# What makes a good symphony?



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I suppose that my question refers to what contemporary composers might need to do to write a first rate symphony. But to answer that it will probably help to refer to great symphonies of the past.


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

Brahms.

Err, to actually attempt to answer this, it's hard to answer definitively. I think rather than describe in words, it might be more helpful to study symphonic scores from the past, and use them as models for symphonic form, development, orchestration/instrumentation, or whatever might be needed. Obviously the symphony of today will be different from that of Mahler, or Bruckner, or Haydn, but they can all be stepping stones towards today. And a large part of it would depend on the contemporary composer's idiom and style, I think; would this be an atonal or serialist work? That might be difficult to reconcile with a Classical symphonic model (though surely possible, as Boulez did with his Second Piano Sonata). I feel like I can't be more specific; I'm not a composer myself and the question is a really difficult one!


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

*What makes a good symphony?*

Symphonic coherence? 

You could ask: What makes a good novel? Maybe an answer would be: A good story, interesting characters, ... and then some novel comes round the corners falsificating your approach, with mixed layers of time, with a patchwork design, with non-linear proceeding of time, ...

We know the classic stereotype of a symphony, a first movement in sonata form, a slow movement, a dance (Minuet or Scherzo in most cases) and a final.

The first movement in sonata has the role to display a drama with one, two or three protagonists.
The second movement gives room for lyric thoughts.
(The first two movements bear most of the "weight" of the music.)
The dance has some recreating function.
The final should give you some last-dance-feeling, time for coming home, the feeling "now it is over" is expected in the end.

You know all the deviations, already at Beethoven.

At first glance, a balance between uniformity and variety seems to be important - but this is high-level and far too general. Even Bach's Ciacona shows such balance.

You need some kind of material to fill the time. And I think there must be some perceivable relationship between your building blocks, so that you (in the role as a listener) have the chance to notice what is going on.

So we are back at "symphonic coherence" and the trial to explain "Symphony" by "symphonic". Not a good explanation ..

I sign everything that Monsalvat wrote in the preceding posting.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

If I knew, I'd write one. There are many symphonies that on paper seem good: good thematic material, well organized, interesting harmony, ear-tickling orchestration...they have it all. Yet they fall flat. That only about 75 symphonies are in the active repertoire, out of the tens of thousands that have been written, testifies just how difficult it is to write a good, much less a great one. Not one of those is from the serial or atonal school. Audiences and musicians still gravitate to the symphonies of the 19th and 18th century masters; there's something emotionally appealing that brings real satisfaction. But anyone today who wrote a symphony in the manner of Tchaikovsky or Beethoven would be ridiculed.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Musicality, craft, originality and substance. The same as always.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

That issue has already been settled, for generations to come! Have a look:









If you could commission a symphony of your liking, what...


If you could commission a symphony of your liking, what would it be like? Please select up to 5 options! The choices may be seemingly contradictory, because in music everything is possible. Let us see what kind of a symphony TC Community would like to have. We could well picture that there is...




www.talkclassical.com


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Think of the symphonies you like best; what do they all have in common?

A symphony is not a tone poem, a sonata or a concerto. It is a full played out piece of music that engages an entire orchestra. Even the most brief symphonies, like Webern's only 8 minutes duration, starts somewhere, moves along, and then gets somewhere.

For me the first thing is a strong beginning, a statement of a theme or thematic material that is going to form the basis of an opening argument. That is essential.

After that the composer must have some idea or logic about the musical argument. This is similar to a book author that has to introduce all the characters before moving onto an obtuse plotline.

A symphony in other words does the same thing as a short story: it tells a story. It opens, moves on, plays out in chapters (movements), and concludes, usually in whirl.

If it does not comply with a similar formula I can't say I'll hear much in it. Lots of symphonies that fail wander aimlessly or endlessly and never get anywhere. I think you'll find the ones you like best and listen to most often conform to most of these standards.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Waehnen said:


> That issue has already been settled


In my most humble opinion, that's not exactly the same.

