# Anybody else struggle with Symphonies?



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Symphonies are probably my least favorite genre of classical music. I just don't listen to them much. I find them to be a wall of impenetrable sound. There's a lot going on (or worse, not a lot), and my mind doesn't know what it should be focusing on. Here's the violins! Lower strings have joined them! Oh, there's the clarinets and oboes coming it! Brass too? Can we get a tuba? BAM BAM BAM goes the Timpani!

Where strictly instrumental music is concerned, I much prefer smaller forms, like a string quartet. But the best forms are those with a full orchestra backing a soloist. That makes opera and concertos divine. Give me a 9-foot Bösendorfer or 200-pound dramatic soprano to listen to, with that full symphony as _backing_, providing _colour_, then my mind is happy. Without it, I just don't know what to listen for. With symphonies, I can't shake the feeling that there's "something missing". There is no focal point.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Here's a kind of symphonies you might like:


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

No big deal.

I can not stand Verdi.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Not at all, only with people.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

I think part of what I find intriguing about symphonies and similar forms, myself, is that there is almost always something new to focus on and enjoy with each subsequent listen. You point it out pretty well:



> Here's the violins! Lower strings have joined them! Oh, there's the clarinets and oboes coming it! Brass too? Can we get a tuba? BAM BAM BAM goes the Timpani!


So on the first listen, I'll generally follow the main melody, with focus shifting on and off of the harmonies as they become more and less apparent. On the next listens I will try to peel back the layers. I liked that violin bit, let's follow that line more... Next listen: I'd like to feel more bass tonight, let's follow the lower strings this time... Next: Let's hear what the woodwinds are doing while that lovely string bit was going on... And then: the brass... And then: the percussion... etc.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

But...even with concertos and operas the focal point is not always on the singer or the concerto instrument. Do you dislike opera overtures, for example?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I think the difficulty goes up over time from the 18th Century through to the mid 20th Century, as the form and harmony becomes less straight forward. Just talking about tonal music here. Start with earlier symphonies by Haydn like the Philosopher. It's basically a chamber symphony, and more clearly in sonata form along with Mozart, Beethoven. By the time of Mahler it's gets pretty loose and 'busy'. Then something like Gorecki's 3rd is pretty easy to follow (to the point of being monotonous in large chunks to me).

Here is a difficult work to get on first hearing in a casual listen to say the least. But it has no fat whatsoever, no run-on patterns.


----------



## 444mil (May 27, 2018)

I started with Beethoven'ts 3rd, and it is still my favourite. Hope it helps.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Symphonies are probably my least favorite genre of classical music. Where strictly instrumental music is concerned, I much prefer smaller forms, like a string quartet._

For me it's the other way around: the less complex forms seem dull to me, even empty. There isn't enough happening, not enough voices.

One way around your conundrum, if you want one, is to listen to the sections of orchestras that double each other in symphonies. When you do that you'll see there isn't as much happening.

Even with that I find the polyphonic noise of a symphony preferable to and more interesting than less complex forms of music.

To me the string quartet, in particular, is too dressed down -- even naked. It to me is a skeleton of sound. I prefer the rest of the body -- the muscle, tendons, organs, sinew.

However I can enjoy smaller ensembles of woodwinds more than strings since they make more differentiated sounds than 4 or more strings.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Couchie said:


> _Symphonies are probably my least favorite genre of classical music. I just don't listen to them much. I find them to be a wall of impenetrable sound._


best way to get into music, be it symphony or concerto, is begin with opera videos, that can be of much help because they have subtitles, which go along the music and, phrase by phrase, correlate with its fluctuations, consequently revealing its pattern of narrative you later apply to understanding symphonies.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

larold said:


> To me the string quartet, in particular, is too dressed down -- even naked. It to me is a skeleton of sound. I prefer the rest of the body -- the muscle, tendons, organs, sinew.
> However I can enjoy smaller ensembles of woodwinds more than strings since they make more differentiated sounds than 4 or more strings.


I hear what you are saying...I love string 4tets...the uniformity of sound is both a strength and a weakness....I enjoy the unified timbral ensemble of the strings, but it becomes monotonous to me after some time; an entire string 4tet program is too much...same with solo piano....I love solo piano works, but a full recital is too much for me...my ears, my psyche, require more variety of tones...
Woodwind, brass and percussion ensemble programs have plenty of variety, different tones....


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Heck148 said:


> I hear what you are saying...I love string 4tets...the uniformity of sound is both a strength and a weakness....I enjoy the unified timbral ensemble of the strings, but it becomes monotonous to me after some time; an entire string 4tet program is too much...same with solo piano....I love solo piano works, but a full recital is too much for me...my ears, my psyche, require more variety of tones...
> Woodwind, brass and percussion ensemble programs have plenty of variety, different tones....


Same for me.

i love strings but just strings can sound overly sustained and intense to my ears - especially when the 'cool' (ie less intense) timbre of a flute might be a 'better' arrangement choice. A well orchestrated symphony has all the variation one could hope for.

But each to their own.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Symphonies and concertos were my gateway to classical in the mid 80s. String quartets and other chamber music really kicked in a few years later. Operas even later. Seems I'm on a completely different path. In the end I got to enjoy all forms, so who knows?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

violadude said:


> But...even with concertos and operas the focal point is not always on the singer or the concerto instrument. Do you dislike opera overtures, for example?


I personally really like symphonies and in general I enjoy heavy virtuosic orchestration like that of Brcukner, Mahler and Wagner but I think opera overtures are quite different from symphonies. Symphonies tend to have a certain structure (just the existence of different movements gives it a more structured nature) while opera overtures are very differently used by different composers. Some seem to use them just to create a certain atmosphere, others like Wagner almost give a short summary of the whole opera, using the leitmotifs that often convey a similar information as words. Thus you can follow a certain storyline when listening to Wagner's overtures. Many of Italian opera composers were exceptionally good melodists and while their overtures aren't always as programmic as those of Wagner, they are very enjoyable to listen to and almost never dragging.

I'm quite sure that Couchie enjoys _Tristan_'s overture but what is great about it is that Wagner could do whatever he wanted with it. He wasn't obliged to make some parts slower or others faster. He wasn't obliged to follow any conventional rules. Therefore I think that opera overtures are more similar to symphonic poems than symphonies. Of course I don't know whether it's symphonic music or symphonies that Couchie doesn't like but it seems that the answer is symphonies.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

Couchie says: "Anybody else struggle with Symphonies?'

