I gave your symphony a listen last night, Paul, and in reading the comments of other composers, I would like to offer both my congratulations and my critique of this mammoth symphony. First, I have to say that composing a neo-romantic 90+ minute symphony is no easy feat, especially as we are seeing more and more composers returning to writing music that recalls the past but in a new light, and your use of the orchestra is magnificent. But now comes both the good and bad of this work. Yes, you are echoing Mahler, and in many passages of the Adagio you are definitely channeling the incomplete tenth symphony, but also writing a piece that both uses melodic and harmonic allusions to that work, but also showing us what Mahler would have done had he completed that work and went on to write an eleventh, or even a twelfth, symphony. The two strongest movements are the Scherzo and the Adagio Sostenuto. Yes, taking on the third movement with a length that equals those of Bruckner's last three symphonies, as well as those of Mahler's last works, has to have some sort of elasticity so the melodic material must not stagnate the structure, and this is not easy by any means necessary. By the time we get to the fourth movement you have a good theme and a couple of dynamite motifs, but you're doing something that some have mentioned about some of George Lloyd's symphonies by just playing the melody over and over again until one tires of it rather quickly even if you pass it down to the different choirs of the orchestra, or use subsets of the ensemble.Yes, you hear Mahler of Nos. 2 and 8, but I also hear whiffs of Ennio Morricone and John Williams in various passages, and while one composer did mention that he wonders where your “voice” is, it's there but it's still formulating and fermenting. Also, who wrote the text? It would be nice to give credit to the author, and also offer an English translation of this, please. I surmise that this is about Apollo's credo of life and death, but some of us would love to understand what the purpose of the text is in regard to the score. Though I'm sure you don't have the capital to do this, it would have been nice if you managed to get vocal soloists and a good choir to record the vocal parts and then dub it into the mockup score. This has been done by some folks. Finally, getting a performance. It's hard enough to even get a 10-15 minute work done if you're not known or know someone who can endorse you, but a 90+ minute work is going to be a tough sell even if you do write it in an idiom deemed communicative. For this I wish you my blessings, but if you can get a conductor interested in your work and will program it, you have succeeded in achieving this goal, but if you do compose a third symphony, it would be wise to be much more compact in many ways.
Paul, I listened carefully two times. It’s a fantastic piece of work, you should be proud of (I’m sure you are). I have been listening to all your works, and you do have a voice (being formed). Yes, very influenced by Mahler in style, but not in content or structure. Also, given that everyone stands on the back of the giants, I’m glad you have chosen to stand on these giants and not on other “giants” that just can’t be enjoyed musically. Your music is artfull, dramatic, melodic, full of colours and contrasts and that is missed today. We need more of this music, and if this is what you like writing, good for us! Listeners will judge the value, not academics. Me, as a music lover since a kid and a composer, I love it. I would definitely add it in my Spotify playlists if there was a recording of it, and would definitely go to a concert to listen to it. Excellent work, keep it up! 👏👏👏
And on to the finale. There's been some very interesting and detailed discussion, some very vital questions asked especially in the discussion between Franz and Alex... I have some other thoughts about style, voice and the value of this kind of work. 1. Paul is on a particular and intensive exploration of Mahlerian orchestration and symphonic scale. It is so particular that every orchestral effect, texture and gesture in this work can be found or referenced in one of Mahler's symphonies...if you know them you can't mistake them and it is surprising that the composer attempts to downplay this...an element of denial is more problematic than the act of blatant imitation. I say this because the orchestral textures and colors so carefully reproduced here breathe the personality of Mahler into all of the music, EVEN WHEN the content itself is not Mahlerian. 2. Where this symphony fails is precisely whenever it attempts to depart from Mahler in some significant way..Form is #1. For one not a single one of these movements succeeds in producing a strong compelling dramatic structure. Having dramatic moments is not the same as having a compelling dramaturgical shape. The crescendos are not paced or spaced effectively. They don't have a sense of rise and fall in a way that builds up gradually. He has a tendency to build up a thematic episode to a climax and then trail on with the theme for sometimes minutes until transitioning to the next theme, rather than building the climax more slowly and having it closer to the transition to the new thematic entrance...This is what causes sag and a sense of rambling. He does it in the both of the last two movements. There is often a big crescendo early on followed by a relatively long sag in the middle of the movement. The 1st, 3rd and 4th movements suffer from this. Building a climax is not the same as a crescendo...a feeling of growing tension can begin minutes before the music actually begins to get louder. Here things turn rather suddenly and then they don't always lead to a significant climax, just loudness. There is an overuse of the big drumroll for these false climaxes, and how many time in the finale must we come to a stop and hear the lonely horn call moment? Some of this is the act of imitating a Mahlerian effect in lieu of finding new ways to develop material. The movements for that reason fall into a series of familiar gestures rather than integral structures with a purpose. Also the overall balance is a problem you have the 1st two movements equaling about 34 minutes, the last two equaling 60 minutes and that whole hour is 2 consecutive slow movements. Even the relatively short ternary form scherzo is structurally problematic in its lax and unfocused 1st half. The other area this symphony fails (where it must depart from Mahler by necessity) is in its actual content. It is not consistently strong or interesting...and as Franz noted, it is a pastiche of Mahler, but just not as good as Mahler would have done it. This composer struggles at times with themes worthy of such intensive treatment, when he is not actually borrowing Mahler's themes, and its shows in these vast musical forms where creative development of ideas is needed, and when it is lacking he begins in the final two movements to excessively state the main themes to the point where we become a bit sick of them. It is an impressive effort when you think of the scale of the work, the orchestration and the most impressive rendering of MuseScore 4 that I have encountered. 3. In regard to imitation and the lure of the familiar. There is a great deal of uncritical adulation of such a work I believe because it capitalizes on a nostalgia with the familiar and what is more beloved and familiar to lovers of romantic music than the symphonies of Mahler. I have some very relevant observations about imitation and its value and possible pitfalls when it is taken too far. Years ago I heard an interview of comedian Victoria Jackson talking about her early days in comedy...when she first started she used to get up and use other people's comedy routines as her act. She didn't even know she was supposed to find her own material. There's a kind of naivete in thinking that a critical classical audience, or musicians and conductors would hear a score like this and not roll their eyes and say, really? With reference to Franz and Alex discussing getting a work performed, Alex has a great point about UA-cam as means of finding a new audience for classical music and that the concert hall and the live orchestra may be a dying thing...we know they need to change to survive...but just imagining that the classical music world was based on merit and was more democratic and was actively looking to perform new symphonies and really breathe new life into the canon..even if we were on such a footing...that new life would not be well represented by a symphony about which any conductor might well say, "let's just stick to Mahler in that case". There is really no place for a work like this, except on UA-cam. The other comparison of note is the tribute group, Beatlemania. For a time, they traveled around and people would go hear them perform, dress and look like the Beatles, because the Beatles were so beloved and John Lennon was dead and there would never be a chance for a Beatles reunion...so there was this overwhelming nostalgia for a Beatlemania to thrive...a symphony like this operates on the same level of nostalgia...it is Mahlermania.
Bruh I love it!!! I'm a big Mahler aficionado and this symphony does Mahler justice!!! I've spent a lot of time analyzing Mahler's compositions for orchestration, counterpoint, you name it! But I've never come this close to sounding like him. Do you have notes/tips you'd share with aspiring composers?
Hi Cameron, thank you for your comment! The biggest mistake I made with this symphony was trying to sound like Mahler, which had varying degrees of success, in my opinion, mostly in isolated parts and not on the whole. I'm very glad you like it, but in retrospect it would have been much easier for me to compose a symphony having been detached from Mahler's works for a while. The biggest tip I can give you is to take elements you like from his style (e.g., muted horns, high E-flat clarinet - though that one usually I find rather annoying lol - string grace notes) and experiment with them in your own writing. I made a video with a good number of tips on how he orchestrates if you want to know more about that aspect.
So sad, I just wrote an extended comment, but it got stuck when uploading... So, I have to do everything again. First of all: Congratulations to this huge achievement. You show very high level and sophisticated skills regarding counterpoint, harmony, melodic profiling and development, orchestration, building large forms. It's mind boggling what a world you're creating here. BUT, I think I have to add some water to the wine, and by doing so I in the same moment have to say that nothing of which I'm about to say is meant to offend you or diminish you in any way. I assure you of my highest respect for your abilities! The thing is, that I hear Gustav Mahler all the time, and nothing else but Gustav Mahler. In some instances it's also not only the feeling of a general Gustav Mahler like style, but I'm recalling specific moments in his symphonies that serve as clear models for your recomposition. It's just an enormous pastiche of Mahler. Where is your own voice? And I ask myself if all this effort in such a huge scale is worth it. Don't get me wrong: There is nothing wrong in writing pastiches, I do that quite often, being a University teacher for music theory and composition myself. You can learn and practice a lot by copying models, trying out specific techniques. But when I do that, these works are always scaled down to smaller forms just for practice reasons. The experiences I make in such pastiche exercises (and I never consider them as being more than exercises...) I try to translate into my own language in which I aim for larger formal developments, but with my own compositional voice. I am very curious about what your unique and own musical voice could sound like, and I'm absolutely convinced that you have great things to say with your music if you start to find your own voice. I know, that is a process which might never be finished, and nobody is totally free from influences. But these influences want to be digested and integrated into something that resembles your own style in the end. You have all the potential to be a strong musical voice of your own without having to rely on the vocabulary, the sentence structures, the stories, the speech melody of another strong composer who is such a monolith like Mahler, that there simply is no sense in copying him for its own sake, at least when it happens in such a huge dimension as you're doing it with this symphony. No matter how well you do that, how close you're getting to be and sound like him---in the end it's a huge waste of time. I would honestly beg you not to write a third symphony in this style but to try to translate all the experiences you've made here and in your first symphony and ask yourself: What are possible musical means that lead you away from this language and takes you to unknown regions you alone are destined to explore. You might lose some security you're relying on in the moment, clinging to strategies you find in Mahler's symphonies. You might have the feeling of having to learn composing again from the scratch to some extend. But it's worth it! And I strongly believe that there will be a very strong person coming out from that process of adolescence and initiation! And I wish you all the best for that journey and will gladly listen to everything this journey brings forth.
