• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

I'm writing a symphony

aggle-rithm

Ardent Formulist
aggle-rithm
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
15,334
Location
Austin, TX
A rough draft of the beginning of the first movement is here:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10012914/sym3.mp3

I've written two symphonies before, but both were based on ideas from my college days thirty years ago. This would be the first utilizing my mature style, which I call Ardent Formulism (http://johnmreese.net/music/the-ardent-formulism-manifesto/).

The strategy here is to merge the large-scale structure of a classical symphony with Baroque idioms. For this reason the symphony is called "Chimera".

I will keep updating as I make progress. Just in case anyone's interested.
 
My laptop speakers are pretty bad so I didn't get much nuance. Do you have a score or lead sheet? Always good to hear something different
 
aggle-rithm said:
I will keep updating as I make progress. Just in case anyone's interested.
Click to expand...

I listened to your work. Thank you for sharing it. I'm impressed.

For the recording you have posted, was that a local Texan orchestra? Did you pay them to perform and allow you to record your piece? Did they just "bang it out" on the first reading or did you run through over a half day or do?

What do you compose on? ( A piano & pen only, or modern electronic samplers to do complete "roughs" at home)
 
I like it. Reminds me a bit of Mozart's style.

For the record I don't play any instrument except guitar (though I've taken violin and piano in the distant past), and I've never studied music theory or composition, so I may not be the greatest critic.

@ME: Sounds synthesized to me, though my work computer speakers are not the greatest.
 
Love it. Like Spitfire, I'm reminded of Mozart.

Thank you so much for sharing.

Hope you don't mind me posting it in the What MUSIC are you listening to RIGHT NOW? thread
 
Have listened 2 or 3 times on headphones.

This has integrity, energy, rigor, personality. It's real music.

I think you're achieving what you're setting out to do.

It's not imitation anything, doesn't really sound like any one composer. There are some quirky harmonic choices that, while organic enough, don't sound like anybody.

Too continuous to be Mozart or another classical composer. Also perhaps less "thematic" -- I hear a lot of intelligent figuration, but not a dwelling on a single theme.

That being said, it's plenty tight. There's no flab.

I particularly like the "woodwind" episode after the open with the little descending chromatic figure.

It's very clearly a synthesized ("sound fonts") version of a score. The benefit of this approach is that the performance is clean and everything sounds of a piece, together. The drawback is that the synthesis is somewhat indifferent: the opposite approach would be to compose/perform specifically with the strengths and weaknesses of the synthesized instruments, instead of the "sound font" approach. But that's not what you're after.

The slight run-on quality is a result of the computer performance; the whole thing would sound more inflected, more chunked, if played by humans with more dynamic contrast. (But it wouldn't sound as clean and perfect.)

Synthesis-wise, the strings sound cheesy, but they attack fast enough for the active lines -- it's always a little tricky to get a decent string sound that speaks quickly enough.

The end gets chopped off -- need a another second or two!

This is a much better piece than I could have written in a similar vein.

Clearly a labour of love. I find that inspiring.
 
It's about 3 min 30 sec long. Just so that people know.
My browser plays this in Xine, and I don't see the time running. Maybe other people do see the time, but I had to clock it.
I've listened to it 3 times now, over the loudspeakers. I love classical music and I play the guitar (though not in a classical style). I have limited knowledge of music theory.

That being said, I do like it. Even with the synthetic sounds it's nice to listen to.
I like the part at around 54 seconds, I think what calebprime calls the woodwind episode.
Also, I really like the part at around 1:33 when it picks up some intensity and drama (and the part before that, setting it up).
The ending note fades away pretty sudden, I assume that's because it's a work in progress, but I would let that ring more and fade away.

As a whole, I like it and am curious as to what it would sound like if it were performed by musicians. (off-topic: is that correct English: "curious as to what"? Just curious).
On-topic: I am impressed and somewhat jealous, but in a good way.
 
I'm impressed. That was really good! I love classical music but I can't say I know a whole lot about it.

It definitely has your individual stamp on it. Still, it kind of reminds me of J.S Bach or Telemann. It definitely has that "German Baroque" feel to it, but there is so much more to it than that. In terms of structure though, due to its lack of repetition, and it's free-flowing nature, it sounds more like a symphonic poem than a true classical symphony.

It also seems like you're trying to do what Brahms did with his music. While a romantic in spirit using inventive harmonies, he used J.S Bach, Beethoven and Mozart as models. I haven't read your "Ardent Formulism" manifesto yet, so it doesn't bias me in any way. Also, I believe I would interpret the music differently if were played by an orchestra rather than synthesizers.

You have a rare talent. Please keep doing this and I would love to hear the finished product.
 
calebprime said:
Have listened 2 or 3 times on headphones.

This has integrity, energy, rigor, personality. It's real music.

I think you're achieving what you're setting out to do.

It's not imitation anything, doesn't really sound like any one composer. There are some quirky harmonic choices that, while organic enough, don't sound like anybody.

