This movement begins pp, please adjust your speakers accordingly as the dynamics will get louder as the piece progresses..
From the CD "Rebel Planet" (2001)
-
Gerber: Symphony #4, 1st movement
-
Hi Jerry,
This is an amazing piece full of surprises. The synth fits again perfectly in the ensemble. I too like the adagio passage, but also the agitato finale passage near the end, which calms down again in the low woods (cor anglais?). Fantastic and so brilliantly orchestrated with a great variety in harmonies and sound colours.
It was a real joy to listen to. Many thanks!
Max
-
Hi Jerry,
This is an amazing piece full of surprises. The synth fits again perfectly in the ensemble. I too like the adagio passage, but also the agitato finale passage near the end, which calms down again in the low woods (cor anglais?). Fantastic and so brilliantly orchestrated with a great variety in harmonies and sound colours.
It was a real joy to listen to. Many thanks!
Max
I appreciate that listeners enjoy my work Max and Anand.
I have found in the 34 years I've worked with MIDI and audio technology, that the more complex a piece is and the longer in length it is, the more difficult, and in some ways the more futile, to sound exactly like a recording of a real orchestra. It's also, in my opinion, stylistically conservative, as it fails to take into account what digital instruments can do that no acoustic instrument can and also presumes that "sounding like an orchestra" is some kind of monolithic idea, as though all orchestras sound the same, when that is far from the truth.
When a composer presents a new work and calls it a symphony, he's already asking for trouble. Not only is the sound being compared to an acoustic orchestra, but he must contend with assumptions and conclusions about what a symphony is, when in fact it is only a person's idea of what a symphony really is.
In the barest definition, a symphony is a multi-timbral, medium- to long-form work usually in several movements. If you compare an early symphony of Haydn, say, to one of Mahler or Nielsen, there are important differences in length, number of musicians playing and which instruments are employed, harmonic language, approach to rhythm and meter and tempo, orchestration differences, textural differences, differences in phrasing and how cadences are constructed.
Many believe, as I do, that the symphony is a work of the composer's emotional, intellectual and spiritual life, history and destiny. In other words, personal expression and subjectivity are present, yet so is, at least in the composer's vision, a craft to balance and give order to the musical impulse. If you have ever had a sense that nature and cosmos are inherently vibrating harmoniously under laws which govern all of reality, you know what I mean. Music is vibration. Pre-language, trans-language and post-language charateristics explain why sometimes "it", whatever it is, can only be expressed in music.
The above piece was produced in 2000, around the time when sample libraries of decent quality were starting to become available. If I had the time to re-do it using current technology I would, but I am busy working on my 10th symphony.
-
Many believe, as I do, that the symphony is a work of the composer's emotional, intellectual and spiritual life, history and destiny. In other words, personal expression and subjectivity are present, yet so is, at least in the composer's vision, a craft to balance and give order to the craving to be musical. If you have ever had a sense that nature and cosmos are inherently vibrating harmoniously under laws we are starting to understand, you know what I mean. Music is vibration. Pre-language, trans-language and post-language charateristics explain why sometimes "it" whatever it is, can only be expressed in music.
Hi Jerry,
It's more than true that writing a 'symphony' is a dangerous enterprise in terms of form, content and structure. That's why I never write pieces with a classical denomination or reference to this or that form. As you mentioned, composition nowadays is more an ultimate personal expression of the most personal emotions in the universal language that is called music. The term 'symphony' has changed many times in the course of music history. In the renaissance or early baroque, it had the ancient Greek meaning of just sounding together (sym-phonei), instruments playing together in harmony. It didn't have any structural or formal connotation (of movements, rhythm, character...), it only meant music with a number of instruments playing together in the harmony of that time. The formal aspect came in late baroque and classicism. The massive lengthening started in the 19th century (romanticism). Nowadays the shape has become more personal again, but as you said, the expectation is still the classical appearance.
As to sound and harmonies: I usually mix all styles and harmonies to a sort of eclectic whole (which actually means that I have no style at all 😉 .) I use perfect classical harmony, jazz chords, stacked fiths, dissonants... as suites me to express my thoughts. But you are a true master in this! I really admire your harmonies and orchestration skills.
Max
-
"When a composer presents a new work and calls it a symphony, he's already asking for trouble. Not only is the sound being compared to an acoustic orchestra, but he must contend with assumptions and conclusions about what a symphony is, when in fact it is only a person's idea of what a symphony really is." - jsg
This is a really bad statement, because it assumes that any definition of a symphony beyond "generic music" or "any music I like" is biased according to the opinions of the person stating it. This statement denies that there is any definition of the actual symphony.
Nevertheless there is. Contrary to what you state or imply, there is a real nature of "symphony" as the word has been used throughout music history by both composers and music historians. It is a work in several movements which crucially uses symphonic/motival development and formal development in the first and last movements, and binary song or rondo/scherzo forms in the second and third movements. Symphonic development is quintessential to what a symphony is - the statement of motifs or melodies and the working with those motifs in development sections or contrasting sections, breaking them apart, reconstructing them in new forms, and then finally returning to the original statement.