Coach G says: Some symphonies I liked right away: Beethoven's 5th, 6th, 7th & 9th, Schubert's 8th, Mahler's 4th, Sibelius' 2nd, Shostakovich's 5th (the more popular ones that draw you in with appealing melodies, drama, and a sense of tightness where it's apparent how all the parts fit together). There are many other symphonies that I didn't "get" right away, and some I still struggle with.

I took me a long time to enjoy Brahms as a composer of symphonies, that underneath the thick-sounding wall of sound, is a kind of warmth and really fine craftsmanship.

While I love the sense of scope and grand Late-Romantic passion that I find in the symphonies of Bruckner and Mahler, sometimes I find my mind wandering as the composer seems to take a long (or _really_ long time) time trying to get from point A to point B.

Those are just a few examples, and I could go on and on.

One of joys of classical music is not in the understanding, but in the _not_ understanding; it's in not "getting" what the composer is trying to say, and then working on it, and then you get to that "aha" moment where everything seems to make sense.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Several thoughts:

Mozart's 35th Symphony - try a chamber orchestra (maybe HIP) Or Szell who makes the Cleveland Orchestra sound like a chamber orchestra. If that clicks, move on to 36, 38, 39, 40, and 41 - I would suggest in that order.

Mendelssohn's Symphonies for Strings.

Try a piece that was arranged for orchestra as well as a smaller ensemble or piano. I spent time last year analyzing Brahms' Variations on a Theme by Haydn: first the version he wrote for two pianos and then his version for orchestra. Technically not a symphony, but a major orchestral work. See if you find whether the orchestra "improves" the work.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Couchie said:


> Symphonies are probably my least favorite genre of classical music. I just don't listen to them much. I find them to be a wall of impenetrable sound.


I am the opposite. Symphonies are my favorite classical genre (apart from opera). Most of the other stuff I stay away from with a few exceptions.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

For me, it all comes down to the individual work ("all esthetics is subjective and personal")--is it done well or ill? And that's a very personal decision. I do confess to an antipathy to _longueurs_ in symphonies; to lack of development of themes; to wandering, maundering endless "melody" that seems to have been written to fill time and to be able to say "Look, I wrote a symphony!" Lots of late 19th-early 20th century symphonies fall into that category. We talk a lot about Genius in music. One of the hallmarks of genius in my book is Compression--the ability to get it all packed into a crisp package not a moment longer than it "needs" to be. Easier to do with a concerto or a really good quartet or piece for small ensemble.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Symphonies, sacred choral, operas, song-cycles, tone-poems, lieder, concertos, chamber, solo instrumental - they're all great and a joy to have in my life.

I had an older friend; our common ground was the field of real estate and classical music. He's been dead for a few years, but his daily goal was to listen to a work from every genre and time period. Looking back at my years as an adult, he was the only real estate professional I knew that listened regularly to classical. Most of the others preferred country music.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

It’s precisely due to the complexity and variety that I love symphonies. Plus, especially, all the players working towards one goal. That’s why it is essential to have a good conductor. If a symphony sounds disjointed, then the conductor is not doing his job. All the parts need to fit together into a cohesive whole. It’s one of the most magical things in art.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

Strange Magic said:


> For me, it all comes down to the individual work ("all esthetics is subjective and personal")--is it done well or ill? And that's a very personal decision. I do confess to an antipathy to _longueurs_ in symphonies; to lack of development of themes; to wandering, maundering endless "melody" that seems to have been written to fill time and to be able to say "Look, I wrote a symphony!" Lots of late 19th-early 20th century symphonies fall into that category. We talk a lot about Genius in music. One of the hallmarks of genius in my book is Compression--the ability to get it all packed into a crisp package not a moment longer than it "needs" to be. Easier to do with a concerto or a really good quartet or piece for small ensemble.


Interesting. Webern's 1st compresses all the mass of one of Bruckner or Mahler's gargantuan "red giant" symphonies into the volume of a neutron star.

Now we can identify our favorite symphonies according to the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

It is hard for me to think of symphonies as a genre (although I accept the use of the term). What symphonies do and how they do it has changed often since Haydn and Mozart. I assume the OP singles out symphonies because the problem does not apply to concertos, tone poems and the like? Either way, I am reminded of my daughter's exploration of classical music. She also tends to avoid anything with the word symphony in the title and in general prefers chamber music and non-symphonic composers like Debussy and Bartok. But she likes many concertos and other Romantic and Modern orchestral works. I am baffled slightly as to why she avoids all works called symphonies!


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I couldn't live without listening to my symphonies. Whilst I love other forms of CM too, symphonies probably make up 75% of my CM listening.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Strange Magic said:


> For me, it all comes down to the individual work ("all esthetics is subjective and personal")--is it done well or ill? And that's a very personal decision. I do confess to an antipathy to _longueurs_ in symphonies; to lack of development of themes; to wandering, maundering endless "melody" that seems to have been written to fill time and to be able to say "Look, I wrote a symphony!" Lots of late 19th-early 20th century symphonies fall into that category. We talk a lot about Genius in music. One of the hallmarks of genius in my book is Compression--the ability to get it all packed into a crisp package not a moment longer than it "needs" to be. Easier to do with a concerto or a really good quartet or piece for small ensemble.


For a moment I thought you'd written a book...

I agree about works not being '_a moment longer than it "needs" to be_' - and it's pretty rare for me to like a whole symphony.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

Enthusiast said:


> It is hard for me to think of symphonies as a genre (although I accept the use of the term). What symphonies do and how they do it has changed often since Haydn and Mozart. I assume the OP singles out symphonies because the problem does not apply to concertos, tone poems and the like? Either way, I am reminded of my daughter's exploration of classical music. She also tends to avoid anything with the word symphony in the title and in general prefers chamber music and non-symphonic composers like Debussy and Bartok. But she likes many concertos and other Romantic and Modern orchestral works. I am baffled slightly as to why she avoids all works called symphonies!


I like what you say about symphonies being more than a single genre. Haydn is known as the "Father of the Symphony", but I'd say he's more the "grandfather" with Beethoven being the "father" and Mozart being the "uncle". Haydn creates the template, Mozart does something beautiful with it that no else can do, and then Beethoven comes along and pushes the possibilities of what makes a symphony to the limits. In way I think of mostly all the symphonies that come after Beethoven as more or less, "after Beethoven symphonies". Tchaikovsky loved Mozart's sense of balance and seamless beauty, but the Tchaikovsky symphonies are big and dramatic, more like Beethoven than Mozart's ideal. To think of a monster symphony by Bruckner, Mahler, or Shostakovich as being sown in the seeds of Haydn's happy little symphonies challenges the imagination.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Coach G said:


> Tchaikovsky loved Mozart's sense of balance and seamless beauty, but the Tchaikovsky symphonies are big and dramatic, more like Beethoven than Mozart's ideal. To think of a monster symphony by Bruckner, Mahler, or Shostakovich as being sown in the seeds of Haydn's happy little symphonies challenges the imagination.


