Symphony no. 2 Part 1

Over half a year ago I posted the introduction of my second symphony that I've been working on since mid-2021 on this forum. I got some pretty good feedback, so what I'm sharing here is the changes I've made since then plus new stuff.

I will also explain the structure of the whole piece. It is in one movement. The structure is kind of two tragic sonatas intertwined. I have an introduction, exposition 1, development 1, exposition 2, development 2, recapitulation of all themes, coda. And if any of you don't know what tragic sonata form is, it's just sonata form but the order of the themes in the recapitulation is reversed. So, the recapitulation of mine will be theme 4, 2, 3, and then one. I have gotten the introduction, first exposition, and first development to a point I'm comfortable sharing.

btw I will not be putting this into musesounds until I'm done with the whole piece, since it takes a long time to do that.

I'm especially wanting to improve the orchestration, counterpoint, and (sorry if this is vague) subtlety.

Feedback is greatly appreciated and don't be afraid to be critical, it will most likely be of help.

I will try to be brief.

• Part 1: a bit repetitive on a first listen, not on a second. Tremolos will surely sound much better when you get this to musesounds so no criticism on that.

• Parts 2-4: I don't know if this is too much for the first exposition but maybe, for the subtlety field, I may add "echoes" of the leading voices using other instruments. The harp stops abruptly and though it does it in a weak beat I think its provisional silence could be achieved more smoothly and that this would improve the score. Just my opinion of course.

• Part 5: the piece starts to gain some momentum, and the transition to the next part is very smooth. No criticism here, just enjoying the material and letting you know :).

• Part 6: very well written, simple and convincing melodic lines.

• Part 7: no criticism here either! The piece keeps improving as it goes.

• Part 8: ok, now we are talking. I was waiting for something like this. I'm not going to say this was over-prepared, but it's true the piece took its time to reach its first peak. 

• Part 9: very nice use of the glockenspiel, the "main" theme keeps going very smoothly throughout the different timbres involved in this and prior parts.

• Part 10: Another suggestion: some harp in the M315 —when you go back to less strong dynamics— could fit very well there. Very nice cadenza by the way! It's nicely written and well-placed in my opinion. Not the best fit, but definitely not just a show-off placed randomly in the middle of the piece.

• Parts 11 & 12: Nothing to criticize nor to point out here. This never gets boring, despite these parts are a bit sober. That possibly means we are approaching another peak!

• Part 13, 14 & 15: Oh yeah. We are still on page 34 and this actually seems to be the climax. I wonder what's gonna happen next. Oh right, the cadenza!

• Parts 16, 17 & 18: The fact you have the piece very well-structured really pays off, this is getting better and better. No criticism here either, perhaps if I had time to listen to the piece more than 2 times I would have useful feedback here too.

• Parts 19 and 20: At first I was not really convinced but the final trill leading to the bombastic main theme (part 21) dissipated part of my doubts.

• Part 21: My favourite, no doubts. Very well achieved, though the preparation for it this time —despite of the preceding trill— didn't convince me too much.

• Parts 22 & 23: I think part 21 lasted very little time. Parts 22 and 23 were also nice, but I would have preferred a less abrupt comeback to humbler intensities.

Since this is not finished I am not going to comment anything about it. Guess half of this isn't really useful but it's not like this piece is full of obvious mistakes, scoring errors, or something like that. For now it's a solid piece cemented into a small number of themes that are successfully conjoined. Congratulations, dude! I do look forward to listen to it as soon as it is finished!

Kind regards,
Daniel–Ømicrón.

Hi Jonathon,

On 2/11/2023 at 10:10 AM, ComposaBoi said:

And if any of you don't know what tragic sonata form is, it's just sonata form but the order of the themes in the recapitulation is reversed.

I don't know it has the name of tragic sonata form! It's quite common in Mozart and Hedokoski call it as a subcategory of type 2 sonata with the return of the 1st subject material "post functional".

