What Makes a Symphony?

[crimson]

Thank you, Somtow, for the reply.

I agree that I should try to get more familiar with the symphonies that composers have done in the past. However, I think that at first I won't aim to continue developing the form of the symphony - if that's what you meant by adding my own brick to the musical tradition. I thought that I'd like to mimic the different styles of symphonies at first, just to get practice. I don't mean that I'd be copying other composers, but just to get a similar feel for my work, like it really sounded like a classical symphony (or other form) of each time period. If I get better at composition I might move on to more advanced goals, but for now I'm just interested in getting a better grasp of the whole thing.

In my first post in this thread, it's a bit of an overstatement when I talked about composing 7-12 movement symphonies. That clearly gives out the fact that at the time of writing it, I had almost no idea of what a symphony actually is. So now I'm trying to gather some information about musical forms and get to know them better, and I've already ordered a few books on analysis that will hopefully shed some light on the subject.

But thanks again for your input, everybody. I appreciate it!

[Elmer]

"--you may write a Symphony after you've listened to all 100+ by Haydn, all 41 by Mozart, all 9 by Beethoven, all of Schubert's Schumann's, Mendelssohn's, Mahler's, Berlioz, Tchaikovsky, and hell, let's throw Bruckner in there."
Steve
I think you should throw in some more recent ones-- Aaron Copland, Roy Harris, Walter Piston, Stravinsky, Penderecki, Gorecki, Shostakovich, Sibelius, many more-- and Messiaen wrote a 10-movement piece he called a symphony. The tradition does still go on, you know.
Elmer

[somtow]

Well, I wouldn't say it is necessary to listen to every single major symphony ever written in order to be ready to write one yourself. What is REALLY important is to understand that when you attach the word "SYMPHONY" to a composition, you are making a statement that you feel that you are at one end of long tradition of musical discourse. It's not really about how many movements it has or how long it is, it's about structural cohesion on a larger scale. Some symphonic works clearly look backward to tradition while forging in new directions stylistically ... you might look at the Tippett symphonies for that sort of thing. Others, like the Gorecki 3, seem to want to discard received notions of what a symphony is supposed to be -- while appearing quite conservative in musical language. Any choice you want to make stylistically can be valid. Just have something to say and the technical means to really say it....
Somtow

[Elmer]

Good point, Somtow--- I really think I delayed my own composing "career" by listening to too damn much music by other composers! I collected thousands of albums by all sorts of obscure composers, thinking that I would eventually find my own style thru one of them. I started trying to compose before I was in high school and really have just developed my own original style in the last few years, and I'm now 65! It's never too late!
Elmer

[Thorolf]

Originally Posted by somtow

It's not really about how many movements it has or how long it is, it's about structural cohesion on a larger scale.

Very true! I once wrote music for a revue, and when planning it, I called upon the creative team to go for a symphonic form, and to me that meant nothing but having a large scale idea behind the development. A revue is basically a bunch of disjointed stand alone skits, dance and song numbers, lumped in two “acts”, and the term “symphonic” meant nothing but taking care of composing it with just a few recurring ideas to ensure large scale drama.

In practice, this meant incorporating some musical idea from the opening in the end number of act one, and having a some recap of a couple of opening themes towards the end of act two. That the whole team was onto this kind of thinking from the outset, meant that they built the numbers differently, more aware of the big structure all the way.

Originally Posted by somtow

What is REALLY important is to understand that when you attach the word "SYMPHONY" to a composition, you are making a statement that you feel that you are at one end of long tradition of musical discourse.

I think this statement is a little bit too linearistic. There is a multitude of traditions, and if you can relate to just something that you like, that should be enough. The only reason to call something a symphony, is that you have heard something called a symphony, and basically want to express yourself along the same lines. Knowing just a few symphonies (or even just one!) should be sufficient, if you really know them! Knowing more is good for finding your place in tradition of course, but not necessary to trigger the creative spark to get going. You need to know the ensemble type you are going to write for, tho.



Regards