What Makes a Symphony?

[crimson]

Hi everybody,

I've been thinking to compose a symphony for practice sometime, but I'd like to ask a few things about the form.

From what I've googled up, I understand that a classical symphony consists of four movements, but I'm interested in composing a bigger symphony. Specifically something from 7 to 12 movements in total. Can a work this big be called a symphony in the first place, and what are the requirements for calling such work a symphony. I was unable to find any specific information on this, so I thought I'd ask here.

Also, if there are any more appropriate names to call a work of this scale, I'd be interested in hearing them. Or maybe it would be better to just compose 12 separate pieces and call it an album

Thanks,
crimson

[Boneman]

There are better composers than me here but my idea of writing a small symphony would be a daunting task never mind an extended one! Do you have the time? These things are really about pieces of ones life not just a jingle. Anyway good luck if you decide to give it a go!

[crimson]

Hmm, yes well, it might be better to start with a small symphony. If I ever get started on writing one, it will most likely be just for practice. I won't be aiming at anything grand. I'd be doing it just for gaining more insight into the form, and honing my skills at writing something bigger than just the occasional scribble.

I'm quite a newbie in what comes to classical forms, and perhaps a symphony is not what I'm really looking for. Maybe I just settle for composing a full length album. That way I might have more freedom in what I write.

But it would still be interesting to hear what really defines a work as a symphony. There must be some freedom with it since the number of movements in symphonies vary.

[stevel]

Originally Posted by crimson

Hi everybody,

I've been thinking to compose a symphony for practice sometime, but I'd like to ask a few things about the form.

From what I've googled up, I understand that a classical symphony consists of four movements, but I'm interested in composing a bigger symphony. Specifically something from 7 to 12 movements in total. Can a work this big be called a symphony in the first place, and what are the requirements for calling such work a symphony. I was unable to find any specific information on this, so I thought I'd ask here.

Also, if there are any more appropriate names to call a work of this scale, I'd be interested in hearing them. Or maybe it would be better to just compose 12 separate pieces and call it an album

Thanks,
crimson

Oh God, another one!

Don't write a Symphony if you don't know what a Symphony is. I tell you what, 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.

Ok, my rant is over, now I'll answer your questions in another response :-)

Steve

[stevel]

Originally Posted by crimson

Hi everybody,

I've been thinking to compose a symphony for practice sometime, but I'd like to ask a few things about the form.

From what I've googled up, I understand that a classical symphony consists of four movements, but I'm interested in composing a bigger symphony. Specifically something from 7 to 12 movements in total. Can a work this big be called a symphony in the first place,


[Steve] Yes, you can call anything you want a "Symphony". Typically it's an orchestral work. Most of the time, it's multi-movement, though some composers write one movement symphonies and some even call them "Symphony in One Movement" and things like that. Some people also write things like "Symphony for Voices" so it's choral rather than orchestral, and there are certainly "Wind Symphonies" for Band (or Wind Ensemble, Symphonic Band, etc.)

and what are the requirements for calling such work a symphony. I was unable to find any specific information on this, so I thought I'd ask here.

[Steve] I gave you the requirement in the condescending post above :-). Seriously, there are no requiremement unless you're trying to stick to a specific model. Since you're already talking about more than 6 movements, you're closer to a "Symphonic Tone Poem" or some of the 20th century versions of a symphony.



Also, if there are any more appropriate names to call a work of this scale, I'd be interested in hearing them. Or maybe it would be better to just compose 12 separate pieces and call it an album

Thanks,
crimson

That's not unusual. In fact, I think you should avoid a term that's really a Classical/Romantic invention if your work is not going to adhered to those specs. There are certainly things like "Syphonic Metamorphosis" and "Metamorphosen for 23 String". "Symphonic Sketches", or "Orchestral Sketches" are not without precedent.

Best,
Steve

[stevel]

Originally Posted by crimson

But it would still be interesting to hear what really defines a work as a symphony. There must be some freedom with it since the number of movements in symphonies vary.

Traditional Definition:
1. Multi-Movement, usually 4, in the order Allegro-Adagio-Minuet(Scherzo)-Allegro with key relationships of Tonic-Dominant or Relative-Subdominant or "other"-Tonic.
Most 1st movements are in Sonata form, though others possible.
Most 2nd movements are in Ternary from, ditto.
Most 3rd movments are in Minuet and Trio form, until Beethoven, where Scherzo and Trio tends to take over, ditto.
Most 4th movements are in Sonata Form or Theme and Variations among others.
2. Usually for Orchestra.