I guess the thing about the 18th century and prior was that religion was generally more important than anything else in the minds of major composers. (except opera) I think Beethoven's 3rd symphony 'sort of' marks the end of this "era". I can't think of a "secular instrumental work" by Mozart in 1776 and prior that's as expressive with variety and contrast as this Litany written in that year. 




I still consider Divertimento K334 more impressive than any symphonies earlier than his 31th ("Paris") with its extended form and shades of chromaticism ; but it was written in 1779. I like to think even these aren't as expressive as his Vespers (K321, K339) of 1779, 1780.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

violadude said:


> But...even with concertos and operas the focal point is not always on the singer or the concerto instrument. Do you dislike opera overtures, for example?


No because overtures are a 2 to 10 minute appetizer for the main course. With symphonies, it's like trying to make the appetizer the main course.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

jegreenwood said:


> Try a piece that was arranged for orchestra as well as a smaller ensemble or piano. I spent time last year analyzing Brahms' Variations on a Theme by Haydn: first the version he wrote for two pianos and then his version for orchestra. Technically not a symphony, but a major orchestral work. See if you find whether the orchestra "improves" the work.


I actually like this Brahms work, but prefer the two piano version.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

The "symphony" as a musical form has long proved my single favorite musical form in the classical genre. I have heard literally thousands of symphonies and the form comprises the bulk of my classical recordings collection.

I suppose the "symphony" is a form meant to utilize a full orchestra (many different instruments, and instrumental colors) in the exploration of a musical idea. Of course, a string quartet is simply a form meant to utilize two violins, a viola and a cello in the exploration of a musical idea. And a piano sonata is a form meant to utilize a pianoforte in the exploration of a musical idea. Etc.

Part of the joy of listening to a "symphony" is to discover what the "musical idea" is; another part of the joy is hearing how that idea is explored -- what instruments or blocks of instruments are used to state and restate the idea, to shape and re-shape it; what modifications in orchestration are presented; what transformations in the "idea" are provided; what tempos and rhythms and accompanying harmonies are utilized in the presentation of the "idea"; etc.

Each "symphony" remains a musical world of its own, a complete work of art held together by unifying factors (such as the precise instruments utilized in the orchestra, the nature of their colors and sound possibilities; the notions of key presentations and modulations, of tempo and rhythm considerations, of thematic development factors; concerns about tradition v. experiment...).

The "symphony" allows for an overarching philosophical presentation in sound, something that leaves one to ponder and speculate, to wonder and amaze at, to experience a range of emotion, to delight in technical artistry to one's various degrees of understanding, and to ultimately experience in a personal and intimate manner an abstract musical work of art, an experience which may also be, concurrently, socially shared.

I generally approach a new "symphony" by first attempting to identify the musical "idea" or "ideas", since in the traditional sense the form of a "symphony" generally explores two contrasting ideas, noted often as the dramatic theme and the lyrical theme. The identification of the "idea(s)" tends to lead towards a comprehension of the _form_ utilized. For instance, sonata-allegro form reveals itself rather quickly, as does also theme and variation form, scherzo/minuet and trio form, and rondo form, to name a few. A strong command of forms allows for the further exploration of how the composer expands upon or plays with a form, which often leads to a listener's ruminations as to the "meaning" of the symphony, generally a rather personal conception.

By its nature, the "symphony" rarely, if ever, reveals itself fully upon an initial hearing. Rather, it invites revisits and further study and thought, as does all great art and all great ideas.

I would hope that any of you who have not yet embraced the dynamics of the "symphony" will not permanently turn away or eschew the form, for it holds many of the most glorious moments in our musical heritage, and it seems to be a form that is most respected by composers who, a study of the literature tells us, have often been intimidated by the form or by previous compositional masters of the form.

In any case, I remain one who worships at the shrine of the "symphony", and I will continue to do so, paying homage to both old and familiar works as well as new on a regular basis as long as I am able. Such is the power of the "symphony" for me.


----------



## Hermastersvoice (Oct 15, 2018)

The symphony is the beginning and end of serious music listening. The wonder of the development of the big tune, whether from Haydn or Beethoven, a more rhapsodic take a la Tchaikovsky, Dvorak or even Mahler, to the big almost other-worldly boundary-defeating outputs of Sibelius, Shostakovich (or Per Nørgaard), is the very anchor of music appreciation, I think. But none of it truly comes through on record. It’s when the music is played, live by a big band, where you don’t just listen with your ears but can feel the music on your skin that the symphony convinced you. I have never met anybody, not even those who are not into serious music, not feeling the big thrill of that. The first time, it’s like the first time with your first lover. After that, you just keep coming back for more.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Hermastersvoice said:


> The symphony is the beginning and end of serious music listening. The wonder of the development of the big tune, whether from Haydn or Beethoven, a more rhapsodic take a la Tchaikovsky, Dvorak or even Mahler, to the big almost other-worldly boundary-defeating outputs of Sibelius, Shostakovich (or Per Nørgaard), is the very anchor of music appreciation, I think. But none of it truly comes through on record. It's when the music is played, live by a big band, where you don't just listen with your ears but can feel the music on your skin that the symphony convinced you. I have never met anybody, not even those who are not into serious music, not feeling the big thrill of that. The first time, it's like the first time with your first lover. After that, you just keep coming back for more.


Well, if we're talking about hearing symphonies in the concert hall, live.... But everything is better live and in person.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

SONNET CLV said:


> Each "symphony" remains a musical world of its own, a complete work of art held together by unifying factors...


Well stated and I agree with all the points you've made in your essay on the symphony, especially the following:

"...By its nature, the "symphony" rarely, if ever, reveals itself fully upon an initial hearing. Rather, it invites revisits and further study and thought, as does all great art and all great ideas."

Music, like life, teaches us that things are not always what they appear to be at first glance.

I'm an old symphony man myself.


----------



## MusicSybarite (Aug 17, 2017)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It's precisely due to the complexity and variety that I love symphonies. Plus, especially, all the players working towards one goal. That's why it is essential to have a good conductor. If a symphony sounds disjointed, then the conductor is not doing his job. All the parts need to fit together into a cohesive whole. It's one of the most magical things in art.


Pretty much agree with this. Complexity is definitely one of the appeals of works like this. The different ways that composers develop their ideas by using an orchestra fascinate me, and symphonies are the means that better convey that IMO. Needless to say symphonies are my favorite form in classical music by far.


----------



## Machiavel (Apr 12, 2010)

To each his own I guess

For me it was Operas. NOw I love them all thanks to couchie. I just edited all the voices, singing, overly long parts( Wagner). Pure bliss now, thanks couchie for the nice trick:devil:


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Couchie said:


> BAM BAM BAM goes the Timpani!


I know, I was just listening to the Brahms symphony 2 finale too!

I don't enjoy them less or more than any other genre. I used to struggle with the Romantic era symphonies when I first heard them because they struck me as turgid and occasionally bombastic. I've since changed my opinion, with Brahms and Sibelius being among my favorites now. I still feel they're given undue importance whenever a composer's entire body of work is examined, though. People tend to look at the symphonies first.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Couchie said:


> Symphonies are probably my least favorite genre of classical music. I just don't listen to them much. I find them to be a wall of impenetrable sound. There's a lot going on (or worse, not a lot), and my mind doesn't know what it should be focusing on. Here's the violins! Lower strings have joined them! Oh, there's the clarinets and oboes coming it! Brass too? Can we get a tuba? BAM BAM BAM goes the Timpani!
> 
> Where strictly instrumental music is concerned, I much prefer smaller forms, like a string quartet. But the best forms are those with a full orchestra backing a soloist. That makes opera and concertos divine. Give me a 9-foot Bösendorfer or 200-pound dramatic soprano to listen to, with that full symphony as _backing_, providing _colour_, then my mind is happy. Without it, I just don't know what to listen for. With symphonies, I can't shake the feeling that there's "something missing". There is no focal point.


It's either the recording process or the speakers that can't seem to articulate all the instruments. With live performances the counterpoint is always so clear, and the different instruments sound smooth and distinctive.

A bit is lost when hearing a recording but you can train your ears and make an effort to hear the subtleties. String quartets also have issues, mostly with the overly sad tone and sometimes with simplistic writing that they encourage, but that can be solved with a piano.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I relate to this, with the notable exceptions that I love Mahler and Sibelius. Given a composer who wrote in many forms, I'll choose to listen to non-symphonies over symphonies 90+ percent of the time. Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Dvorak, all composers of great symphonies that I almost never listen to. I like contrast and color and a feeling of open space in music.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I don't think there's anything coherent I can say about this to the OP so I'll just sit back and shut up.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

isorhythm said:


> I relate to this, with the notable exceptions that I love Mahler and Sibelius. Given a composer who wrote in many forms, I'll choose to listen to non-symphonies over symphonies 90+ percent of the time. Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Dvorak, all composers of great symphonies that I almost never listen to. I like contrast and color and a feeling of open space in music.


You don't hear the open space in live performances?


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

I am very surprised by what the OP's follow-up to the title of the thread was. I thought it would be a complaint against 30-minute episodes of meandering of Bruckner's adagios or Mahler's... well, anything. That it turned out to be a complaint against the orchestra itself---leaves me baffled.

I struggle with string-only pieces and soloist pieces. A lack of colour puts me to sleep because of the low content and ambiguity of what would be called by scientists "auditory information" about space, sizes of objects, safety, danger, and all other elements of the environment or a social scene.

That rules out for me a vast majority of chamber and solo repertoire, other than as dry study materials. A significant part of information is missing when timbre is not tailored to the other elements. Some people do not understand it, and consider timbre (which is basically an art of echoes and distortions) to not be an important part of musical consideration. This leads to the overrating of string quartets, for example, in statements such as that they are "the real measure of a serious composer".

The symphony orchestra on the other hand has the greatest capacity for such auditory information transfer. Masters of the Russian orchestral tradition, and all those who built on their developments, made quite an art of this.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Fabulin said:


> I am very surprised by what the OP's follow-up to the title of the thread was. I thought it would be a complaint against 30-minute episodes of meandering of Bruckner's adagios or Mahler's... well, anything. That it turned out to be a complaint against the orchestra itself---leaves me baffled.
> 
> I struggle with string-only pieces and soloist pieces. A lack of colour puts me to sleep because of the low content and ambiguity of what would be called by scientists "auditory information".
> 
> ...


So you dislike Maher's Adagietto?


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

1996D said:


> So you dislike Maher's Adagietto?


I've listened to it a couple days ago because it was mentioned in the "best pieces under 10 minutes" thread. As with all Mahler's music, I consider it high quality, but it does not speak to me.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Fabulin said:


> I've listened to it a couple days ago because it was mentioned in the "best pieces under 10 minutes" thread. As with all Mahler's music, I consider it high quality, but it does not speak to me.


But it's not because of the orchestration being for only strings but because of the content. I see what you mean with chamber music where the strings can get repetitive and the tone of the solo instruments can even hurt your ears after awhile, but in a large symphonic setting for the most part this isn't the case.

Most symphonies are string heavy, especially Beethoven and Brahms.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

1996D said:


> But it's not because of the orchestration being for only strings but because of the content. I see what you mean with chamber music where the strings can get repetitive and the tone of the solo instruments can even hurt your ears after awhile, but in a large symphonic setting for the most part this isn't the case.
> 
> Most symphonies are string heavy, especially Beethoven and Brahms.


Well, of course it's about the content as well. Mahler is like a guy in a bar late at night, drinking and either complaining or bragging with varying coherence about his problems and life for an hour, or however long.

I don't like Brahms' symphonies, and of Beethoven actually only the 5th and the 9th. The 6th and Eroica have parts I like, but I rarely listen to them entire.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Fabulin said:


> Well, of course it's about the content as well. Mahler is like a guy in a bar late at night, drinking and either complaining or bragging with varying coherence about his problems and life for an hour, or however long.
> 
> I don't like Brahms' symphonies, and of Beethoven actually only the 5th and the 9th. The 6th and Eroica have parts I like, but I rarely listen to them entire.


What are your favourite symphonies?


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

Fabulin said:


> ...Mahler is like a guy in a bar late at night, drinking and either complaining or bragging with varying coherence about his problems and life for an hour, or however long...


Well, if Mahler is the guy going on and on about the meaning of life, then Bruckner must be the one going on and on about God, and Shostakovich must be the one going on and on about how much life sucks.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Fabulin said:


> I am very surprised by what the OP's follow-up to the title of the thread was. I thought it would be a complaint against 30-minute episodes of meandering of Bruckner's adagios or Mahler's... well, anything. That it turned out to be a complaint against the orchestra itself---leaves me baffled.


Bruckner are Mahler are prime examples actually. The idea of going to a 1.5 hour strictly orchestral (and perhaps choral) setting is terrifying. But a 6-hour Wagnerian ordeal is actually quite alright.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Couchie said:


> Bruckner are Mahler are prime examples actually. The idea of going to a 1.5 hour strictly orchestral (and perhaps choral) setting is terrifying. But a 6-hour Wagnerian ordeal is actually quite alright.


What are you on about... Wagner is by far the most tiring composer there is, thank goodness there are lyrics and singing actors with a storyline.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

1996D said:


> What are your favourite symphonies?


Beethoven 5,9
Mendelssohn 2,3,4
E. Mayer 7
Bruckner 4,6,7,8
Tchaikovsky 1,5
Dvorak 9
Scriabin 3
Peterson-Berger 1,2,3,4
Knipper 4
Prokofiev 5
Messiaen - Turangalila

Maybe in the context of strings I should mention that for me some classical works can survive purely on the superb coherence of their voxine melodic communication. In other words the melody itself gives so much clear information about the emotional states, that it becomes a sufficiently interesting content on its own.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Fabulin said:


> Beethoven 5,9
> Mendelssohn 2,3,4
> E. Mayer 7
> Bruckner 4,6,7,8
> ...


It's quite a puzzling list, these symphonies have little in common with each other.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

1996D said:


> ... Wagner is by far the most tiring composer there is, thank goodness there are lyrics and singing actors with a storyline.


I've always found Wagner problematic. I can listen and enjoy Wagner's overtures, preludes, and certain excerpts all day long. There's hardly a day when I'm loading up the CD player and I'm not tempted to throw in at least one of my many Wagner CDs of overtures, preludes, excerpts from "The Ring", or even the entire final act from _Gotterdammurung_...

And Wagner's lovely _Siegfried Idyll_ stands as one my three favorite pieces of classical music (the other two are Beethoven's _Symphony #6 "Pastorale"_ and Barber's _Knoxville: Summer of 1915_).

So if I love so much of Wagner's music, then why can't I listen to even one of his operas in total without saying "Whew, I'm glad that's over with" when it's done?


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

1996D said:


> It's quite a puzzling list, these symphonies have little in common with each other.


Melodic prowess that packs an energetic punch is present in nearly all of them, and in many there are combinations of timbre and harmony that interest me. Any outliers can be said to depend on "effects" or "gimmicks" that I happened to like.


----------



## Swosh (Feb 25, 2018)

Try Joachim Raff symphonies


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

1996D said:


> But it's not because of the orchestration being for only strings but because of the content. I see what you mean with chamber music where the strings can get repetitive and the tone of the solo instruments can even hurt your ears after awhile,


That's not good; get thee to an ENT specialist.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Swosh said:


> Try Joachim Raff symphonies


Thanks for the suggestion. I've listened to Raff's symphonies, and found them a bit too vanilla.

Oh, and by the way... I forgot about Ives! Ives' symphonies are very cool.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Fabulin said:


> Melodic prowess that packs an energetic punch is present in nearly all of them, and in many there are combinations of timbre and harmony that interest me. Any outliers can be said to depend on "effects" or "gimmicks" that I happened to like.


I thought you were Swedish there for a second.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Coach G said:


> I've always found Wagner problematic. I can listen and enjoy Wagner's overtures, preludes, and certain excerpts all day long. There's hardly a day when I'm loading up the CD player and I'm not tempted to throw in at least one of my many Wagner CDs of overtures, preludes, excerpts from "The Ring", or even the entire final act from _Gotterdammurung_...
> 
> And Wagner's lovely _Siegfried Idyll_ stands as one my three favorite pieces of classical music (the other two are Beethoven's _Symphony #6 "Pastorale"_ and Barber's _Knoxville: Summer of 1915_).
> *
> So if I love so much of Wagner's music, then why can't I listen to even one of his operas in total without saying "Whew, I'm glad that's over with" when it's done?*


Yeah, he was an ambitious little man, pretty sure he let his napoleon complex get the better of him when choosing how long to make his operas. The opposite of Brahms who destroyed a lot of his works, Wagner simply released everything he ever came up with.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

1996D said:


> Couchie said:
> 
> 
> > Bruckner are Mahler are prime examples actually. The idea of going to a 1.5 hour strictly orchestral (and perhaps choral) setting is terrifying. But a 6-hour Wagnerian ordeal is actually quite alright.
> ...


I think this is the best solution:


----------



## MusicSybarite (Aug 17, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> For me, it all comes down to the individual work ("all esthetics is subjective and personal")--is it done well or ill? And that's a very personal decision. I do confess to an antipathy to _longueurs_ in symphonies; to lack of development of themes; to wandering, maundering endless "melody" that seems to have been written to fill time and to be able to say "Look, I wrote a symphony!" Lots of late 19th-early 20th century symphonies fall into that category. We talk a lot about Genius in music. One of the hallmarks of genius in my book is Compression--the ability to get it all packed into a crisp package not a moment longer than it "needs" to be. Easier to do with a concerto or a really good quartet or piece for small ensemble.


Is Miaskovsky into your list of composers of longueurs?


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Hermastersvoice said:


> The symphony is the beginning and end of serious music listening. The wonder of the development of the big tune, whether from Haydn or Beethoven, a more rhapsodic take a la Tchaikovsky, Dvorak or even Mahler, to the big almost other-worldly boundary-defeating outputs of Sibelius, Shostakovich (or Per Nørgaard), is the very anchor of music appreciation, I think. But none of it truly comes through on record. It's when the music is played, live by a big band, where you don't just listen with your ears but can feel the music on your skin that the symphony convinced you. I have never met anybody, not even those who are not into serious music, not feeling the big thrill of that. The first time, it's like the first time with your first lover. After that, you just keep coming back for more.


A fine post.

I don't necessarily agree, though, with the premise that, in terms of the glory of the symphony, "none of it truly comes through on record."

Finely produced recordings allow for a certain "perfection" of sound which, when rendered by quality equipment, can rock out in a wonderfully splendid manner. And you get the best seat in the house! I've heard many a symphony in the concert hall, and that is truly a wonderful experience. But it has not always proven as satisfying to me as hearing the same work in my listening room when all the factors are just right, including the particular interpretation. And I generally can't afford the concert hall's choicest seats.

Moreso, though, the symphony can exists with wonderful glory within one's own mind's eye -- or, rather, mind's _ear_. I marvel often at symphonies while browsing through the scores, no physically sounded music present. Score reading can be a great delight. For me, it works better if I'm familiar with the work. But in one instance, I learned a symphony via sight reading through the score (which I had owned for a while, long before I ever got a recording of the work or ever heard the piece played on radio), and that work fascinated me even though I had not heard it performed. It was the Goldmark _Rustic Wedding_ Symphony, which is still a favorite, and of which I currently own a couple different interpretations on disc. (I remember the day when I actually first heard this work, which was on the radio, to which I had tuned in while the piece was already underway, and I knew what it was immediately though I had not heard a note of it previously.)

I have orchestral scores on hand of many Haydn, Mozart, and Schubert symphonies; all of the Beethoven and Brahms and Tchaikovsky symphonies; several Mahler and Shostakovich works; a couple of Bruckners … and symphonies of Berlioz, Korngold, Hanson, Gorecki…. So many. And since I know much of this music well, I can scan through the scores and play the works in my head, which allows for personal interpretations that I like to think rank with the best of the great conductors. But I do have a big ego -- a major fault, except when it comes to mind-playing symphonies via score reading.

In any case, I do understand the wondrousness of hearing music live. But I've invested much in stereo playback equipment over the years, and it does certainly replay with benefits.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Fabulin said:


> I am very surprised by what the OP's follow-up to the title of the thread was. I thought it would be a complaint against 30-minute episodes of meandering of Bruckner's adagios or Mahler's... well, anything. That it turned out to be a complaint against the orchestra itself---leaves me baffled.
> 
> I struggle with string-only pieces and soloist pieces. A lack of colour puts me to sleep because of the low content and ambiguity of what would be called by scientists "auditory information" about space, sizes of objects, safety, danger, and all other elements of the environment or a social scene.
> 
> ...


Though the room can add or subtract through phase interference - timbre refers to the specific pattern of harmonics of a particular instrument...as far as I am aware.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Coach G said:


> So if I love so much of Wagner's music, then why can't I listen to even one of his operas in total without saying "Whew, I'm glad that's over with" when it's done?


You're not alone.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Strange Magic said:


> For me, it all comes down to the individual work ("all esthetics is subjective and personal")--is it done well or ill? And that's a very personal decision. I do confess to an antipathy to _longueurs_ in symphonies; to lack of development of themes; to wandering, maundering endless "melody" that seems to have been written to fill time and to be able to say "Look, I wrote a symphony!" Lots of late 19th-early 20th century symphonies fall into that category. We talk a lot about Genius in music. One of the hallmarks of genius in my book is Compression--the ability to get it all packed into a crisp package not a moment longer than it "needs" to be. Easier to do with a concerto or a really good quartet or piece for small ensemble.


Brahms:

_It is not hard to compose, but what is fabulously hard is to leave the superfluous notes under the table._


----------



## Caryatid (Mar 28, 2020)

Couchie said:


> No because overtures are a 2 to 10 minute appetizer for the main course. With symphonies, it's like trying to make the appetizer the main course.


So you wouldn't listen to, say, the _Meistersinger _prelude on its own for pleasure?

Perhaps you could also say some more about how you feel about other instruments forms? You mentioned the string quartet. What about chamber music in general?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

janxharris said:


> Brahms:
> 
> _It is not hard to compose, but what is fabulously hard is to leave the superfluous notes under the table._


Some may find it curious, but Brahms remains solidly my Number One symphonist. Four times at bat, four home runs, and every note is exactly needed and where it should be.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

MusicSybarite said:


> Is Miaskovsky into your list of composers of longueurs?


Maybe. Maybe not. I find the fact that he and Prokofiev were fast friends for life...curious.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Here's to Brahms and his first outing:

Stanisław Skrowaczewski - Frankfurt Radio Symphony Orchestra

...Brahms spent about 14 years putting it together conscious of Beethoven's achievements.

The first movement is another movement of Beethoven's Fifth isn't it?


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Couchie said:


> Symphonies are probably my least favorite genre of classical music. I just don't listen to them much. I find them to be a wall of impenetrable sound. There's a lot going on (or worse, not a lot), and my mind doesn't know what it should be focusing on. Here's the violins! Lower strings have joined them! Oh, there's the clarinets and oboes coming it! Brass too? Can we get a tuba? BAM BAM BAM goes the Timpani!
> 
> Where strictly instrumental music is concerned, I much prefer smaller forms, like a string quartet. But the best forms are those with a full orchestra backing a soloist. That makes opera and concertos divine. Give me a 9-foot Bösendorfer or 200-pound dramatic soprano to listen to, with that full symphony as _backing_, providing _colour_, then my mind is happy. Without it, I just don't know what to listen for. With symphonies, I can't shake the feeling that there's "something missing". There is no focal point.


For me, you must listen to a symphony in macro. It is that simple. Just listen to the wall of impenetrable sound as you call it.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

A lot depends on the quality of the orchestra. If all the lines and voices can be heard, if the balance between instruments is good and if solo-instruments are given enough space to fly, a symphony is a treat. Without this, the same symphony may be a wall of uninspired sound.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

eljr said:


> For me, you must listen to a symphony in macro. It is that simple. Just listen to the wall of impenetrable sound as you call it.


For me, one of the real pleasures of Brahms' symphonies is listening to all of the stuff going on "in the background" while the big tunes are being stated. Somewhere in a corner of the orchestra, somebody or bodies are banging away at some little gem that gets woven into the overall texture. Love it!


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> For me, one of the real pleasures of Brahms' symphonies is listening to all of the stuff going on "in the background" while the big tunes are being stated. Somewhere in a corner of the orchestra, somebody or bodies are banging away at some little gem that gets woven into the overall texture. Love it!


You don't need to "not hear" that as you listen in my mind. Just don't miss the forest for the trees.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

eljr said:


> You don't need to "not hear" that as you listen in my mind. Just don't miss the forest for the trees.


That's, for me, the genius of Brahms' symphonies--you get forest and you get trees, and for some reason I am able best with Brahms to absorb it all for the fullest musical pleasure.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Couchie said:


> Symphonies are probably my least favorite genre of classical music. I just don't listen to them much.


Me too. When I listen to classical music it is almost always chamber music or solo piano or guitar.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

...for string quartet


----------



## Judith (Nov 11, 2015)

Love symphonies. If it is a symphony that's unfamiliar, I start by listening to the very beginning because feel that sets a precedent for the rest of it


----------



## Helgi (Dec 27, 2019)

Couchie: see if the Sticky Notes podcast turns you on


----------



## ZeR0 (Apr 7, 2020)

For me, symphonies are one of my least listened to genres. I much prefer solo keyboard, string quartets, choral, lieder, opera, and ballet. Basically I have a very narrow repertoire of symphonies that I keep in rotation, but outside of those, I don't really spend a lot of time listening to symphonies.

