# What Is The Difference Between an Orchestral Suite and a Symphony?



## haydnguy (Oct 13, 2008)

I have looked this up and am still bewildered.

If I buy a CD of orchestral suites by a composer would they be the same things as his/her symphony's?


----------



## Joe B (Aug 10, 2017)

2nd answer on this yahoo link covers it pretty well:

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110818152200AAFGyft


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

haydnguy said:


> I have looked this up and am still bewildered.
> 
> If I buy a CD of orchestral suites by a composer would they be the same things as his/her symphony's?


The short answer is "No."
The Yahoo link in the previous post explains the differences.
In essence, in a formal sense, a symphony is a single unified work, generally based upon a pair of contrasting (yet related) themes which are explored in a variety of ways, but always with an overall sense of unity in mind. A symphony may have many movements (usually four) or be a continuous work. A suite, on the other hand, is comprised of a number of movements. (There may be exceptions, off hand I can't think of one.) These movements are not necessarily related by thematic identity, and in a general sense can have the movments shuffled without much loss of expression. One wouldn't want to shuffle movements of a symphony and think the dignity of the work will remain in tact.

So, symphonies are units of strict set structure. Suites are often "put together", sometimes whimsically. Some works have more than one suite version associated with them -- Suite No.1, Suite No.2 (such as Georg Bizet's _L'arlesienne_ Suites). The music in suites is often not written originally as a suite, but rather collected from something like an opera or a full-length ballet to present representative snippets or samples of the music, often dance numbers. Some suites are composed with a single picture in mind, such as Ferde Grofe's familiar _Grand Canyon Suite_. Overall, a suite seems less serious than a symphony; it tends to be a lighter music; one is less compelled to try and "follow the musical argument" from beginning to end and to rather just sit back, relax, and enjoy the music.

Note that suites are usually formulated from longer works like operas or ballets, but seldom if ever from symphonies, which themselves are much a cohesive whole. I suppose one could make a suite of movements from Mozart symphonies or Haydn symphonies or Beethoven symphonies, but I wouldn't be much interested in hearing it. I'd rather listen to the symphony itself. So if you see a suite of a composer's music, it likely is not a symphony or made from a number of symphonies. It's more likely from a movie score, an opera, a ballet, or written for an occasion and not actually compiled from a longer work.

Tchaikovsky wrote six symphonies and four famous Suites for Orchestra. You might access these works and do a comparative listening. As well, there are suites made from Tchaikovsky ballets. I don't know if Tchaikovsky himself made such suites (I'd have to look it up) -- _Swan Lake_ Suite, _Sleeping Beauty_ Suite, _Nutcracker_ Suite -- but a suite is something that the composer himself often does not compile. One can't think of a symphony as being a compilation of pieces from a longer work, though Hindemith, the modern German composer, did create a symphony from music he originally composed for an opera -- the Symphony '_Mathis Der Maler_'. So, of course, there are exceptions to everything, especially if you get deeper and deeper into the topic, as many here will be able to explain. But generally, you needn't worry much about these exceptions and stick with the description given in my earlier paragraphs and in the Yahoo article. And you should do fine understanding.


----------



## haydnguy (Oct 13, 2008)

When I first started buying CD's I think I bought a CD of Tchaikovsky suites and when I posted about it someone said that I should never buy suites so I never have. I just saw someone had posted about suites a couple of years ago and wondered if they were worth buying and I was given bad advice.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Suites are usually condensed arrangements of non symphony pieces such as a ballet.


----------



## haydnguy (Oct 13, 2008)

starthrower said:


> Suites are usually condensed arrangements of non symphony pieces such as a ballet.


Thanks. I'll keep that in mind when I'm looking them over.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

And some "symphonies" are really suites. Such as Gottschalk's Symphony no. 1, "A Night in the Tropics". It's a suite - one movement is a symphonic poem, the other an invigorating dance.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

haydnguy said:


> When I first started buying CD's I think I bought a CD of Tchaikovsky suites and when I posted about it someone said that I should never buy suites so I never have. I just saw someone had posted about suites a couple of years ago and wondered if they were worth buying and I was given bad advice.


The someone was talking about a suite as a collection of pieces from (typically) a ballet whereas the Tchaikovsky Suites are a totally different beast. The problem, as with much other in classical music, is that a work is whatever the composer says it is, not necessarily what the composer claims that it is, e.g. the Stravinsky 'symphonies'.


----------



## haydnguy (Oct 13, 2008)

I'm going to have to read up on this. (That's ok). My brain has a limited number of brains cells. (When you reach my age!)