Too continuous to be Mozart or another classical composer. Also perhaps less "thematic" -- I hear a lot of intelligent figuration, but not a dwelling on a single theme.

That being said, it's plenty tight. There's no flab.

I particularly like the "woodwind" episode after the open with the little descending chromatic figure.

It's very clearly a synthesized ("sound fonts") version of a score. The benefit of this approach is that the performance is clean and everything sounds of a piece, together. The drawback is that the synthesis is somewhat indifferent: the opposite approach would be to compose/perform specifically with the strengths and weaknesses of the synthesized instruments, instead of the "sound font" approach. But that's not what you're after.

The slight run-on quality is a result of the computer performance; the whole thing would sound more inflected, more chunked, if played by humans with more dynamic contrast. (But it wouldn't sound as clean and perfect.)

Synthesis-wise, the strings sound cheesy, but they attack fast enough for the active lines -- it's always a little tricky to get a decent string sound that speaks quickly enough.

The end gets chopped off -- need a another second or two!

This is a much better piece than I could have written in a similar vein.

Clearly a labour of love. I find that inspiring.
Click to expand...

Wow, thanks!
 
Zelenius said:
It definitely has your individual stamp on it. Still, it kind of reminds me of J.S Bach or Telemann. It definitely has that "German Baroque" feel to it, but there is so much more to it than that. In terms of structure though, due to its lack of repetition, and it's free-flowing nature, it sounds more like a symphonic poem than a true classical symphony.
Click to expand...

Interesting you should say that. I've been listening to a lot of Baroque instrumental music, trying to nail down how it is different from the later classical works (other than the obvious things, like differences in texture, dynamics, instrumentation, etc.). One of the things I noticed is that the Baroque pieces seem to have more of a "stream of consciousness" structure to them. Classical symphonies and other sonatas tended to be much more regimented.
 
Synthesis aside, this seems perfect. Slightly less quirky and more unified than the first mvt.

6/8 E-A-C-B-A-G#| A-E-C?

The literal repetition of the A-E-C at the end of the line, for some reason, seems like the most humorous or light element. Kind of sing-songy.

Because the synthy strings don't have a strong attack, the lines become a little unclear when they get really fast. So the hemiola 3:2 isn't as pronounced as it would be if: a) it were played by humans or b) you orchestrated a bit more, and put some more accompaniment in there, especially on beats 1 and 4 or c) you put more individual variation in the velocities (or dynamics, or amplitudes.)

I personally think humor and lightness is underrated.

Maybe at some point in this section, something slightly quirky, in keeping with your manifesto?

Because I really like cross-rhythms, hemiolas, I'd love to hear you really whale on that at some point!

Do you have a decent pizz sound, or harp? I'd like* to hear a version with the notes articulated a little more cleanly.

In the middle, on beat 1, I thought I was hearing notes clashing slightly because they were overlapping, duration too long or something, but it wasn't completely clear.

eta: it was when you have those nice descending high lines, about two-thirds the way through.

Good stuff. Definitely worth fleshing out.

===========================

*No obligation on your part. I just mean I'd be curious.

===========================

eta2: Just to challenge you a bit: Do you think that working on a written score tends to make you want to fill things in, keep things continuous? Could use of rests (Beethoven, Haydn) be part of your style?
 
Last edited:
Further listening: I think I hear a kind of cumulative intensity toward the end
that is unusual, and really good.

Maybe too many rests would take away from that.

A music that is somehow more intense than it seems on first listen?
 
calebprime said:
The literal repetition of the A-E-C at the end of the line, for some reason, seems like the most humorous or light element. Kind of sing-songy.
Click to expand...

That's sort of the "hook" to this section.

Because the synthy strings don't have a strong attack, the lines become a little unclear when they get really fast. So the hemiola 3:2 isn't as pronounced as it would be if: a) it were played by humans or b) you orchestrated a bit more, and put some more accompaniment in there, especially on beats 1 and 4 or c) you put more individual variation in the velocities (or dynamics, or amplitudes.)
Click to expand...

Yep, that's in the works.

eta2: Just to challenge you a bit: Do you think that working on a written score tends to make you want to fill things in, keep things continuous? Could use of rests (Beethoven, Haydn) be part of your style?
Click to expand...

That's definitely a big temptation. I feel like all that white space should be filled in, not just horizontally, but vertically. Very often I end up simplying things once I have it all together, particularly with instruments that cause physical pain (double reeds, for instance), if they aren't given a break.

I can still remember seeing oboist's faces turning purple in my composition class in college when I didn't give them enough rests.
 
Almo said:
Very respectable effort! Keep it up. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks for your feedback, everyone. It took me a while to muster the courage to put this out there for others to hear. One doesn't want to risk finding out he's not as good as he thinks he is...however, at some point, someone else has to hear it.
 
Very nice! (listened to 1st movt). Perhaps needs a little more definition, but that could be because the attack on the strings is too slow. Great job!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom