# How far can you go and still call your composition a Symphony?



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

As long as you call a composition a Symphony, then it is a symphony? That's it? 

It's interesting because many symphonies from the 20th century are completely different from, say, one of Haydn's symphonies... and, yet, we consider them as part of the same tradition. That's mostly because we can see how symphonies were expanding and changing throughout the decades since Beethoven, so it's all reasonably connected. 

Well, there are one-movement symphonies, symphonies with lots of movements or parts, symphonies of all sizes, symphonies without the sonata-form, symphonies that are like song cycles, programatic symphonies, etc.

So what would make a symphony unrecognizable as a symphony? 
Does it need to be written in a music score? 
Does it need to be mostly orchestral and acoustic? 
Does it need to have some sort of underlying structure, form or melodic development?
Does it need to have notes with well defined pitches, harmony and rhythm?
Or anything goes as long as the rethoric is convincing?


----------



## Olias (Nov 18, 2010)

I think you hit the mark with: "Anything goes as long as the rhetoric is convincing?"


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Olias said:


> I think you hit the mark with: "Anything goes as long as the rhetoric is convincing?"


Really you can stop at "anything goes".


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

If it doesn't have at least one movement in something vaguely approaching sonata form then to me it cannot be a symphony. I consider myself fairly broad-minded in that, since the strictures on sonata forms have loosened greatly since the days of Haydn.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Playing with definitions goes a bit further than the 20th century - "Manfred", iirc, has no sonata form movements (among others, I'd imagine), and Berlioz called Romeo et Juliette a symphony. Even the larger form late Romantic symphonies have sonata movements stretched to such an extent that the classic structure is nearly impossible to hear at first glance.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Like everything else, the term "symphony" eventually became confused and corrupted. It lead to non-symphonies like the Symphony no. 1 by Louis Moreau Gottschalk (it's really a pair of tone poems). And Sibelius's concept of a symphony was a long ways from Haydns.

Does it need to be written in a music score? *If you want more than one performance, yes.*
Does it need to be mostly orchestral and acoustic? *Not necessarily. There are successful symphonies for smaller ensembles, organ, and other configurations.*
Does it need to have some sort of underlying structure, form or melodic development? *YES, YES, YES.*
Does it need to have notes with well defined pitches, harmony and rhythm? *Doesn't most music?*
Or anything goes as long as the rethoric is convincing? *NO.*

For me, a symphony is the ultimate test of a composer's skill: can he take a motif or theme and really develop it? Can he wrestle with the form and something logically convincing? Maybe most of all: can he create that harmonic tension awaiting resolution that is evident in the greatest symphonies? And can it all be done without the listener needing an explanation or a score? A symphony is not a nice collection of pretty tunes, pleasantly orchestrated. There's a logic and rigor required that few can really excel at.

It's hard, really hard, to write a great symphony. Carl Dahlhaus estimated that some 20,000 symphonies were written during the 19th century: fewer than 50 are played today. The 20th C was rich in great symphonies up until around 1970 when Shostakovich died. There has not been a single symphony since his 15th that has entered the repertoire or that anyone cares about. Maybe the symphony as a form is written out after all.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Here's a cross between a symphony and dramatic (operatic) music


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Gorecki 3 seemed like it would enter the extended rep at some point but maybe it's popularity was short-lived.

Maybe Glass? Though generally the performances I hear about are premieres (usually from that Bruckner orchestra - I guess if you can play Bruckner well you've got Glass down pat as well)


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

bz3 said:


> If it doesn't have at least one movement in something vaguely approaching sonata form then to me it cannot be a symphony. I consider myself fairly broad-minded in that, since the strictures on sonata forms have loosened greatly since the days of Haydn.


How would you describe the sonata-form then? What's its bare minimum?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

lucashomem said:


> How would you describe the sonata-form then? What's its bare minimum?


Certain 18th century composers (and Berlioz) didn't write in today's conception of the "sonata form". "Dittersdorf's symphonic and chamber compositions greatly emphasize sensuous Italo-Austrian melody instead of motivic development, which is often entirely lacking in his works."


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

mbhaub said:


> Does it need to be mostly orchestral and acoustic? *Not necessarily. There are successful symphonies for smaller ensembles, organ, and other configurations.*


Then would you accept a work for synths, electric guitar and vocals as a symphony given that it follows other symphonic tropes?



> For me, a symphony is the ultimate test of a composer's skill: can he take a motif or theme and really develop it? Can he wrestle with the form and something logically convincing? Maybe most of all: can he create that harmonic tension awaiting resolution that is evident in the greatest symphonies? And can it all be done without the listener needing an explanation or a score? A symphony is not a nice collection of pretty tunes, pleasantly orchestrated. There's a logic and rigor required that few can really excel at.


I understand your concept for symphony here, but is there only one formal way to achieve goals such as "logic", "coherence", "tension" and "climax"?

If a composer can do such things through other means different than Haydn's, is it still a symphony or should we call it something else?



> It's hard, really hard, to write a great symphony. Carl Dahlhaus estimated that some 20,000 symphonies were written during the 19th century: fewer than 50 are played today. The 20th C was rich in great symphonies up until around 1970 when Shostakovich died. There has not been a single symphony since his 15th that has entered the repertoire or that anyone cares about. Maybe the symphony as a form is written out after all.


I really like Silvestrov's 5th Symphony, which was written in 1980-82 -- and it does give me symphonic vibes.

What about Rautavaara's late symphonies, all from the 90s? Not symphonies for you?


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I love the Silvestrov 5th, too. Very evocative, even frightening. The luminous writing is very inspiring. But it is not, and will never be, a standard repertoire item. Audiences and record collectors have long ago decided what they want and what they will listen to. Conductors and orchestra management get some blame, but they're watching the bottom line. 

Schoenberg's chamber symphonies are for very small, oddly scored ensembles - so why not guitar, synth and vocals? And a symphony doesn't have to be a 30, 40 minute affair - or longer. Pfitzner wrote two small and delightful symphonies and of course Webern wrote the shortest, but it's a long ways from anything Haydn envisaged.

One of my musical heros, Erich Leinsdorf, wrote a lot about the modern symphony and its demise. That composers lost sight of what a symphony is, what are the expectations and why in past times writing one was a rite of passage and even a graduation requirement from conservatories.


----------



## catface (Jul 26, 2021)

I've not read Leinsdorf and I don't have much of an opinion about what qualifies as a true symphony -- if a composer wants to describe a work as a symphony then I feel there is probably some continuity with that tradition to be found. Along with Rautavaara and Silvestrov, I'd like to suggest Pettersson and Penderecki as composers who wrote significant cycles post-Shostakovich. It's probably obvious that these composers are all very close geographically -- does Leinsdorf address the uneven decline of the form across different regional scenes?


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

A piece is a symphony unless it is rather something else. There are pieces today which are different to symphonies made 200 years ago, but they are even more different to concertos, cantatas, operas, sonatas etc. made 200 years ago. So its reasonable to understand these terms in a more general way. So a lot can be a symphony. A symphony is an independent orchestral work with the option of vocals. No single instrument is allowed to be coequal to the whole orchestra.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

Even Haydn's early symphonies were short. Several could fit on a vinyl record. As the number increased, they became longer.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Here's a cross between a symphony and dramatic (operatic) music


Thanos?? Mozart was an Avengers fan?

Oh...er...sorry, got a bit carried away there.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

There was a time in the early 20th century when some composers like Berg, Bartok and others avoided "symphony" in pieces that might as well have been called symphonies: Instead they used "(Orchestral) pieces", "Music for..."


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

mbhaub said:


> I love the Silvestrov 5th, too. Very evocative, even frightening. The luminous writing is very inspiring. But it is not, and will never be, a standard repertoire item. Audiences and record collectors have long ago decided what they want and what they will listen to. Conductors and orchestra management get some blame, but they're watching the bottom line.


For something to get into the standard repertoire, it needs reputation and public interest. Such things don't come exclusively from quality and accessibility, but also from other cultural factors, like the social relevance of classical music itself, the Zeitgeist, the fame of the composer, and a lively audience who still cares instead of just following the shepherds of the past. Composers like Shostakovich were still from a time when classical music had space in culture, so they could get a reputation and carve their names into history. Contemporary composers are not as lucky, and even if some of them are more famous and respected than others, it's almost impossible that their works become regular presences in concerts despite successful premieres and such.

Anyway, that's beyond my question. When I asked, I was just wondering if you considered those symphonies by Silvestrov and Rautavaara as symphonies, or if they're not symphonies to you.



> Schoenberg's chamber symphonies are for very small, oddly scored ensembles - so why not guitar, synth and vocals? And a symphony doesn't have to be a 30, 40 minute affair - or longer. Pfitzner wrote two small and delightful symphonies and of course Webern wrote the shortest, but it's a long ways from anything Haydn envisaged.


I like that.

If the band _Yes_ had called their album _Close to The Edge_ a Symphony, do you think that would make any sense by your definition of what's a symphony? I mean, the first song (_"Close to the Edge"_) plays a lot with its themes, which often reappers in different clothes, so you could call that "logic" and "development", and the song builds up very well to a climax. Then we have a slow song (_"You and I"_), and the album finally ends with a more upbeat and triumphant song (_"Siberian Khatru"_).



> One of my musical heros, Erich Leinsdorf, wrote a lot about the modern symphony and its demise. That composers lost sight of what a symphony is, what are the expectations and why in past times writing one was a rite of passage and even a graduation requirement from conservatories.


Well... different eras, different values, different references, different forms.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

mbhaub said:


> The 20th C was rich in great symphonies up until around 1970 when Shostakovich died. There has not been a single symphony since his 15th that has entered the repertoire or that anyone cares about. Maybe the symphony as a form is written out after all.


Just keeping to post-1970 works that keep either the title or the 4-movement form rather than orchestral works in general
quite a few of us here care about Schnittke, Lutoslawski, Dutilleaux, Lutoslawski, Carter, Henze, etc


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

you can call your work a symphony or anything else you want, the word has certain connotations with a time when it defined a specific aesthetic and formal structure, so you will get that baggage if you call your prog rock magnum opus a symphony, go for it


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)




----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

Livly_Station said:


> How would you describe the sonata-form then? What's its bare minimum?


Just the standard definition: theme or groups of themes, development, recapitulation. This can include everything from Haydn 88 to Mahler 8 to Sibelius 7. I don't see how you can disentangle the symphony from sonata form any more than you can disentangle opera from aria, despite the fact that Wagner exists.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

I like Schnittke's symphonies and Arvo Part's Third.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

mbhaub said:


> The 20th C was rich in great symphonies up until around 1970 when Shostakovich died. There has not been a single symphony since his 15th that has entered the repertoire or that anyone cares about. Maybe the symphony as a form is written out after all.


No, it's not. Perhaps _for you_ it is, however. Anyway, what about Schnittke, Penderecki, Lutosławski, Henze, Pärt, Silvestrov, Kancheli, Górecki, Aho, Gubaidulina, Denisov, Sallinen, Rouse, MacMillan, Rihm et. al.? Do these composers not qualify as having written substantial symphonies worthy of attention?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Neo Romanza said:


> No, it's not. Perhaps _for you_ it is, however. Anyway, what about Schnittke, Penderecki, Lutosławski, Henze, Pärt, Silvestrov, Kancheli, Górecki, Aho, Gubaidulina, Denisov, Sallinen, Rouse, MacMillan, Rihm et. al.? Do these composers not qualify as having written substantial symphonies worthy of attention?


You forgot to mention Philip Glass. He's written 12 at last count.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> You forgot to mention Philip Glass. He's written 12 at last count.


I purposely left him out.  But the "et. al." of course means "and others".


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

^^ Michael Tippett - 2, George Lloyd - 3, William Mathias - 2, William Alwyn - 1, Ellen Taaffe Zwilich - 5

...and more...

John Corigliano, George Rochberg, Christopher Rouse

...and that's just the UK & US...

However I think that the point has adequately been made.

P.S. Oh yes, Leif Segerstam who is (as of 4/21) up to #344 :lol:


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

SanAntone said:


> You forgot to mention Philip Glass. He's written 12 at last count.


Corigliano and Tippett have both composed very substantial symphomies...


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

i actually like Glass but him having that many symphonies is kind of indicative of his major weakness as a composer, he produced way too much music. 

Some of his last ones are very nice, though.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Kreisler jr said:


> There was a time in the early 20th century when some composers like Berg, Bartok and others avoided "symphony" in pieces that might as well have been called symphonies: Instead they used "(Orchestral) pieces", "Music for..."


I suspect that on of their points for such apparently awkward titles was to avoid the baggage of the history of the symphony from Beethoven to Mahler. So when one calls a piece a symphony one better be prepared to deal with the weight of that history or risk being seen as a pretentious poseur.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

It seems it is not so much known about the history of the symphony before Haydn. But there nice symphonies in the galant and baroque style.

Some examples:

Johann Adolph Hasse - Symphony Op.5 No.6 in G minor: 



Frederick the Great - Symphony No. 3 D major: 



Georg Christoph Wagenseil - WV418 Symphony In G Minor: 



Vivaldi also wrote dozens of symphonies many just 5 minutes long:


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Aries said:


> It seems it is not so much known about the history of the symphony before Haydn. But there nice symphonies in the galant and baroque style.
> 
> Some examples:
> 
> ...


