As a few of you might know, I have been working on my symphony as means of completing my dissertation for my degree. Im in the editing phases of the writing process and thought it would be a good time to share with you what I have beyond just the audio one movement at a time. 

A little bit about the symphony and this movement:

The symphony pulls its inspiration from the Ocean, but through a scientific lens as oppose to nautical life. Each movement refers to a depth zone in open ocean:

The first movement is The Epipelagic Zone, also known as the Sunlight Zone. Its descends around 200 meters from the surface and is where most marine animals and photosynthesizing plant based organisms live. 

The music is meant to reflect both the organisms that live in this zone as well as ocean conditions here (such as currents, weather, and sunlight). 

About the score:

The music for the most part is done, though there are some areas that I might change or re-tweak. Notationally, however, it still needs polishing.

What I hope to gain from your criticism are a few things;

What do you think of the piece? Do you get a sense of the ocean and specifically the Epipelagic Zone?

Do you spot any notational errors that need correcting? Do you see anything that just not clear enough?

Lastly, what are your thoughts on the 4+5/4 composite time signature? Originally it looked like this:

However the problem with this is that it prevents multi-rest to form in the individual parts and can be very difficult to count (not that composite time signatures are any better).

Let me know what you think. I look forward to your comments. 

Symphony No 2 Mtv 1 First Draft.pdf

You need to be a member of Composers' Forum to add comments!

Join Composers' Forum

Email me when people reply –


  • Tyler,

    I think this music very effectively paints the picture you are trying to portray. It's a great shape. I'm wondering if you could have notated it in a simple meter with the the phrasing occurring off the bar. I'm not sure what would be easier to read or conduct. I'm on to the 2nd movement. Sounds great.

    Rich Hill

  • Tyler,  I've re-listened to this piece and listened to your 2nd movement. I think I know what I'm missing. (This is a general gripe I have about not only classical pieces, but pop stuff, as well). All the elements are there for great listening. Ambience, tension-release, instrumental tonalities, all the emotive qualities. Everything except . . . compelling melodic content. I could only dream of creating this kind of soundscape. Maybe it's because I'm old-fashioned, but if I can't take something away from it that I find myself humming or whistling to myself, then It's kinda forgettable. In an age of synthesizers, rap and "gee-whiz" electronic sounds, in the movies and on the radio, it seems that composers are no longer much interested in melody. 

    That's my criticism. It shouldn't detract from my admiration of all the rest.

  • Tyler,

    I have re-listened to your 1st movement as well as the 2nd. Here is my critique.

    The music is wonderfully effective. It has all the elements. Beautiful ambiance, tonal color, excellent instrumentation, vivid ambience, tension-release. I could only dream of creating a soundscape like this. What's missing, for me, is compelling melodic content. If I can't take something away from a piece of music that I will hum or whistle to myself, then the piece is quickly forgettable. This is a gripe I have had with both "classical" and pop music for some time. With classical, it probably started with 12-tone experimental stuff. More recently, in pop, with rap and horror and suspense TV series soundtracks. Melody seems to no longer be an important element in composition. At the same time, with the development of "gee-whiz" synthetic sounds, melody has become all but irrelevant to a musical passage. 

    That's my critique. It should not detract from my admiration of all the rest.

This reply was deleted.