The list of symphonies I do occasionally listen to are:
Beethoven 9, 7, 5, and the others less so
Mahler 9, 5, 6, 2, and the others less so
Sibelius 2, 7
Bruckner 8
Mozart 40
Schubert 9
Brahms 4
Tchaikovsky 6


----------



## Swosh (Feb 25, 2018)

Fabulin said:


> Thanks for the suggestion. I've listened to Raff's symphonies, and found them a bit too vanilla.
> 
> Oh, and by the way... I forgot about Ives! Ives' symphonies are very cool.


What does vanilla mean? Too simple?


----------



## Swosh (Feb 25, 2018)

janxharris said:


> Here's to Brahms and his first outing:
> 
> Stanisław Skrowaczewski - Frankfurt Radio Symphony Orchestra
> 
> ...


It held him back in my opinion. He could have left us with so much more without focusing so much and putting so much time into one piece!!!


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Patience, please . You need to give symphonies repeated hearings . Ones that may seem confusing and incoherent on first hearing will often begin to make a lot more sense once you become familiar with them . 
Symphonies vary a lot in length and complexity . Start with the relatively short symphonies of Haydn and Mozart, and go on to Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert , Schumann, Mendelssohn , Tchaikovsky and others . Eventually, the very long and very complex symphonies of Bruckner and Mahler will no longer be a challenge to you and you may even get to love them !


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

superhorn said:


> Patience, please . You need to give symphonies repeated hearings . Ones that may seem confusing and incoherent on first hearing will often begin to make a lot more sense once you become familiar with them .
> Symphonies vary a lot in length and complexity . Start with the relatively short symphonies of Haydn and Mozart, and go on to Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert , Schumann, Mendelssohn , Tchaikovsky and others . Eventually, the very long and very complex symphonies of Bruckner and Mahler will no longer be a challenge to you and you may even get to love them !


I believe this could be true... perhaps (and hopefully) my view will change on this in the future, but for now I share OP's view on symphonies. I think that for me the problem is that by going wide, symphonies automatically lose depth, by which I mean emotional depth. By contrast with solo and chamber works, and even with concertos, I feel like I am in a one-on-one conversation with the composer.

For me, a well-written melody or even a single texture can only take so much enhancement or variation before you start to dilute its power, and symphonies often have so many melodies and themes moving in and out or working simultaneously that I don't feel there is a chance to connect with the music. It's not that I find it _confusing_ or overwhelming, it's more that I find it disappointingly "macro" at the expense of anything "micro." But given how much everyone else loves symphonies, I do believe there is something there I'm missing, and hopefully it will click for me eventually.

Strangely, I love the Brandenburg Concertos, even though there is so much going on and in some ways they resemble symphonies to me, but I think there is just something about Bach - the usual rules don't apply.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Couchie said:


> Where strictly instrumental music is concerned, I much prefer smaller forms, like a string quartet.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

mossyembankment said:


> I believe this could be true... perhaps (and hopefully) my view will change on this in the future, but for now I share OP's view on symphonies. I think that for me the problem is that by going wide, symphonies automatically lose depth, by which I mean emotional depth. By contrast with solo and chamber works, and even with concertos, I feel like I am in a one-on-one conversation with the composer.
> 
> For me, a well-written melody or even a single texture can only take so much enhancement or variation before you start to dilute its power, and symphonies often have so many melodies and themes moving in and out or working simultaneously that I don't feel there is a chance to connect with the music. It's not that I find it _confusing_ or overwhelming, it's more that I find it disappointingly "macro" at the expense of anything "micro." But given how much everyone else loves symphonies, I do believe there is something there I'm missing, and hopefully it will click for me eventually.
> 
> Strangely, I love the Brandenburg Concertos, even though there is so much going on and in some ways they resemble symphonies to me, but I think there is just something about Bach - the usual rules don't apply.


I wonder if there are symphonies that would not suffer from this deficiency for you. Maybe Tchaikovsky? His melodies are simple but very emotionally potent, generally speaking.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

Thanks for the suggestion - I will try some Tchaikovsky symphonies.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


>


This is sort of mesmerizing.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

mossyembankment said:


> Thanks for the suggestion - I will try some Tchaikovsky symphonies.


Give 6 a go. It's brimming with feeling.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern (Jul 29, 2020)

mossyembankment said:


> This is sort of mesmerizing.


The music itself is quite brilliant. It's just too ridiculously long for its own good.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

To each his own. Orchestral music, mainly symphonies, but also including concertos, has been consistently my favorite genre of classical music. I will enjoy some instrumental music, mainly solo piano, and singularly Bach's Cello suites, and the occasional chamber work, but that has never been my primary interest or love. Never understood or enjoyed opera.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Couchie said:


> Symphonies are probably my least favorite genre of classical music. I just don't listen to them much. I find them to be a wall of impenetrable sound. There's a lot going on (or worse, not a lot), and my mind doesn't know what it should be focusing on. Here's the violins! Lower strings have joined them! Oh, there's the clarinets and oboes coming it! Brass too? Can we get a tuba? BAM BAM BAM goes the Timpani!
> 
> Where strictly instrumental music is concerned, I much prefer smaller forms, like a string quartet. But the best forms are those with a full orchestra backing a soloist. That makes opera and concertos divine. Give me a 9-foot Bösendorfer or 200-pound dramatic soprano to listen to, with that full symphony as _backing_, providing _colour_, then my mind is happy. Without it, I just don't know what to listen for. With symphonies, I can't shake the feeling that there's "something missing". There is no focal point.


Some people who think they're interested in music are really interested in something music-adjacent that's on a continuum between music drama and personality cultism. They love soloists, especially vocal soloists, and they rely on lyrics, plot, and dramatic scenarios to define the role and function of the music, which is just background for the important part: the part sung or played by the hero in the middle of the stage - either one of the fictional heroes of an opera or a real-life soloist-hero emoting while they ply the keys of a grand piano. What's missing is an understanding of and an ability to identify with musical structure in any abstract sense. Education can help with this syndrome but, in my experience, what's missing is usually not knowledge, but any actual interest in abstract music.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I think what EdwardBast described above does occur, but I don't think it describes Couchie, who I have observed posting works like Bach's WTC or his concerto for four harpsichords, or instrumental works by CPE Bach and stating he gets enjoyment from those works. 