Musicologists know quite a bit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannheim_school


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

Bwv 1080 said:


> you can call your work a symphony or anything else you want, the word has certain connotations with a time when it defined a specific aesthetic and formal structure, so you will get that baggage if you call your prog rock magnum opus a symphony, go for it


Well, I'm sure I can call any composition a _Symphony_ if I want to... but sometimes it might not make a lot of sense. Well, I don't _need_ to make sense, obviously, especially because it's art, so who cares, right? Besides that, I can call something a _Symphony_ to be defient, or cheeky, or just to subvert the idea of what's a symphony.

However, all that said, it's relevant that words retain a consensual meaning -- we shouldn't be shuffling the lexicon recklessly for no good reason, even in art. That's not to say that things should stay frozen throughout the times, since everything changes, and language also changes... but this process needs to be organic, or at least it demands a burden of justification.

Thus, the question is: what's a Symphony in its most essential? If we could deconstruct it to its bones, what would remain? Its smallest particle, something which if modified would change the essence of what makes a symphony.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Aries said:


> It seems it is not so much known about the history of the symphony before Haydn. But there nice symphonies in the galant and baroque style.


Also look at G.B. Sammartini's and:



hammeredklavier said:


> *Wilhelm Friedemann Bach Sinfonia for strings in F major "Dissonant", F. 67 (circa. 1735-1740)*
> 
> "The symphonic form as it is now known was nascent. W.F. Bach already begins to break away from the Baroque tendency to keep a continuous flow of the same tempo and mood within a given movement in this sinfonia, which is sometimes listed as his Symphony No. 1. (It is the first published in a collection of the five symphonies left from the Dresden years.) The opening movement is marked Vivace. It starts in a straightforward manner in longer note values that make the music seem marked and heavy. The tonal bottom falls out when the unison string melody unexpectedly drops to a note that is not in the main key and the tempo holds for a second or two. Then the perceived tempo suddenly increases to a vivace. Such odd shifts of key and tempo occur irregularly throughout the movement, surprising the listener. Many in Bach's audience would have thought these effects bizarre. The slow movement, an Andante, has the quality of a tender operatic love aria and is fairly expansive in proportions. Its mood is calm and ardent and it could be a serenade. The next movement, Allegro, is a fast romp that would be taken as a concluding movement, but the true last movement are two graceful minuets."
> https://www.allmusic.com/compositio...-in-f-major-dissonant-f-67-br-c2-mc0002658701





hammeredklavier said:


> https://thenextvivaldiproject.home.blog/2019/12/12/antonio-caldara-and-the-baroque-sinfonia/
> "Different from a concerto, his Sinfonia in C major had all the musical contrast of an opera - something symphonists were working to capture in later centuries."


----------



## hawgdriver (Nov 11, 2011)

I can't speak for anyone else, but personally, pretty far.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I think in the 20th century the form "symphony" abandoned the traditional form of the 18th century which held on throughout most of the 19th, and became a large work for orchestra, in several movements, in which the composer maintained a serious tone.

So, that said, just about anything goes.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> I think in the 20th century the form "symphony" abandoned the traditional form of the 18th century which held on throughout most of the 19th, and became a large work for orchestra, in several movements, in which the composer maintained a serious tone.
> 
> So, that said, just about anything goes.


While many did abandon the movement structure, most continue using it to this day. It even occasionally turns up in atonal symphonies.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

progmatist said:


> While many did abandon the movement structure, most continue using it to this day. It even occasionally turns up in atonal symphonies.


But I said "a large work for orchestra, in several movements" - so I don't understand your post.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

There was some youngish man here on TC that was writing a "Symphony" a day, at least that's what he called them.

Mostly they were him improvising on an electronic keyboard. There was really no sense of melody, or development. Just simple continual tonal patterns a la Phillip Glass, although not as sophisticated.

He got taken to task by many here, but he never backed down, and continued to refer to his impromptu recordings as Symphonies. But not one here agreed with him that his recordings could be called Symphonies for several reasons.

Remember him?


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

mbhaub said:


> It's hard, really hard, to write a great symphony. Carl Dahlhaus estimated that some 20,000 symphonies were written during the 19th century: fewer than 50 are played today.


