Symphony No. 1 - Mvt. I

Good afternoon fellow composers! I am very excited to present my latest large scale work, the first movement of my Symphony No. 1. My plan for the symphony is for it to be a “complete concert experience” with two large scale movements surrounding two shorter and lighter movements. This first movement is thus quite long, clocking in at a little over 27 minutes. It is intended to be almost a “symphony within a symphony”, preparing tension to be resolved later in the work, while still functioning as a standalone piece in its own right.

I had a few goals in mind as I composed this, feel free to evaluate how well I achieved them:

• Focus on simple, memorable themes and motives
• Write a large scale opening symphony movement that could also function as a standalone piece
• Build a large movement on the development of two simple motives, specifically 
  • Motive 1 - a sequential 5th motive, first in the bass clarinet and bassoon at the beginning
  • Motive 2 - an alternating ascending, descending motive, first in the low winds/strings and English horn/saxophone in the B section
• Integrate euphonium and saxophone into the orchestra
• Make use of auxiliary brass

The movement is structured as a Rondo (A-B-A-C-A-D-A-B-A-coda), albeit with several creative liberties taken. Since it is quite long I’ve broken it down into several smaller sections if you prefer to only listen to a small piece. The structure is detailed below:

• 00:00 - A section - the piece begins quietly with sustained notes in the basses, with the low winds introducing Motive 1. This is repeated and embellished by the oboe and others
• 1:38 - B section - the broad opening theme gives way to a heavy and ominous pulse in the low strings and woodwinds. Motive 2 is introduced here first in the English horn and saxophone, then expanded and embellished, and leads up to a climax
• 4:46 - the A section returns, this time building into a brassy fanfare, but left unresolved. This section ends with a lively cacophonous polyrhythmic buildup that develops Motive 1 and leads into the next section
• 6:56 - the C section opens with a contrapuntal section, which utilizes and expands Motive 2 within octatonic scales that plane between each other, then leads into an ominous ascending theme (an inversion of Motive 2) that climaxes with a fiery rhythmic dance in frequently changing time signatures, this is repeated, then interrupted by a quiet irregular heartbeat in the harp and celesta, that eventually erupts before returning to the opening contrapuntal figure, this time in the woodwinds
• 11:05 - the A section theme returns briefly, this time as stacked fifths in the brass, and stated explicitly by the muted horns
• 11:45 - the D section begins with a lyrical theme in the English horn (formed by combining and rearranging Motive 1 and Motive 2), which is passed back and forth between the saxophone and bassoon. The texture slowly winds down, allowing a woodwind choir to emerge. The mood is bleak, but the strings enter and the mood shifts suddenly to hopeful and optimistic, before an epiphany is reached. The key returns to C major for one more buildup to the climax, with the brass exclaiming Motive 1, this time in a major mode.
• 15:50 - formal return to the A section, with mostly the same structure but the instrumentation is varied
• 17:27 - formal return of B section, this time a quiet horn solo prepares a fast whirlwind of a climax, before coming to a halt and preparing for the return to…
• 21:37 - the A section fanfare returns, this time enhanced by auxiliary brass. The climax is more resolved, but still leaves something wanting before the cacophony from earlier in the movement leads into the coda
• 24:09 - Coda - the ominous ascending theme returns here and is used to build tension along with distortions of the fiery dance from the C section. The irregular heartbeat returns as well, and leads into a chaotic polyrhythmic volcano that over flows into the final statement of the two motives overlaid on top of each other, traded back and forth between the auxiliary brass and the orchestra

As usual, I have several questions for feedback, feel free to answer as many or as few as you wish:

• What effect does the music have on you? Does in conjure up an image? Or an emotional feeling? Does it tell you a story? This can be the piece as a whole, or a specific part or parts.
• What was your favorite part? What was your least favorite part?
• Does this work well as the first movement of a symphony? How about as a standalone piece?
• How well do you think the motives are developed?
• Do you have any comments or critiques on technique, e.g. harmony, melody writing, counterpoint, orchestration, voice-leading, etc.?
• How do you feel about the overall form? Is it effective?
• How well do you think the euphonium and saxophone are integrated with the rest of the orchestra?
• Do you have any comments of the quality of the performance in the audio file? I really want this to be a decent representation of how the piece would sound if it were performed live, since it is unlikely it ever will be. Feel free to put your "conductor hat" on and critique the "orchestra".
• I have included a score and welcome any constructive feedback on its presentation. And if you're like me it's a lot more fun to follow along with the score.
• Are there any composers this reminds you of, that I might enjoy listening to?

