plans for a symphonic 1st mvt

In my school, when we enter into a new curriculum (by 11th grade), we're supposed to do something that we've never done before in order to strengthen and expand our understanding of the world around us (for those who may be in the know, I'm doing CAS for the IBDP programme next academic year). Being a composer, I decided to aim big and write a symphony. This is something I have truly never done before: not only is it a frightfully massive undertaking given how relatively new I am to composition, it is coupled with the fact that I'll be much busier next year than I have ever been (IBDP is known to do that). As a result, I've decided to take on this project the same way as I normally would with big, many-month assignments like this: I plan for them.

This is what I've come up with so far for the first movement of this symphony:

Opening fanfare on str.; intro to 1st mvt (Cm) → Enters principal theme; exposition (Cm) → Proceeds to development; 2nd theme is introduced (Fm → noodle around circle of fifths → F) Return to shortened opening; joins back into the introduction (Cm) → Re-development of previous themes into a 3rd theme (Dm → Fm → Fm7?) → Abridged opening, mixing with principal and 3rd theme; recapitulation of developed ideas (Cm) → Coda (Cm)

Knowing full well that there are loads of musicians here who can definitely give me a hand, I want to know whether this is structure could suffice in powering a full symphonic orchestra, if it'll even work as a competent structure at all. I was gunning for a traditional sonata-allegro form, and I'm just going from what I know about symphonies and other large orchestral works regarding how sonata-allegro form works. 

If anybody's willing to look at it and give me advice, I'm all ears. Thank you!

Hi @Awsumerguy,

14 hours ago, Awsumerguy said:

Knowing full well that there are loads of musicians here who can definitely give me a hand, I want to know whether this is structure could suffice in powering a full symphonic orchestra, if it'll even work as a competent structure at all. I was gunning for a traditional sonata-allegro form, and I'm just going from what I know about symphonies and other large orchestral works regarding how sonata-allegro form works. 

Actually it really depends on your material to know whether the form works. I think you can have a general planning of the structure, but it will really only in the realization of the compositional process to see whether it works or not. Also the form works with the materials. Even the same sonata form can turn into infinite variety since different materials need different method of developing them!

14 hours ago, Awsumerguy said:

Opening fanfare on str.; intro to 1st mvt (Cm) → Enters principal theme; exposition (Cm) → Proceeds to development; 2nd theme is introduced (Fm → noodle around circle of fifths → F) Return to shortened opening; joins back into the introduction (Cm) → Re-development of previous themes into a 3rd theme (Dm → Fm → Fm7?) → Abridged opening, mixing with principal and 3rd theme; recapitulation of developed ideas (Cm) → Coda (Cm)

Based on what you've described I think it's not the traditional sonata-allegro form you're gunning for since your scheme will be larger than that. Your form will be at least be like the opening of Malher's Symphony no.2: Exposition: First theme (Cm)-Second theme (E)- Abridged first theme(Cm)-enlarged second theme with added materials (g-C)-Development of all the previous materials and with new themes-Abridged first theme(Cm)-second theme recapitulated (E)-Coda (Cm)

Henry

10 hours ago, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

Hi @Awsumerguy,

Actually it really depends on your material to know whether the form works. I think you can have a general planning of the structure, but it will really only in the realization of the compositional process to see whether it works or not. Also the form works with the materials. Even the same sonata form can turn into infinite variety since different materials need different method of developing them!

Oh, I didn't know that, @Henry Ng Tsz Kiu! I thought I could just develop any material into a sonata-allegro form, but I guess it probably isn't that straightforward a job from the onset, huh? I've always been fearful of it because I've heard it takes a lot of ingenuity to develop and engineer a sonata (not to mention containing lots of little things that I don't know about it yet), so I've always avoided writing in said form in my compositions; I also feel this way about a lot of other strict, more advanced musical forms, like the fugue, polonaise, mazurka, and so on.

10 hours ago, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

Based on what you've described I think it's not the traditional sonata-allegro form you're gunning for since your scheme will be larger than that. Your form will be at least be like the opening of Malher's Symphony no.2: Exposition: First theme (Cm)-Second theme (E)- Abridged first theme(Cm)-enlarged second theme with added materials (g-C)-Development of all the previous materials and with new themes-Abridged first theme(Cm)-second theme recapitulated (E)-Coda (Cm)

I suppose there's some of his symphonies that's influenced me to write this symphony (particularly 2, 5, and 6): I suppose that desire to write a symphony of Mahlerian scale comes the same for every composer that's listened to his works. Do you have any particular pointers for coming up with the material (i.e. themes)? Are there any particular rules I'm supposed to adhere to in order to write a half-decent sonata? Just wondering if there are any at all, or if it's freer than I'd originally thought. Thanks!

Hi @Awsumerguy,

13 hours ago, Awsumerguy said:

I've always been fearful of it because I've heard it takes a lot of ingenuity to develop and engineer a sonata (not to mention containing lots of little things that I don't know about it yet), so I've always avoided writing in said form in my compositions; I also feel this way about a lot of other strict, more advanced musical forms, like the fugue, polonaise, mazurka, and so on.

I think if you are learning to write one in sonata form, you can just try a typical modal and without caring other issues first. I had written quite a number of failures in that form before writing some good one. And when Haydn and Mozart writes sonata form I'm sure they don't have sonata form in their mind! Polonaise and mazurka are not musical forms but rather different types of dances I think.

13 hours ago, Awsumerguy said:

I suppose there's some of his symphonies that's influenced me to write this symphony (particularly 2, 5, and 6): I suppose that desire to write a symphony of Mahlerian scale comes the same for every composer that's listened to his works. Do you have any particular pointers for coming up with the material (i.e. themes)? Are there any particular rules I'm supposed to adhere to in order to write a half-decent sonata? Just wondering if there are any at all, or if it's freer than I'd originally thought. Thanks!

I don't think it's necessary to write in Mahlerian scale unless you have something real big to write, like life and death, religion, humanity etc. For me it's always easier to write stricter rather than freer. I always find writing a fugue is easily then a free piece, since in fugue you only have to follow the rules to write good music, while in free piece you cannot rely on many things to make the music sound good.

For me my themes are always born out of inspirations and I start to find some interesting features of it to make a motives to be used later on, or in the case of my recent Sextet movement I just let it go without drilling too much in it. Maybe my suggestion here is trash haha!

Henry

10 hours ago, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

I don't think it's necessary to write in Mahlerian scale unless you have something real big to write, like life and death, religion, humanity etc. For me it's always easier to write stricter rather than freer. I always find writing a fugue is easily then a free piece, since in fugue you only have to follow the rules to write good music, while in free piece you cannot rely on many things to make the music sound good.

Absolutely! I won't be able to hold any ground at all against Mahler, and I really don't plan on writing about anything necessarily profound in the first place. This is mostly a school passion-project, and it ultimately doesn't matter whether or not I finish by the end of next year (although I hope it would be half-way done by then!). I've found it difficult to stick to forms with strict rules like fugues because those aren't fun, at least for me 😉: the counterpoint for fugal harmony, for example, is both daunting AND very restrictive, so I'm not sure if I'd be so keen on pursuing that route in my piece.

10 hours ago, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

I think if you are learning to write one in sonata form, you can just try a typical modal and without caring other issues first. I had written quite a number of failures in that form before writing some good one. And when Haydn and Mozart writes sonata form I'm sure they don't have sonata form in their mind! Polonaise and mazurka are not musical forms but rather different types of dances I think.

I was thinking about writing this tentative symphony for two pianos and working on the orchestration with a tutor later: I planned for the 2nd and 3rd movements to be freer structurally, so I'm hoping there won't be much trouble there (I was thinking something along the lines of a berceuse or nocturne? for the 2nd movement, and a scherzo for the 3rd). Given this planning, would you say that it's better for me to write a separate sonata first? Personally I think it'd be fine to write the 1st movement on two pianos because it should more or less be the same thing as practise writing a sonata, but I'm open to your thoughts!

If you have never written in sonata form before, write something that is in sonata form but relatively simple, like Clementi op 36 no 1 first. That probably should not take you too long if you are already familiar with forms like binary and ternary forms. Listening to pieces with sonata form also helps, but it's not just sonatas but also chamber music and symphonies, but you most likely already know that. In fact my obsession with the sonata form really was from my teen years when I start getting into playing sonatas and symphonies.

Unfortunately I have no orchestration concepts so I am not of help in that department.

I disagree with counterpoint not being fun. I will demonstrate it to you... is what I would say if I don't have skill issue needing to practice my own pieces. stay tuned I guess though.

