SYMPHONY NO. 1
A Project
Presented to the faculty of the Department of Music
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF MUSIC
in
COMPOSITION
by
Glenn A. Disney
SUMMER
2012
© 2012
Glenn A. Disney
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
SYMPHONY NO. 1
A Project
by
Glenn A. Disney
Approved by:
____________________________, Committee Chair
Leo Eylar
_____________________
Date
iii
Student: Glenn Disney
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the project.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Ernie Hills
Department of Music
Abstract
iv
___________________
Date
of
SYMPHONY NO. 1
by
Glenn A. Disney
Symphony No. 1 is a culmination of all of the ‘tools’ of composition which I have
acquired through my studies with Leo Eylar at Sacramento State. It is also intended as an
improvement in both writing technique and orchestration on the first orchestral
composition I wrote, entitled Bride of the Wind, from 2007. This symphony is a multimovement piece for full orchestra, with the first two and last two movements combined
into one flowing movement each, essentially dissecting the work into two halves. The
music is inspired by many sources, but most notably by 20th century orchestral works.
The first movement is inspired at its core by “The Canyon” by Phillip Glass; the second
movement inspired by the Andante tranquilo of Samuel Barber’s Symphony No. 1. The
third movement is a scherzo/waltz, and the fourth is based and inspired by a previously
unperformed and unfinished work of my own (originally for string orchestra).
____________________________, Committee Chair
Leo Eylar
_____________________
Date
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank, first and foremost, the members of the Symphony Orchestra
at Sacramento State, who will be premiering this work in the fall of 2012. Special thanks
go to the orchestra’s conductor and my composition teacher, Leo Eylar. His support and
guidance over the past couple of decades has inspired me to constantly improve my
writing technique and style.
And of course, last but not least, thanks to my wife Whitney Disney. She has had
the burden of having to sit at home and watch from a distance as I tediously worked for
hours at a time on the computer, trying to make each measure of music as perfect as
possible. Her patience in silently supporting me while I was immersed in my own
musical world was and continues to be extraordinary.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments....................................................................................................... vi
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................... vii
List of Examples ....................................................................................................... viii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ……...……………………………………………………….. 1
2. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 6
3. THE MUSIC – MOVEMENT 1 ........................................................................... 13
4. THE MUSIC – MOVEMENT 2 ........................................................................... 19
5. THE MUSIC – MOVEMENT 3 ........................................................................... 23
6. THE MUSIC – MOVEMENT 4 ........................................................................... 29
7. CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................... 35
Works Cited ............................................................................................................... 37
Appendix A. SYMPHONY NO. 1 (score) ............................................................... 38
vii
LIST OF EXAMPLES
Page
1.
3rd movement, rhythmic motive ...................................................................... 11
2.
1st movement., primary rhythmic motive ........................................................ 13
3.
1st movement, compared to Tchaikovsky’s Romeo and Juliet ........................ 17
4.
2nd movement theme, compared to Barber’s Symphony No. 1 ........................ 20
5.
2nd movement motive, compared to Barber Symphony No. 1 ......................... 22
6.
3rd movement, original opening fanfare .......................................................... 23
7.
3rd movement, secondary theme ...................................................................... 24
8.
3rd movement, comparison of ‘B’ section ....................................................... 27
9.
4th movement, initial melody motive ............................................................... 29
10.
4th movement, prominent melodic motive ....................................................... 31
11.
3rd movement rhythm compared to 4th movement rhythm ............................. 32
viii
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
For my final graduate project, I decided to compose a symphony for the
Sacramento State Symphony Orchestra. This was not my first piece for orchestra. In
2007, I wrote a piece entitled Bride of the Wind, which was inspired by an oil-on-canvas
painting of the same name by 20th century Austrian expressionist Oskar Kokoschka. That
piece was premiered on March 18, 2008, by the Sacramento State Symphony Orchestra.
It is a single-movement work that utilizes multiple tonalities (including a fair amount of
bi-tonality) as well as a high level of chromaticism.
Most student compositions at Sacramento State consist of solo or chamber works.
It has been a fairly rare occurrence to see a work on the scope of a large ensemble piece,
such as an orchestral work. Although it was a success just to have a piece of that size
written and then performed by an orchestra, there were several things that I decided I
should correct if I were ever to commit myself to writing another orchestral work. To
generalize, I wanted to veer away from the bi-tonal and chromatic nature of Bride of the
Wind, and to write a piece which more effectively used melodic ideas, rhythms and
orchestration to create a better flow within the work. Bride was written at the start of my
post-graduate years at Sacramento State. Since that time, I’ve also been working on the
ability to expand ideas more, and this was something that would also be important in any
new work of music.
2
It seemed to me a natural idea to write, for my final graduate project, a larger
scale orchestral work. I actually began work on this project in November of 2008. One of
the first things I decided was to write a full multi-movement symphony, and to make it a
piece that was not at all programmatic nor inspired by non-musical means. This work
would be the largest scale work I have ever written, and it will probably remain so for
many years to come. The end result is a piece written technically in a four-movement
format that is broken into two pairs: the first/second and third/fourth movements being
played attacca.
The inspiration for the music comes from a variety of sources of symphonic
music which have inspired me over the years in one way or another. In general, I have
long been a devoté of late 19th to 20th-century orchestral music from Barber to
Stravinsky, from Debussy to Rimsky-Korsakov. And while I do not specifically strive to
sound quite like any of these composers, I certainly gain inspiration in orchestration and
technique from them.
More specifically, the first movement of my Symphony was inspired by The
Canyon (1988) by American minimalist composer Philip Glass. Glass’ website describes
this piece as a “dramatic episode for orchestra”.1 I first encountered the work as
performed by the Santa Clara Vanguard Drum and Bugle Corps, in the summer of 1999. I
was wholly unfamiliar with Glass’ work at the time, but the music inspired me with its
driving, repetitive yet catchy rhythm, and its interjection of rhythmic melodic material.
1
“Philip Glass: Music: The Canyon,” Dunvagen Music Publishers, accessed May 5, 2012,
http://www.dunvagen.com/music/compositions/canyon.php.
3
The Canyon is also heavy in percussion, and one of the things I have also strived
to do in my Symphony is to make more effective use of percussion than I did in Bride.