Sound libraries

• Spitfire Symphonic Orchestra and Spitfire Percussion
• VSL Synchron brass and woodwinds

Thanks for listening, I hope you enjoy! If you liked something I did and want me to explain how I did it, feel free to ask.

-gmm

Score link here

Superbly orchestrated as I've come to expect from you!

The first 11 minutes feel very frenetic, which then gives way to the beautiful D Section. Lovely melody here, and definitely my favourite part of the movement.

Reminds me of some of John Williams film scores, and I can hear hints of Prokofiev at times in the dissonant passages.

Maybe a bit of Holst's Planet Suite is thrown into the mix, especially the harp in the D Section.

Your motivic development is really good, and the music seems to flow along its natural course.

Hopefully it will be performed by a real life orchestra one day!

Dear @gmm,

I thoroughly enjoy this piece! I am afraid my review will be kind of messy though! I really won't comment much on your orchestration since it's perfect for me. I want to cry in many moments for its grandness, e.g. in around 5:50 and 15:00! I am really thankful that you post this here since it's an honour for us.

The opening motive provides good chance to use quintal harmony! Just inside the B section there are many motives apart from the motive 2 with the cello D-Bb-C-A and harp A-Bb-E-F#-A. I love the saturation of motive here! I love the outburst in around 3:10! I like that beguiling sound in around 4:10. Very grand in 5:10 using the opening A motive and with the trumpet it really sounds like John Williams here! You like using the octatonic modulation a lot. I freakingly love the C section!!!!! Very Bartokian and Stranvinskian here with the punching rhythm! 9:32 really reminds me the middle section of the Sacrificial Dance of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring! The D section is utterly beautiful as well and the climax in around 15:00 is magnanimous. 

On 2/23/2023 at 6:04 AM, gmm said:

What effect does the music have on you? Does in conjure up an image? Or an emotional feeling? Does it tell you a story? This can be the piece as a whole, or a specific part or parts.

The opening section especially with the uprising fifth really reminds me the opening of Thus Spoke Zarathustra. In 4:13 it reminds me of the augmented chord in Mahler's Fourth, the Scherzo. That passage starting from 9:38 reminds me the middle section of the Sacrificial Dance of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. The tone clash, irregular meter, rhythm, accents all remind me of the Stravinskian passage.

On 2/23/2023 at 6:04 AM, gmm said:

How well do you think the motives are developed?

Very well developed and very noticeable throughout the movement! 

On 2/23/2023 at 6:04 AM, gmm said:

Does this work well as the first movement of a symphony? How about as a standalone piece?

As a standalone piece it will be a beautiful piece with different pictures. I think it's quite descriptive here rather than narrative for a first movement of a grand symphony, and I am not sure your overall picture of this symphony is. I guess it will be quite Mahlerian with this scope, and it's quite typical for Mahler to have numerous of ideas in the first movement to be developed later, so it depends.

On 2/23/2023 at 6:04 AM, gmm said:

What was your favorite part? What was your least favorite part?

For me my favourite part is the introductions of all the themes particularly the C section. I also like your combination of Bassoon and Piano in around 6:40. My least favourite part is the return of the A section 15:50 and 21:37 since it's quite similar to initial appearance. Also after the grandeur in 15:00 I really don't like how it falls back to beguiling atmosphere again! But it can be really effective as sparks of light appear and disappear, as in the second movement of Mahler's Fifth. Section D is both my favourite and least favourite part here. It's utterly beautiful and I utterly enjoy it, but formally its beauty hinders the progress of the movement for me especially for a first movement. I would love to have a more forward going section!

On 2/23/2023 at 6:04 AM, gmm said:

How do you feel about the overall form? Is it effective?

I think it's effective as a rondo form but a bit too long for me. It links with the descriptive nature of the movement. Your overall form is A-B-A-C-A-D-A-B-A-coda, I feel like there are many beautiful portraits here but the linkage between them is not the strongest even with the coherence of motive. But since it's introductory in the character I think the arrangement is fine if the later movements can successfully resolve the uneasiness throughout the movement with strong coherence. Linked with the Mahlerian conception of a Symphony this will be perfectly fine. I want the C section to feature more since it's really brilliant! It's kind of compensated at the coda but I want more!!!!