When I ask how I would commission a symphony, the answer could be: "It should have a length of about 30 minutes, it should have three movements, the first a sonata form with fast speed and three subjects, the second a slow movement with two subjects similar as in Sibelius #4, the last one a furious toccata for orchestra reminding the big french toccatas for organ",

To my mind, it is obvious that such description cannot be the answer to the question "What makes a good symphony".

Am I wrong?


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Philidor said:


> In my most humble opinion, that's not exactly the same.
> 
> When I ask how I would commission a symphony, the answer could be: "It should have a length of about 30 minutes, it should have three movements, the first a sonata form with fast speed and three subjects, the second a slow movement with two subjects similar as in Sibelius #4, the last one a furious toccata for orchestra reminding the big french toccatas for organ",
> 
> ...


You are absolutely right, and I did not post the link completely seriously. However, the poll had many traits which I suppose are related to what the community would consider characteristics of a good symphony. Thus, I though the conversation and poll behind the link are not totally unrelated, and could even be of help to this thread and to the OP.


----------



## Hogwash (5 mo ago)

ChatGPT AI answer: 

A good symphony is a piece of music that is well-crafted, emotionally engaging, and effectively communicates the composer's intention. It should have a clear structure and a logical progression of ideas, and it should use the resources of the orchestra in a creative and effective way. A good symphony should also be balanced, with each section and instrument having the opportunity to contribute to the overall musical experience. It should also be aesthetically pleasing and enjoyable to listen to. Ultimately, what makes a symphony good is a matter of personal taste and subjective judgment, but these are some general characteristics that are often considered to be important in a good symphony.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Me: What makes a good symphony?

GeniusGPT answer: _Beethoven's 3rd._

Me: You misinterpreted. I meant, what compositional elements are often found in the greatest symphonies? How can one best write a great symphony?

GeniusGPT answer: _Beethoven's 3rd._

Me: I'll look into that 

GeniusGPT answer:_ clink_


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Hogwash said:


> A good symphony is a piece of music that is well-crafted, emotionally engaging, and effectively communIcates the composer's intention. It should have a clear structure and a logical progression of ideas, and it should use the resources of the orchestra in a creative and effective way. A good symphony should also be balanced, with each section and instrument having the opportunity to contribute to the overall musical experience. It should also be aesthetically pleasing and enjoyable to listen to.


I see your points, and they all apply to my favorite symphonies.

However, they also apply to Bach's 3rd Brandenburg Concerto, which is obviously not a symphony.

So the kernel of a symphony seems to be something in addition. Imho.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

mbhaub said:


> If I knew, I'd write one.


I think, to be able to write a good Symphony is not a necessary condition in order to recognize a good one.

You don't have to be a chicken in order to discard a good egg from a rotten one.


----------



## Hogwash (5 mo ago)

Query: What compositional elements are often found in the greatest symphonies? How can one write a great symphony?

ChatGPT AI answer:


Great symphonies typically have a number of compositional elements that contribute to their overall structure and impact. Some of the most common elements found in great symphonies include:

An introduction: This is an opening section that sets the stage for the rest of the symphony, often establishing the tonality and introducing some of the main themes.
Exposition: This is the first main section of the symphony, where the main themes are introduced and developed.
Development: In this section, the composer takes the themes introduced in the exposition and manipulates them in various ways, such as changing their mode or tempo, fragmenting them, or combining them in different ways.
Recapitulation: This is a restatement of the themes from the exposition, often with some modifications.
Coda: This is a closing section that brings the symphony to a satisfying conclusion.
To write a great symphony, it is important to carefully craft each of these sections and ensure that they work together cohesively to create a compelling overall structure. It is also important to have strong, memorable themes that can be developed and manipulated in interesting ways throughout the piece. Finally, a great symphony should have a strong emotional impact, evoking a range of feelings in the listener through the use of harmony, melody, and orchestration.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Philidor said:


> I think, to be able to write a good Symphony is not a necessary condition in order to recognize a good one.
> 
> You don't have to be a chicken in order to discard a good egg from a rotten one.