The Symphony does contain twice as many percussion parts as used in Bride, and quite a
wider variety of instruments are used as well. In Bride, I used a fairly basic combination
snare drum, bass drum, crash, cymbals, suspended cymbals, triangle, xylophone and
timpani. In my Symphony I have added to this list wind chimes, tubular bells (chimes),
tam-tam, vibraphone, tambourine, glockenspiel, and temple blocks. And while quantity
does not necessarily mean better quality, I believe that the added use of color and a more
intelligent use of orchestration of the percussion section has greatly enhanced this
element of the Symphony.
The second movement of my Symphony is the slow movement, and is heavily
inspired by the andante tranquillo movement of Samuel Barber’s Symphony No. 1. In
fact, the bulk of my Symphony, including its attacca movements, is inspired in one way
or another by Samuel Barber’s work. Interestingly, I first heard this work also as
performed by the Santa Clara Vanguard in the summer of 1999. Their production that
year had combined Glass’ work with Barber’s (along with Frank Ticheli’s Blue Shades)
into a singular work of music, much like I have combined the inspirations from these and
other works in my Symphony.
Barber’s Symphony No. 1 is essentially a one-movement work divided into four
sections, whereas mine is a four-movement work divided into two sections. Barber’s
program notes for its New York premiere called his symphony a “synthetic treatment of
4
the four-movement classical symphony”.2 In essence, this describes my work as well.
There is only one stopping point, between the second and third movements, as opposed to
the more traditional form of having a break between each movement. The listener will
likely hear this piece as a two-movement work because of this format. The measures are
even numbered to suggest this, as they continue without resetting between the first and
second movements, and then the third movement restarts at measure number ‘1’ and
continues through the end of the work.
Although my work has four definitively different movements, I did not attempt
within the movements to strictly follow forms typical of a classical symphony. Although,
as we shall see, a rough semblance of common forms can be found within these
movements. And, as the movements are organized as fast-slow-waltz-fast, it does fit the
basic mold in which a classical symphony (late 18th to early 19th century) was typically
composed.
The first two movements of my Symphony were written throughout late 2008 and
the first half of 2009, and then were promptly put away until the fall of 2011, when I
began to more seriously pursue finishing this work. I had originally attempted writing a
third movement in 2009, but was unable to write anything that felt right. Ultimately, the
piece was shelved for about two and a half years while I focused on the core curriculum
of classes required for the masters degree, as well as other creative endeavors.
The third movement, as it now stands in its finished form, contains only a small
bit of the material I had originally started writing for a third movement in 2009. Unlike
2
Barbara Heyman, Samuel Barber: The Composer and His Music (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1994), 140.
5
the first two movements, this movement is not specifically inspired by one work of
another composer. The third movement is a scherzo of sorts, or at least was intended to
be initially. The end product has an almost waltz feel to it in places. But in the classical
tradition of a scherzo, it is a fast-moving light-hearted movement in a sort of ternary
(ABA) form, providing a contrast from the slow, more serious second movement.
The fourth movement is actually inspired by part of a string orchestra piece that I
had started during my undergrad years, but never finished. The original score was lost,
but was partially re-created from memory back in 2000. This material provided the
springboard for the fourth movement’s composition, although quotes of motivic and
rhythmic material from the previous three movements are used throughout. The piece
concludes with a jubilant, triumphant feeling in a major tonality. The ending is not too
dissimilar in style to the ending of Hindemith’s Symphonic Metamorphosis, for example.
All together, my Symphony No. 1 is about twenty-one and a half minutes. The
first and second movements are each about 5:45 in length, the third movement comes in
at about 4:50, and the last movement at about 5:15. This is over twice the length of Bride
of the Wind. The first two movements encompass 476 measures, while the last two
movements contain 491 measures (compared to 236 measures in Bride). This work is set
to be debuted in the fall of 2012 at Sacramento State, by the Sacramento State Symphony
Orchestra under the direction of my professor, Leo Eylar.
6
Chapter 2
Methodology
I actually began composing music in 1989, while attending high school in Galt,
California. Back then, the music writing program of choice was called Encore, and the
entire program fit on a 3.5” floppy disk. Obviously the capabilities of this program were a
far cry from those available today. When I graduated and moved on to college, most of
my writing was done by hand, pencil on paper. Parts were meticulously hand written
from the score in ink. The string orchestra piece that inspired the fourth movement of my
Symphony No. 1 was actually one of the last pieces I wrote by hand.
Beginning in 2000, I began exclusively using the Finale notation software
produced by MakeMusic. The partial recreation of my lost string orchestra score was one
of the first things I wrote out using this software. My Symphony No. 1 dwarfs every other
work I have completed using Finale, coming in at 88 pages worth of 27 staves of music. I
presently use the 2010 version, which I obtained after upgrading my computer. I had
upgraded my computer primarily in order to handle the sheer size of this symphony
piece, since my former computer was too slow and had too small of a monitor on which
to adequately view scores. Upgrading meant that I could view most of the score on the
screen at the same time, whereas previously I could only see half of it at once. This
makes a huge difference in the compositional and particularly the revision processes.
Most of my composing is done at the piano keyboard, which is linked to my home
computer via MIDI. Although, during my work on the Symphony, I have been
7
composing more and more at the computer without use of the piano keyboard. Although
this is generally a slower method of notation, it does allow me to work on composition at
other computers as well (which are not tied to a piano keyboard). I have been able to do
this because I have been trusting more in my theory training as opposed to just relying on
the sounds produced at the keyboard. It’s a matter of not just writing material that works
musically, but understanding why it works to the point that you can create new material
without the handicap of having to hear all of the notes played at the piano first. My ears
have never been trained well enough to decipher musical quality without being able to
see and play the notes at the piano. Rationalizing the theory in my head provides a good
crutch for that handicap.
One of the methods I employ in my composition now, which was not used much
during my undergraduate years, lies in revision. Obviously the use of computers makes
revising a score far easier than it was in the days of putting pencil on paper. The ability to
copy, paste, delete, or insert huge chunks of musical material in the middle of a score
quickly and easily is just not as possible when working with pencil and paper. I cannot
stress enough how the addition of computers has aided in the compositional process.
These days, it’s not unusual for me to have a dozen or more drafts of a particular
piece stored on my computer. Often in my composition, ideas come in waves.
Sometimes I can sit down and music flows out, while other times it can be a struggle just
to complete four measures of music in one sitting. Now, whenever I am stuck on a piece
and cannot decide where or how it needs to go, I simply start over from the first measure.
In essence I recreate the piece from the beginning, using the previous draft as a model
8
and guide. This has allowed me to expand sections, more fully utilizing my ideas, as well
as to tie ideas together more smoothly. It is also not unusual for me to create a break in
the middle of a draft and insert a new section of music. This was often used to more
adequately tie two sections together which I felt were rather clumsy in their flow.
One advantage to these methods is that I have numerous drafts of a given piece,
which allows me to go back and trace the evolution of my work. The first draft of the
first movement of my Symphony, for example, dates back to November 2008. This draft
began with a timpani solo in two measures of 7/8 time, alternating with a measure in 2/4
time. After six measures, the violins and violas entered with a 16th-note passage that
moved up and down in a scalar (albeit modal) form. The rhythmic pattern established by
the timpani still exists in the final draft, as do the 16th-note passages. However, the sixmeasure intro now has become an 89-measure intro featuring the entire percussion
section. The intro is now pitched a fourth higher, and now includes staggered entrances in
the winds that outline, in elongated form, the basic melodic pattern of the movement.
This all takes place now before the 16th-note patterns in the strings begin. The time
signature pattern has changed as well; the 7/8 measures are now broken down into a
combination of a 2/4 and a 3/8 measure.
The first draft contained 40 measures before going into a meno mosso section
(which only had two measures composed initially). This meno mosso section later
became the start of the second movement. Less than two weeks later, I started over from
scratch and flushed out the first movement to over 100 measures. I would start the work
over again several more times before completing the first draft of the first two
9
movements in May 2009. This was also the time in which I began working on a third
movement, but by the end of May it was clear to me that it wasn’t going anywhere, or at
least anywhere I liked. The piece was shelved for the summer and ended up not being
addressed again until the fall of 2011, when I started over and began writing the first and
second movements from the beginning once again. This version improved the flow of the
movement while reducing the feeling of redundancy between sections, and it would
prove to be the final full-scale revision of the first two movements.
The tempos I have used have been something of great interest, as I have placed a
much higher importance on them now than I did in my undergrad days. Throughout the
composing and revising of my Symphony, I would frequently experiment with tempos. It
took, actually, quite a long time to finally settle on the tempos as printed in the final
score. Obviously, in any given performance, the conductor will take a tempo that is
approximately but not necessarily exactly the printed tempo. Only a machine can deliver
exact preciseness in this regard, which is one of the things that makes composing entirely
at a computer something of a disadvantage.
As such, I’ve found in my studies that it is usually good to experiment with
tempos to find a range that you’re happy with. I’ve found that even altering the tempo by
one notch on the metronome can have a profound effect on the music, turning a piece that
was somewhat sluggish into something that bounces along nicely. In all of my
compositions now, I search for what I consider to be the lowest and highest acceptable
tempos (though even this can be a struggle, as my opinion on what the tempo should be
tend to change through the compositional process). Then, once I am satisfied with the
10
range of tempo I have chosen, I either place my tempo markings in the middle of that
range, or I simply list that range. Usually my “acceptable” ranges encompass 2-4 beats
per minute of variance. For example, the third movement of my symphony is marked
q
= 160-162.
Throughout this entire compositional process, I would often bring drafts of the
work in various states to show my composition teacher, Professor Leo Eylar. We often
met once a week, for 30-60 minutes at a time. The comments and feedback were often
generally positive in nature, though very often included suggestions as to things that the
piece could do more of or was lacking. Many of these suggestions were taken to heart,
and were ultimately worked into the final draft. I firmly believe that receiving feedback
from others is highly beneficial in the compositional process. Often, as composers, we
spend so much time on a given piece that we are somewhat blinded as to how it will
ultimately present itself to an audience. Having a fresh set of ears listen to my work
almost always provides great insights into elements of the music which I had not even
considered or noticed.
For example, the meno mosso section starting in measure 106 of the third
movement was originally quite different from how it is now. Originally, the material was
too similar to the previous material in the movement, and it was mentioned by Mr. Eylar
that it sounded simply liked a slowed-down version of the initial music. This was not the
effect I was looking for at all, and so that whole section was subsequently re-written.
Only a couple of measures from the original version made it into the final draft, and the
new version made use of a rhythmic motive (see Ex. 1) that had only been hinted at
11
earlier in the movement, and eventually became a central motive for the remainder of the
third movement, in addition to playing an important role in the fourth movement.
Ex. 1 – 3rd movement., rhythmic motive
I also brought in the first movement to play for Mr. Eylar’s other composition
students, then later the third movement, and eventually the whole symphony. Their
constructive comments were also useful, and became a springboard of new ideas and
changes for the work. As an example, the start of the third movement was initially
marked “Presto”, until one of his students mentioned that had more of a waltz feel, more
of an “in 1” feel. Their suggestion was to mark it as a waltz, and so the final product now
reads “Tempo di waltz”. It is a minor detail of course, but it shows how even the smallest
of positive changes can be inspired by showing your work to others and welcoming
feedback. And this is something that I strive to do more of now.
One of the resources that has proved invaluable to me throughout my composing
career, and certainly throughout the compositional process of this work, is Samuel
Adler’s book The Study of Orchestration. This book breaks down the orchestra into
sections and individual instruments, not only giving the basics such as the range of each
instrument, but also the characteristics of different registers and musical examples from
12
the standard repertoire. This book has been referenced often, and has helped determine
such things as which octave to best write a particular part in or even which instruments to
use to get a particular sound quality.
As an example of this, the extended oboe solo which is prominent in the second
movement stays almost entirely in the range that Adler calls “warm, prominent, reedy,
and poignant”. This is the sound quality I was striving for, and I completely stay away
from the ranges that Adler calls “thick, heavy” and “thin but clear”.3 He has an acute
ability to reference range characteristics using simple yet colorful adjectives. Adler’s
book was a required text from my undergraduate Scoring and Arranging course, and I
highly recommend it to any composer.