That's about it - except for the assumption that it would be a "large-scale" work - though early Symphonies by Haydn and Mozart are not like the later Haydn, Mozart and all of Beethoven's. The problem is, we kind of see Syphonies from Beethoven's perspective, but really, Beethoven's Symphonies are just one stop along the evolutionary path of the Symphonic form.


Steve

[stevel]

Originally Posted by crimson

Hmm, yes well, it might be better to start with a small symphony.

Crimson,

Despite my being silly above, I was trying to make a point (and I do this to people all the time). many people decide they want to "compose" and all they're familiar with is Mozart and Beethoven. Many times they hear Beethoven's 5th or a String Quartet and the next message I see from them is "How do I write a Symphony?". Obviously, there's no simple answer, but I'm more concerned with the practical compositional considerations. I'm glad that Beethoven inspired someone, but what usually happens is the person is setting themselves up for disappointment. They don't realize that Beethoven's 5th Symphony was - his 5th! Haydn wrote like 106 or so, and really, no one cares much about any of them prior to 100 (though there are some in his Sturm und Drung period that are cool). Same with Mozart - 41 Symphonies. Most people - if they know them at all - don't know any prior to 35. So it basically took Mozart 30 Symphonies or so to get to the point where we consider them of the level of Beethoven's Sypmhonies. And that's Mozart! I mean, we consider Mozart to be this compositional genius. And while he did come out writing works that were far more mature than his age, his early works are still immature. He wrote plenty of very simple pieces while he was learning his craft (though he accelerated faster than others). Problem is, we only hear the "masterworks" of the masters - you don't typically get to hear the 30 or so overly simplistic works that led up to "Opus 1" or whatever.

What I would recommend, if you're interested in composing "classical-type" music, is yes, start with smaller forms. There's no shame in it. Every composer did it. You should also listen to as much as you can get your hands on, and study the scores or play the music. This way you don't have to define a symphony in order to write one, you'll intuitively know what one is after having listened to and studied many. Listen to Mozart's early Symphonies and try to tackle them. If you're interested in writing an "album", check out similar works (Liszt's Years of Pilgrammage, Respighi's places in Rome, Elgar's Enigma Variations, Holst's The Planets and so on) to see how those people tackled the form. In fact, you would be better off to go back to the Baroque and look at Handels' Water Music or Fireworks Music, or, look at things like Classical period Divertimento. These are usually dance-like movements collected for entertainment (thus a bit lighter than a Symphony so-to-speak). Most Classical instrumental forms evolved from Dance forms anyway, so learning how to deal with Binary and Ternary dance forms should be where you start before tackling Sonata Form.

Now, It's not impossible to start at the top. But I saw a post from a guy one time that said "I've finally completed my first symphony after 20 years". I'm like - you spent 20 years working on one piece. I mean, suppose the piece sucks (and it did, it was nothing more than sub-stnadard Beethoven imitation) and you've invested 20 years in that! I think, IMHO, it's better to walk before you run.

Good Luck,
Steve

[crimson]

Well, that certainly was a thorough explanation, stevel. Thank you for that, although I sense a bit sarcasm in there

I see your point, and I appreciate your input. I assure you that I won't start "at the top" by going for something great comparable to the masters' best works or waste years on a single symphony or anything like that. As I said earlier, I'm looking to write a practice symphony. I don't care if it sucks in the end, as I'm doing it just to learn.

I'll think about whether I'm even going to call the work (if I ever start workin on it) a symphony. I admit that partly I was interested in the definition of a symphony because the name is 'cool' and it would certainly be cool to be able to say that you have written a symphony, even though it might be total garbage. However, what I have in mind is not strictly conventional in classical terms, so I'll consider how I'll name the work. Of course, it might be better to actually complete the work before deciding on names. But it was just an idea I had. I thought about creating something less ordinary, and I began to wonder if I could call it a symphony.

But thanks for the explanation. It really cleared things up.

[stevel]

Originally Posted by crimson

Well, that certainly was a thorough explanation, stevel. Thank you for that, although I sense a bit sarcasm in there

[Steve] What? From Me? Never :-)


I see your point, and I appreciate your input. I assure you that I won't start "at the top" by going for something great comparable to the masters' best works or waste years on a single symphony or anything like that. As I said earlier, I'm looking to write a practice symphony. I don't care if it sucks in the end, as I'm doing it just to learn.