The symphony as created by Stamitz was very simple, (as were other earlier pieces called "symphonie" - please don't get strictly into terminology in music history as that way lies madness) but when Haydn and the classical composers worked with it, they created the blueprint for what would later be expanded vastly by Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert, Tchiakovsky, Franck, Saint-Saens, Bruckner and the ultimate symphonists - Mahler and Vaughn-Williams. All of these composers started with the same basic forms created for the symphony by Haydn who is the true father of the symphony even though he did not do the first compositions called "symphony." But they continued - rather than abandoned and replaced with meaningless "anything-you-want" - the basic structure of the symphony which is statement-development-recapitulation within larger enveloping first and last movements and freer song/scherzo forms within those surrounding movements. Mahler and Vaughn Williams took the form to the extreme limits while still using an expansion of the basis of the symphony, especially in their brilliant use motival development and elaboration on basic melodic statements.
Now you can "re-imagine" the symphony to be anything including a medley of pop songs, but it will not be a symphony like the inspiring works of great composers of the past.
-
William:
Sometimes I wonder if you're drinking too much when you write because, as usual, you mis-quote, take out of context and generally misunderstand what I write, including this post.
I don't have time to argue with you and even if I did I would choose not to. If you have something valuable to say than say it, because, so far, you haven't said anything insightful or even worth reading. But if you just are in the spirit to disagree for its own sake, which you usually are, perhaps you might consider exercising a bit of self-restraint.
-
Many believe, as I do, that the symphony is a work of the composer's emotional, intellectual and spiritual life, history and destiny. In other words, personal expression and subjectivity are present, yet so is, at least in the composer's vision, a craft to balance and give order to the craving to be musical. If you have ever had a sense that nature and cosmos are inherently vibrating harmoniously under laws we are starting to understand, you know what I mean. Music is vibration.
Jerry, (or should I call you Gustav 'the Titan' Mahler.. ;-)
The quote above is nicely put. What I don't get is the pre, trans and post language bit that follows, what does that mean?
I can see where you and William are coming from and I'm stuck in the middle there. I agree with you that a symphony can and actually should imo be a personal odyssey - witness Mahler - but I also think, like William (and probably you too), that the journey should also be about the rigour of development and as a result of that rigour, a transcending of the original material.
I think you probably have the same view from what you've written, but maybe with a slightly different emphasis and paradigm. I see no conflict with your attitude to the symphony and the great tradition because the form has to move on to new destinations to become relevant and it is always the mavericks and the original thinkers who provide the transport.
www.mikehewer.com -
Many believe, as I do, that the symphony is a work of the composer's emotional, intellectual and spiritual life, history and destiny. In other words, personal expression and subjectivity are present, yet so is, at least in the composer's vision, a craft to balance and give order to the craving to be musical. If you have ever had a sense that nature and cosmos are inherently vibrating harmoniously under laws we are starting to understand, you know what I mean. Music is vibration.
Jerry, (or should I call you Gustav 'the Titan' Mahler.. 😉
The quote above is nicely put. What I don't get is the pre, trans and post language bit that follows, what does that mean?
I can see where you and William are coming from and I'm stuck in the middle there. I agree with you that a symphony can and actually should imo be a personal odyssey - witness Mahler - but I also think, like William (and probably you too), that the journey should also be about the rigour of development and as a result of that rigour, a transcending of the original material.
I think you probably have the same view from what you've written, but maybe with a slightly different emphasis and paradigm. I see no conflict with your attitude to the symphony and the great tradition because the form has to move on to new destinations to become relevant and it is always the mavericks and the original thinkers who provide the transport.
Hey Mike,
I meant that music transcends, precedes and takes up where ordinary language leaves off. In other words, what cannot be said in words can be said in music, as all musicians know. This is probably one reason why literary criticism might often be more useful than music criticism; music criticism requires that we use another language (the written word) to interpret what music is about, while literary criticism uses the same language (the written word) as the work it is being critical of.
Of course the symphony requires music development, I didn't say that because that is a core assumption in any long-form piece of music, that the composer has the imagination and technique to create "a lot out of a little", I call it the economics of composition. I was specifically writing about the symphony as a genre for the electronic medium, obviously a comparatively very new approach. That's what William, doesn't get, or didn't get, but no surprises there, as he usually misunderstands what I write and often has habitual negative emotional reactions that fail to move or convince me of his perspective. I am now, and forever, a student of music, and am eager to always learn more and learn new things. But I also, luckily, have a robust bullshit detector and I use it when necessary, both toward myself and others.
-
Just for "historic" interest, what Samplelibrary did you used in this recording "2001"!!!
Miroslav Vitus, Peter Siedlaczek, EastWest- Symphonic Orchestra, Garritan Strings, Kirk Hunter ?
(AFAIK the VSL-First Edition was released not before 2002).
I had to look on the CD as I wouldn't have remembered all the libraries I used in 2001! For this recording I used Siedlaczek's Advanced Orchestra, Miroslav Vitous String Ensemble, Symphony of Voices and Dan Dean Solo Strings.
-
P Paul moved this topic from Orchestration & Composition on