3
Samuel Adler, The Study of Orchestration (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1989), 182.
13
Chapter 3
The Music – Movement 1
The Symphony begins with the percussion section, the timpani initially stating the
repetitive rhythmic figure which is used as the basis of the first movement: an alternation
of quarter notes and dotted quarter notes. The meter of the movement is written to fit this
pattern, alternating between 2/4 and 3/8 measures (see Ex. 2). Later in the movement,
sections written in 4/4 meter interrupt this pattern, but the rhythmic drive is maintained
by using similar motives, and this pattern frequently returns throughout the movement.
The tempo of the first movement is marked as
q
= 140, and remains constant throughout
the movement.
Ex. 2 – 1st movement., primary rhythmic motive
The pitch of ‘C’ is central to the first movement initially; the timpani begins on
‘C’, as does the vibraphone upon its entrance in measure 11. The initial melodic material
is first stated in the chimes in measure 21: ‘C’, up a fifth to ‘G’, up a major second to ‘A’,
up a fifth to ‘E’, down a major third to ‘C’, and up a perfect fourth to ‘F’. The entrances
of each pitch are spread out to give the piece a slow, building effect. The winds echo this
effect upon the initial entrance of the clarinet in measure 41 on ‘C’. It isn’t until measure
55 that we hear the second pitch of the series, ‘G’, in the oboe. This simple, pentatonic
melody is passed around the winds with overlapping entrances.
14
This use of repetitive rhythm and a simple, drawn-out melodic pattern shows the
influence of minimalism on the first movement. The dynamics at this point have ranged
from pianissimo to piano. To the existing texture, the strings finally begin to enter in
measure 92. Their entrance introduces a new scalar melodic motive, consisting of
sixteenth notes that run up and down in short fragments. The pitches used are the same
as we have already seen, except we quickly see the addition of chromatic passing tones,
‘B-flat’ and ‘F#’ initially. These passages are initially in unison in the second violins and
violas, eventually adding the octave in the first violins.
The brass section finally enters with the first trombone in measure 110, doubled in
the first bassoon and bass clarinet. Again we see the same melodic pitch set, and still
elongated, except here it is transposed up a perfect fourth. This is the first time we see the
meter change from its initial pattern into a straight 4/4 time. Against this, the lower
strings have a variation of this pitch set, based on ‘B-flat’ and written with quarter note
triplets. The low brass enters with a brief emphasis on the beat, also on ‘B-flat’, which
further stresses the shift in pitch center from the initial center of ‘C’.
In measure 115 a dynamic of mezzo-piano is finally reached. This dynamic only
lasts briefly before returning to piano. However, as the scoring has become gradually
thicker and thicker, the overall effect should not be a loss in dynamic. The winds in
measure 117 take over the scalar sixteenth-notes runs that were first presented in the
strings, though now we see these harmonized in thirds as opposed to being in unison. I
also begin to employ staggered and overlapping entrances, which will become more
prominent later in the work. Things suddenly shift down to pianissimo in measure 124,
15
and the texture thins out considerably to focus on the strings, but a gradual crescendo
with the upper strings playing running, scalar sixteenth notes passages that bring us to our
first real arrival point: a mezzo-forte ‘C-major’ chord in measure 130.
Minimalist pieces are often cyclic in nature, and at this point in the piece we begin
to see this in the overall form of the movement. The ‘C-major’ chord dies away as the
percussion section brings us back to the original style and texture of the opening of the
movement, only this time remaining at a dynamic of mezzo-forte. Again the piece slowly
builds in texture over the underlying rhythmic motive, with augmented statements of the
original melodic material. More scalar runs are present, this time incorporating call and
answer effects from the upper and lower woodwinds. In measure 198 we see the low
brass again emphasizing a shift from the tonal center of ‘C’ to ‘B-flat’.
The building textures drop off suddenly to piano in measure 217, as sparse
scoring with the strings, percussion, and four wind players bring us again to the feeling of
the beginning of the movement. This time, the original, fragmented, scalar melodic
material seen in the strings is now played by the xylophone and winds. This is simply a
method of expanding the piece by re-fashioning previously used material into new
textural and color combinations. This section is the shortest of the cyclic repeats, though
still building in a manner as before. The scalar, interwoven runs are now present in the
brass in addition to the winds, and the strings and brass re-introduce the initial melodic
pitch set in quarter note triplets, bringing us back to mezzo-forte in measure 239.
The original texture and style of the opening of the movement now returns for the
fourth time, this time maintaining the mezzo-forte dynamic. The fragmented melodic
16
sixteenth note motive returns to the strings, and is doubled in the flutes. This section
expands in intensity and thickness of scoring, and a series of sixteenth note runs (much
like we saw leading to the first arrival point earlier) brings us to our first forte in the work
in measure 304. The forte section sustains for a brief time, with the augmented melody in
the strings, horns and trumpets. Against this the low brass and percussion briefly have
eighth note pairs used as percussive hits, while the winds have running sixteenths. The
low brass and low winds then transition to the quarter-note triplet patterns seen earlier.
The eighth note percussive hits against running sixteenths mentioned above occur
between measures 304 and 307. They are offset within the 4/4 meter, such that they
alternate between being on or off the beat, thus creating a sort of polyrhythmic effect.
This is actually an effect that I was inspired by and borrowed from Tchaikovsky’s Romeo
and Juliet Fantasy-Overture (see Ex. 3).
This fourth section climaxes into a return of the alternating 2/4 and 3/8 meters,
this time with a definitive pulse on the rhythm originally introduced by the timpani at the
start of the piece. This pulse is carried by the low woodwinds and the low strings, as well
as the entire brass section (excepting the lead trumpet). The lead trumpet and upper
woodwinds soon introduce a new and unique melodic motive in measure 322 that is
based on the earlier quarter note triplet motive.
It is at this moment in the piece that I had my first real quandary. The original
version of this melodic section was but three measures long, and more akin to the quarternote triplet motifs seen earlier. Upon finishing my first draft of this movement, the most
common comment I received on playing it for my professor and his other students was
17
that the whole first movement sounded like an introduction. In short, it lacked a
sufficiently developed arrival point to justify the long, drawn out build-up present
throughout most of the movement.