Franz, thank you for writing this comment and for your acerbic criticism and interesting thoughts. Though, I must place my agreements and disagreements. I would say, on the whole, you’re justified in viewing this symphony as a sort of pastiche, although I made every effort not to imitate anyone for the sake of imitation. I have studied Mahler in some detail over the past 3 or so years, and this symphony is the culmination of what I’ve learned, not just of Mahler’s style, but of the Austro-Germanic symphonic style. Because of that I strongly believe I will be able to write any proceeding symphony in a way less comparable to Mahler’s and more “my own,” although I think I’ve done that here much better than in my last. In this work I found myself making much more structured than intuitive choices than previously. This if nothing else has served as an excellent exercise and has drastically improved my skills, while maintaining a much more cohesive narrative and structure. Whether it’s compelling and has a right to exist as a symphony of its own worth is ultimately up to the audience. Personally, I’ve always found Liszt’s Dante Symphony rather sterile and wanted to explore something new, using the Divina Commedia as a loose guide. As a composition professor it must be frustrating to an extent to see a work of this scale that “just sounds like Mahler,” which I disagree with, but that’s all well and good. I’ve never had a formal composition/orchestration teacher, mainly relying on score studying and repetition. You say a work on this scale may be a waste of time, but to that I’d respectfully ask: Was Beethoven’s first symphony a waste of time? Couldn’t he have made an effort to develop a style more distinct from Mozart’s before tackling such a long, structured piece of music? What about Mozart’s symphonies? Don’t half of them sound like Haydn? I can't compare my work to that of these giants. But from a developmental perspective, isn’t there an argument to be made that the best composers emulate others before their own voice blossoms? I’m happy this piece affected you in such a powerful way, and I look forward to seeing you voice your opinion more on my videos going forward. Your commentary is rooted in a place of great knowledge, and everything you’ve said I take as encouraging. Again, thank you for your comment and for listening.
@@paulalcazar Beethoven's 1st symphony has its own personality. Only look at the 3rd movement and see it is so different in character from a Mozart minuet. I don't think your argument or comparison holds. The thing I would add is that orchestration is not a separate thing from the composition itself...it is integral to it and the fact that you are constantly imitating Mahler's orchestral textures is why this symphony is not in the least independent. Even with the 1st symphony, Beethoven's distinct voice is tied directly to the difference in the sound world, created in part by orchestration. So break the habits of dependency in the orchestration and you will be on your way to finding your musical personality.
@@paulalcazar Congratulations on this SENSATIONAL Symphony, which I find personally fantastic, especially in the slow movement. Don't worry if someone, as in the previous comment, said, just "sounds like Mahler" as a composer too, I've received this type of comment, and like you, I've studied composition alone without a composition teacher, I had only a teacher for piano at the conservatory but not for composition. Your "voice" as a composer used elements from Mahler, but It doesn't sound like Mahler's music. All composers used ideas, schemes and patterns from old composers, and often, without being conscious, we put into the composition process some elements we learned from the scores we studied. I am asking why We have to associate a living composer with someone else; what is the goal? To belittle, or often I heard: to encouraging the composer to find his personal "voice" that means nothing, no one knows nothing about how he perceives music. I find this work deep and powerful, and makes me emotioned. A person who loves and studied classical music notices for sure you take inspiration from that period, but probably not only. In my opinion you don't waste your time by writing this work! You have written such a beautiful work, and personally, I don't know how many composers are able to write a work like yours. All composers have their own sounds, and these sounds can change over time. If this is your sound now, I think we must encourage you to continue writing! P.s. the end is amazing and yes, this is very Mahlerian! Congrats! :D Cheers from Italy! BRAVO!
Paul, I listened carefully two times. It’s a fantastic piece of work, you should be proud of (I’m sure you are). I have been listening to all your works, and you do have a voice (being formed). Yes, very influenced by Mahler in style, but not in content or structure. Also, given that everyone stands on the back of the giants, I’m glad you have chosen to stand on these giants and not on other “giants” that just can’t be enjoyed musically. Your music is artfull, dramatic, melodic, full of colours and contrasts and that is missed today. We need more of this music, and if this is what you like writing, good for us! Listeners will judge the value, not academics. Me, as a music lover since a kid and a composer, I love it. I would definitely add it in my Spotify playlists if there was a recording of it, and would definitely go to a concert to listen to it. Excellent work, keep it up! 👏👏👏
@@alexchristodoulou "Listeners will judge the value, not academics." Although I'm an academic, I'm also a human being, a living musician, and I'm a listener, too. As a passionate teacher, I notice and value talent like that of Paul. I think, nothing I wrote about his symphony can be perceived as disencouraging or even belittling. I regard Paul's talent and accomplishments very high. Paul asked in the comment on his symphony for criticism and feedback, and since I'm a teacher and do have quite some experience in working with young composers, helping them to find their own voice, I try to provide some thoughts for Paul to put his efforts in perspective. That's what he asked for. I don't want to silence Paul, just to the contrary! I want to encourage him to build on his experiences and to find his own way. He didn't have a real teacher up to now, he developed his extraordinary skills (which I acknowledge full-heartedly) all on his own by studying great masters of the past. That is fine for a while and obviously Paul learned a lot from his studies, which is extraordinary. I can't stress that enough! He proved his insights and his developments by writing two enormoues symphonies and other singular works. They are great, no question. The point is: Does Paul want to be successful as a composer also in the real musical world, in concert halls, getting commissions by real orchestras or other ensembles, or is it enough for him to get uncritically praising comments on UA-cam? These are two different worlds. When it's just about UA-cam, he will get his likes and thumbs ups, no question. But he can't earn a living from that. If he also wants to succeed in the real musical world (which is cruel and overrun by many people who are trying to make their voices heard there) it is absolutely neccessary to be aware of the need to show a voice of his own that is not just imitating Mahler or Beethoven. Yes, we are all not free from influences, but the difference between being influenced by others, digesting observations we make by studying what others have done, transforming these observations, implementing them in something that is mainly our style, or between just writing pastiches (and being aware of that) is important... there won't be any success in the musical world without really trying to aim for your own personality. As good as Paul is in imitating Mahler, there will always be Mahler experts who will point out---and rightfully so---that in the end it isn't Mahler at his best, and Mahler would have done everything better, being Mahler himself. So, what could be the point in sticking to imitate Mahler instead of using these experiences as a ground for the search of something you really can call your own. A teacher who just praises everything a pupil does and who doesn't show up any ways how to reach new, higher levels, isn't a teacher. There is always room for improvement. I don't exclude myself from that wisdom, I am continuously learning and adding new perspectives and insights to my tool box. I do not see my journey to finding my ownfinished and perfectly come to an end, although I am a University teacher with 25 years of teaching experience. I can only encourage my students to be humble and self-critical and honest to themselves that there is never the point where they can say: I'm at the goal, I've reached everything, I can't improve. It's my true and honest feeling about Paul as a composer that it's time for him to take the next step. He has shown to a great extend that he is capable of writing fascinating music in the style of..., that he has perseverance, stamina, consequence to build large forms, that he is meticulous enough to go into depth when studying the scores of great masters and really getting a grip on their techniques in any parameter of composition, be it counterpoint, orchestration, harmony. Paul has proven to having learned a lot there, he doesn't need to give more examples for this point in his learning process. He can rely on what he has learned so far and can build on that. But I really can tell: In the real musical world outside of UA-cam nobody will be interested in this symphony, because it is what it is, a Gustav Mahler pastiche. And there won't be any orchestra interested in performing a Gustav Mahler pastiche symphony, when there are 9 (and a half...) original Gustav Mahler symphonies that are perfect for that purpose. That is the simple truth. And again: Paul has enormous talent! I can picture him very well finding his path in the real musical world. And I would be very sad if he sticked to writing pastiches and thus limited his possibilities and opportunities to becoming a serious voice that could be recognized in th real world. UA-cam is not the real world!