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

haydnguy said:


> When I first started buying CD's I think I bought a CD of Tchaikovsky suites


My comment above made the assumption that you were talking about the Tchaikovsky Suites for Orchestra. If you meant the suites (lower case!) to Swan Lake, etc., then ignore my comment!


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

haydnguy said:


> When I first started buying CD's I think I bought a CD of Tchaikovsky suites and when I posted about it someone said that I should never buy suites so I never have. I just saw someone had posted about suites a couple of years ago and wondered if they were worth buying and I was given bad advice.


Yes, you were given bad advice.
I referenced the Tchaikovsky suites in my prior post. The four great suites are worthy music. Among the most popular one is 
Suite No.4. Op. 61 subtitled _Mozartiana_, which is actually Tchaikovsky's loving tribute to Mozart through orchestrating (setting the original solo piano music for a full orchestra) of a selection of Mozart piano works. Interestingly enough, this is the one Tchaikovsky suite that is not too original; the other three are all Tchaikovsky's own creation, and the composer actually considered them somewhat aside from the _Mozartiana_, which he considered a separate piece not really one of his "suites." Yet, we lump it in with the others and so today Tchaikovsky has four orchestral suites.

I don't listen to the suites as often as I do the symphonies, and I have only perhaps three versions of the suites on hand while I have likely a dozen or more versions of each of the symphonies. I find the symphonies more compelling. But for someone to tell you _never_ to buy suites, that is ridiculous. I would suggest that every well grounded "classical music" collection have several suites in its racks: Bizet's _L'arlesienne_ Suites (mentioned in my prior post) seem essentials, as do a couple suites by the Norwegian composer Grieg (Holberg Suite, Op. 40, and the two Peer Gynt Suites: No. 1 Op. 46 and No. 2 Op. 55.) This is great music you are likely never to hear outside of the Suites. Mozart's charming _Eine Kleine Nachtmusik_ is a suite, and anyone who tells you never to buy this belongs locked up in a suite at an asylum, I would say. And then there are the Handel _Water Music_ Suites, three of them, each featuring different pieces, all of them precious. And if you enjoy the previously mentioned Ferde Grofe _Grand Canyon Suite_, you'll be pleased to know the composer has written a couple of others, though less popular: _Hudson River_ Suite and _Mississippi _Suite. The great 20th century composer Igor Stravinsky conducts on record his own _Firebird_ Suite and _Petrushka_ Suite, and though you should someday hear the complete versions of these works, the Suites are worthy concert numbers I am proud to have in my disc collection. French composer Maurice Ravel's _Daphnis Et Chloe _is superb as a full-length ballet, but the two suite versions are masterpieces as well. American composer Virgil Thomson's _Louisiana Story_ (Suite), derived from a film score, is delicious …. And, well, I could go on. But I hope I've made my point.

Don't be hesitant about adding great suites to your music collection. Those who don't are the real losers.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

An orchestral suite -- as opposed to a suite of excerpts from a ballet or opera -- is a series of (often attractive) movements that don't necessarily have the rigor or emotional or logical impact of a symphony, which has a more formal structure. They can be like serenades (like Mozart's or Brahms') or sets of dances or dance movements (like Bartok's Dance Suite) or just something lighter than a symphony (Tchaikovsky's). In the case of Brahms' serenades and Tchaikovsky's suites, they could be considered "practice" works heading toward eventual symphonies. (In fact, with Brahms, the first Serenade is pretty much the only opportunity we have of hearing Brahms learning to be Brahms. ) 

Then there's Suite: Judy Blue Eyes, which is its own thing.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

A suite is something the composer calls a suite. A symphony is something the composer calls a symphony. Beyond that, things grow fuzzy.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

MarkW said:


> In the case of Brahms' serenades and *Tchaikovsky's suites,* they could be considered "practice" works heading toward eventual symphonies.


The only problem with that is that Tchaikovsky wrote them between his 4th and 5th symphonies. If anything, his first 3 symphonies were practice for the suites :lol:

P.S. But then it did used to be said that Tchaikovsky only wrote 3 symphonies and perversely called then 4th, 5th and 6th


----------



## haydnguy (Oct 13, 2008)

MarkW said:


> Then there's Suite: Judy Blue Eyes, which is its own thing.


