So I started writing a third symphony, with the same instrumentation as the previous two. I remembered that I have a lot of unused material that I wrote years ago. Some of it is probably 5 years old or older at this point. I took two things that I wrote, and put them together to create what is intended to be the intro to Movement I. The originals, "composition" and "Symphony," are included below for reference (I imported the original MIDIs, and Musescore messed up the triplets). I took them and tried to improve upon them, including taking them out of the full orchestra zone and condensing them into the chamber orchestration. I wasn't comfortable with the full orchestra back then and I certainly am not now.

Overall, the only thing I can say so far about it is that it is very repetitive. I guess that's just part of my style.

Symphony No. 3 Movement I.mp3

Symphony No. 3 Movement I.pdf

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

Join Composers' Forum

Email me when people reply –


  • Here is the original "Symphony".



  • Here is the original "composition".


  • Hi Kyle,

    Why do you refer to this as a "Symphony"?  Symphony is a term that 99% of the time refers to a work for orchestra, so the title doesn't fit for a piece written for a relatively small chamber ensemble.  It also often refers to a more academic (conservative?) style than this piece is written.  If you are thinking somehow of it being akin to a symphony in some other way, I would urge to consider symphony as an adjective: e.g., "Symphonic Flow" or any number of different options...

    There's some interesting stuff in here.  Are you looking for specific feedback?  As a first step, I would strongly recommend that you reduce the staff size so you can get more than one bar per page.  You'll get much more meaningful engagement from this group that way.



This reply was deleted.