Or - borrowing from Dr Johnson - you don't need to be a carpenter to recognise a good table.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Hogwash said:


> An introduction: This is an opening section that sets the stage for the rest of the symphony, often establishing the tonality and introducing some of the main themes.


To my opinion, your posting describes many first movements great symphonies from the 19th century, neither the symphonies as a whole nor 20th century's developments.

However, even in 19th century, to my mind, if there is an introduction, it rarely already shows the main themes. Which symphonies do you have in mind that show the main themes in the introduction?


Hogwash said:


> Exposition: This is the first main section of the symphony, where the main themes are introduced and developed.
> Development: In this section, the composer takes the themes introduced in the exposition and manipulates them in various ways, such as changing their mode or tempo, fragmenting them, or combining them in different ways.
> Recapitulation: This is a restatement of the themes from the exposition, often with some modifications.


This is also an 19th century's perspective. It is imho wrong for Sibelius #5, #6, #7. Symphonic concepts changed in 20th century, afaik.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Philidor said:


> However, even in 19th century, to my mind, if there is an introduction, it rarely already shows the main themes. Which symphonies do you have in mind that show the main themes in the introduction?


Just off the top of my head: Schubert 8th, Glazunov 4, Tchaikovsky 5 & 6, Mahler 1, Dvorak 8, Balakirev 1,,,,


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

mbhaub said:


> Just off the top of my head: Schubert 8th, Glazunov 4, Tchaikovsky 5 & 6, Mahler 1, Dvorak 8, Balakirev 1,,,,


+ Haydn 27
@1:44 & @3:14


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> I suppose that my question refers to what contemporary composers might need to do to write a first rate symphony. But to answer that it will probably help to refer to great symphonies of the past.


One that you particularly like.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Enthusiast said:


> I suppose that my question refers to what contemporary composers might need to do to write a first rate symphony.


Given the number of composers that wrote a first rate symphony (what exactly is this?  ) and given the number of composers that ever wrote some symphony, such composer needs much luck regarding his gifts and his education.


mbhaub said:


> Just off the top of my head: Schubert 8th, Glazunov 4, Tchaikovsky 5 & 6, Mahler 1, Dvorak 8, Balakirev 1,,,,


Ok - excellent list, highly appreciated - but the context was:


Hogwash said:


> Some of the most common elements found in great symphonies include:


... and regarding "the most common elements" I am not convinced yet ... Beethoven 1, 2, 4, 7, Bruckner 5, 8, Mahler 3, ... not to forget the symphonies that have no introduction at all ... Beethoven 3, 5, 6, 8, Schumann 3, Mendelssohn 4, Bruckner 3, 4, 7, Mahler 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, Sibelius 2, 5, ...


----------



## Hogwash (5 mo ago)

ChatGPT AI:


There are several popular 19th century symphonies that feature the main themes in the introduction. Some examples include:

Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 in C minor: The first movement of this symphony is perhaps one of the most famous in classical music, with its iconic four-note "fate" motif that is introduced in the opening bars and becomes a recurring theme throughout the movement.


Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 5 in E minor: The first movement of this symphony begins with a grand, sweeping melody that is introduced by the strings and then taken up by the brass. This melody becomes a central theme in the movement and is developed and elaborated upon throughout the course of the symphony.
3. Brahms' Symphony No. 1 in C minor: The first movement of this symphony opens with a somber, introspective melody that is played by the cellos and basses. This melody becomes a key theme in the movement and is used to contrast with the more upbeat themes that appear later in the symphony.

4. Berlioz's Symphony Fantastique: The first movement of this symphony begins with a dramatic, surging melody that is introduced by the orchestra and then repeated by the solo violin. This melody becomes a central theme in the movement and is developed and elaborated upon throughout the course of the symphony.
5. Schumann's Symphony No. 1 in B-flat major: The first movement of this symphony begins with a joyful, upbeat melody that is played by the strings and then taken up by the woodwinds. This melody becomes a key theme in the movement and is used to contrast with the more introspective themes that appear later in the symphony.
6.Mendelssohn's Symphony No. 3 in A minor: The first movement of this symphony opens with a lively, energetic melody that is introduced by the strings and then taken up by the woodwinds. This melody becomes a key theme in the movement and is used to contrast with the more introspective themes that appear later in the symphony.

