Symphony in d minor

After a lot of going back and forth on whether or not to post this here, I’ve finally decided that my true first symphony is ready to have other people’s ears on it! (As opposed to the “symphony” in e minor that I posted here a number of years ago, which I now regard as number zero and don’t allow anyone to look at. 😉)

This piece originated last october as a string quartet, and as I worked on the finale of the piece, I realized that rather than writing a chamber piece I was actually writing a large scale orchestral work. I finished it toward the end of this past July.

I hope you enjoy!

Hello

I'm not going to give you details of concrete analysis of anything because I have dedicated myself to listen and enjoy.
And I loved it. I haven't had a dull moment at all. I think it has some lyrical parts and some very intense parts. As well as a lot of harmonic and textural richness, etc...
Congratulations.

On 10/16/2024 at 12:32 PM, Luis Hernández said:

Hello

I'm not going to give you details of concrete analysis of anything because I have dedicated myself to listen and enjoy.
And I loved it. I haven't had a dull moment at all. I think it has some lyrical parts and some very intense parts. As well as a lot of harmonic and textural richness, etc...
Congratulations.

 

Thank you for taking the time to listen and leave a comment!  :-)

Congratulations on completing such an epic and expansive work!

I wonder why you chose to used breves (double whole notes)? I don't think these have been in common use for several hundred years, and some people may not realise what they mean. (That said, I have seen them used by Colin Matthews in his orchestrations of Debussy's Preludes.)

You could perhaps have used semibreves instead, at half the tempo. 

In your strings, you have div. followed by tutti; but I think the correct way to cancel div. is with unis. (Tutti is used to cancel a solo, or 2 soli indication.) 

I'm really nitpicking here: so feel free to ignore me!

18 hours ago, Alex Weidmann said:

I wonder why you chose to used breves (double whole notes)? I don't think these have been in common use for several hundred years, and some people may not realise what they mean. (That said, I have seen them used by Colin Matthews in his orchestrations of Debussy's Preludes.)

It’s interesting you brought this up. In the original quartet version of this piece they are half notes (or semibreves) at half the tempo, but they were too difficult to count and always sounded rushed. One of the fascinating things I’ve started to notice now that I’ve had performances of some of my music is that notation can have a profound effect on how performers interpret sheet music. As such, I chose to put it in breves for a more expansive quality.

21 hours ago, Alex Weidmann said:

In your strings, you have div. followed by tutti; but I think the correct way to cancel div. is with unis. (Tutti is used to cancel a solo, or 2 soli indication.) 

As for the string tutti/unis. issue, I’ve heard it go either way and honestly don’t care terribly about that detail. It’s easy enough to fix, so if someone convinces me strongly enough in the future I may change it.

What did you think of the music in and of itself?

Musically it feels very episodic, with moments of high drama, and some vivid tone colours.

The first movement brought to mind a battle on the high seas, perhaps due to its cinematic tropes.

It starts with a sombre air of tragedy, then becomes more expansive, and morphs into a sort of action adventure movie soundtrack. I found the sudden changes in dynamics quite effective and evocative.

It's well orchestrated (better than anything I could do), and I enjoyed your use of sul tasto, Bartok pizzicato, and handstopping in the horns. All these things add more colours and textures to the orchestra. 

Overall a well heard piece.

Hi @mercurypickles!

1st movement - I perceive this as a bit uninspired.  Throughout the movement there is scarcely any chromatic inflection to the material.  It's mostly diatonic and falls flat in sustaining melodic interest.  I just finished listening to the movement and I can't whistle or hum a single theme.  I think it's not very memorable because the pitches have been treated a bit indiscriminately.  It lacks direction from the material itself.  The crescendi and tutti sections aren't justified by the melodic material and instead serve to ornament a piece that lacks drive and direction.  On 2nd listen I think that you start developing and over-complicating the orchestration and counterpoint before you allow the listener to really absorb the themes first.  That might be why I perceive this piece as a-thematic.  This might also arise out of just indiscriminately entering notes into the sequencer.  It doesn't seem like you've streamlined this composition to really achieve its maximum effect with the notes you have.  There is both not enough repetition and too much repetition.  You repeat mundane and unimportant seeming ostinati while creating giant crescendi that don't really lead anywhere.  But you don't seem to repeat (repetition with variation is very important in establishing the main themes) the themes enough for them to seem substantial and important enough to the listener to be remembered.  It gives the movement a sort of sense of marking time.  These are my thoughts about this movement.  Thanks for sharing!

Thank you for taking the time to listen and leave a comment!

10 hours ago, PeterthePapercomPoser said:

1st movement - I perceive this as a bit uninspired.  Throughout the movement there is scarcely any chromatic inflection to the material.  It's mostly diatonic and falls flat in sustaining melodic interest.  I just finished listening to the movement and I can't whistle or hum a single theme.  I think it's not very memorable because the pitches have been treated a bit indiscriminately.  It lacks direction from the material itself.  The crescendi and tutti sections aren't justified by the melodic material and instead serve to ornament a piece that lacks drive and direction.  On 2nd listen I think that you start developing and over-complicating the orchestration and counterpoint before you allow the listener to really absorb the themes first.  That might be why I perceive this piece as a-thematic.  This might also arise out of just indiscriminately entering notes into the sequencer.  It doesn't seem like you've streamlined this composition to really achieve its maximum effect with the notes you have.  There is both not enough repetition and too much repetition.  You repeat mundane and unimportant seeming ostinati while creating giant crescendi that don't really lead anywhere.  But you don't seem to repeat (repetition with variation is very important in establishing the main themes) the themes enough for them to seem substantial and important enough to the listener to be remembered.  It gives the movement a sort of sense of marking time.  These are my thoughts about this movement.  Thanks for sharing!