I don’t normally comment on videos but this is absolutely insane, it’s like a unique take on Mahler but I think it’s wonderfully original. May I please ask you how long you studied composition, where/how you studied, and how long this took you? Keep up the work and much love!
Thank you for your comment. This took me about 18 months to compose, and I've been composing for around 8 years. I'm self-taught, so I still have much to learn. :)
As a lifelong 'historically informed' violinists my relaxation is in the orchestral music of the 2nd Viennese School - particularly Mahler, Schreker and Marx. I have to say that your two symphonies are utterly stunning. I have them both on my iPod and I listen to them at night, in the dark as that is when I can submerge myself in the music completely. One tiny request: is it possible to upload a version of this symphony (no. 2) with a slightly lower recording level? The first movement has quite a bit of distortion near the beginning as the levels are too high. Looking forward to no. 3!
Hey Chris, thank you for your comment and your kind words about my work. Truly means a lot, and I enjoyed reading what you had to say. I'd be happy to give you the updated MP3 files if you send me a quick email!
The highlight of the scherzo is the trio section, particularly the first two minutes. The Scherzo itself is rather puzzling from both a thematic and structural standpoint. It's an odd lurching theme that goes on for a good 3 minutes without an effective development or gaining any real force...before giving way to a waltz theme, one thinks might be the trio, only to have this waltz die away mysteriously and enter the trio...so there's a kind of dramaturgical disconnect. The trio goes on quite a while after the climax and a bit awkwardly transitions to the scherzo which is more effectively harmonized on its return. It feels like a better development of the main theme was needed to avoid the filler of the unnecessary variegation of the waltz and the way it throws the dramaturgy off. The orchestral sounds are wonderful. The brass so crisp. I can only say that again the too obvious influence of Mahler is present...and the moments of the greatest flare and interest are those we recognize as Mahlerian.
The Adagio is the best of the movements thus far...a very mature and intensely beautiful movement patiently and richly wrought....showing the composer's talent in its best light. However, the opening 7 minutes are the best part and this movement like the 1st, suffers from mid-movement sag. The climax is not as compelling or really focused in an effective culmination as a movement of this size, or after such a lull might have generated...it is somewhat mitigated by the great Brucknerian buildup at the end that then resolves in tranquility. The statement of the main theme feels over-used by the end. Again structure and not enough strong content or dramaturgical focus to adaquately fill out a movement of this size.
I happened upon this today. I was only able to listen to the 1st movement. The themes are easily recognizable and memorable, the beautiful horn tune being the most distinguished of the ideas, with some achingly beautiful and transcendent moments. As with the 1st symphony there is a really strong grasp of orchestral color and timbre. It seemed too obviously indebted to Mahler, perhaps also some cinematic Howard Shore. The handling of structure was problematic. It felt very discursive and its shape did not impress itself on me. If it was sonata form or some variant it did not cohere. As a matter of fact the 23 minutes felt more like 33 and that I attribute to a lack of sweep, a big middle of the movement dip with some rambling and more rambling in the final 5 or 6 minutes. I wanted the content in that last stretch to be the strongest, but I fear it ran out of steam and seemed uncertain about making a move toward a summation which it did finally in the last minute or so. I suspect this composer will not gain an organic and personal grasp of structure until he weans himself from the influence of Mahler and begins to hear his own voice...it is hard to know where to go and how long to go on when you are heeding the voice of a dead composer (life after death being as yet unproven) and using his scale as a template for the symphony that must somehow be filled come hell or high water. My advice would be to scale back and make some kind of break with the ghost of Mahler. Of course I have not listened to rest yet...I'm guessing that it may be variable in the influences that come forward and most likely variable in quality...I will listen with interest to see if yet a more individuated sound emerges from the next 4 movements.
I hope this masterpiece already got performed by an orchestra ❤
I gave your symphony a listen last night, Paul, and in reading the comments of other composers, I would like to offer both my congratulations and my critique of this mammoth symphony.
First, I have to say that composing a neo-romantic 90+ minute symphony is no easy feat, especially as we are seeing more and more composers returning to writing music that recalls the past but in a new light, and your use of the orchestra is magnificent.