7.Dvorak's Symphony No. 9 in E minor "From the New World": The first movement of this symphony begins with a grand, sweeping melody that is introduced by the orchestra and then repeated by the solo violin. This melody becomes a central theme in the movement and is developed and elaborated upon throughout the course the symphony.
8. Brahms' Symphony No. 2 in D major: The first movement of this symphony begins with a joyous, upbeat melody that is introduced by the orchestra and then repeated by the solo violin. This melody becomes a key theme in the movement and is used to contrast with the more introspective themes that appear later in the symphony.
9. Beethoven's Symphony No. 9 in D minor: The first movement of this symphony begins with a bold, heroic melody that is introduced by the orchestra and then repeated by the solo violin. This melody becomes a key theme in the movement and is used to contrast with the more introspective themes that appear later in the symphony.
10. Schumann's Symphony No. 2 in C major: The first movement of this symphony begins with a joyful, upbeat melody that is introduced by the orchestra and then repeated by the solo violin. This melody becomes a key theme in the movement and is used to contrast with the more introspective themes that appear later in the symphony.
11. 
Mendelssohn's Symphony No. 4 in A major: The first movement of this symphony begins with a lively, energetic melody that is introduced by the orchestra and then repeated by the solo violin. This melody becomes a key theme in the movement and is used to contrast with the more introspective themes that appear later in the symphony.
12. 
Dvorak's Symphony No. 7 in D minor: The first movement of this symphony begins with a grand, sweeping melody that is introduced by the orchestra and then repeated by the solo violin. This melody becomes a central theme in the movement and is developed and elaborated upon throughout the course of the symphony.
13. 
Brahms' Symphony No. 3 in F major: The first movement of this symphony begins with a joyful, upbeat melody that is introduced by the orchestra and then repeated by the solo violin. This melody becomes a key theme in the movement and is used to contrast with the more introspective themes that appear later in the symphony.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

Hogwash beat me with th AI...I had some fun with that today. It's been on the news here and an article said it passed the high-school exam!
I wrote the question in the OP and AI Writer said:

A good symphony is more than just a collection of notes. It is an intricate composition, carefully crafted to create a powerful and captivating experience. To make a great symphony, a composer must have a thorough understanding of classical music theory, an ear for balance and harmony, and the creativity to create something unique.

The music should have a strong structure and flow, with each section building on the one before it. The arrangement of the instruments should be carefully considered, so that each part can be heard clearly. It should also have a sense of energy and drive, with a powerful climax to bring the piece to a satisfying conclusion.

Above all, a great symphony should evoke an emotional response from the audience. It should tell a story, and take the listener on an exciting journey. By creating a piece with these elements, a composer can create a lasting work of art that will be remembered for years to come.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Hogwash said:


> There are several popular 19th century symphonies that feature the main themes in the introduction. Some examples include:
> 
> Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 in C minor: The first movement of this symphony is perhaps one of the most famous in classical music, with its iconic four-note "fate" motif that is introduced in the opening bars and becomes a recurring theme throughout the movement.


To my best understanding, this is a major misunderstanding.

Beethoven's 5th symphony has no introduction in the meaning how this term is usually used for symphonic movements.

An introduction is something that precedes the exposition and the presentation of the subjects. It often builds tension or generates some atmosphere.

Look at Beethoven's 1st symphony. Here you have an introduction in the first movement. Interesting harmonic proceedings that veil the tonic, it remains unclear for a long time what the key of the symphony is, augmenting tension, making the first subject shine more when it comes. It is also the typical case of a slow introduction as there is a tempo change with the appearance of the first subject.

Beethoven's 5th symphony has no such introduction in the first movement. It starts right away with the first subject.

The same holds for more examples in your list.


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

Philidor said:


> To my best understanding, this is a major misunderstanding.
> 
> Beethoven's 5th symphony has no introduction in the meaning how this term is usually used for symphonic movements.
> 
> ...


