# The Symphony, 'dead?'



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

This topic, occasioned upon seeing a new thread inquiring if the Symphony, as a form, is 'Dead', and an already existing one, 'was Shostakovich the last Symphonist?' .......

IF the 'symphony is dead.' I wonder...

1.) Can it be conclusively argued why the symphonic form -- which would include the sonata-allegro format regardless of instrumentation -- used and developed for over two hundred years, should presently still be the adhered to template for larger scale symphonic music?

2.) If the form is 'dead' -- or more correctly, not much used anymore -- is that any sort of true 'loss,' to music, i.e. something the loss of which is worth mourning over?

[My immediate response to the above two questions is a resounding, "No."]


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I'd say no as well to both. But maybe some brilliant composer out there with an interesting experience and or demented mind has found the symphony sonata allegro an excellent medium for his/her compositional outpourings or whatever you would call it? Improbable, and I'm certainly not that guy, but hypothetically speaking, it is possible without making an analogy to pigs flying. I have to admit, I would find that idea really interesting. 

In the mean time though, there's lots of other music to write and if the symphony serves no purpose to most composers other than to barely linger and create false(if mildly so) artistic expectations, then it simply shouldn't be considered. Those that want to consider it can, and maybe a rare person has it in them to make that consideration worth it. Beyond possibly for my own personal education, certainly not me.

Forgive me if I sound weird, I'm sleep deprived and my use of written language gets more awkward or odd as a result.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

Was Shostakovich the last great symphonist? What about Gorecki? Sallinen? Rautavaara? Glass? Hovaness? Michael Daugherty? Do they not count for anything? Or does someone have to actually do something weird and "out there" in order for it to be considered "great"? The symphony as a form may not be used as much lately but I suspect that 40 minutes of dissonance and atonality is too much for most people to bear, and thus the requirement of much shorter works if you are going to experiment down that road. Maybe some day the symphony will make a comeback but if not there are already so many great symphonies to listen to it doesn't matter.

Kevin


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Kevin Pearson said:


> ... I suspect that 40 minutes of dissonance and atonality is too much for most people to bear, and thus the requirement of much shorter works if you are going to experiment down that road. // Kevin


"I suspect that 40 minutes of dissonance." The poor, poor audiences for Beethoven's last string quartet and last symphony, then, should be much pitied.

Talking about the form, not the content. "Symphony" in no way accounts for content....

P.s. _"there are already so many great symphonies to listen to it doesn't matter."_ I fully agree, so do somewhat wonder at the 'is it dead?' question ... which sounds a bit 'alarmist' to me


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I'm in between on the questions. I'm not generally a big fan of symphonies, but I think people should compose whatever inspires them, not really having to 'adhere' to anything else. I also don't see music or art as developing in a straight line, I think it develops in cycles/circles, in other words - nothing 'artistically speaking' is ever really dead.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I remember back in 1975 my old music professor wrote a piece titled Symphony for Band. The publishers wrote back and told him to call it Symphonic Movement. I guess even back then the winds of change were blowing.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Manxfeeder said:


> I remember back in 1975 my old music professor wrote a piece titled Symphony for Band. The publishers wrote back and told him to call it Symphonic Movement. I guess even back then the winds of change were blowing.


_*Grooooooaaaaan *_


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Manxfeeder said:


> I remember back in 1975 my old music professor wrote a piece titled Symphony for Band. The publishers wrote back and told him to call it Symphonic Movement. I guess even back then the winds of change were blowing.


Why would the publishers say tell him what to title the piece? They didn't write it. o3o


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> _*Grooooooaaaaan *_


PetrB, you're far more alert than I.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

KenOC said:


> PetrB, you're far more alert than I.


I missed that too. Clever one by Manxfeeder.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

clavichorder said:


> I missed that too. Clever one by Manxfeeder.


Actually, I missed that one myself.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> Why would the publishers say tell him what to title the piece? They didn't write it. o3o


Maybe they didn't write it, but they did want to make sure they could sell it.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Manxfeeder said:


> Maybe they didn't write it, but they did want to make sure they could sell it.


And the title Symphony doesn't sell? o3o Idiot publishers.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

I imagine that titles of music is much like books in that the editor and publisher has the final say if they are going to publish the work. Book authors rarely get to name their books. They can make suggestions and even call it such and such, but if they do it's just a place holder until the title is finalized and occasionally the author's title will be accepted. It used to bug me a lot but in time I have seen that the experience of the editors and publishers is usually a better guide than the author. The author or composer's job is to write but the editor/arranger and publishers job is to sell and they are better judges for the most part as to what the public will buy. Now I'm sure there are times for artistic integrity that the author or composer has to stick to their guns but if their smart they will step out of the way and let the professional marketers do their job.

Kevin


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Not dead, but obviously an infrequent form these days. Since Shostakovich, not much has interested me, Hovhaness, Schnittke, maybe a couple of others.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Vaneyes said:


> Not dead, but obviously an infrequent form these days. Since Shostakovich, not much has interested me, Hovhaness, Schnittke, maybe a couple of others.