Yes, I've never hesitated to listen to that one.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I'm sure there are technical definitions that worked at some point in history but I think of symphonies these days as being like novels - there are many different written entities that will somehow convince as a novel (or, in music, as a symphony) - but I do think I feel a difference between a symphony and a suite (or between either of them and a tone poem). I expect a symphony to be a serious attempts at creating a unity that involves several parts and that somehow involves us in a "journey" or an "argument" while a suite is more loose and only really attempts to be a collection of pieces which will have some reason for being together (even if only as an album). 

The problem becomes more complicated when some well-known symphonies get described by critics as not properly symphonic. Many of Prokofiev's symphonies used to get derided in this way, with the 6th being sometimes praised for being more convincingly symphonic than symphonies 2-5. I sometimes feel that the Schumann symphonies - works that I love unreservedly! - seem less symphonic than most great symphonies. I suppose a symphony that seems to "fail at being a symphony" ends up being thought of as a suite. Of course, some suites are filled with magical or powerful music.

But then we come to concertos. These, also, are works that seem to have an argument running through them - certainly they are not suites - but are still not granted symphony status. I'm not sure why. There are symphonies with concertante roles for a soloist so that is not the whole reason for the difference.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_A suite is something the composer calls a suite. A symphony is something the composer calls a symphony. Beyond that, things grow fuzzy. _

I would agree with this. If there is a difference it is usually:

-- In the name. When a composer writes a symphony s/he usually names it a symphony. Same for an orchestral or symphonic suite.

-- The number of movements; most symphonies have between 3-5 movements. A suite can have a half-dozen or more.

-- The labels applied to the movements. Many symphonies have Italianate movement labels such as allegro non troppo and/or andante to help determine speed and volume of sound. Orchestral suites have movements that can be like this, they can have names, or be named for dances such as gavotte or bouree.

-- Many orchestral suites are parts of theatrical or stage music once used to accompany and depict the action of a play, something like a film score today. Symphonies generally are not written that way though Richard Strauss's Alpine symphony is this way. He blurred the lines between symphony and symphonic suite more than most composers in works like the Alpine and Domestic symphonies and Ein Heldenleben.

-- Most symphonies (including Strauss's) are intended to be organic units -- one thing in a number of sections. A suite can be that or can be a collection of odd parts that can sometimes be played independently.

One example of differences between a symphony and a suite is Tchaikovsky who wrote both. His orchestral suites, the most famous of which is No. 4 that he labeled "Mozartiana" because he used a theme from Mozart's Ave Verum Corpus is the slow movement, are similar in design to his symphonies.

The major differences are the names and the movement titles. The suites movements include dances -- gigue, minuet, preghiera (his name for the Mozart theme) and theme and variations. You won't often see these marking in a symphony though some do have a theme and variants section.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

haydnguy said:


> Thanks. I'll keep that in mind when I'm looking them over.


Sometimes suites are preferable if you don't want to listen to all the talking bits in pieces like The Soldier's Tale or Hary Janos. But for a work like Stravinsky's Firebird, the complete ballet is recommended. Otherwise you miss out on a lot of beautiful music.


----------



## brunumb (Dec 8, 2017)

Then there's 
Gustav Holst - The Planets: Suite for large orchestra (1916)


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Interesting discussion. I agree with the broad distinctions people are making between the two, however things can and do get blurred. There's Lalo's Symphonie Espagnole which is more like a suite than a symphony. Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade is the opposite, a symphony in the guise of a suite. You can also have your cake and eat it too, like Bernstein with his On The Waterfront _symphonic suite_. Its a work that's just as integrated as a symphony usually is, but drawn from the original film score which was more episodic and completely different before being reworked. Then there are works that while still closer to being suites - such as Holst's Planets mentioned above, and Berg's Lyric Suite - by their nature and contents still equal the weight of a symphony.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

It should also be noted that the usage of these terms really changed with time. In the Baroque era and earlier, an Orchestral Suite was largely a collection of various orchestral movements (usually dance forms and often with a prelude to begin) and was usually music written specifically as suites. It wasn't until later that composers began compiling their works into "suites". A Baroque composer might write what they considered a major orchestral piece (although major pieces of music in the Baroque era and earlier were generally thought of as religious choral works) and have it be a suite (like Händel's Water Music Suites) which is something a composer of the Romantic era would (probably) never do.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”


----------



## haydnguy (Oct 13, 2008)

starthrower said:


> Sometimes suites are preferable if you don't want to listen to all the talking bits in pieces like The Soldier's Tale or Hary Janos. But for a work like Stravinsky's Firebird, the complete ballet is recommended. Otherwise you miss out on a lot of beautiful music.