There was something about the ChatGPT AI at the beginning of the post you quoted so I don't know if that is a human error or the robot's error. You are correct. Brahms' First is another great example of a sonata-form introduction, or Mozart's 39th, or the Dissonance quartet, or Beethoven's Op. 13.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Lots of interesting posts about great symphonies from the past. But we know that more modern and contemporary composers have tended to invent new forms. For some this has meant abandoning the symphony. For others it has meant more or less sticking to older models. Some of those must have been quite radical at the time - Das Lied von der Erde is a symphony and is Shostakovich 14. Anyway, it would be interesting to look at the outer edges to see what a modern symphony might do and yet still convince as a symphony. One post likened the question of what a symphony is to what a novel is. And we know that a great many very impressive modern novels have not followed the old tradition of simply telling a story. What about symphonies? Can symphonies break with the traditions explored in this thread and yet still be somehow "symphonic".


----------



## perempe (Feb 27, 2014)

Most Beautiful Passages of Each Mahler Symphony
Richard Atkinson probably has more interesting videos, but this is the only one I've seen.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Enthusiast said:


> Lots of interesting posts about great symphonies from the past. But we know that more modern and contemporary composers have tended to invent new forms. For some this has meant abandoning the symphony. For others it has meant more or less sticking to older models. Some of those must have been quite radical at the time - Das Lied von der Erde is a symphony and is Shostakovich 14. Anyway, it would be interesting to look at the outer edges to see what a modern symphony might do and yet still convince as a symphony. One post likened the question of what a symphony is to what a novel is. And we know that a great many very impressive modern novels have not followed the old tradition of simply telling a story. What about symphonies? Can symphonies break with the traditions explored in this thread and yet still be somehow "symphonic".


This is true. By the end of the 19th c it was becoming apparent that the old, traditional form for a symphony was no longer sufficient for what composers wanted to say. It was also tired and worn out. Composers began experimenting and trying new things: Franck and Dvorak both turned out three movement symphonies and that idea sure caught on with many composers adopting that idea. Then there were the one-movement symphonies of Schmidt and Sibelius, an idea which is still around. The concept of organic growth from a few basic cells is widely used by modern composers. But it's interesting that the most successful and well-known "modern" symphonies are those that essentially stuck with tradition. Prokofieff and Shostakovich, for example. They didn't need new forms, although Shostakovich certainly pushed the boundaries to Mahlerian length in a couple.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ There are also successful examples that are a bit different such as Britten's (Spring Symphony, Cello Symphony), Webern, Messiaen and Stravinsky (S of Psalms if not S in Three Movements, S in C). Incidentally Mozart's Prague symphony only has three movements! But, it's true that the most popular modern symphonies are in forms that are recognisably from the Romantic tradition. And many of the most gifted modern and contemporary composers didn't choose to write symphonies.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

I think that Sir Peter Maxwell Davies made 10 excellent symphonies, but I never thought about analyzing them. You can find them all online, some on spotify and the rest on youtube. Anyway, I love to be surprised with form, but I also like to remember things from the thematic material, as the whole thing evolves. I bet Sir Davies made some clever choices in his layout. They are pretty grand, his symphonies


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Enthusiast said:


> But we know that more modern and contemporary composers have tended to invent new forms.





Enthusiast said:


> Anyway, it would be interesting to look at the outer edges to see what a modern symphony might do and yet still convince as a symphony.


That's exactly the point. To my opinion, it is not sufficient to look at some favorite symphonies from the 19th century in order to look for the ingredients of a "great" symphony.


mbhaub said:


> By the end of the 19th c it was becoming apparent that the old, traditional form for a symphony was no longer sufficient for what composers wanted to say. It was also tired and worn out


In my humble opinion, the leaving of the traditional form is strongly related to a change in thinking in that time. It belongs to the history of ideas.

I have almost no clue of philsophy, however, the enlightenment started at about 1700, and one major event was that Kant published his "Kritik der reinen Vernunft"/"Critique of Pure Reason" in 1781.