As far as symphonies I think they are one of the more difficult forms to pull off effectively, but when the composer succeeds they are among the most enjoyable forms to listen to. In my experience one need not focus on anything in particular in, just let oneself get into that 'world'. The orchestra is the focal point. A good symphony has a lot going on and things interlock in a very satisfying way, creating a rich experience. It is not so different moment to moment from listening to a Bach prelude or fugue. They are generally more homophonic than a Bach keyboard work, with a longer narrative, and of course more timbral variety. Just go where it takes you.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

tdc said:


> I think what EdwardBast described above does occur, but I don't think it describes Couchie, who I have observed posting works like Bach's WTC or his concerto for four harpsichords, or instrumental works by CPE Bach and stating he gets enjoyment from those works.


O yea, Couchie does get enjoyment from those works, just not as much as the "main dish".











Couchie said:


> Harpsichord porn:


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

hammeredklavier said:


> O yea, Couchie does get enjoyment from those works, just not as much as the "main dish".


Yup, Couchie loves to make hyperbolic statements for shock value and humor on this forum. He is an entertaining poster!

His struggle with symphonies is a perfect opportunity for him to finally come to terms with Brahms. :lol:


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

hammeredklavier said:


> O yea, Couchie does get enjoyment from those works, just not as much as the "main dish".


Hahahaha, this is great, thank you.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

tdc said:


> Yup, Couchie loves to make hyperbolic statements for shock value and humor on this forum. He is an entertaining poster!
> 
> His struggle with symphonies is a perfect opportunity for him to finally come to terms with Brahms. :lol:


Just a crazed Wagnerian. The fact that you all tolerate me means the world


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

mossyembankment said:


> This is sort of mesmerizing.


That's Feldman for ya. That said I'm not one of the guys who has the cojones to listen in a single sitting.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

EdwardBast said:


> Some people who think they're interested in music are really interested in something music-adjacent that's on a continuum between music drama and personality cultism. They love soloists, especially vocal soloists, and they rely on lyrics, plot, and dramatic scenarios to define the role and function of the music, which is just background for the important part: the part sung or played by the hero in the middle of the stage - either one of the fictional heroes of an opera or a real-life soloist-hero emoting while they ply the keys of a grand piano. What's missing is an understanding of and an ability to identify with musical structure in any abstract sense. Education can help with this syndrome but, in my experience, what's missing is usually not knowledge, but any actual interest in abstract music.


I have to disagree here. First, in the sense that even the person you describe is still "interested in music" - just not in the narrow sense that you're confining it to.

I think there is an inherent difference in the way that our brains interpret large-scale works like symphonies and the way we interpret smaller-scale ones - different people may enjoy one or the other more (as I said above, I prefer the latter most of the time) but I don't buy the distinction you're making. And for what it's worth, even if I was looking for some kind of protagonist in the music as you're describing, in my mind, that would be the composer, not the performer.

[edit] I guess you aren't saying that this is the only reason why one might dislike symphonies and prefer smaller-scale works, but still - I don't think there are many of the people you describe among the people posting in this thread.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> Some people who think they're interested in music are really interested in something music-adjacent that's on a continuum between music drama and personality cultism. They love soloists, especially vocal soloists, and they rely on lyrics, plot, and dramatic scenarios to define the role and function of the music, which is just background for the important part: the part sung or played by the hero in the middle of the stage - either one of the fictional heroes of an opera or a real-life soloist-hero emoting while they ply the keys of a grand piano. What's missing is an understanding of and an ability to identify with musical structure in any abstract sense. Education can help with this syndrome but, in my experience, what's missing is usually not knowledge, but any actual interest in abstract music.


Sounds like the attributes of a typical Rock Music critic.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Mahler famously said it takes the whole world to make a symphony. It doesn't but it takes a lot more than other orchestral forms.


----------



## Skrutten (Jul 14, 2021)

Couchie said:


> Symphonies are probably my least favorite genre of classical music. I just don't listen to them much. I find them to be a wall of impenetrable sound. There's a lot going on (or worse, not a lot), and my mind doesn't know what it should be focusing on. Here's the violins! Lower strings have joined them! Oh, there's the clarinets and oboes coming it! Brass too? Can we get a tuba? BAM BAM BAM goes the Timpani!
> 
> Where strictly instrumental music is concerned, I much prefer smaller forms, like a string quartet. But the best forms are those with a full orchestra backing a soloist. That makes opera and concertos divine. Give me a 9-foot Bösendorfer or 200-pound dramatic soprano to listen to, with that full symphony as _backing_, providing _colour_, then my mind is happy. Without it, I just don't know what to listen for. With symphonies, I can't shake the feeling that there's "something missing". There is no focal point.


My situation was almost identical to yours. I never listened to symphonies or symphonic works at all for that matter, unless there was an apparent soloistical aspect of the work. For example, I loved concertos the most out of any form of music. The solo instrument just brought everything together and gave everything a beautiful and understandable structure. I just can't help you "love" symphonies because from my past self's experience, I know that no amount of words could convince me to like the sound world of a symphony. Instead I'll walk you through my development that only took probably 5 months from listening to concertos to only wanting to hear symphonic works, especially symphonies.

The first big step for me was discovering "Tone Poems". These are symphonic works that basically don't have a soloistical aspect to them. So, somewhat similar to a symphony. My favorite composer for these works is Ravel. His orchestration is incredibly imaginative and utilizes so many instruments to create unique sounds. One of the first Tone Poems I really liked was La Valse. I listened to Pierre Boulez and the Berliner Philharmoniker's recording that's up on youtube. I still think it's one of the best. Anyway, something that may have helped me make this step was the fact that La Valse is also likely more famously played as a solo piano piece, which is what I first heard. Because the ideas of the piece were clear to me from already listening to the piano work for some time, listening to the orchestral version for the first time was truly like discovering the greatest thing imaginable. After some time valuing tone poems similarly to concertos, for some reason, listening to a symphony wasn't that hard.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

janxharris said:


> Brahms:
> 
> _It is not hard to compose, but what is fabulously hard is to leave the superfluous notes under the table._


There is a great example demonstrating the truth of this in Vanska's recording of the first version of Sibelius 5 - a version we no longer listen to - where there is so much really good music that he later excised. He found the discipline to remove lots of good stuff and thereby greatly strengthened the symphony which we now know.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

The first classical music I got to know - I was maybe 7 years old - was a record of two really great symphonies: Mozart's 35 and 40. The conductor was Bruno Walter. There is just so much in Mozart's later symphonies, astonishing genius which I instantly fell under the spell of. I suspect that many of those who struggle with symphonies would find an answer to their block in Mozart.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

Enthusiast said:


> I suspect that many of those who struggle with symphonies would find an answer to their block in Mozart.


I will give this a try!


----------