But now comes both the good and bad of this work. Yes, you are echoing Mahler, and in many passages of the Adagio you are definitely channeling the incomplete tenth symphony, but also writing a piece that both uses melodic and harmonic allusions to that work, but also showing us what Mahler would have done had he completed that work and went on to write an eleventh, or even a twelfth, symphony. The two strongest movements are the Scherzo and the Adagio Sostenuto. Yes, taking on the third movement with a length that equals those of Bruckner's last three symphonies, as well as those of Mahler's last works, has to have some sort of elasticity so the melodic material must not stagnate the structure, and this is not easy by any means necessary.
By the time we get to the fourth movement you have a good theme and a couple of dynamite motifs, but you're doing something that some have mentioned about some of George Lloyd's symphonies by just playing the melody over and over again until one tires of it rather quickly even if you pass it down to the different choirs of the orchestra, or use subsets of the ensemble.Yes, you hear Mahler of Nos. 2 and 8, but I also hear whiffs of Ennio Morricone and John Williams in various passages, and while one composer did mention that he wonders where your “voice” is, it's there but it's still formulating and fermenting.
Also, who wrote the text? It would be nice to give credit to the author, and also offer an English translation of this, please. I surmise that this is about Apollo's credo of life and death, but some of us would love to understand what the purpose of the text is in regard to the score. Though I'm sure you don't have the capital to do this, it would have been nice if you managed to get vocal soloists and a good choir to record the vocal parts and then dub it into the mockup score. This has been done by some folks.
Finally, getting a performance. It's hard enough to even get a 10-15 minute work done if you're not known or know someone who can endorse you, but a 90+ minute work is going to be a tough sell even if you do write it in an idiom deemed communicative. For this I wish you my blessings, but if you can get a conductor interested in your work and will program it, you have succeeded in achieving this goal, but if you do compose a third symphony, it would be wise to be much more compact in many ways.
Beautiful and passionate!! Subscribed
Thank you for all the support and valuable feedback on symphony no. 1! Hopefully, you'll like this one even more!
Cual app usas? Musescore?
@@RobertoTortosaAhí dice, Musescore 4
😮 Wow, wow, so beautiful!
Paul, I listened carefully two times. It’s a fantastic piece of work, you should be proud of (I’m sure you are). I have been listening to all your works, and you do have a voice (being formed). Yes, very influenced by Mahler in style, but not in content or structure. Also, given that everyone stands on the back of the giants, I’m glad you have chosen to stand on these giants and not on other “giants” that just can’t be enjoyed musically. Your music is artfull, dramatic, melodic, full of colours and contrasts and that is missed today. We need more of this music, and if this is what you like writing, good for us! Listeners will judge the value, not academics. Me, as a music lover since a kid and a composer, I love it. I would definitely add it in my Spotify playlists if there was a recording of it, and would definitely go to a concert to listen to it. Excellent work, keep it up! 👏👏👏
Wow... two times? I can't thank you enough!
This is great!
Awesome awesome awesome and more awesome
The legend has returned with another symphony
Enorme trabajo.
Awesome
This MUST be performed by an orchestra! It sounds great!
And on to the finale. There's been some very interesting and detailed discussion, some very vital questions asked especially in the discussion between Franz and Alex... I have some other thoughts about style, voice and the value of this kind of work.
1. Paul is on a particular and intensive exploration of Mahlerian orchestration and symphonic scale. It is so particular that every orchestral effect, texture and gesture in this work can be found or referenced in one of Mahler's symphonies...if you know them you can't mistake them and it is surprising that the composer attempts to downplay this...an element of denial is more problematic than the act of blatant imitation. I say this because the orchestral textures and colors so carefully reproduced here breathe the personality of Mahler into all of the music, EVEN WHEN the content itself is not Mahlerian.
2. Where this symphony fails is precisely whenever it attempts to depart from Mahler in some significant way..Form is #1. For one not a single one of these movements succeeds in producing a strong compelling dramatic structure. Having dramatic moments is not the same as having a compelling dramaturgical shape. The crescendos are not paced or spaced effectively. They don't have a sense of rise and fall in a way that builds up gradually. He has a tendency to build up a thematic episode to a climax and then trail on with the theme for sometimes minutes until transitioning to the next theme, rather than building the climax more slowly and having it closer to the transition to the new thematic entrance...This is what causes sag and a sense of rambling. He does it in the both of the last two movements. There is often a big crescendo early on followed by a relatively long sag in the middle of the movement. The 1st, 3rd and 4th movements suffer from this. Building a climax is not the same as a crescendo...a feeling of growing tension can begin minutes before the music actually begins to get louder. Here things turn rather suddenly and then they don't always lead to a significant climax, just loudness. There is an overuse of the big drumroll for these false climaxes, and how many time in the finale must we come to a stop and hear the lonely horn call moment? Some of this is the act of imitating a Mahlerian effect in lieu of finding new ways to develop material. The movements for that reason fall into a series of familiar gestures rather than integral structures with a purpose. Also the overall balance is a problem you have the 1st two movements equaling about 34 minutes, the last two equaling 60 minutes and that whole hour is 2 consecutive slow movements. Even the relatively short ternary form scherzo is structurally problematic in its lax and unfocused 1st half.
The other area this symphony fails (where it must depart from Mahler by necessity) is in its actual content. It is not consistently strong or interesting...and as Franz noted, it is a pastiche of Mahler, but just not as good as Mahler would have done it. This composer struggles at times with themes worthy of such intensive treatment, when he is not actually borrowing Mahler's themes, and its shows in these vast musical forms where creative development of ideas is needed, and when it is lacking he begins in the final two movements to excessively state the main themes to the point where we become a bit sick of them. It is an impressive effort when you think of the scale of the work, the orchestration and the most impressive rendering of MuseScore 4 that I have encountered.