Ex. 3 - 1st movement, compared to Tchaikovsky’s Romeo and Juliet 4
To be fair, the first movement is, after all, inspired by minimalism (specifically
the work The Canyon by Philip Glass). Although I did not attempt to make this
4
Peter Tchaikovsky, Romeo and Juliet Fantasy-Overture (full score) (New York: Edwin F.
Kalmus, 1974), 145.
18
movement strictly and completely minimalist, it does feature prominently the standard
textbook traits of this genre – steady pulse, consonant harmony, small melodic and
rhythmic motifs, and repetitive (cyclic) form. But I am not a minimalist composer, and I
did want some semblance of “payoff”, to use a Leo Eylar-ism.
Ultimately, the section beginning at measure 322 was revised. The three-measure
melodic section was increased to eight measures, and is now more chromatic in its
harmony. This is followed by another section of running sixteenths in the upper strings,
and the original melodic material of the movement elongated in the low strings. The low
woodwinds and low brass follow suit, with the upper brass and woodwinds entering
starting at measure 339. This section ends with a majority of the orchestra stating the
quarter-note triplet motive, in harmony now, ending on a ‘G-major’ chord. This was the
original ending point of the first movement, before the revision, transitioning into the
second movement.
The movement now closes with a tutti, chordal progression. This was an addition
in order to provide a more definitive sense of arrival at the end of the movement. The
progression is fairly simple: starting with a ‘G-major’ chord, the bass notes drop one-half
step to ‘F#’, creating a ‘B-minor’ chord in second inversion. From there, the ‘D’ shifts to
‘E’ and the players having ‘F#’ shift to ‘E’ and ‘G’, creating an ‘E-minor’ chord. The ‘B’
then shifts to ‘C’ then back to ‘B’, bringing to chord to ‘C-major’ and back to ‘E-minor’.
Finally, the ‘E-minor’ shifts to a ‘D-major 9th’ chord, which functions as a dominant
chord resolving to ‘G’ on the cutoff. The tuba then re-asserts the original rhythmic
motive of the movement, leading directly into the second movement.
19
Chapter 4
The Music – Movement 2
The second movement opens with a brass chorale. Harmonically this provides a
stark contrast to the general consonance the first movement. The lyrical melody begins in
the second trumpet and is continued in the first trumpet. The harmony utilizes added
tones and suspensions in a polyphonic setting, alternating between an ‘A-major 7th’ chord
and an ‘F-major 7th’ chord in second inversion. The strings and winds then take over,
presenting the initial melody from the trumpets and then expanding upon it. This is all
essentially an introduction, leading to the first section beginning at measure 380.
It is here that the influence of Samuel Barber is most evident, as the material here
resembles the material from the andante tranquilo movement of his Symphony No. 1.
The strings present a pedal harmony on ‘E-minor’ (in second inversion). The violins and
cellos are split, with half of each section presenting an undulating figure that alternates
between a duple and triple feel. Above this, a long, lyrical melody is presented in the
oboe, and is later answered in a variation by the clarinet and then later again in the 1st
violins. The material is loosely based on the previous melody from the introduction, and
will become more important later in the symphony.
Barber also utilizes split parts in the strings, with alternating triple and duple
patterns. His work is based on a ‘C#-minor’ chord in root position, and his duple patterns
are always tied from the end of the triple patterns, making the meter alternation less
obvious to the ear. He also has a lyrical melody above this in the oboe, which inspired my
version (see Ex. 4). Barber’s work is far more drawn out and built upon, and prides the
20
basis of material for his entire movement; in my work the material progresses more
quickly to a secondary section, although the melody itself will be used in different
iterations later.
Ex. 4 - 2nd movement theme, compared to Barber’s Symphony No. 1 5
The first and second sections of my second movement are tied together by a
building chordal pattern in measures 406-407 that leads to a transitional maestoso section
in measure 408, followed by an oboe cadenza. The pattern uses descending bass lines
with a chord progression of ‘D-minor 7th’ to ‘D# diminshed 7th’ to ‘E-minor’ to a
5
Samuel Barber, First Symphony (full score) (New York: G. Schirmer, 1943), 69.
21
dissonant chord that is mostly suggestive of a ‘G# diminished 7th’ chord. This resolves to
an ‘A-minor’ chord, followed by descending quarter-note triplets in the upper winds and
strings. The brass section has a tutti rhythmic pattern that has a dotted-quarter followed
by two, sixteenth notes and a half note. This is presented as an ‘F –major’ chord against
the ‘A-minor’, the overall effect of which will be an ‘F-major 7th’ chord.
The second section is introduced by the winds, with material reminiscent of the
material in the first section of the movement. The strings enter with a tetrachord pattern
in quarter notes that moves to the triple/duple meter pattern seen earlier, this time set in
intervals of seconds as opposed to triads. The melodic material is presented in solo lines
trading off between a variety of brass and wind instruments from measures 421-440.
Prominent in this melodic material is the alternation of duple and triple meters that was
seen in the underlying harmony lines of the strings in the first section. Here, it is
presented as quarter notes versus quarter note triplets.
A second transitional section begins at measure 441. The violins have a large
downward leap of an octave plus a seventh. This is an effect again inspired by Barber’s
Symphony (though in the Barber, the violins leap down an additional octave; see Ex. 5).
The melodic material here is based on the material in the second section of the
movement, with the texture more polyphonic, akin to the opening chorale. The
woodwinds have a tutti melodic pattern in measures 445-446, which uses the same
melodic pattern (albeit a slightly different rhythmic pattern) as the material from the
second section.
A held-over note in the first trumpet leads us out of the second transitional period
22
Ex. 5 – 2nd movement motive, compared to Barber Symphony No. 1 6
and into the third section of this movement. This section begins with the quarter-note
tetrachord seen earlier, this time in the violas and cellos and doubled in the horns. The
low woodwinds and cellos then present the same prominent melodic material that was
seen earlier starting back in measure 421. This winds down and eventually ends on a held
low ‘C’ in measure 458, which sets the stage for a recap of the original material seen in
the opening chorale, this time presented in the strings. The overall mood of this
movement had been fairly dark up till now, but for five measures the initial happy yet
longing quality of the introduction of the movement is reclaimed.
Following this brief recapitulation, the building chordal pattern and maestoso
sections used as a transition between the first and second sections is again presented. This
time, the maestoso section is re-orchestrated to include upward moving quarter note
triplets in the low winds and brass, under held tremolos in the strings and triplets in the
upper winds. From here, the bass clarinet, 3rd trombone and tuba hold over on a ‘C#’, and
that note descends downward, outlining an ‘E-major’ scale and ending on an ‘E’. A solo
violin cadenza, reminiscent of the earlier oboe cadenza, ends the movement.
6
Ibid., 87.
23
Chapter 5
The Music – Movement 3
Work on the third movement of my symphony began in May of 2009. The
original sketches began with a cascading fanfare figure in the strings that was built
around an ‘A-flat dominant 7th’ chord (see Ex. 6). This was treated as a sort of
introduction to the main melody. This movement was intended to be a scherzo of sorts, at
least it was my original intention to have a light-hearted and upbeat movement. After
being unable to move forward with the initial draft, the project was set aside and this
movement was not addressed again until the early part of 2012.
Ex. 6 – 3rd movement, original opening fanfare (discarded)
The original introduction was thrown out, and the initial melody would become
the secondary melody of the final version (see Ex. 7). This movement is still light-hearted
and upbeat, though it now resembles more of a waltz. Most of the movement is in 3/4
meter with occasional 4/4 measures to interrupt the feel – a sort of rhythmic hiccup.
24
Unlike the first two movements, this movement is not particularly inspired by another
composer’s work.
Ex. 7 – 3rd movement, secondary theme (original theme from first sketches)
The movement now begins simply, with a solo timpani roll on ‘E-flat’ introducing
it. The winds play a quarter-note followed by two beats of downward eighth-note triplets.
This is done in a call and answer fashion between the upper and lower woodwinds,
harmonically starting on an ‘E-flat major’ triad and an implied ‘G-flat minor 7th’ (the
third is missing). The downward movement always moves in scalar fashion, though often
using an implied modal key signature. The first one, for example, starts in ‘E-flat major’,
but the runs are written with accidentals as if in ‘A-flat major’. Thus a mixolydian mode
is implied. This sort of process continues throughout the movement, but since the
passages move so quickly in and out of tonalities, it is doubtful this will be heard as a
presentation of different modes.
This pattern leads to the strings asserting the same rhythm but with an upward run
of triplets, and the triplets lasting for multiple measures. A cadential point of sorts is
reached in measures 10-11. The material here hints at what will eventually be the
secondary melody, and this is actually the cadential point of from an earlier draft. Here it
is expanded from the original length of one measure to two measures, with a tutti
pizzicato ‘B-flat’ in the strings on the downbeats of the next two measures. This
25
sequence marks the end of the introduction of the third movement, will be used later in a
similar fashion.
The initial melody, in the first violins, is a waltz that pulls its melodic material
directly from the elongated oboe solo of the second movement. It is harmonized by the
rest of the string section, while the winds in reduced scoring continue the quarternote/triplet call and answer pattern from the introduction. The twelve-measure melody is
repeated as an oboe/trumpet duet starting in measure 25, with the winds reiterating the
last three measures in measures 36-38.
The strings then return with their figure of triplets, with the upper winds entering
with a drawn out orchestration of the earlier cadential material from the strings. Here, the
orchestration uses a succession of entrances in the winds that gradually create a thicker
texture. The strings meanwhile create the opposite effect against this, with their triplets
gradually stopping in succession and holding on single pitches. The chord the strings
eventually rest on form a first-inversion ‘B-flat major’ triad with an added 2nd in measure
46, and this is brought via crescendo to a forte. A solo timpani roll, like the beginning of
the movement but now on the pitch of ‘F’, leads to the next section.
Beginning at measure 49, the next section features another polyphonic brass
chorale – an homage, if you will, to the opening of the second movement. This time the
melodic material is again directly taken from the second movement. The treatment of it
puts it in a 4/4 time, juxtaposing with the predominantly 3/4 meter we have seen up until
now. At twelve measures in length, this section is the only extended 4/4 section in this
movement. After beginning in the brass, the woodwinds join into the mix starting in
26
measure 53. The strings meanwhile provide background harmony with descending
arpeggiated sixteenths.
The next section begins with a pickup to measure 61 in the strings, and introduces
the secondary melody (which, as mentioned earlier, was the original melody in the first
sketches I wrote of the movement). We have returned to 3/4 time here, and the writing
reflects the same sort of polyphonic accompaniment as we saw earlier with the statement
of the first melodic theme. After eight measures, the secondary theme is again presented,
but this time pitched a minor third higher. The winds also provide some doubling here for
textural and color variety.
The woodwinds take over from the strings in measure 77, presenting the initial
melody again. Underneath this, I insert a rhythmic pattern in the second violins and violas
that consists of two beats of dotted-eights and sixteenths followed by one beat of eighth
note triplets (see Ex. 1 in Chapter 2). While this rhythm is not particularly remarkable in
the texture at this point, I later use this motive as a significant driving force in the
movement. It becomes, really, a small but crucial piece that not only provides forward
momentum but also defines the direction of the rest of the symphony. Following this is a
brief quote from the second movement, of the darker sounding quarter-note triplet figure,
before the upper woodwinds re-state the secondary melody again. This section ends with
the same two-measure cadential figure that marked the end of the introduction of this
movement.
At measure 106 the tempo suddenly shifts down from
q
= 160 to
q
= 128. A
French horn cadenza sets the stage for the contrasting melody that is presented in the
27
strings in measure 112. This section was intended to be a contrasting section, essentially
the ‘B’ section that would effectively divide the movement into ternary (ABA) form. The
original material I wrote did not contrast enough from the previous material, and sounded
more like a slowed-down version of the first section of the movement. This section was
thrown out and re-written, and the horn solo revised, both now incorporating the dottedeighth/triplet figure that had just been introduced (see Ex. 8). The melody gets passed
from the strings to the woodwinds to the trumpets, and the overall effect now is one of a
bouncy, light-hearted gallop.
