfully. I like how each time the music tries to do a couple of tuned notes in common intervals, something seems to decimate those notes. However, I am asking myself where this is going in case it is going anywhere from 9:20 and on approx. Perhaps that's just not my thing but the ambient created is good enough to keep me around a certain amount of time. I am very confused though, has the third movement started already? Perhaps; I am in min 11 and the ambient seems a bit different. 

• In case I am already in the third movement I can say that having listened to the majority of the piece at this point, there's a lack of contrast that you might have sought for between movements, specially between II and III. The transition between III and IV (wherever it be) is another story. In the fourth and last movement I believe I am listening to a very distorted piano and well I think it seems to fit with the small story you made...

But that's it, now I remove the words and I would be clueless regarding the number of movements and specially most of what you tried to mean here. This is an obvious flaw a lot of music has and it is normal. As long as you subjectively (just as me) find it fitting with what you wanted to tell I guess it's good. I would not call it a symphony and I'll explain why, though I want to be clear here, this is just my subjective thinking and I am not encouraging you to change anything at all of your music with these next lines:

♫ The obvious one, it is not written for orchestra nor it is actually playable by any ensemble of musical instruments in a concert. 

♫ I do not really see enough a structure of each movement (whose beginning & end are unclear), much less any trace of a sonata form, nor actually a contrast in form between movements. I could really not point accurately to where the III movement starts.

♫ Despite harmony is present, the majority of the piece is filled by sound effects instead which don't pertain to harmony nor any extension of it that I be aware of.

♫ The number of electronic instruments I have heard is small, I believe, and they do not play simultaneously. If this could be played I think it would fit much more for a small-sized band disposition.

Perhaps there's more reasons I could think of but I think these are enough to clarify my point and the reasons behind. In any case, you do you and the piece —however you call it— was enjoyable enough to me despite some bits here and there.

Kind regards,
Daniel–Ømicrón.

I totally agree with the above analysis of the work by Daniel.  A string of sound effects without much direction and/or development in my opinion is "just a bunch of sound effects" and does not make very good music.  As some background sound for a special effect in a movie/animation it might has its place.

My two cents .............

Mark

On 10/13/2022 at 9:14 PM, Omicronrg9 said:

I am curious. Why is this a symphony to you? Just because you wanted to call it like that? Because it's a multi-movement piece and technically has many instruments perhaps?
 

Daniel,

    The symphony's usually defined by its form, and in this case it is a "same-shape" symphony.  In the other case, a symphony is created from a small sample and a larger work's created; I've done this in my 2nd and 8th symphony having written 2 measures of music to create full-kength songs.

    The static nature of the movement's inspired by my theorem.  I figured out a way how to modulate in serialism.  I wanted to show off the qualities of modulation by juxtapositioning something static next to the movement that modulates.

    Though, it's not written for orchestra it is still possible.  I try not to confuse my work with the medium, so in case the wirk can be heard in other paradigms: saxophone quartet being the best lead.

"Despite harmony is present, the majority of the piece is filled by sound effects instead which don't pertain to harmony nor any extension of it that I be aware of."

    Music, is perfectly capable of demonstrating symbols.  "Sound effects," can be a harsh term, but each note is notated and intended by the composer, structure is blurred to display my intelligence and keep the audience guessing, and actually each instrument is recorded at the same time using symphonic techniques; while scored as a chorale, reson, cutoff, and reverb are utilized to give one instrument a spectrum of qualities.

Thanks and sorry for the late reply,

Daniel

No worries for the late reply! Let's see:
 

12 hours ago, Vonias said:

The symphony's usually defined by its form, and in this case it is a "same-shape" symphony.  In the other case, a symphony is created from a small sample and a larger work's created; I've done this in my 2nd and 8th symphony having written 2 measures of music to create full-kength songs.

With the symphony you mean your symphonies or is that a general statement? In the latter case I can't obviously agree on that.

 

12 hours ago, Vonias said:

The static nature of the movement's inspired by my theorem.  I figured out a way how to modulate in serialism.  I wanted to show off the qualities of modulation by juxtapositioning something static next to the movement that modulates.