On 2/11/2023 at 10:10 AM, ComposaBoi said:

I have gotten the introduction, first exposition, and first development to a point I'm comfortable sharing.

With 22 minutes it's not even the first half of it??!!!😱😱

I love the triplets introduction and how it haunts later in later passages. I love those tremolos as well.

For me the main shortcoming of the movement is that anapestic figure first introduced in trombone in b.47. It repeats way too many times later and not varied and developed properly. But here the introduction of it is good! I love the texture in no.2 with harps playing in the veil of tremolos. The laments of oboe and clarinet is good. It should be c sharp in b.92-93 for strings.

For me I find the transition with the uprising octave figure redundant but I know it's an important motive later on. I do find the voice leading in b.104 has improvement, e.g. for the triple c sharp in b.106 and the progression from b.110-111.

The modulation to D minor in no.5 is quite unexpected for me but fine! I love that oboe accompaniment. I know you want to have that tonal clash, but b.131 seems too much for me with the D-Db clash with the similar motion. For me the introduction of triplets in b.147-148 is too abrupt for me since it's not developed later.

Nice wind playing with the waltz rhythm in no.6. The modulation to B major before number 7 is too abrupt for me with a clash of G and Gb to prepare for it. The reintroduction of the opening triplet is good but it seems not too match with the waltz rhythm. 

The preparation to no.8 is not satisfactory for me, but no.8 itself is very nice with the great orchestration. As Daniel noted the glockenspiel in no.9 is very nice. I love the usage of that anapestic rhythm in b.273 in trombones. Nice climax achieved but I don't like that repetitive anapestic rhythm in no.10. I have feeling you try to be Brahmsian and Stravinskian but not quite successful here. 

I love the section begins on b.348 and find the anapestic rhythm better here with different tone colours involved. A nice climax as well but I would prolong that dim 7 chord longer in b.372 before entering a different section. Nice reintroduction of triplets. I love the climax in b.410 which is the reminiscent of the climax before no.10!!! Again I don't like the aftermath anapestic figure. For this passage (and the one before) it will be great to add polyrhythm into it to compensate the heavy anapestic rhythm, probably a veil of triplets will be great. The climax in b.443 is quite "forced" with that rhythm. No.16 is the recap of no.11. 

The anapestic passage in b.491 is much better here with the glockenspiel triplets and direction in it. That dim.7 chord before no.18 is the same as in b.372, I would like to prolong that. No.18 is the return of the introductory material. The preparation before no.20 in during no.20 is very successful for me with the usage of that anapestic motive and dim.7 chord. I freakingly love that climax in no.21!!!!!! I love everything in C sharp minor and you have such a great build up for it!! Very great use of percussion there! I just find the climax too short for the build up and aftermath of it. I just find the transition to no.22 too abrupt as I suddenly find myself in the world of Ode to Joy, and the transition to no.23 is quite quick for me. That build up to no.24 will be really great!!

I try my best to write honestly with more details since I think this can be a real great work!! This will be a really promising movement if not for that anapestic motive in my opinion!! I am really looking forward to your progress and final work, Jonathon!!

Henry

On 2/10/2023 at 6:10 PM, ComposaBoi said:

I'm especially wanting to improve the orchestration, counterpoint, and (sorry if this is vague) subtlety.