3. In regard to imitation and the lure of the familiar. There is a great deal of uncritical adulation of such a work I believe because it capitalizes on a nostalgia with the familiar and what is more beloved and familiar to lovers of romantic music than the symphonies of Mahler. I have some very relevant observations about imitation and its value and possible pitfalls when it is taken too far.
Years ago I heard an interview of comedian Victoria Jackson talking about her early days in comedy...when she first started she used to get up and use other people's comedy routines as her act. She didn't even know she was supposed to find her own material. There's a kind of naivete in thinking that a critical classical audience, or musicians and conductors would hear a score like this and not roll their eyes and say, really? With reference to Franz and Alex discussing getting a work performed, Alex has a great point about UA-cam as means of finding a new audience for classical music and that the concert hall and the live orchestra may be a dying thing...we know they need to change to survive...but just imagining that the classical music world was based on merit and was more democratic and was actively looking to perform new symphonies and really breathe new life into the canon..even if we were on such a footing...that new life would not be well represented by a symphony about which any conductor might well say, "let's just stick to Mahler in that case". There is really no place for a work like this, except on UA-cam.
The other comparison of note is the tribute group, Beatlemania. For a time, they traveled around and people would go hear them perform, dress and look like the Beatles, because the Beatles were so beloved and John Lennon was dead and there would never be a chance for a Beatles reunion...so there was this overwhelming nostalgia for a Beatlemania to thrive...a symphony like this operates on the same level of nostalgia...it is Mahlermania.
Wow! This Symphony's amazing, much like the first one you've composed. Stunning work! I sure hope this gets performed soon.
Thank you!!
Bruh I love it!!! I'm a big Mahler aficionado and this symphony does Mahler justice!!! I've spent a lot of time analyzing Mahler's compositions for orchestration, counterpoint, you name it! But I've never come this close to sounding like him. Do you have notes/tips you'd share with aspiring composers?
Hi Cameron, thank you for your comment! The biggest mistake I made with this symphony was trying to sound like Mahler, which had varying degrees of success, in my opinion, mostly in isolated parts and not on the whole. I'm very glad you like it, but in retrospect it would have been much easier for me to compose a symphony having been detached from Mahler's works for a while. The biggest tip I can give you is to take elements you like from his style (e.g., muted horns, high E-flat clarinet - though that one usually I find rather annoying lol - string grace notes) and experiment with them in your own writing. I made a video with a good number of tips on how he orchestrates if you want to know more about that aspect.
So sad, I just wrote an extended comment, but it got stuck when uploading... So, I have to do everything again.
First of all: Congratulations to this huge achievement. You show very high level and sophisticated skills regarding counterpoint, harmony, melodic profiling and development, orchestration, building large forms. It's mind boggling what a world you're creating here.
BUT, I think I have to add some water to the wine, and by doing so I in the same moment have to say that nothing of which I'm about to say is meant to offend you or diminish you in any way. I assure you of my highest respect for your abilities! The thing is, that I hear Gustav Mahler all the time, and nothing else but Gustav Mahler. In some instances it's also not only the feeling of a general Gustav Mahler like style, but I'm recalling specific moments in his symphonies that serve as clear models for your recomposition. It's just an enormous pastiche of Mahler. Where is your own voice? And I ask myself if all this effort in such a huge scale is worth it. Don't get me wrong: There is nothing wrong in writing pastiches, I do that quite often, being a University teacher for music theory and composition myself. You can learn and practice a lot by copying models, trying out specific techniques. But when I do that, these works are always scaled down to smaller forms just for practice reasons. The experiences I make in such pastiche exercises (and I never consider them as being more than exercises...) I try to translate into my own language in which I aim for larger formal developments, but with my own compositional voice.
I am very curious about what your unique and own musical voice could sound like, and I'm absolutely convinced that you have great things to say with your music if you start to find your own voice. I know, that is a process which might never be finished, and nobody is totally free from influences. But these influences want to be digested and integrated into something that resembles your own style in the end. You have all the potential to be a strong musical voice of your own without having to rely on the vocabulary, the sentence structures, the stories, the speech melody of another strong composer who is such a monolith like Mahler, that there simply is no sense in copying him for its own sake, at least when it happens in such a huge dimension as you're doing it with this symphony. No matter how well you do that, how close you're getting to be and sound like him---in the end it's a huge waste of time. I would honestly beg you not to write a third symphony in this style but to try to translate all the experiences you've made here and in your first symphony and ask yourself: What are possible musical means that lead you away from this language and takes you to unknown regions you alone are destined to explore. You might lose some security you're relying on in the moment, clinging to strategies you find in Mahler's symphonies. You might have the feeling of having to learn composing again from the scratch to some extend. But it's worth it! And I strongly believe that there will be a very strong person coming out from that process of adolescence and initiation! And I wish you all the best for that journey and will gladly listen to everything this journey brings forth.
Franz, thank you for writing this comment and for your acerbic criticism and interesting thoughts.
Though, I must place my agreements and disagreements. I would say, on the whole, you’re justified in viewing this symphony as a sort of pastiche, although I made every effort not to imitate anyone for the sake of imitation. I have studied Mahler in some detail over the past 3 or so years, and this symphony is the culmination of what I’ve learned, not just of Mahler’s style, but of the Austro-Germanic symphonic style. Because of that I strongly believe I will be able to write any proceeding symphony in a way less comparable to Mahler’s and more “my own,” although I think I’ve done that here much better than in my last.