Your theorem? I'm sorry I am not sure if I understand.  Additionally and strictly speaking I vaguely see any serialism specially in the first movement. What's supposed to be made resembling serialism? The last one? Also serialism isn't necessarily tonal so modulating in serialism doesn't seem to make much sense to me, or better said, I don't see how that was a particularly difficult thing to do, I mean, imagine I have the 12 different notes in a bar and it sounds tonal. I would just need to raise everything by half a tone to modulate. Just to clarify, I said that the first movement seemed static because of the material you brought there doesn't practically develop. You make the ostinato appear with a good dynamic/volume cresc. and do the passage that last a minute. Then you add another instrument and repeat more or less the same phrase with the first instrument; next minute you introduce another voice but apart from that and some small development near 4:30 there's not much melodic/harmonic development, that's what I meant. Again I suppose it works good enough as long as that was what you wanted.

 

12 hours ago, Vonias said:

  Though, it's not written for orchestra it is still possible.  I try not to confuse my work with the medium, so in case the wirk can be heard in other paradigms: saxophone quartet being the best lead.

Here I am really clueless, sorry. You mean it's possible for an orchestra to play this? How would a saxophone quartet play the IV movement? 

 

12 hours ago, Vonias said:

Music, is perfectly capable of demonstrating symbols.  "Sound effects," can be a harsh term, but each note is notated and intended by the composer, structure is blurred to display my intelligence and keep the audience guessing, and actually each instrument is recorded at the same time using symphonic techniques; while scored as a chorale, reson, cutoff, and reverb are utilized to give one instrument a spectrum of qualities.

Various things regarding this last paragraph:
• Yes, music can make symbolism pretty good but it can be as subjective as anyone's tastes. There are better and worse examples of that. For me, Debussy's "Clair de Lune" sounds everything but moonlight to me. However, Schumann's "The Happy Farmer" nails it in my opinion. I'm sure there might be people who think the opposite.

• I didn't mean "sound effects" to be harsh but accurate and straight-forward. How do you call the constant sound from min 6 to min 9 for example? It is used to create some kind of ambience, as an "effect" since it lacks a recognizable melody and it's certainly a sound. If you're making or post-producing any of this in a DAW I suppose a handful of sounds you've been using are inside what's called SFX, which is the abbreviation of "Sound effects". I am sure each note is indeed put by you there, (how would it be there otherwise).

• Structure is blurred to display your intelligence? Sorry but I don't see the connection between [Intelligence display <=> Blurring structure purposefully], what kind of structure have you blurred? Also I am not sure if you kept me guessing from min 6 to 15 (anything apart from where each movement ended I mean). I believe the first movement had a bigger effect on that, at the beginning of it specially.

• What's exactly recording using symphonic techniques? Do you mean you recorded the pads and other seemingly 100% electronic instruments instead of using midi channels? 

• I would say that cutoffs, distortion, reverb, chorus, etc. are too another kind of sound effects (applied to instruments or other SFXs instead of working alone) which again should NOT sound harsh at all, just a practical and straight forward expression for what their function usually is.

I hope this clarified the somewhat ambiguous points I made throughout my last post and that my new questions are clear enough.

Kind regards!

4 hours ago, Omicronrg9 said:

 

• Yes, music can make symbolism pretty good but it can be as subjective as anyone's tastes. There are better and worse examples of that. For me, Debussy's "Clair de Lune" sounds everything but moonlight to me. However, Schumann's...

 

    With the symphony you mean your symphonies or is that a general statement? In the latter case I can't obviously agree [with 2 measures of music can be a symphony.]
 

 

Omicron,

    You are making some phenomenal points!  You're observations are very expert and perpetuate the excitement in music very well!  From the many points that you had made, I had chosen two that make the symphony so exciting.

    Make the distinction that there is a difference between "modulation" and "changing key," now understand that the second movement is indeed serialism, and is also a fugue.  😜

    My theorem states that anything on the array may also be modulated from the array:

[0, 10] + 10 = [0, 9]

    The symphony was made in one measure.  The timings are described in seconds, and its overall form is conveyed by its individual movements.  Symbolism comes from a mathematical array, bits and parts of sounds from a traditional symphony are used to convey the sense; the form being hinted at is, "fast, slow, fast."  

    Structure being blurred, however the artists have to keep the symphony easy to listen to.  Writing a fugue with atonal concepts, thought to be possible, leaves one more caveat: the areay may be used to describe the form of the fugue.