[Steve] I think you should care if it sucks in the end. In other words, try to write something that you feel is good (if others judge it as sucking, that's their problem). YOU need to be satisfied with your own work. I like your idea of it being a Practice ????. Why don't you write some "Studies" (or if you insist on a traditional name, "Etudes"). Most studies are studies on technique for an instrument. But there are examples of "Composition Etudes" - that is, they are studies on different compositional techniques. You can explore a different technique or combination of techniques in each, but still coe out with a satisfactory work that's more than "just an experiment" for you. Then if you want to collect them into a larger unit, they'll already have something in common.


I'll think about whether I'm even going to call the work (if I ever start workin on it) a symphony.

[Steve] Unless you're writing something that resembles a traditional Symphony I wouldn't. It reeks of amateurism.

I admit that partly I was interested in the definition of a symphony because the name is 'cool' and it would certainly be cool to be able to say that you have written a symphony, even though it might be total garbage.

[Steve] I'd have to disagree with you there. If I write something total garbage, I don't want anyone to know about it! You could tell people you wrote a Symphonic Etude, and then for the less classicaly inclined, you simply add, "which is basically a Symphony about a Symphony" or something. To be honest, I don't think anyone in the field will be at all impressed that you wrote a Symphony. They would assume you either don't know what you're doing, are a stuanch classicist, are on teh typical "outdo Beethoven" ego trip, or are seriously writing one. The formers seem to win out over the latter though.

[Steve] I tell you what though - look up the history of the word. The roots are Sym- for working together (like Symbiosis) and -phono for sound. Early "symphonies" are often called "sinfonie", "sinfonia" and so on (and in Italian too). You might use a word like Symphony, or or word that means a similar thing to Symphony (like a "Euphony" or something) to call a work where a bunch of musicians work together on the "same" sound (which is also what "concerto" means - concerted effort - working together).

However, what I have in mind is not strictly conventional in classical terms, so I'll consider how I'll name the work. Of course, it might be better to actually complete the work before deciding on names.

[Steve] Absolutely. You know, too many people place too much emphasis on the names. This is a byproduct of Romanticism - having to name every Symphony "Eroica" "Choral" "Inextinguishable" (you see how silly it got) or Sonata "Moonlight" "Pathatique". In fact, composers didn't name these, but editors did after the fact. It's also a hold over from program music and impressionism where everything has to be titled whatever the mood or "picture" is. The only thing I've written for orchestra that's close to a Symphony is for chamber orchestra and it's in 3 movements. You know what I called it? "Three Movements for Chamber Orchestra". A lot of times, I name my works the day they were completed: 02.02.07. Ooh, that reminds me, I need to write something on July 7th this year!

[Steve] Too many people put "Symphony No. 1" at the top of the page (and they also put Opus 1 somewhere) and this sit there and stare at a blank manuscript. Music is about music. Write the music. The name will come. It will either shout it out at you, or it will say, I don't need no stinkin name, just call me "Piano Piece".


But it was just an idea I had. I thought about creating something less ordinary, and I began to wonder if I could call it a symphony.

But thanks for the explanation. It really cleared things up.

Check out the definition of the word and it's history of use. I think you might find some other similar words that you like, that are not so "overused" and so full of "baggage". It will also be unique, and catchy, and who knows, you could start a new genre.

Have fun,
Steve

[somtow]

Dear Crimson:

The symphony isn't really my form of choice, but in the last few years I've written a number of symphonies. In each case, these were commissions and had some element of a political agenda behind it, such as commemorating a royal anniversary. Because of this, the word "symphony", with its implications of great historical gravitas, seemed appropriate and what was required was something with appropriately weighty gestures.

You can certainly make a point for a symphony needing about four movements and having some expected elements such as a fast movement, a slow movement, a rousing finale and so on, but if you're going to write a symphony in the 21st century, what it's really about is a certain mindset: you want to create something at the end of a line that stretches from Mahler, Bruckner and Co. back through Brahms and so on all the way through to Haydn. When you call a work a symphony, you're deliberately calling attention to the fact that you are adding another brick to the huge edifice of western musical tradition. You always have this entire corpus at your back. Unless you understand the past, there is a risk of reinventing the obvious.

I certainly wouldn't discourage you from trying a classical symphony. It's a very useful exercise in learning to master large structures. But listen to what people have done in the last 100 years -- the Schoenberg Chamber Symphony, Tippett, Shostakovich, etc -- and at least be aware of how far the symphony has already evolved. You don't have to write like them, but you should be aware of what they've done.

If you're going to string together 12 random movements, you probably shouldn't call it a symphony. The audience will expect some kind of overriding structural cohesion in order to accept a 12 movement work as a symphony.

Best
Somtow