Ex. 8 – 3rd movement, comparison of ‘B’ section from original (top) to revision (bottom)
The return of the initial tempo marks the return of the ‘A’ section in measure 158.
Here, the strings present the triplet-note figures that first appeared in the introduction.
28
These wind down to the upper strings asserting the dotted-eighth/triplet pattern in
measure 165. Under this we see a recurring snippet of the motive from the first measure
of the secondary melody, first in the low strings and then joined by the low brass.
Building to a forte, the initial waltz melody is presented en masse in the upper
strings and brass in measure 175, accompanied by the winds playing the descending
triplet call and answer figures from the introduction. Following this, the strings again
dominate the texture with the dotted-eighth/triplet pattern, while the woodwinds and
horns play the melody en masse. The dotted-eighth/triplet pattern builds in texture across
the orchestra, leading to an entrance of the low brass and low strings on the secondary
melody, with the winds once again performing the descending triplets. This section marks
the longest sustained tutti forte that we have seen yet in the symphony, and is certainly
one of the climaxes of the entire work. The winds and brass end this section playing the
secondary melody together, as the dotted-eighth/triplet figures begin to die out in the
strings. The strings then join in for the last four measures of the secondary melody,
starting in measure 217.
A sort of coda ends this movement, beginning with the strings playing the triplet
patterns from the introduction in measure 221. The full orchestra presents the twomeasure cadence from the end of the introduction once again in measures 226-227, then
the winds begin dying away with their now-familiar call and response descending triplets.
After winding down to a dynamic of piano, a sudden upsurge from the low brass brings
us into the fourth movement.
29
Chapter 6
The Music – Movement 4
The fourth movement of my symphony is based initially on part of a string
orchestra piece that I had started but never finished, back in my undergraduate years at
Sacramento State. I had initially intended for the string orchestra piece to supply the bulk
of the material for this movement, but after re-examining my previous work I decided to
utilize only the primary melodic material from it. Still, it provided a great springboard
from which to finish out my symphony.
The movement begins with an extended pizzicato section in the strings, with offbeat accents doubled in the muted brass. The melody is a short (one-measure) motive
based on upward arpeggiated triads in eighth-notes that include split notes. The first
violins, for example, start with an ‘E-flat major 7th’ chord followed by a ‘C-minor 7th’
chord with a split third. The second violins follow with a ‘C-minor 7th’ chord with a split
third again (see Ex. 9). This pattern is passed around the other sections and repeated, the
second time beginning to incorporate quarter-note triplets and doublings in the upper
woodwinds. Against this, the second flute and second clarinet present a hint of a quote
from the elongated pentatonic melody that was prominent in the first movement.
Ex. 9 – 4th movement, initial melody motive
30
In the original string orchestra version, the music at this point went from 4/4
meter to 3/4 meter, and contained an underlying pulse that gave a feeling of being in two.
This is not dissimilar from the polyrhythmic effects used frequently by Stravinsky, most
notably in his ballets such as The Rite of Spring. In this version, after much debate on the
matter, the meter used is 6/8. This puts the underlying pulse on the beat, and offsets the
melody line seen in measure 253. It turned out to be a wise choice, and the 6/8 feel
becomes a prominent and essential part to the further development of the movement. The
underlying pulse, which is used liberally throughout this movement, also had an
originally unintended effect – it comes across aurally as a sort of ticking clock motif. Rest
assured, the idea of time or clocks has nothing to do with this work.
The full orchestra asserts the initial melodic and rhythmic material again starting
in measure 283, back in 4/4 meter. Quarter-note triplets reminding us of the first
movement again come out, first in the horns in measure 292, then in the strings in
measure 298, leading back to a second 6/8 section orchestrated this time with low winds
and brass. In essence then, up to now the movement has presented a sort of binary
(ABAB) form. The strings transition out of this with harmonized quarter-note triplets that
wind down to a ‘G-minor 7th’ chord, over which a new melody is stated in the trumpet,
leading us to the next section.
The next section stays in 6/8 and incorporates a melody in the upper woodwinds
that is based on the elongated pentatonic melody from the first movement, but treated
with a different rhythm now. This melody will become the dominant melodic feature
throughout the rest of the movement. After being passed around the winds and the strings
31
for a bit, with multiple overlapping entrances, the brass give a definitive statement of it in
a slightly faster tempo in measure 346 (see Ex. 10). It is here that we first get the
triumphant fanfare sound which is characteristic of such pieces as the ending of
Hindemith’s Symphonic Metamorphosis. Against this the winds have downward scalar
runs that again are reminiscent of the runs seen in the first movement.
Ex. 10 – 4th movement, prominent melodic motive
The strings enter with upward arpeggiated eighth notes that end in a statement of
a rhythmic motive that will be reminiscent of the dotted eighth/triplet pattern seen so
prominently in the third movement (see Ex. 11). The fanfare is seen once more in the
brass starting in measure 360, leading to a brief recap in the winds and strings initial
melodic material of the movement, now in a faster tempo that was setup by the pulse of
the 6/8 section (the eighth note remaining constant between the two meters). The 6/8
section then returns, with the new melody presented earlier by the trumpet now stated in
the piccolo and clarinet. Under this the trumpets continue with the “ticking clock” pulse
while the violins reintroduce the dotted-eighth feel rhythm.
In measure 383 the lower strings, tuba, and bass clarinet turn the mood a little
darker as we are given an elongated version of the waltz melody from the third
32
Ex. 11 - 3rd movement rhythm (left, in 3/4) compared to 4th movement rhythm (right, in 6/8)
movement. This mood does not last long though, as the underlying rhythmic pattern
continues and strengthens, leading us to a full orchestra statement of the fanfare material
in measure 396, with the melody in the strings and upper brass. The low brass and
woodwinds then state the fanfare again as the texture winds down to the next section.
The next section begins at measure 414 with the trumpets quietly stating the
initial melodic material. This is echoed and built upon in the woodwinds, with a ‘B-flat
major’ chord in the brass and sixteenth-note runs in the strings bringing us to a tutti
orchestral statement of the opening material of the movement, beginning in measure 423.