    Back to your first point quoted above, the symphony's also described by its theme.  Part of me reaches out and wants to tell you what is possible!  When I mean the symbols, or sound effects, were notated, the same techniques used by, Beethoven, to describe birds.

    The constant sound from measure 6-9 was a drum I had created to complement the melody in the atonal fugue, "David's Heart."  I worked fairly steady creating this song, and am willing to pour all the answers to you as I can.

Vonias

2 hours ago, Vonias said:

You are making some phenomenal points!  You're observations are very expert and perpetuate the excitement in music very well!  From the many points that you had made, I had chosen two that make the symphony so exciting.

First of all and as I said, if it suits you then it is alright so I am glad to confirm it sounds exciting to your mind. Second, my points are just kind of usual questions one would pose & questions from things that I did not get from your prior message, nothing expert at all but thanks anyway.
 

2 hours ago, Vonias said:

Make the distinction that there is a difference between "modulation" and "changing key," now understand that the second movement is indeed serialism, and is also a fugue.  😜

I didn't mention changing key but a simple chromatic modulation that a measure in serialism that sounded tonal could do, no need to change key for that though changing key and modulating are not mutually exclusive anyway. The second movement is a fugue? What about the fugue that the IV movement makes reference to? I don't really see a fugue structure in any, not that it's blurred, the sound is distorted intentionally I get that, but the fugal structure seems nowhere to be seen. I can hardly distinguish a single melodic line in the 2nd movement, thus much less an exposition or other archetypal elements that would make me and possibly other listeners to identify this as a fugue. Fine if you call it like this though, it's your composition after all.

4 hours ago, Vonias said:

My theorem states that anything on the array may also be modulated from the array:

[0, 10] + 10 = [0, 9]

I don't know what you're trying to imply by this musically. Mathematically speaking it's simply wrong, you cannot sum a vector and a scalar because yes. You would need to define what's everything you need to reach that, since you say it's a theorem; I don't want to get technical here but what are the axioms from which one can deduce and show that this theorem is true? What do those numbers mean? How is an Array + Scalar sum defined?

4 hours ago, Vonias said:

Writing a fugue with atonal concepts, thought to be possible, leaves one more caveat: the areay may be used to describe the form of the fugue.

Yeah I don't think writing a fugue in an atonal language be impossible but again I don't see the fugue structure in this particular case. From what I know a fugue needs at least two melodic lines and I hardly see one in the 2nd movement. Also just to clarify I am not saying your piece is difficult to listen to, but it is indeed difficult to listen to the way you conceive it.

4 hours ago, Vonias said:

Back to your first point quoted above, the symphony's also described by its theme.  Part of me reaches out and wants to tell you what is possible!  When I mean the symbols, or sound effects, were notated, the same techniques used by, Beethoven, to describe birds.

I am not a connoisseur of Beethoven's thinking, sorry. I think it'd be more correct to say that themes, motifs, and everything that is under the overall structure of a symphony makes it distinguishable from others of the same kind but imo what makes a symphony be a symphony is the set of elements that conform its structure or that are over its structure, which might be ambiguous or intentionally blurred but up to a degree it is still recognisable as one. But in the end I say that if it's comfortable to you, it's alright to call it like that since it's really difficult to determine where a symphony ends and we find ourselves treating with another kind of piece. Though I still think I would not recognise this as a symphony if I stumbled upon it, I understand that you do. I will give some examples here that would paint more or less what I think:

Is Scriabin's fifth sonata a sonata? Well it indeed has sonata form but it is single-movemented which is not typical (the same happens with a certain baroque composer whose name I cannot remind). I am aware of some symphonies that last up to half a day even. But these, though hardly qualifiable as regular symphonies differ in just a single or a minority of aspects (that is, number of movements or duration) but converge in the majority of other key aspects or properties a symphony has, including the number of instruments used, the form and order of each movement —in case of Scriabin's fifth, the sonata form of the only movement—, readability and replayabilty of said piece by prepared musicians, development of the material brought... In your case, I see a majority of key aspects that are not shared with an usual symphony and a minority of aspects that might be similar to what one would expect from a symphony to have (but as you say, they are blurred intentionally). In order to not be too dense I will stop here, I do think my reasoning has been more or less clearly explained. But in summary, it's fine whatever you call it 👍.

Thanks for the answers!