Also why is CAS still a thing in IBDP 😕 ...

On 6/7/2023 at 11:29 PM, PCC said:

If you have never written in sonata form before, write something that is in sonata form but relatively simple, like Clementi op 36 no 1 first. That probably should not take you too long if you are already familiar with forms like binary and ternary forms. Listening to pieces with sonata form also helps, but it's not just sonatas but also chamber music and symphonies, but you most likely already know that. 

I suppose that's a pretty good idea, @PCC: I have actually written a sonata for cello and piano before, but I felt that it might have been too short and was too repetitive (it comprised only a single movement, over roughly 5 minutes), so I got burned out and slapped on an ending and left it sounding mostly unfinished. I'll probably go continue working on that. If I remember correctly, that piece had a lot of orchestral-ish textures in the piano accompaniment, so reworking that will probably be good practise for some other things too.

On 6/7/2023 at 11:29 PM, PCC said:

I disagree with counterpoint not being fun. I will demonstrate it to you... is what I would say if I don't have skill issue needing to practice my own pieces. stay tuned I guess though.

I suppose I can see where you're coming from there, so I'd like to reword what I said earlier. I'd say counterpoint isn't fun mainly because of how daunting it seems to write with it and how much structure one has to stick to in order to make a piece follow 'the rules' of counterpoint, especially when it comes to fugues and all that. I mean, even Berlioz hated his time studying it while he was at the Paris Conservatoire (I think, anyway)!

On 6/7/2023 at 11:29 PM, PCC said:

Also why is CAS still a thing in IBDP 😕 ...

I wish I knew brotha 😔

But it’s 2023, counterpoints don’t have to be extremely rigid nowadays unless you are going for a certain style imo

Just wanted to drop this off here: I forgot you could do that! 😅

I've just listened to it twice and I think it's a very powerful and fantastic beginning. So much so that it will be hard to beat that initial climax. Already listening to the piccolo so soon .... Nice use of brass, which is always a difficult part for many (myself included).
I think everything is very well connected and no cracks are heard, the deep basses also play a very good role.

The interesting thing would be that before you go on without being clear, make yourself a good plan of what may come.

Greetings. Great job. 
 

Hey @Awsumerguy,

Thx for dropping words on my posts!😍👄

For me this is an amazing introduction full of power and variety. A gigantic march for the opening!

-In b.3 third crotchet add maybe I will add a B natural there (and in subsequent reappearence of the chord), and change the b.5 minim of 2nd violin for a fuller chord, but this is personal.

-I agree with Luis the piccolo appears very early, but who cares when it appears so beautifully! This particular woodwind passage reminds me of Tchaikovsky's Pathetique, the transition of the Exposition in the first movement!

-Maybe you can remove all the octave sign for the 1st violins as I learn from a violinist friend here and it maybe less idiomatic writing.

-Lovely woodwind passage in b.14, again reminds me of Tchaikovsky!

-The chord in b.20 is very lovable!

-B.41 I like your use of lower strings there, but maybe adding a bassoon divisi there to accompany the strings will make it fuller? The buildup to the main section there is nonetheless craftily made.

After such a gigantic opening maybe a solo fragile cor anglais melody will fit haha! But the main section will appear more tragically serene after this for a contrast!

That's a very promising movement for me, and hopefully we will hear it soon!

Henry

22 hours ago, Luis Hernández said:

I've just listened to it twice and I think it's a very powerful and fantastic beginning. So much so that it will be hard to beat that initial climax. Already listening to the piccolo so soon .... Nice use of brass, which is always a difficult part for many (myself included).
I think everything is very well connected and no cracks are heard, the deep basses also play a very good role.

That's great to hear. Thank you for the kind words, @Luis Hernández! I have learned from my mistakes with structuring the piece, rest assured! 😉

3 hours ago, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

Hey @Awsumerguy,

For me this is an amazing introduction full of power and variety. A gigantic march for the opening!

-Maybe you can remove all the octave sign for the 1st violins as I learn from a violinist friend here and it maybe less idiomatic writing.

-Lovely woodwind passage in b.14, again reminds me of Tchaikovsky!

-The chord in b.20 is very lovable!

-B.41 I like your use of lower strings there, but maybe adding a bassoon divisi there to accompany the strings will make it fuller? The buildup to the main section there is nonetheless craftily made.