In this work I found myself making much more structured than intuitive choices than previously. This if nothing else has served as an excellent exercise and has drastically improved my skills, while maintaining a much more cohesive narrative and structure. Whether it’s compelling and has a right to exist as a symphony of its own worth is ultimately up to the audience. Personally, I’ve always found Liszt’s Dante Symphony rather sterile and wanted to explore something new, using the Divina Commedia as a loose guide.
As a composition professor it must be frustrating to an extent to see a work of this scale that “just sounds like Mahler,” which I disagree with, but that’s all well and good. I’ve never had a formal composition/orchestration teacher, mainly relying on score studying and repetition. You say a work on this scale may be a waste of time, but to that I’d respectfully ask: Was Beethoven’s first symphony a waste of time? Couldn’t he have made an effort to develop a style more distinct from Mozart’s before tackling such a long, structured piece of music? What about Mozart’s symphonies? Don’t half of them sound like Haydn? I can't compare my work to that of these giants. But from a developmental perspective, isn’t there an argument to be made that the best composers emulate others before their own voice blossoms?
I’m happy this piece affected you in such a powerful way, and I look forward to seeing you voice your opinion more on my videos going forward. Your commentary is rooted in a place of great knowledge, and everything you’ve said I take as encouraging. Again, thank you for your comment and for listening.
@@paulalcazar Beethoven's 1st symphony has its own personality. Only look at the 3rd movement and see it is so different in character from a Mozart minuet. I don't think your argument or comparison holds.
The thing I would add is that orchestration is not a separate thing from the composition itself...it is integral to it and the fact that you are constantly imitating Mahler's orchestral textures is why this symphony is not in the least independent. Even with the 1st symphony, Beethoven's distinct voice is tied directly to the difference in the sound world, created in part by orchestration.
So break the habits of dependency in the orchestration and you will be on your way to finding your musical personality.
@@paulalcazar Congratulations on this SENSATIONAL Symphony, which I find personally fantastic, especially in the slow movement. Don't worry if someone, as in the previous comment, said, just "sounds like Mahler" as a composer too, I've received this type of comment, and like you, I've studied composition alone without a composition teacher, I had only a teacher for piano at the conservatory but not for composition. Your "voice" as a composer used elements from Mahler, but It doesn't sound like Mahler's music. All composers used ideas, schemes and patterns from old composers, and often, without being conscious, we put into the composition process some elements we learned from the scores we studied. I am asking why We have to associate a living composer with someone else; what is the goal? To belittle, or often I heard: to encouraging the composer to find his personal "voice" that means nothing, no one knows nothing about how he perceives music.
I find this work deep and powerful, and makes me emotioned. A person who loves and studied classical music notices for sure you take inspiration from that period, but probably not only. In my opinion you don't waste your time by writing this work! You have written such a beautiful work, and personally, I don't know how many composers are able to write a work like yours.
All composers have their own sounds, and these sounds can change over time. If this is your sound now, I think we must encourage you to continue writing!
P.s. the end is amazing and yes, this is very Mahlerian! Congrats! :D
Cheers from Italy! BRAVO!
Paul, I listened carefully two times. It’s a fantastic piece of work, you should be proud of (I’m sure you are). I have been listening to all your works, and you do have a voice (being formed). Yes, very influenced by Mahler in style, but not in content or structure. Also, given that everyone stands on the back of the giants, I’m glad you have chosen to stand on these giants and not on other “giants” that just can’t be enjoyed musically. Your music is artfull, dramatic, melodic, full of colours and contrasts and that is missed today. We need more of this music, and if this is what you like writing, good for us! Listeners will judge the value, not academics. Me, as a music lover since a kid and a composer, I love it. I would definitely add it in my Spotify playlists if there was a recording of it, and would definitely go to a concert to listen to it. Excellent work, keep it up! 👏👏👏
@@alexchristodoulou "Listeners will judge the value, not academics." Although I'm an academic, I'm also a human being, a living musician, and I'm a listener, too. As a passionate teacher, I notice and value talent like that of Paul. I think, nothing I wrote about his symphony can be perceived as disencouraging or even belittling. I regard Paul's talent and accomplishments very high. Paul asked in the comment on his symphony for criticism and feedback, and since I'm a teacher and do have quite some experience in working with young composers, helping them to find their own voice, I try to provide some thoughts for Paul to put his efforts in perspective. That's what he asked for. I don't want to silence Paul, just to the contrary! I want to encourage him to build on his experiences and to find his own way. He didn't have a real teacher up to now, he developed his extraordinary skills (which I acknowledge full-heartedly) all on his own by studying great masters of the past. That is fine for a while and obviously Paul learned a lot from his studies, which is extraordinary. I can't stress that enough! He proved his insights and his developments by writing two enormoues symphonies and other singular works. They are great, no question.
The point is: Does Paul want to be successful as a composer also in the real musical world, in concert halls, getting commissions by real orchestras or other ensembles, or is it enough for him to get uncritically praising comments on UA-cam? These are two different worlds. When it's just about UA-cam, he will get his likes and thumbs ups, no question. But he can't earn a living from that. If he also wants to succeed in the real musical world (which is cruel and overrun by many people who are trying to make their voices heard there) it is absolutely neccessary to be aware of the need to show a voice of his own that is not just imitating Mahler or Beethoven.