Part of the new thinking was the dialectic thinking, one variety of it being the triad of thesis - antithesis - synthesis.

(You know how it works: The thesis could be "Smartphones in classroom are disturbing". The antithesis: "Internet access and some device to use it can help in learning". Synthesis: "We will try to make profit of the helpful aspects and to avoid the disturbing ones.")

The sonata form was a perfect musical model for this: first subject in the tonic (thesis) - second subject in the dominant and of different character (antithesis) - (discussion = development) - synthesis: in the recapitulation, the second subject appears in the tonic, is united with the first subject.

When the thinking changed, the musical forms changed as well, be it consciously or unconsciously.

So maybe a symphony is an expression of the thinking of its time. Think for "per aspera ad astra" symphonies or for heroic symphonies with positive ending or negative ending. When heroism was no more popular, nobody wrote a symphony with some heroic plot.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Of course, there are several forms possible for a classical composer. I guess writers have little choice but to call an extended work of fiction a novel.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Neo Romanza's great modern symphony today is Gubaidulina's _Stimmen... Verstummen..._ . It's a fine work (a symphony in 12 movements) and seems to have broken new ground in symphonic expression.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

All eras have different priorities. Music theory is great to have. But without the ability to create great melodies, the Symphony will not be as popular. I think the 19th Century had the most accessible Symphonies.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

mbhaub said:


> If I knew, I'd write one. There are many symphonies that on paper seem good: good thematic material, well organized, interesting harmony, ear-tickling orchestration...they have it all. Yet they fall flat. That only about 75 symphonies are in the active repertoire, out of the tens of thousands that have been written, testifies just how difficult it is to write a good, much less a great one. Not one of those is from the serial or atonal school. Audiences and musicians still gravitate to the symphonies of the 19th and 18th century masters; there's something emotionally appealing that brings real satisfaction. But anyone today who wrote a symphony in the manner of Tchaikovsky or Beethoven would be ridiculed.


Nowadays in my concert going experience, I find the symphonies of late romantics and early modernists create the greatest stir. Mahler, Sibelius, Shostakovich, the works that fill the whole big hall with their sounds like a movie.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

clavichorder said:


> Nowadays in my concert going experience, I find the symphonies of late romantics and early modernists create the greatest stir. Mahler, Sibelius, Shostakovich, the works that fill the whole big hall with their sounds like a movie.


That's my experience, too. Audiences will be polite for Mozart and Haydn. They will stay away or just leave with some modern symphonies. Or be bored to tears. But isn't it astonishing that a symphony that's 140 years old, like the Tchaikovsky 5th or the Dvorak New World can still rouse an audience to its feet. And there's something else: those popular and likeable symphonies are also an awful lot of fun to play!


----------



## Hogwash (5 mo ago)

…


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

I'm not sure what would be the criteria for a good symphony since this criteria can change from composer to composer, but also specific styles must be taken into account as well. All I know is this: a good symphony must hold the interest of the listener from start to finish. How a composer achieves this, again, is different from composer to composer, but if we aren't allured or drawn into the sound-world, then there isn't any possible way we're going to be able to determine whether it's actually good or not.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

mbhaub said:


> That's my experience, too. Audiences will be polite for Mozart and Haydn. They will stay away or just leave with some modern symphonies. Or be bored to tears. But isn't it astonishing that a symphony that's 140 years old, like the Tchaikovsky 5th or the Dvorak New World can still rouse an audience to its feet. And there's something else: those popular and likeable symphonies are also an awful lot of fun to play!


When I heard Shostakovich's 4th several years ago, and this was the 2nd time it had ever been performed in Seattle, I was stunned and I could sense everyone else around me was too. Some were maybe uncomfortable, but it was combined with a sense of being fully enthralled. I had a similar experience with the Poem of Ecstasy by Scriabin. Both of these are considered "challenging" works in some circles, but in the concert hall they are an absolute literal and figurative blast.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

neoshredder said:


> All eras have different priorities. Music theory is great to have. But without the ability to create great melodies, the Symphony will not be as popular. I think the 19th Century had the most accessible Symphonies.