After such a gigantic opening maybe a solo fragile cor anglais melody will fit haha! But the main section will appear more tragically serene after this for a contrast!

Thanks, @Henry Ng Tsz Kiu! I'll take in mind some of your added orchestration choices, and I'll see if the spacing on MuseScore would allow for the removal of the octave markings on the violins (without them, I was worried it'd push the v.c. and c.b. off the page!). Funny enough, I actually planned having an oboe solo right after all of this, so I suppose your comment about the cor anglais was pretty spot on haha

I went into this project with lots of skepticism: I had never written for a proper-size symphonic brass section (or a woodwind one, for that matter), and I haven't had too much experience writing for strings. I'm especially relieved, though, to hear my orchestration's at least somewhat competent, because I spent the better part of a month or so thinking about what to write and sketching out the structure for just this introduction. I first wrote my ideas on a two-piano stave so I could 'discover' the direction I wanted the piece to go to before orchestrating; I then took about a week or two to sit and think things through and let them sit before I got to writing everything down (which you could easily brush off as procrastination, probably). In the meantime, I spent time listening to loads of mid-19th century Romantic symphonies (from Mahler, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Nielsen, et al), slowly absorbing the little quirks in orchestration and identifying the instruments and timbres before using what I learned on my own score.

I guess all those weeks of procrastinating really paid off 😄

1 hour ago, Awsumerguy said:

Funny enough, I actually planned having an oboe solo right after all of this, so I suppose your comment about the cor anglais was pretty spot on haha

Haha maybe I'm a good fortune teller for that!

1 hour ago, Awsumerguy said:

I went into this project with lots of skepticism: I had never written for a proper-size symphonic brass section (or a woodwind one, for that matter), and I haven't had too much experience writing for strings. I'm especially relieved, though, to hear my orchestration's at least somewhat competent, because I spent the better part of a month or so thinking about what to write and sketching out the structure for just this introduction. I first wrote my ideas on a two-piano stave so I could 'discover' the direction I wanted the piece to go to before orchestrating; I then took about a week or two to sit and think things through and let them sit before I got to writing everything down (which you could easily brush off as procrastination, probably). In the meantime, I spent time listening to loads of mid-19th century Romantic symphonies (from Mahler, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Nielsen, et al), slowly absorbing the little quirks in orchestration and identifying the instruments and timbres before using what I learned on my own score.

 

I guess all those weeks of procrastinating really paid off 😄

Your effort (not procrastination) definitely pays off and you're brave to try writing it! I'm still chamber music haha! I guess you are definitely much faster in writing than me!

It's taken me a while to get some things done on this symphony. My plan for writing (that is, sketching on the two-piano score and working my way up) fell through a bit, as the direction of the symphony deviated massively from what I had written on the reduction, and I am (unfortunately) too lazy to alter all of my existing work on the sketch. That being said, I've gotten through to the development of the first theme, and will plan a fast dance-movement on the woodwinds and brass or something like that before I quote the introduction again.

I am worried somewhat, though: I feel as though I might be moving too quickly and rushing the thematic growth of the piece. School starts in a week, and I want to get to the first callback to the introduction before then. Let me know what you think!

Hey @Awsumerguy,

I'm not going to repeat my comments for the introductory materials. So I will start on b.47.

The 1st subject(b.47) immediately reminds me the opening of Mahler's Second: Having strings first, focusing on the G and C pedal, tremolo strings underneath and then woodwinds (esp. that oboe with flute accompanying) come out on top like a funeral march. For me, you don't just copy his orchestration and structure, but also immerse in his spirits, and that's the hardest thing to achieve. Really well done here. 

The sustained dissonant chord in b.69 immediately reminds that dissonant chord before the retransition of the same Mahler movement. So beautiful there.

That theme in b.73 is fxxingly beautiful (sorry for my implied foul language but your theme is too beautiful for me to say that). That viola entry in b.73 is so powerful and emotional, the strings sing so well to each other, that Aeolian feeling is so down to earth and so full of vicissitudes. Speechless.

Again that woodwind interaction in b.88 is so Goddamn great. That is a great transition to the next section, but maybe it's better not to be a dance movement for me since the passages you have done now is so powerful and a dance movement may reduce its tragic power. I think you may go for something more lyrical instead of light. But ofc this is personal and you have the final say haha.