All I have to say about this is that I feel you’ve missed the point of the movement. Yes, it is rather abstract, and that is by design. This movement was originally written as a contrapuntal exercise which simply grew into something more. As such, it simply doesn’t rely on traditional melodic mechanisms or standard-fare romantic period harmonic structures. In many ways this piece has much more in common with renaissance counterpoint than most other symphonic music I’ve come across. If you’re looking for a “big tune” try listening to the finale, though if you consider this first movement incomprehensible then you may have a difficult time understanding the form of the finale.

As for the accusation of, “indiscriminately entering notes into the sequencer,” I take some frustration. You do not know my process, so why insist on saying something so blatantly polemical? I fail to see the value in repeatedly saying things like that, as well as calling the music “a-thematic.” For your information, this movement took me nearly 8 months to complete, it was a tremendous amount of work, and I don’t take what seems to be largely unjustified criticism lightly.

If you don’t like a piece of music, that’s fine! There’s plenty of music by very famous composers that simply doesn’t speak to me that I largely find no value in. Not all art is for everyone, we all have different things we prefer over others and I would hate to be someone that would force you to listen to something you don’t enjoy! But with that said, find something more grounded in the score to criticize than something along the lines of, ‘well, it’s not Tchaikovsky and there’s not a big obvious melodic gesture so the composer must not know what they’re doing.” (Yes I realize that’s not word for word what you said, but it’s not exactly far off either.)

Again, thank you for taking the time to listen, as well as giving me the opportunity to spell out my feelings toward critics. 😉

9 hours ago, mercurypickles said:

All I have to say about this is that I feel you’ve missed the point of the movement. ... As for the accusation of, “indiscriminately entering notes into the sequencer,” I take some frustration. You do not know my process, so why insist on saying something so blatantly polemical? I fail to see the value in repeatedly saying things like that, as well as calling the music “a-thematic.” For your information, this movement took me nearly 8 months to complete, it was a tremendous amount of work, and I don’t take what seems to be largely unjustified criticism lightly.

Notice that I said "I perceive this as a bit uninspired" and "I perceive this piece as a-thematic."  I'm not accusing you of anything but simply trying to convey my experience of listening to the movement as a listener.  I think my experience is valid and telling me that I've "missed the point" isn't going to change it.  I offer up multiple theories and explanations as I search for a reason why this may be happening.  I usually try to explain why I perceive the music a certain way by referring back to the music itself.  But there are also internal reasons for why I perceive your symphony movement this way - that I am myself a very thematic composer.  I usually find it difficult to justify the presence of sound in the absence of themes/melodies.

9 hours ago, mercurypickles said:

If you’re looking for a “big tune” try listening to the finale, though if you consider this first movement incomprehensible then you may have a difficult time understanding the form of the finale.

I perceive the 3rd movement as definitely being more driven and motivically based.  You repeat the motives more here, I think giving the movement more coherence for me.  There are some very lyrical sections with long leading melodic lines in the middle slower part, with many contrapuntal lines interweaving.  There is some beautiful interplay between the Strings, English Horn and French Horn.  There is also some striking use of dissonance.  On the whole I enjoyed this movement much more - great job!

Edit: some of those really fast pizzicato passages near the end of the movement seem very unidiomatic and impossible to play!

33 minutes ago, PeterthePapercomPoser said:

Notice that I said "I perceive this as a bit uninspired" and "I perceive this piece as a-thematic."  I'm not accusing you of anything but simply trying to convey my experience of listening to the movement as a listener.  I think my experience is valid and telling me that I've "missed the point" isn't going to change it.  I offer up multiple theories and explanations as I search for a reason why this may be happening.  I usually try to explain why I perceive the music a certain way by referring back to the music itself.  But there are also internal reasons for why I perceive your symphony movement this way - that I am myself a very thematic composer.  I usually find it difficult to justify the presence of sound in the absence of themes/melodies.

Please forgive me for being a bit defensive! It can be difficult not to leap to die for my choices when I feel I’ve done something right, but like I said, there is different art for different people, and I greatly respect and appreciate your following up.

34 minutes ago, PeterthePapercomPoser said:

I perceive the 3rd movement as definitely being more driven and motivically based.  You repeat the motives more here, I think giving the movement more coherence for me.  There are some very lyrical sections with long leading melodic lines in the middle slower part, with many contrapuntal lines interweaving.  There is some beautiful interplay between the Strings, English Horn and French Horn.  There is also some striking use of dissonance.  On the whole I enjoyed this movement much more - great job!

This is my favorite movement in the piece! I’m so glad it came across well for you, I’ve had some very mixed reactions to that movement because of the rather unusual form. (Ternary and sonata form superimposed with the sonata form layer have a reversed recapitulation.)

36 minutes ago, PeterthePapercomPoser said:

Edit: some of those really fast pizzicato passages near the end of the movement seem very unidiomatic and impossible to play!

Yes they are! I’m aware and I need to fix them but I haven’t quite figured it out yet - if you have any suggestions I’d love to hear them.