This ends with a quiet chordal progression suddenly bringing to a halt the previous
momentum. The strings hold on an ‘F#-minor’ chord, and are joined by the horns and
trombones, with a crescendo that climaxes with a sudden shift to a ‘G-major’ chord in
second inversion in measure 433. This chord then dies away and is replaced by the strings
playing triplet note runs much like those that we saw in the third movement. This in turn
becomes the dotted-eighth/triplet pattern, also from the third movement (with an extra
beat of dotted-eight/sixteenth, as we are still in 4/4 here). A harmonized and augmented
version of the fanfare is played by the brass starting in measure 439.
33
The tempo is suddenly held back as the meter shifts from 4/4 back to 6/8 in
measure 442, slowing the pace down and leading to a brief percussion soli. This brief
section was, admittedly, an afterthought, when Leo Eylar observed that the symphony
had little in the way of featured percussion outside of the opening of the first movement.
This small gesture really doesn’t solve that problem, but it does provide a nice transition
leading back to another presentation of the ‘A’ section in the faster tempo. The initial
melody is here in violins and trumpets as well as all of the woodwinds. The horns and
trombones are playing whole notes that outline a slight variation of the main melodic
sequence from the first movement, and they end on a ‘G-minor’ chord. This brings a
return of the triplet figures in the strings from the third movement, and leads into the
finale of the symphony.
The finale begins in measure 464, and focuses on the fanfare presented earlier in
this movement. Initially it is presented in a more grandiose style, with quarter-note
triplets in place of eighth-notes. The upper winds and strings have running sixteenthnotes against this, until a massed statement of the fanfare in the brass and low winds in
measure 467 brings the music to a ‘F-dominant 7th’ chord. The rhythms then kick into
high gear as the strings have running sixteenths under the fanfare (at the original speed)
in the brass and low winds. The upper winds then take over the sixteenths from the
strings in measure 479, as the strings return to the initial melodic material from the
beginning of the movement (still rhythmically in 6/8 as opposed to the original 4/4
meter). Finally, the symphony concludes with a chordal progression that mimics the one
used at the end of the first movement. A fortissimo-piano in the low brass and
34
woodwinds builds in volume and adds in the strings and trumpets on a final restatement
of the initial melodic motive of the fourth movement. The upper woodwinds tag the end
of this with an upward scalar sixteenth-note run, and four percussive hits with the
orchestra on a unison ‘B-flat’ finish it off.
The ending is, admittedly a bit cliché, and frankly reminds me a little of the
ending of a John Williams movie score. Ending a work has always presented something
of a challenge to me; it is a balance between finding something that is definitive, but yet
will not come off as being “cheesy”. I had decided early on that I wanted to have my
Symphony finish strong. I wanted the audience to know when to clap, and of course to be
inspired to clap as well.
The ending of Bride of the Wind was certainly forte, but it came as a sudden
shock out of a section that had wound down to pianissimo in the strings. It was not a
particularly satisfying ending for the concert hall, as it seemed somehow out of place in
the character of the piece. As the last section of my Symphony presents a triumphant,
jubilant feeling, the ending had to do that as well. In this regard at least, I think the
ending is successful. The beauty of musical composition is, this doesn’t necessarily have
to be the final ending – somewhere down the road I could always decide to revise it, if it
seems to me that it is not effective.
35
Chapter 7
Conclusions
As you can tell, the fourth movement uses a lot of quotes from earlier movements,
both in melodic material and rhythmic motives. This was of course carefully planned, as I
wanted the whole symphony to come together as a unified whole. The ideas are almost
always transformed in some way, either with altering of pitches or more usually, the
altering of rhythms. Thus, the fourth movement should seem unique, but still reminiscent
of the material that has lead up to it. Although the ending percussive hits may seem a
little cliché or even trite, I think it fits in with the whimsical nature I desired for the
second half of the symphony, in order to contrast from the first and second movements
which were more serious in nature.
I think, as a whole, the symphony works. There was and is still concern from my
teacher on the introductory nature of the first movement, but I think the following three
movements achieve a good sense of balance with that. I believe the use of harmony and
in particular the use of rhythm shows definite growth from my undergraduate
compositions. The use and variation of melodic and rhythmic motives throughout the
symphony shows an ability to develop musical ideas beyond their initial conception.
In comparison to my previous orchestral work, Bride of the Wind, this piece uses
more effective and accessible part writing, in my opinion. Certainly the sheer scope of the
Symphony dwarfs that piece. The use of dissonance is more intelligent and less turgid,
while still providing harmonic interest beyond just simple triadic major sonorities. The
flow of Bride was felt by me to be somewhat clunky, and that is something that I have
36
also corrected through the use of transitional material and attention to overall form within
the Symphony.
One of my goals in composing – a fundamental philosophy, if you will - has
always been to make the music interesting and enjoyable for all of the players involved as
well as for the audience who are listening to it. This is certainly a subjective point, but I
think that upon study of the score one will find that my Symphony No. 1 does a good job
of making every part interesting. This is accomplished through the use of varied
orchestration throughout the work as well as catchy rhythms and melodic motives. I
believe the performers will find the music interesting and engaging as well.
Taking all of this into consideration, I believe this was a rewarding and successful
project. It has certainly been a long time in the making, and I am glad to have it finally
finished. A lot has been learned over the past three years of working on this project, and
these new ideas and concepts on the treatment of musical material can be incorporated
into subsequent compositions. Now, I can sit back and enjoy the fruits of my labor as I
look forward to the premiere of this music in the fall of 2012.
37
WORKS CITED
Adler, Samuel. The Study of Orchestration. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1989.
Barber, Samuel. First Symphony (full score). New York: G. Schirmer, 1943.
Glass, Philip. “Philip Glass: Music: The Canyon.” Dunvagen Music Publishers.
http://www.dunvagen.com/music/compositions/canyon.php (accessed May 5, 2012).
Heyman, Barbara. Samuel Barber: The Composer and His Music. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1994.
Tchaikovsky, Peter. Romeo and Juliet Fantasy-Overture (full score). New York: Edwin F.
Kalmus, 1974.
38
APPENDIX A
SYMPHONY NO. 1
(Score)