I was thinking that 50 was way too low for the 19th century, and it is a bit, but not all that much. The recording repertoire is larger than the concert one; if you think of the concert repertoire, and even err a bit on the generous side, you get a 19th cent. list roughly like this:
Beethoven 2-9 (8)
Schubert 3-9 (6)
Mendelssohn 3,4,5 (3)
Berlioz Fantastique (1)
Schumann 1-4 (4)
Bruckner 3-9 (7)
Saint-Saens 3 (1)
Brahms 1-4 (4)
Dvorak 5-9 (5)
Tchaikovsky 2,4,5,6, (4)
Mahler 1-4 (4)
Sibelius 1 (1)
That's 48. The missing Beethoven, Mahler, Sibelius are date-related. Even the above hardly cover the century evenly - there's a 26-year gap between Schumann 3 and Brahms 1 that remains in the repertoire today.
You could probably make a decent case to get to fifty with at least two of: Bizet, Borodin 2, Tchaikovsky 1, 3, Franck, Schubert 1, 2, Bruckner 1, 2.
Far more sketchy in concert but at least mainstream in the recorded world are Mendelssohn 1, 2, Nielsen 1, Chausson, Berwald, Glazunov 1-6, Dvorak 1-4, Goldmark's Rustic. Both Gounods & Webers. And anything else by Berlioz or Liszt with 'symphony' in the title. 
Then there are the odd bods and novelties, veering into the obscure: Bruch, Rimsky-Korsakov, Grieg, Kalinnikov 1 (I have heard this live!), Saint-Saens 1, 2, rest of Borodin, Balakirev, Lalo, that French Mountain thing, Stenhammar, Svendsen, Raff, Gade. Plenty more who are almost never played, obviously.
But it's a pretty small chunk out of 20,000.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Aries said:


> It seems it is not so much known about the history of the symphony before Haydn. But there nice symphonies in the galant and baroque style.
> 
> Some examples:
> 
> ...


I think quite a bit was known about the symphony before Haydn, You missed Sammartini and Stamitz among the better knwn early exponents.

Here's one source:

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/musicapp_historical/chapter/symphony/

Anyway, according to the10th result from this Google search...



> In the hands of Joseph _Haydn_ (1732-1809) _the symphony_ would develop ... _Before_ that he was the features editor of Classic CD magazine


https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=the+symphony+before+Haydn


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

mbhaub said:


> There has not been a single symphony since his 15th that has entered the repertoire *or that anyone cares about.* Maybe the symphony as a form is written out after all.


I suspect that this is a slight exaggeration. It didn't take long to find two critics who care about Sir Peter Maxwell Davies

https://www.gramophone.co.uk/other/article/contemporary-composer-sir-peter-maxwell-davies
https://www.theguardian.com/music/tomserviceblog/2012/aug/20/peter-maxwell-davies-music-guide

And you can buy recrodings on 't'internet...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sir-Peter-...maxwell+davies+symphony&qid=1630910109&sr=8-1


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Forster said:


> I suspect that this is a slight exaggeration. It didn't take long to find two critics who care about Sir Peter Maxwell Davies
> 
> https://www.gramophone.co.uk/other/article/contemporary-composer-sir-peter-maxwell-davies
> https://www.theguardian.com/music/tomserviceblog/2012/aug/20/peter-maxwell-davies-music-guide
> ...


Weinberg and Schnittke. A couple of theirs at least will catch on and become standard rep.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Bwv 1080 said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannheim_school


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Xaver_Richter#Early_Symphony


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

The most brief symphony I know is Webern at about 9 minutes with two "movements."

The lengthiest is Mahler 3 that pushes two hours and has two orchestral sections surrounding three choral sections about different topics.

So clearly anything between 5 minutes and 2 hours can be called a symphony and it can include about anything.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Not to mention things like Bernstein 2, where you can straight up write a piano concerto but call it a symphony anyway...


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Franz Ignaz Beck (1734 - 1809) - Symphony in G minor op.3 no.3 (1762)
1. Allegro con spirito 00:00
2. Andante poco adagio 05:07
3. Minuetto 09:51
4. Presto 13:51











larold said:


> The most brief symphony I know is Webern at about 9 minutes with two "movements."


there's a 6-minute 3-movement symphony


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Anything can be called a symphony if the composer wants to call it that. I remember one gentlemen remarking to Vaughan Williams as he played him and some other friends his _Symphony No. 8_ on piano that it "Sounded more like a sinfonietta than a symphony." Vaughan Williams then quickly rose to its defense and said "I don't care what you say. It's a symphony and that's what I'm calling it." In other words, don't challenge the composer and accept the work for what it is and not what _you_ think it is.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

One proof being Mahler's Song of the Earth. By any accounting it is a song cycle but the composer clearly marked the score a symphony.


----------