On 2/23/2023 at 6:04 AM, gmm said:

If you liked something I did and want me to explain how I did it, feel free to ask.

I would like to know if the movement has some sort of programme or not, since this will better explain the usage of rondo form and how it will be linked with the later movements!

I sort of comment more on the formal issue of the movement, but it is such an enjoyable piece of music. Bravo on this!!

Henry

On 2/24/2023 at 2:07 AM, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

I thoroughly enjoy this piece! I am afraid my review will be kind of messy though! I really won't comment much on your orchestration since it's perfect for me. I want to cry in many moments for its grandness, e.g. in around 5:50 and 15:00! I am really thankful that you post this here since it's an honour for us.

Hi Henry, thank you very much for your very thorough review, and your kind words. I’m glad you enjoyed it!

On 2/24/2023 at 2:07 AM, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

The opening motive provides good chance to use quintal harmony! Just inside the B section there are many motives apart from the motive 2 with the cello D-Bb-C-A and harp A-Bb-E-F#-A. I love the saturation of motive here! I love the outburst in around 3:10! I like that beguiling sound in around 4:10. Very grand in 5:10 using the opening A motive and with the trumpet it really sounds like John Williams here! You like using the octatonic modulation a lot. I freakingly love the C section!!!!! Very Bartokian and Stranvinskian here with the punching rhythm! 9:32 really reminds me the middle section of the Sacrificial Dance of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring! The D section is utterly beautiful as well and the climax in around 15:00 is magnanimous. 

I’m glad you appreciate the motivic development. You are right to observe there are additional motives, especially in the B section, that we’re not developed as extensively. Part of me feels like this is a missed opportunity, but at the same time I didn’t want to get too carried away. I thought it would be better to focus on two motives to avoid being too overwhelming and complex. I will say the cello motive you point out is supposed to be Motive 2 (alternating descending/ascending by scalar motion).

I’ll also note the octatonic modulation is intentionally used in both the first and second statements of the A theme to give them unity, while still altering the mode for variety.

On 2/24/2023 at 2:07 AM, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

The opening section especially with the uprising fifth really reminds me the opening of Thus Spoke Zarathustra. In 4:13 it reminds me of the augmented chord in Mahler's Fourth, the Scherzo. That passage starting from 9:38 reminds me the middle section of the Sacrificial Dance of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. The tone clash, irregular meter, rhythm, accents all remind me of the Stravinskian passage.

I’m glad you noticed these quotations. I try to draw inspiration from my favorite composers (e.g. Mahler, Stravinsky, Strauss, as you mention) while still adding enough variation to make it my own.

On 2/24/2023 at 2:07 AM, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

For me my favourite part is the introductions of all the themes particularly the C section. I also like your combination of Bassoon and Piano in around 6:40. My least favourite part is the return of the A section 15:50 and 21:37 since it's quite similar to initial appearance. Also after the grandeur in 15:00 I really don't like how it falls back to beguiling atmosphere again! But it can be really effective as sparks of light appear and disappear, as in the second movement of Mahler's Fifth. Section D is both my favourite and least favourite part here. It's utterly beautiful and I utterly enjoy it, but formally its beauty hinders the progress of the movement for me especially for a first movement. I would love to have a more forward going section!

It’s fair to note that the return of the A then in the second half is very similar to the first time. I address this in my response to your questions on the form.

On 2/24/2023 at 2:07 AM, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

I think it's effective as a rondo form but a bit too long for me. It links with the descriptive nature of the movement. Your overall form is A-B-A-C-A-D-A-B-A-coda, I feel like there are many beautiful portraits here but the linkage between them is not the strongest even with the coherence of motive. But since it's introductory in the character I think the arrangement is fine if the later movements can successfully resolve the uneasiness throughout the movement with strong coherence. Linked with the Mahlerian conception of a Symphony this will be perfectly fine. I want the C section to feature more since it's really brilliant! It's kind of compensated at the coda but I want more!!!!

While I think it is best to describe the form as a rondo, I intended for it to be somewhat of a hybrid of rondo and sonata. When viewed as a sonata, the A-B-A form the “exposition” the C-D form the “development”, and the second iteration of the A-B-A form the “recapitulation”. At the same time, I wanted this movement to function as somewhat of a “symphony within a symphony”. That is where the rondo form comes in - the sections of the rondo act as “movements” of a “symphony”. From this perspective, the “A-B-A” form the “first movement,” the C section forms a “scherzo” (albeit not in triple meter), the D section forms the slow movement, and the second “A-B-A” forms the finale, which draws and expands ideas from the “first movement”. In this way, the movement acts as both a standalone “symphony” due to the rondo form, while still imitating the sonata form typical of the first movement of a symphony. 

On 2/24/2023 at 2:07 AM, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

I would like to know if the movement has some sort of programme or not, since this will better explain the usage of rondo form and how it will be linked with the later movements!

There is no program, it is absolute music. I am curious if you visualize some program for yourself?

Thanks again for your review! This forum is lucky to have someone like you who can put as much time and attention into analyzing its members' music. I'm currently working on reviewing the rest of your Clarinet Quintet in return.

-gmm

Yo

So this is clearly phenomenal, and like @Henry Ng Tsz Kiu, I'm in awe of the orchestration. It's your biggest strength in the piece to me, as you wield such a masterful grasp of its power, ferocity, lushness, beauty, vividness, intensity, etc. etc. This is one of the best displays of orchestration I've ever heard on this site, and I've been roaming around here for over a decade. 

I could go on and on about it tbh. I loved it that much. Especially the more subtle sections. The fiery bit around 152, leading to a grander version around 210 (these measure numbers are probably way off, I'm just skimming the score now), the little spot at 262 leading into the fantastic largo section, the Mahler-esque next section...it goes on lol.

I really like your goal of keeping to 2 motifs for the bulk of the development. I think, for one, it makes your music very cohesive, but it's also a great display of your compositional technique. Whenever we limit ourselves and impose restrictions, I feel like we get more creative when boundaries are given. 

And speaking of that:

1 hour ago, gmm said:

You are right to observe there are additional motives, especially in the B section, that we’re not developed as extensively. Part of me feels like this is a missed opportunity, but at the same time I didn’t want to get too carried away.

You have more movements in the works, right? Why not establish themes in this one and develop them later?

Even though I heard various shades of Stravinsky throughout the piece, it sounds like he was an inspiration to you rather than a quote. This was very neo-Stravinsky to me in multiple ways, but you gave it enough character of your own to make it unique to you. 

I have two critiques, and I'd say they're subjective, but take them as you will. The first one is very minor, but lately I've been more picky about this because I've struggled with this in my own music. The ending doesn't do it for me. You could literally chop off the last 3 measures and it would be way better imo, just to keep that dissonant language going a bit more. The final cadence just doesn't sound like it belongs, like you gave us a riveting story and on the last page you said, "oh, and they lived happily ever after." But hey, it's your music, and if you like it then great!

My bigger issue was the pacing throughout the...

let's see here...

27 minutes!

With all of it's wonderful color, textures, harmonic choices, motivic development, and every other aspect of music, it was mainly slow throughout. Sure, there were faster moments here and there, but most of them felt like builds and swells versus presenting the music at a faster pace. I felt like you constantly lost momentum, and it would have been great to me at least to have a bit more drive, especially when you built up your music. 

Who knows though, maybe you have that in mind for future movements (which is why I don't like listening to one movement without hearing the others, but this was too good not to share some thoughts). But even if you do, it's 27 minutes long, it could be a symphony in one movement to me. 

Just my own personal opinions though. This is wonderful in every way, and I'm really glad you shared a major work with us. I'll never understand how you can work backwards from how I work; I just can't keep track of everything in the DAW, I have to see the notes when writing. But your method is obviously finely tuned, and your artistry is something that I admire every time I hear your music. 

Masterful job, and thanks so much for sharing this! I'll be revisiting this in the future to study up on any questions I have orchestrating, as well as to enjoy this once more. 🙂

- #1 better-than-Henry gmm fanboi

4 hours ago, Thatguy v2.0 said:

So this is clearly phenomenal, and like @Henry Ng Tsz Kiu, I'm in awe of the orchestration. It's your biggest strength in the piece to me, as you wield such a masterful grasp of its power, ferocity, lushness, beauty, vividness, intensity, etc. etc. This is one of the best displays of orchestration I've ever heard on this site, and I've been roaming around here for over a decade. 

I could go on and on about it tbh. I loved it that much. Especially the more subtle sections. The fiery bit around 152, leading to a grander version around 210 (these measure numbers are probably way off, I'm just skimming the score now), the little spot at 262 leading into the fantastic largo section, the Mahler-esque next section...it goes on lol.

I really like your goal of keeping to 2 motifs for the bulk of the development. I think, for one, it makes your music very cohesive, but it's also a great display of your compositional technique. Whenever we limit ourselves and impose restrictions, I feel like we get more creative when boundaries are given. 

Hey @Thatguy v2.0, thanks for listening, I'm glad you enjoyed it, and thank you for your kind words! I'm glad you like the orchestration and the motivic development.

4 hours ago, Thatguy v2.0 said:

You have more movements in the works, right? Why not establish themes in this one and develop them later?

Yes this is true, and a very good idea. I think it will be a little while before I move on to the second movement, but when I do I will be sure to do a motivic analysis of this movement and brainstorm ideas to develop them.

4 hours ago, Thatguy v2.0 said:

I have two critiques, and I'd say they're subjective, but take them as you will. The first one is very minor, but lately I've been more picky about this because I've struggled with this in my own music. The ending doesn't do it for me. You could literally chop off the last 3 measures and it would be way better imo, just to keep that dissonant language going a bit more. The final cadence just doesn't sound like it belongs, like you gave us a riveting story and on the last page you said, "oh, and they lived happily ever after." But hey, it's your music, and if you like it then great!

Ah this is interesting... I guess you're extending the connection to Stravinsky here, paying homage to the end of the Rite of Spring?... I like it, maybe I'll go back and change the ending, or just the last chord to make it more dissonant...

4 hours ago, Thatguy v2.0 said:

With all of it's wonderful color, textures, harmonic choices, motivic development, and every other aspect of music, it was mainly slow throughout. Sure, there were faster moments here and there, but most of them felt like builds and swells versus presenting the music at a faster pace. I felt like you constantly lost momentum, and it would have been great to me at least to have a bit more drive, especially when you built up your music. 

Who knows though, maybe you have that in mind for future movements (which is why I don't like listening to one movement without hearing the others, but this was too good not to share some thoughts). But even if you do, it's 27 minutes long, it could be a symphony in one movement to me. 

Yes you are right it is quite a bit to take in. You and @Henry Ng Tsz Kiu have both indicated it feels like it should be faster on average, which I suppose is a nod to the first movement of a symphony traditionally being a fast movement. However, I definitely wanted to take a different approach, and that's where the "complete concert experience" for the entire symphony comes in, as well as the "symphony within a symphony" for this first movement. In its finished form, this first movement would make up a "First Part", the middle movements a "Second Part", and the final movement a "Third Part", with the entire program lasting the length of an entire concert. From this perspective, it makes sense for this first movement to stand as an almost complete piece on its own.

4 hours ago, Thatguy v2.0 said:

Masterful job, and thanks so much for sharing this! I'll be revisiting this in the future to study up on any questions I have orchestrating, as well as to enjoy this once more. 🙂

Thanks again for listening! It's always good to see you around here.

37 minutes ago, gmm said:

Ah this is interesting... I guess you're extending the connection to Stravinsky here, paying homage to the end of the Rite of Spring?... I like it, maybe I'll go back and change the ending, or just the last chord to make it more dissonant...

It's an interesting concept. "A symphony within a symphony". I just urge you to consider the pacing throughout, no matter if you feel like this stands on it's own or not. I wouldn't change anything in your piece, but just consider this point for the moments that follow. 

40 minutes ago, gmm said:

Ah this is interesting... I guess you're extending the connection to Stravinsky here, paying homage to the end of the Rite of Spring?... I like it, maybe I'll go back and change the ending, or just the last chord to make it more dissonant...

When I was in music school, a couple of the music faculty wrote an opera. My composition teacher heard it (I didn't), and his only critique was that the musical language varied from time to time. There's something to be said of consistency, and if your language speaks of octatonic scales, it might be better to have that texture and language throughout. Just a thought. I don't know why that stuck with me, but I must have subconsciously felt that was important, and I consciously do now. You can have a final cadence that gives a bit of consonance without it changing language and keeping it's more dissonant character.

Still though, I think it matters what you do next! Excited to hear future movements so I can listen to your music in its final form 🙂 

So ... this is my 2nd time having listened to this piece all the way through.  I do have to say I love all the ideas!  I think the main quintal theme for me sounds very cinematic, especially when you add that minor major 7th harmony into it which makes it sound very dramatic.  At one point, I felt like the atmosphere you set was very fitting for a cinematic scene where the tension is low but quite obviously there is a lurking danger.  Specifically, the scene from Spaceballs (a Mel Brooks spoof of Star Wars LoL - this is actually my favorite movie of all time) where they fly their Winnebago spaceship into the Mega-Maid's ear.  LoL  If you haven't seen it - I highly recommend it!

I do think that the piece as a whole sounds and behaves more like a cinematic piece than a symphony despite your form and motivic gymnastics.  The music mostly sets different moods and atmospheres that make sense when heard in sequence.  On the other hand, I believe a symphony should have a long-leading melodic line with long phrases that tell a melodic and harmonic story.  But you use a lot of repetition of very short motifs which give your piece this sense of standing still in a sense - or of very slowly building suspense.  But I definitely think that this is a very different style of orchestral writing than when compared to say Mahler, or Stravinsky.  It does have some similarity to Strauss though.  That's not a bad thing in my book though.  I think it just speaks to the changing character of modern orchestral music and places you within such a historical orchestral movement.  The music is either very suspenseful, or suggests a dramatic action scene from a movie.  There are many stereotypical orchestral tropes in your orchestral writing that to me scream film music rather than symphony (such as the trumpet subito pp crescendo's).  Also - you have these slow and mellow moods created by undulating harp arpeggios that are also very cinematic.  That's my overall impression of the music.  I don't know whether that's intentional or desirable on your part, and I think what's most important is that you're happy with it.  Thanks for sharing!

7 hours ago, Thatguy v2.0 said:

#1 better-than-Henry gmm fanboi

LOL what is this?! I am for sure not this guy or that guy!

8 hours ago, gmm said:

There is no program, it is absolute music. I am curious if you visualize some program for yourself?

I ask this because I agree with Peter that the music is quite cinematic. For me the music is very descriptive rather than narrative. This also relates to the pacing problem since I agree with Peter that it's not narrative as Mahler's music.

9 hours ago, gmm said:

While I think it is best to describe the form as a rondo, I intended for it to be somewhat of a hybrid of rondo and sonata. When viewed as a sonata, the A-B-A form the “exposition” the C-D form the “development”, and the second iteration of the A-B-A form the “recapitulation”

Yeah but in the classical sonata rondo the recapitulation A-B-A with change, most noticeably by the return to tonic key in the B section, and often the last A of both exposition and recap. will be abbreviated. I really hope some of the repeated parts can be abbreviated or changed!

9 hours ago, gmm said:

From this perspective, the “A-B-A” form the “first movement,” the C section forms a “scherzo” (albeit not in triple meter), the D section forms the slow movement, and the second “A-B-A” forms the finale, which draws and expands ideas from the “first movement”. In this way, the movement acts as both a standalone “symphony” due to the rondo form, while still imitating the sonata form typical of the first movement of a symphony. 

I like this idea, but hope the finale can be more varied! I also agree with Vince on the pacing more than the form!

9 hours ago, gmm said:

You are right to observe there are additional motives, especially in the B section, that we’re not developed as extensively. Part of me feels like this is a missed opportunity, but at the same time I didn’t want to get too carried away. I thought it would be better to focus on two motives to avoid being too overwhelming and complex

I think you can just give a little bit more time for it or just let it appear independently will give it a good appearence! Looks like your process here is similiar when Mahler is working on his Second as he is finding what motives in the 1st movement to be used later on!

9 hours ago, gmm said:

. I'm currently working on reviewing the rest of your Clarinet Quintet in return.

Haha take your time and don't think it's a must to review my piece to return me a favour! It's a pleasure to review your piece itself!

Henry

12:56 into the 16 minute section is SO SO SO SO good. Love the C-G-D motif reappearing in different places/keys as well. 

The bass motif in the earlier section (approx. 3:14) is super juicy.

Congrats on finishing the large work!

On 2/22/2023 at 5:04 PM, gmm said:

movements surrounding

what travesties of life and love are there that can give rise to things as beautiful as this, your work, and, say, Shostakovich's 11th Symphony? we live and ride on mere sunbeams and glowing star trails. see you in the funny papers.

19 hours ago, WowBroThatWasReallyEdgy said:

12:56 into the 16 minute section is SO SO SO SO good. Love the C-G-D motif reappearing in different places/keys as well. 

The bass motif in the earlier section (approx. 3:14) is super juicy.

Congrats on finishing the large work!

 

Thanks man! I think the slow section 12:56-16:00ish is my favorite part of it too

Glad you enjoyed, thanks for listening!