I have a DVD of Firebird and really like it a lot. I agree that It would be too much just to listen to bits and pieces of it


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Sid James said:


> You can also have your cake and eat it too, like Bernstein with his On The Waterfront _symphonic suite_.


That's funny, when someone says something is 'symphonic' the impression I get is not 'structurally like a symphony', but 'texturally/instrumentally like a symphony'. Like how it's often said Beethoven's piano writing is 'symphonic'. They usually mean Beethoven's piano writing is texturally like a symphony (how he uses chords and stuff), and not necessarily mean his piano works are in symphonic form. So the name 'symphonic suite' sounds to me like a 'suite played by a symphonic orchestra'.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

That’s a fair point, generally speaking. 

However, the Ancient Greek meaning of symphony is just instruments sounding together. That can be any group of instruments, as Stravinsky demonstrated in his Symphonies of Wind Instruments, thereby turning the conventional symphony on its head.

In terms of that particular Bernstein symphonic suite, its a hybrid piece. Its very close knit in terms of thematic development, and is set out like a symphony in one movement. It also reads well as a narrative. Its been compared to the tone poems of Liszt and Tchaikovsky, and the opening horn call is reminiscent of Malher’s 9th (probably a homage).

The best way to judge is to listen for yourself. I’ve got Marin Alsop’s account on Naxos, and the composer made an equally fine account on the old Columbia label.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

Sid James said:


> Interesting discussion. I agree with the broad distinctions people are making between the two, however things can and do get blurred. There's Lalo's Symphonie Espagnole which is more like a suite than a symphony. Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade is the opposite, a symphony in the guise of a suite. You can also have your cake and eat it too, like Bernstein with his On The Waterfront _symphonic suite_. Its a work that's just as integrated as a symphony usually is, but drawn from the original film score which was more episodic and completely different before being reworked. Then there are works that while still closer to being suites - such as Holst's Planets mentioned above, and Berg's Lyric Suite - by their nature and contents still equal the weight of a symphony.


Speaking of Rimsky-Korsakov, his Antar Symphony is sometimes designated as a suite (in fact, the composer called it so in revising it the second time in 1897).


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> SONNET CLV: "In essence, in a formal sense, a symphony is a single unified work, generally based upon a pair of contrasting (yet related) themes which are explored in a variety of ways, but always with an overall sense of unity in mind."


I find the alleged unity supposedly inherent in many symphonies to be often a myth. Many times the unity is inferred _ex post facto_ by the listener from the premise that, since the work is labeled a symphony, the composer must have written it with some sort of unifying principle in mind, and so There It Is. But is it, really? It's analogous to astronomers from Schiaparelli to Percival Lowell seeing canals on Mars (Actually, Schiaparelli saw continents, oceans, and "channels"). The degree of unity certainly varies from symphony to symphony; sometimes certain astute listeners may discern genuine unities that the composer deliberately built into the work; even I can, sometimes. But I'd bet serious money that the average concert-goer hearing an average Haydn symphony among a cluster of such, would be hard-pressed to tell a movement of one symphony from another, other than by familiarity.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

*Genre Confusion:* Getting back to the suite for orchestra, _there are always exceptions_ but for the most part since the mid-19th century there have been: 1) suites derived from a pre-existing work, e.g. an opera, ballet, incidental music to a play, or (in the 20th century) film music; 2) newly-composed suites, which may or may not have a more specific title -- Tchaikovsky's Suite No. 1 does not but Holst's suite _The Planets_ does. Some suites re-invoke the Baroque practice of being mainly a collection of dance movements. The idea a _serenade_ for orchestra evokes is that of smooth background music for an occasion, e.g. (in Mozart) a summer evening dinner at a 18th-century nobleman's court -- nowadays there is still the sense of lighter music but in a concert setting. The idea a 19th-20th century _concert suite_ for orchestra evokes is music for listening, more active than background. But the music will be lighter, less complex on the whole than that of symphony -- a distinction that was discussed above. In terms of intent, composers are not stupid; they know whether they are writing a symphony or a suite. In the case of Bizet's _Roma_ he always called it to be a symphony but, dissatisfied, revised it completely twice. He dies before it was published and the publisher arbitrarily issued it as a suite, because of Bizet's expressed misgivings. But now _Roma_ is considered to be Bizet's Symphony No. 2, respecting his intentions. One of my first compositions was called Suite for Clarinet and Piano; it had four movements but I had no doubt that in character and form it was a suite, not a sonata.


----------