Thx for sharing this amazing update!!!!!!!!!!!!

Henry

1 hour ago, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

The 1st subject(b.47) immediately reminds me the opening of Mahler's Second: Having strings first, focusing on the G and C pedal, tremolo strings underneath and then woodwinds (esp. that oboe with flute accompanying) come out on top like a funeral march. For me, you don't just copy his orchestration and structure, but also immerse in his spirits, and that's the hardest thing to achieve. Really well done here. 

That's very nice of you, Henry! I'm glad to hear you were happy with the structure of the piece. I was really worried a lot of things felt rushed, or maybe that the themes introduced and developed cycled too quickly between each other. Indeed, I took lots of inspiration from Mahler 2 and 5, as you may have noticed: the string tremolos before the exposition of the main theme, not to mention the dotted rhythm, were inspired by his work. I'm hoping the overall structure itself was good, too!

1 hour ago, Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said:

That theme in b.73 is fxxingly beautiful (sorry for my implied foul language but your theme is too beautiful for me to say that). That viola entry in b.73 is so powerful and emotional, the strings sing so well to each other, that Aeolian feeling is so down to earth and so full of vicissitudes. Speechless.

Again that woodwind interaction in b.88 is so Goddamn great. That is a great transition to the next section, but maybe it's better not to be a dance movement for me since the passages you have done now is so powerful and a dance movement may reduce its tragic power. I think you may go for something more lyrical instead of light. But ofc this is personal and you have the final say haha.

I'm flattered you had to use expletives to explain how nice you felt my melody was! I incorporated some of the harmonies from the introduction on the lower strings, too. The whole process working on those particular bars took me two whole days because I had to remove all the clashing intervals and parallel lines I had inadvertently written, but it's good to hear things went well there.

I'm still considering that transition to a different section; I had only just started thinking about it yesterday, so I'll see what I can do there. I was thinking of writing something a bit lighter to juxtapose with the previous subject matter (something like what Beethoven did in his 9th before the chorale), and to introduce a new theme that I can play around with. I suppose I'll have to take some time off to think about where to go next, so I'm hoping you'll stay tuned! 😉

2 hours ago, Awsumerguy said:

I'm still considering that transition to a different section; I had only just started thinking about it yesterday, so I'll see what I can do there. I was thinking of writing something a bit lighter to juxtapose with the previous subject matter (something like what Beethoven did in his 9th before the chorale), and to introduce a new theme that I can play around with. I suppose I'll have to take some time off to think about where to go next, so I'm hoping you'll stay tuned! 😉

I will definitely stay tuned to this very promising work. Beethoven did go for a Turkish march version of the Ode to Joy before the most famous version of it. Having something lighter can be in terms of mood (tragic vs less tragic), texture (thick vs thin, polyphonic vs homophonic), style (marching vs dancing), and it doesn't necessarily have to be a dance for me, and maybe you can have a newer version of themes, instead of a new theme.

Henry

Listening to this and looking at the score I have a few thoughts:

1. The introduction sounds like it has an ending. That's usually not desired.

2. Something just sounds weird there, I can't put my finger of it... I didn't look at the harmony thoroughly, maybe it's that, but maybe it's just about the MIDI.

3. Are you forming out structure before you have all the motives? I wouldn't do that. I'd recommend writing down all themes and ideas ahead - it'll make it easier to just flow with the music from theme to theme instead of "okay so I've done the first theme, Perfect Authentic Cadence and then we're moving on to the second theme" many people do, that causes sectional pieces with weak flows.

 I really appreciated your criticism, @Beethoven is God!

Sorry I replied so late: the notification for your reply got buried pretty quickly in my inbox. I could really use some constructive criticism on this piece right now, since I feel my writing's become a little stagnant as of late. I could really use a little constructive advice here and there from time to time to help boost my morale and help me look out for unwanted kinks in my music (not saying that I don't appreciate the praise!) 😊 

On 8/1/2023 at 3:34 AM, Beethoven is God said:

1. The introduction sounds like it has an ending. That's usually not desired.

I'm not sure I totally understand. Where did it sound like the introduction was about to end? I was trying for a sort of Mahler 2-esque opening statement, but I personally can't really see where the piece was supposed to 'end', per se. I'd love to hear more about this one, since I've never thought of this as a problem up until you brought it up.