The only well-known symphony Hovhaness wrote after Shostakovich's 15th was #50, Mt. Saint Helens. And that's known primarily because of the subject matter and the fact that it was recorded and available. IMO it's not at all interesting. Schnittke is a different matter.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> And the title Symphony doesn't sell? o3o Idiot publishers.


It sells for me. For some reason I get a certain amount of comfort buying something called a symphony rather than some random orchestral piece called some random thing. I don't know why that is.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

While composers see the form of the symphony one of their greatest compositional challenges it will continue. Of course Shostakovich wasn't the last great symphonist - he probably wasn't the greatest of his time, so uneven was his output. One cannot ignore great (albeit less well known) symphonists such as Vagn Holmboe, Witold Lutosławski, William Schuman and Robert Simpson or those composers still writing true symphonies today (eg Kalevi Aho, John Corigliano, Peter Maxwell Davies).

The symphony is (and will remain) alive and well.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

violadude said:


> It sells for me. For some reason I get a certain amount of comfort buying something called a symphony rather than some random orchestral piece called some random thing. I don't know why that is.


More history. When you call something a Symphony in 3 Movements, it sounds like part of a long tradition that continues to this day. When you call it 3 Orchestral Pieces, it sounds like something very different, possibly less of a cohesive whole (which is certainly not true of the Berg piece in question...).


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Mahlerian said:


> More history. When you call something a Symphony in 3 Movements, it sounds like part of a long tradition that continues to this day. When you call it 3 Orchestral Pieces, it sounds like something very different, possibly less of a cohesive whole (which is certainly not true of the Berg piece in question...).


There was a tradition among some composers at the beginning of the twentieth century for more 'abstract' titles for their pieces. One of the most extreme exponents of this was Stefan Wolpe, many of whose works have titles like 'Chamber Piece No 1', 'Piece for Two Instrumental Units', 'Music for a Dancer', etc.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

PetrB said:


> _*Grooooooaaaaan *_


Yes, Manxfeeder's joke was good, but I think PetrB's response went under the radar, and deserves equal accolades.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

PetrB said:


> This topic, occasioned upon seeing a new thread inquiring if the Symphony, as a form, is 'Dead', and an already existing one, 'was Shostakovich the last Symphonist?' .......
> 
> IF the 'symphony is dead.' I wonder...
> 
> ...


*I think the term "symphony" should retain its old definition, but still be used today to denote a "large multi-movement (or single movement) form for orchestra." In other words, the term should be seen more loosely, and as covering large chronological territory.

1.) Should the symphony presently still be the adhered-to template for larger scale symphonic music? 

I think it's a matter of degree. "Symphonic form" does not need to be literally adhered to, as in "theme," recapitulation, development, etc.

2.) If the symphonic form is dead, is that any sort of true loss to music?

Lamenting the "death" of a form? There are plenty of old corpses to exhume, if you are that attached to it.

I do  think that the term, and titles like "Symphony No. 1" etc., should still be used by composers in a freer way, free of template restrictions, to convey the sense that the Western classical tradition is being extended by these newer composers, like Phil Glass.

I like Philip Glass' symphonies and symphonic works. Lou Harrison's Third Symphony, Howard Hanson, Vincent Persichetti, John Corigliano, John Harbison...all great.

BTW, thanx to PetrB for turning this subject "on its ear," and thanx to Bassoon for his support in holding down the fort.

*


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Kevin Pearson said:


> I imagine that titles of music is much like books in that the editor and publisher has the final say if they are going to publish the work. Book authors rarely get to name their books. They can make suggestions and even call it such and such, but if they do it's just a place holder until the title is finalized and occasionally the author's title will be accepted. It used to bug me a lot but in time I have seen that the experience of the editors and publishers is usually a better guide than the author. The author or composer's job is to write but the editor/arranger and publishers job is to sell and they are better judges for the most part as to what the public will buy. Now I'm sure there are times for artistic integrity that the author or composer has to stick to their guns but if their smart they will step out of the way and let the professional marketers do their job.
> 
> Kevin


meh, I have seen far too many stupid decisions made by editors and publishers that are detrimental to a work, I don't trust their ideas as being inherently better for sales.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> Why would the publishers say tell him what to title the piece? They didn't write it. o3o


Sheer marketing, probably the word 'Symphony' was in a 'downward spiral' as to appeal, and the terms 'Band' or 'Wind Ensemble' music are often considered 'second class' -- or, as it is so often, rather pops / classical written for high school players.


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2012)

"the symphonic form"

"the form of the symphony"

To what do those words refer?


----------



## drpraetorus (Aug 9, 2012)

The term symphony has become such a catch all term it is nearing meaninglessness


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Delicious Manager said:


> One cannot ignore great (albeit less well known) symphonists such as...


Cannot? Watch me! :lol:


----------