I think subtlety is something one does without trying so I don't know how you would deliberately try to improve the subtlety of this piece.  My gripe with this (gargantuan) piece you submitted is that it takes too long to get started and loses the listeners attention with how overblown, drawn out and over-hyped it is.  Like what people say about movies having to catch and hold the viewers attention within the first 15 minutes.  I think this is because you might be working within a framework where you've planned out too much of the movement formally and aren't willing at this point to cut down or shorten any of its sections because of your accordance with your plan.  Some of your melodic material isn't bad, and neither is the orchestration bad, but in the context of this piece I think from my perspective, because of how long and drawn out the piece is it becomes superfluous and the listener, instead of just enjoying the music as it happens instead finds themselves asking "how long will this section go on for?"  The harmony is pretty cool too, but if I were you I would work up to writing works as large as this by writing shorter pieces first and also most importantly, by letting the form of the piece arise naturally and organically from the material you're working with.  It sounds like you just decided one day that you were going to write an orchestral piece in tragic-sonata form.  I don't think that's a very good source of inspiration musically though.  But take this point of view as you want, as it is coming from someone who's never written a 20 minute long piece before (I think the maximum I've written is a variations piece that just barely exceeded 10 minutes).  So that's just my opinion.  Thanks for sharing though!  And I do hope you continue to have such high musical aspirations!

On 2/19/2023 at 8:03 PM, PeterthePapercomPoser said:

I think subtlety is something one does without trying so I don't know how you would deliberately try to improve the subtlety of this piece.  My gripe with this (gargantuan) piece you submitted is that it takes too long to get started and loses the listeners attention with how overblown, drawn out and over-hyped it is.  Like what people say about movies having to catch and hold the viewers attention within the first 15 minutes.  I think this is because you might be working within a framework where you've planned out too much of the movement formally and aren't willing at this point to cut down or shorten any of its sections because of your accordance with your plan.  Some of your melodic material isn't bad, and neither is the orchestration bad, but in the context of this piece I think from my perspective, because of how long and drawn out the piece is it becomes superfluous and the listener, instead of just enjoying the music as it happens instead finds themselves asking "how long will this section go on for?"  The harmony is pretty cool too, but if I were you I would work up to writing works as large as this by writing shorter pieces first and also most importantly, by letting the form of the piece arise naturally and organically from the material you're working with.  It sounds like you just decided one day that you were going to write an orchestral piece in tragic-sonata form.  I don't think that's a very good source of inspiration musically though.  But take this point of view as you want, as it is coming from someone who's never written a 20 minute long piece before (I think the maximum I've written is a variations piece that just barely exceeded 10 minutes).  So that's just my opinion.  Thanks for sharing though!  And I do hope you continue to have such high musical aspirations!

 

Sorry for the late reply.

I agree with your comment about the uncaptivating start. Maybe I should cut down the intro a bit? I'll see what I can do.

Your proposed reason for this problem I think is wrong because your assumption about the origin of this piece is false. I, in fact, did not decide one day to write a symphony in tragic sonata form. This piece is pretty much a polished and orchestrated piano improvisation, so "letting the form of the piece arise naturally and organically" is a given. This first part is especially (strucurally) very close to the original improv (the development is the most different I think).

And regarding your suggestion to write more shorter pieces, I do. I've got dozens of short pieces that I write solely to practice different compositional techniques, and sometimes they become more serious projects, but usually they're not anything I'm willing to post.

Thanks for your feedback 🙂

1 hour ago, ComposaBoi said:

Your proposed reason for this problem I think is wrong because your assumption about the origin of this piece is false. I, in fact, did not decide one day to write a symphony in tragic sonata form. This piece is pretty much a polished and orchestrated piano improvisation, so "letting the form of the piece arise naturally and organically" is a given. This first part is especially (strucurally) very close to the original improv (the development is the most different I think).

Well - you know best how you constructed your piece.  When I said that it seemed like you just decided to write a piece in tragic sonata form, I was speculating about what might have been the cause of your pieces lack of spontaneity and subtlety which you yourself admitted.  It doesn't sound like an orchestrated piano improvisation at all - like I said, the most salient feature of your music seems to be it's gargantuan scope and length.  But if it were my piece I don't know if I'd be able to "cut down" on parts of it in order to try and fix it.  I was just expressing my perception of the piece.  I know you're a Mahler lover and you yearn to write grand pieces, but maybe let us hear some shorter works of yours here as well?  I would love to hear how you handle the form of a piece of a smaller magnitude.  Maybe the problems this piece has won't be present in your shorter works?