On 8/1/2023 at 3:34 AM, Beethoven is God said:

2. Something just sounds weird there, I can't put my finger of it... I didn't look at the harmony thoroughly, maybe it's that, but maybe it's just about the MIDI.

Is there like a fault in the orchestration or something? It could just be the MIDI, I suppose, but I still can't tell for sure.

On 8/1/2023 at 3:34 AM, Beethoven is God said:

3. Are you forming out structure before you have all the motives? I wouldn't do that. I'd recommend writing down all themes and ideas ahead - it'll make it easier to just flow with the music from theme to theme instead of "okay so I've done the first theme, Perfect Authentic Cadence and then we're moving on to the second theme" many people do, that causes sectional pieces with weak flows.

That's the thing really: I noticed pretty early on that I simply couldn't follow the structure of the piece as I had first laid out, since I've never been very good with sticking to a fixed narrative in music (or anywhere else really!). Now, I'm just using it as a framework for what I'll be creating later, and spontaneously recycling ideas as I go (now I'm not sure if that's a very good idea either lol). I am curious though: do you hear a lot of that sectionality in this piece so far? Now I'm quite worried, since I've just gotten to the first recapitulation and I don't feel like starting over, now that school's back and all. 

I'd love hearing back from you! Thanks in advance 🙏

Here we are, up to the first recapitulation! I'm gonna go take a creative break now, but I'll still be around to answer questions on the forum. I'd love to hear your comments (and criticisms), and I hope to come back stronger after maybe two weeks to a month. Till then! 👋

There are some good ideas here, but I think it could benefit from a little more care in the harmony and voice leading.  Just taking the main motif with which the movement starts, look at the fourth beat.  We have a B natural in the bass, with an E flat and an F above it, and a high B natural up top.  Functionally, this is pretty clearly playing the role of a dominant chord, leading from the subdominant (F minor) the beat before to the tonic on the first beat of the next measure.  But it sounds awkward.  For one thing, it lacks the root (G).  The E flat is a non-chord tone, though I think perhaps I hear it as a D sharp, implying a G augmented 7.  But the F and E flat (or D sharp) are just overwhelmed by the third, the B natural.  A usual guideline when you're voicing a major chord is that you should double the root and the fifth before you double the third - obviously not a rule one always has to strictly follow, but the tripling of the third, while the root is absent, really sticks out.  Those B naturals also give us parallel octave movement between the first violins, the celli, and the basses (all moving C - B), which is also something that can sound awkward.  Finally, look at how this chord resolves.  The motion of the first violins and celli makes sense (although it's again parallel octaves), with the leading tone resolving upward to the tonic.  The basses resolve not with the expected step up to C but with a leap up to the C an octave higher.  The E flat resolves with a leap upward to G, without any particular motivation.  And the F also resolves upward to G, defying the usual tendency of the seventh in a dominant chord to resolve downward to the third of the tonic.  The resulting chord lacks a third - which is not always a bad thing, but since we've just heard an E flat on the previous beat, I think our brains parse it as a C minor chord with something missing, rather than as an open C5.  (A general guideline is that in a major chord, you want to double the root or the fifth and avoid having "too much" of the third, while in a minor chord you want to double the root or the third and avoid having too much of the fifth).

If I were writing this, I'd probably write that opening phrase as below.  I've moved the 2nd violins and violas up a bit, because voicings typically sound best with wider intervals in the lower part of the chord and narrower intervals higher up.  I've also changed the chord on the 2nd beat to a C minor, because I think the sense of motion and urgency is served by having three successive chord changes rather than repeating the F minor on beats 2 and 3.

Please understand, I'm not trying to "correct" your writing - my version isn't necessarily better, but I think it illustrates what I see as the problems with voicing in your version.  Also, I'm not picking on those few measures because they'e bad; I'm just trying to use them as an example of the kinds of issues with voicing and voice leading that I think you should pay particular attention to.  Again, I think there are some really strong ideas here.  I hope this doesn't come across as overly critical!

17 hours ago, Aiwendil said:

Please understand, I'm not trying to "correct" your writing - my version isn't necessarily better, but I think it illustrates what I see as the problems with voicing in your version.  Also, I'm not picking on those few measures because they're bad; I'm just trying to use them as an example of the kinds of issues with voicing and voice leading that I think you should pay particular attention to.  Again, I think there are some really strong ideas here.  I hope this doesn't come across as overly critical!

No, absolutely, @Aiwendil! I was really hoping to run into a criticism of this kind on the forum: well-founded, constructive, and giving me advice on what to fix with my voice leading. I thank you, and I hope you could point out some more flaws in my music (especially in the 'chorale' section before the first recapitulation; I've doubts about that part!).  

For the voice leading: I can definitely hear the improvements in your version. I feel that it's probably closer to the vision I originally had for those opening bars, but since the process of my writing back then involved a two-piano score, I assumed splitting the notes from an (albeitly nontypical) IV-I progression would suffice in providing that added oomph. I'll have to ask you to forgive me for the (I assume) many voicing errors in my score: I'm not exactly a formally trained composer 🙏

I'd absolutely love to hear more of your critiques and helpful advice, and I'm really hoping to hear from you soon. Once again, I thank you!

On 8/11/2023 at 11:14 AM, Awsumerguy said:

I'd absolutely love to hear more of your critiques and helpful advice, and I'm really hoping to hear from you soon. Once again, I thank you!

 

Well, I'd encourage you to work through your score and try to think about the voice leading yourself!  Also, realize that I'm just an amateur like you.

A few more thoughts, though.  I think the second phrase is voiced somewhat more effectively, though there are still parallel octaves (well, 16ths) between the violins and the celli, as well as hidden fourths moving from the third beat to the fourth beat.  I'm not sure that those are a problem here, but I usually find that when I do have parallel/hidden perfect intervals, it's usually worth taking a few minutes to see if I can voice things in a way that avoids them.  Doesn't always work, but often it ends up sounding better.

At measure 8, you have this interesting downward figure in the strings, which features parallel fifths between the viola and the violins, and parallel sevenths (!), albeit displaced by a few octaves, between the violins and the celli/basses.  The parallel sevenths is an interesting choice, and I think it maybe kind of works.  I wouldn't call it a problem from a voice-leading perspective, but it does create a series of unresolved dissonances all the way through the measure.  Maybe that's what you want.  I think it might be more effective to get rid of the parallel fifths that the violas create, though - maybe have them play the same rhythm, but holding steady on that E flat?  I also note that in the basses, you omit the D at the bottom of the figure (since that's below their range) but the preceding E flat is also a semitone below their lowest open string (assuming you're writing for standard orchestral contrabasses).  I've read that the best practice, when the bass line goes below that bottom E natural, is not to omit the basses but to simply have them jump up an octave for the notes that would otherwise be unplayable.  If they're playing together with the cellos, the result sounds like a smooth lines; you don't hear the jump.  One other note is that in this phrase you seem to be writing freely for the timpani - that phrase would require seven drums to play, and it also goes below the bottom range for the standard size timpani!  Even though I know that nothing I write will be played by a human, I usually try to stick to four timpani at maximum.

I actually find the scoring starting at m. 14 much better.  And the gesture at m. 19 is very effective - the woodwinds reinforcing the blast from the horn, and then the horn's long descending line over tremolo strings and timpani, gaining strength as it leads up to another statement of the opening "motto".  Very well done.

All I have time for at the moment, I'm afraid.  Hopefully this was somewhat helpful!

11 hours ago, Aiwendil said:

At measure 8, you have this interesting downward figure in the strings, which features parallel fifths between the viola and the violins, and parallel sevenths (!), albeit displaced by a few octaves, between the violins and the celli/basses. 

I've always feared someone would spot a counterpoint error somewhere in my music that I didn't notice. Oh, the horror of hidden parallel fifths! 😱

I think your advice has been a great help to me so far! I'm beginning to look at my piece just that little bit more analytically, and only now am I noticing the voice leading errors in a lot of different parts of the music (especially around the woodwind/brass chorale before the recap; I feel there's enough voice-leading mistakes there to give Mahler another stroke had he been alive to see it). I'll follow your advice on a lot of the parts; I'll have to consider which of the mistakes I'd rather keep deliberate, though, because I quite like the sound of my piece as it is (even if I do prefer it being improved upon in a technical sense). I might look at some of the sections you pointed out, and put something else in its place; no matter which way you phrase it, a parallel fifth is a parallel fifth, and I'd rather not have something like that in my piece!