Yes, we are all not free from influences, but the difference between being influenced by others, digesting observations we make by studying what others have done, transforming these observations, implementing them in something that is mainly our style, or between just writing pastiches (and being aware of that) is important... there won't be any success in the musical world without really trying to aim for your own personality. As good as Paul is in imitating Mahler, there will always be Mahler experts who will point out---and rightfully so---that in the end it isn't Mahler at his best, and Mahler would have done everything better, being Mahler himself. So, what could be the point in sticking to imitate Mahler instead of using these experiences as a ground for the search of something you really can call your own. A teacher who just praises everything a pupil does and who doesn't show up any ways how to reach new, higher levels, isn't a teacher. There is always room for improvement. I don't exclude myself from that wisdom, I am continuously learning and adding new perspectives and insights to my tool box. I do not see my journey to finding my ownfinished and perfectly come to an end, although I am a University teacher with 25 years of teaching experience. I can only encourage my students to be humble and self-critical and honest to themselves that there is never the point where they can say: I'm at the goal, I've reached everything, I can't improve.
It's my true and honest feeling about Paul as a composer that it's time for him to take the next step. He has shown to a great extend that he is capable of writing fascinating music in the style of..., that he has perseverance, stamina, consequence to build large forms, that he is meticulous enough to go into depth when studying the scores of great masters and really getting a grip on their techniques in any parameter of composition, be it counterpoint, orchestration, harmony. Paul has proven to having learned a lot there, he doesn't need to give more examples for this point in his learning process. He can rely on what he has learned so far and can build on that. But I really can tell: In the real musical world outside of UA-cam nobody will be interested in this symphony, because it is what it is, a Gustav Mahler pastiche. And there won't be any orchestra interested in performing a Gustav Mahler pastiche symphony, when there are 9 (and a half...) original Gustav Mahler symphonies that are perfect for that purpose. That is the simple truth. And again: Paul has enormous talent! I can picture him very well finding his path in the real musical world. And I would be very sad if he sticked to writing pastiches and thus limited his possibilities and opportunities to becoming a serious voice that could be recognized in th real world. UA-cam is not the real world!
I don’t normally comment on videos but this is absolutely insane, it’s like a unique take on Mahler but I think it’s wonderfully original. May I please ask you how long you studied composition, where/how you studied, and how long this took you? Keep up the work and much love!
Thank you for your comment. This took me about 18 months to compose, and I've been composing for around 8 years. I'm self-taught, so I still have much to learn. :)
great
As a lifelong 'historically informed' violinists my relaxation is in the orchestral music of the 2nd Viennese School - particularly Mahler, Schreker and Marx. I have to say that your two symphonies are utterly stunning. I have them both on my iPod and I listen to them at night, in the dark as that is when I can submerge myself in the music completely. One tiny request: is it possible to upload a version of this symphony (no. 2) with a slightly lower recording level? The first movement has quite a bit of distortion near the beginning as the levels are too high. Looking forward to no. 3!
Hey Chris, thank you for your comment and your kind words about my work. Truly means a lot, and I enjoyed reading what you had to say. I'd be happy to give you the updated MP3 files if you send me a quick email!
1:31:52 Mahler 8! Nice quote ;)
The highlight of the scherzo is the trio section, particularly the first two minutes. The Scherzo itself is rather puzzling from both a thematic and structural standpoint. It's an odd lurching theme that goes on for a good 3 minutes without an effective development or gaining any real force...before giving way to a waltz theme, one thinks might be the trio, only to have this waltz die away mysteriously and enter the trio...so there's a kind of dramaturgical disconnect. The trio goes on quite a while after the climax and a bit awkwardly transitions to the scherzo which is more effectively harmonized on its return. It feels like a better development of the main theme was needed to avoid the filler of the unnecessary variegation of the waltz and the way it throws the dramaturgy off. The orchestral sounds are wonderful. The brass so crisp. I can only say that again the too obvious influence of Mahler is present...and the moments of the greatest flare and interest are those we recognize as Mahlerian.
Gigantic. Not my cup of tea, too movielesque, but deserves some respect.
The Adagio is the best of the movements thus far...a very mature and intensely beautiful movement patiently and richly wrought....showing the composer's talent in its best light. However, the opening 7 minutes are the best part and this movement like the 1st, suffers from mid-movement sag. The climax is not as compelling or really focused in an effective culmination as a movement of this size, or after such a lull might have generated...it is somewhat mitigated by the great Brucknerian buildup at the end that then resolves in tranquility. The statement of the main theme feels over-used by the end. Again structure and not enough strong content or dramaturgical focus to adaquately fill out a movement of this size.
I happened upon this today. I was only able to listen to the 1st movement. The themes are easily recognizable and memorable, the beautiful horn tune being the most distinguished of the ideas, with some achingly beautiful and transcendent moments. As with the 1st symphony there is a really strong grasp of orchestral color and timbre.
It seemed too obviously indebted to Mahler, perhaps also some cinematic Howard Shore. The handling of structure was problematic. It felt very discursive and its shape did not impress itself on me. If it was sonata form or some variant it did not cohere. As a matter of fact the 23 minutes felt more like 33 and that I attribute to a lack of sweep, a big middle of the movement dip with some rambling and more rambling in the final 5 or 6 minutes. I wanted the content in that last stretch to be the strongest, but I fear it ran out of steam and seemed uncertain about making a move toward a summation which it did finally in the last minute or so.
I suspect this composer will not gain an organic and personal grasp of structure until he weans himself from the influence of Mahler and begins to hear his own voice...it is hard to know where to go and how long to go on when you are heeding the voice of a dead composer (life after death being as yet unproven) and using his scale as a template for the symphony that must somehow be filled come hell or high water. My advice would be to scale back and make some kind of break with the ghost of Mahler.
Of course I have not listened to rest yet...I'm guessing that it may be variable in the influences that come forward and most likely variable in quality...I will listen with interest to see if yet a more individuated sound emerges from the next 4 movements.