Popular; accessible - fair enough. But does it matter to you? 

I think it is probably true that even Schoenberg, music that is around 100 years old already, will remain a little difficult for audiences that have not got the experience to hear it. But that is how audiences with little experience of classical music will receive it and for many nearly all classical music - perhaps apart from a few widely known and popular pieces - requires some "work" from those who have not encountered it before. But it is not just about experience: I think some people are wired to relate to music far more than others.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Neo Romanza said:


> I'm not sure what would be the criteria for a good symphony since this criteria can change from composer to composer, but also specific styles must be taken into account as well. All I know is this: _*a good symphony must hold the interest of the listener from start to finish*_. How a composer achieves this, again, is different from composer to composer, but if we aren't allured or drawn into the sound-world, then there isn't any possible way we're going to be able to determine whether it's actually good or not.


Is that on first hearing? Presumably not. I think many modern and contemporary works might take a few hearings to deliver whatever it is they have to offer.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Enthusiast said:


> Popular; accessible - fair enough. But does it matter to you?
> 
> I think it is probably true that even Schoenberg, music that is around 100 years old already, will remain a little difficult for audiences that have not got the experience to hear it. But that is how audiences with little experience of classical music will receive it and for many nearly all classical music - perhaps apart from a few widely known and popular pieces - requires some "work" from those who have not encountered it before. But it is not just about experience: I think some people are wired to relate to music far more than others.


Modernism isn’t for everyone. Some people just want catchy tunes.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

neoshredder said:


> Modernism isn’t for everyone. Some people just want catchy tunes.


That's why I said "fair enough" in my post - I just wasn't sure where you stood on that question.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> Is that on first hearing? Presumably not. I think many modern and contemporary works might take a few hearings to deliver whatever it is they have to offer.


No, not on first hearing, but I believe a listener has to be allured by the music in order for them to want to continue to listen.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Neo Romanza said:


> No, not on first hearing, but I believe a listener has to be allured by the music in order for them to want to continue to listen.


Yes, certainly they shouldn't hate it! We unfamiliar modern music I must confess that such hate comes to me when music seems too sentimental or like a pastiche or too derivative - all features of music that is easy to digest. One listen is enough for me in such circumstances. But music that uses unfamiliar language can take me a while and I am not sure I can predict at first whether a piece will grow on me or not. I went through such a process with most contemporary music that I now like. Examples of composers who didn't make it (for me) through that process include MacMillan and Holmboe: both struck me as potentially interesting at first but later came to seem empty. With earlier music by a somewhat unfamiliar composer a lot seems to depend on my mood at the time. So I will tend to give the music a few chances. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't trust initial allure myself. I guess we all differ about how we react to first hearings on a new composer.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> Yes, certainly they shouldn't hate it! We unfamiliar modern music I must confess that such hate comes to me when music seems too sentimental or like a pastiche or too derivative - all features of music that is easy to digest. One listen is enough for me in such circumstances. But music that uses unfamiliar language can take me a while and I am not sure I can predict at first whether a piece will grow on me or not. I went through such a process with most contemporary music that I now like. Examples of composers who didn't make it (for me) through that process include MacMillan and Holmboe: both struck me as potentially interesting at first but later came to seem empty. With earlier music by a somewhat unfamiliar composer a lot seems to depend on my mood at the time. So I will tend to give the music a few chances. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't trust initial allure myself. I guess we all differ about how we react to first hearings on a new composer.


Sure. The allure to the music can wear off and can lead one to rethink how they feel about a composer or a particular piece of music. Contemporary music is a tricky thing for me in that this is still such a vast blackhole that I know hardly anything about, but whereas some people crave new music 24/7, I'm at a point where I have so much listen to just over the past 200 years that I haven't bothered to explore much of today's music. I agree with you about MacMillan. With Holmboe, I remain somewhat indifferent to in general. He's written some great works, but I'm just not particularly enthusiastic about his music like many listeners seem to be.


----------