A question: I read on Rimsky-Korsakov's Principles of Orchestration (and watched subsequent explanations on YouTube) that a lot of instruments have a 'sweet-spot' in a given range; an oboe might sound a certain way around the mid-high register that is preferred among composers, but this obviously leads to the question of whether or not we should be keeping to this rule at all. Should 'sweet-spot' registers play a greater importance than voice leading in symphonic writing? If so, in which situations should voice leading be more important? 

(a cheeky couple of @s here: I could really use your opinions, @Luis Hernández and @Henry Ng Tsz Kiu! 🙏)

11 hours ago, Aiwendil said:

One other note is that in this phrase you seem to be writing freely for the timpani - that phrase would require seven drums to play, and it also goes below the bottom range for the standard size timpani!  Even though I know that nothing I write will be played by a human, I usually try to stick to four timpani at maximum.

I honestly didn't know that! I never bothered to look at timpani ranges, and I've always been pretty lax with how I write for timpani. All I understood I should do was keep the range of the playing in my music somewhere below Eb and somewhere above low C, because the upper registers have always lacked that bass sound that I want from timpani. I'll work on it and see what I can fix.

11 hours ago, Aiwendil said:

I actually find the scoring starting at m. 14 much better.  And the gesture at m. 19 is very effective - the woodwinds reinforcing the blast from the horn, and then the horn's long descending line over tremolo strings and timpani, gaining strength as it leads up to another statement of the opening "motto".  Very well done.

Thanks for that! Good to know I managed to do something right 😉

11 hours ago, Aiwendil said:

All I have time for at the moment, I'm afraid.  Hopefully this was somewhat helpful!

This was more than helpful - without your advice, I'd have never noticed these mistakes. It takes a lot of painful rewriting of one's music to get to a level of mere competence (especially those of the symphonic sort), and I'm lucky to get a headstart thanks to you! 👍👍

17 hours ago, Awsumerguy said:

no matter which way you phrase it, a parallel fifth is a parallel fifth, and I'd rather not have something like that in my piece!

 

I really don't think this is the best way to think about things.  Parallel fifths (or other contrapuntal "errors") can be fine.  In some contexts, they're very effective!  In others, they are deeply enough buried that they don't really strike the ear.  Open a score by, say, Handel, and with a little bit of searching, you will likely be able to find parallel fourths, fifths, or octaves somewhere.

You shouldn't think, "Oh, this piece sounds good, but it has the technical error of parallel fifths here."  You should think, "Maybe this piece would sound better if I changed it to avoid the parallel fifths here."  And if you find that it doesn't sound better, leave the "error" there.

Quote

I honestly didn't know that! I never bothered to look at timpani ranges, and I've always been pretty lax with how I write for timpani. All I understood I should do was keep the range of the playing in my music somewhere below Eb and somewhere above low C, because the upper registers have always lacked that bass sound that I want from timpani. I'll work on it and see what I can fix.

Traditionally, two timpani were used, with a combined range of F-F.  There are bigger and smaller drums that extend the range downward and upward, so you may be OK going down to the low D.  The bigger issue, I think, is to decide how many drums your score is going to call for and then stick to that.  In Beethoven's day and earlier, two drums were used, usually tuned to the tonic and dominant of whatever key the piece is in.  In modern orchestras, it's common to have four drums.  The usual practice is to decide what pitches those drums are each tuned to and indicate it at the beginning of the score, then only write those notes for the timpani.  If you need a different note, the drums can be retuned in the middle of the piece, given a few bars of rests - just add a note to the score at the point when the tuning should be altered.  You can also do glissandi where the drum is retuned while a roll is being played, or after a note has been struck.  Now, maybe an expert timpanist could play something like what you have in m. 8 on just two or four drums by retuning while playing, but you'd still inevitably get a pitch-bending effect, which I don't think is what you want.

In general, though, the exact pitch that the timpani is playing - especially in loud passages like this - is less important than you might think.  If you were, for instance, to rewrite that measure with the timpani playing the same rhythm but holding to the initial pitch of C, it would probably be just as effective.  The combination of the timpani with the cellos and basses often tricks the ear into hearing a single bass line, rather than hearing the timpani in harmony with the bass line.  Or, if you decide to use four drums, you could have them tuned D-F-A flat-C, and either remove the sixteenth-note passing tones from the downward figure in m. 8 or move those passing tones up or down a step to put them on playable notes.