# About the relation between movements of a symphony



## tri2061990 (Aug 19, 2010)

Can you explain to me about this problem?
I feel too hard to find their relation


----------



## djmomo17 (Aug 12, 2010)

I'll take a _wild _swing here:

Before Beethoven, a symphony had 4 parts: 1 - fast, 2 - slow, 3 - minuet/dance, 4 - fast finale. It wasn't really required that there be much to connect them besides possibly key relationships (minor/major, dominant, relative minor, etc...). Themes didn't carry over much, if at all.
Then in Beethoven's 5th Symphony, a theme from the 3rd movement was carried over into the 4th. This was a big move, connecting movements thematically. Also the transition from the 3rd to the 4th was without a break (attaca). After that the practice of connecting movements with themes and motives became more popular and obvious. Other than that, the relationship between movements in a symphony are the same as the chapters in a book, or the tracks on a modern record. They just go well together. That's my extremely intuitive explanation without looking at wikipedia....


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

Tempo is a consequence of the rationale, not the rationale itself.

First movement: 'intellectual', 'serious' piece, more musically rigorous than the other movements need be
Second movement: emotional piece, addressing the heart, as opposed to the head (I)
Third movement: a formal dance - a piece requiring the participation, at least in theory, of the body, as opposed to the mind (I-II)
Fourth movement: straightforward, fun ending appealing to the child in all of us, as opposed to the adult (I-III)


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

djmomo17 said:


> Other than that, the relationship between movements in a symphony are the same as the chapters in a book, or the tracks on a modern record.


The latter is a good comparison but the former not as much. The chapters in a book are much more connected than movements in symphony. The book usually keeps using familiar characters from previous chapters, it usually clearly continues the plot etc. The symphony is indeed like an album - just a "collection" that usually aims at some kind of balance. 
On a non-classical album, depending on the genre though, there is often fast & catchy tracks, maybe some ballads, maybe a more serious, experimental or "epic" track to use a cheesy word. Some bands, particularly progressive rock/metal and the like, might aim at some kind of unity ("concept" albums) for using recurrent themes for example, but more often than not there is no obvious connection between the tracks of an album. Often however the albums brings a slight overall change to the band's style which is one reason to lump them together. 
In similiar fashion having first movement fast/mid-tempo and serious in character, more light-hearted scherzo, melancholic/relaxing slow movement and then the final movement which is more or less similar to the first. Themes from previous may or may not be reused, the symphony might be unified by different character from the composer's other symphonies and stylistic changes just like with non-classical musicians' albums. 
To quote myself from another thread "for example with Sibelius I would say, each symphony kind of experiments with a slightly different style. First is the gloomy, intense but pretty standard romantic symphony, second represents also pretty standard romantic style but brighter and bit more reserved perhaps, third is the neoclassical symphony, fourth is dark like the first but in more stark and stripped way and with a modernistic touch, fifth I'm not so sure about, sixth is unified by frequently used Dorian mode and overall calm, pastoral atmosphere. The seventh is actually in one movement... But overall, with Sibelius it makes more sense to put the movements together and call them one work than with many other composers."
Though I have to admit, even as a huge fan of Mahler, that unity wasn't the strong point in general in his symphonies, I think the sixth is definately an exception. The first movement countains a grim march-like first theme group, then the gentler and prettier second subject group with the so called "Alma" theme. The second movement, the scherzo, is similar in character with the first group of themes of the first movement, the third, slow movement is similar to the second subject group, and then the last movement actually borrows themes from the first movement.
Those are examples where I feel the movements are fairly nicely connected but often I too cannot see much connection. And I have to admit that like I usually prefer to listen to the tracks of an album separately, I also more often than listening to the whole symphony listen to just individual movements.


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2010)

I'd say, listen to a lot of symphonies, without worrying about relationships. While there are some common patterns, especially if you're talking about symphonies from the same period or the same area, each symphony sets up its own relationships between movements--or the better ones do, anyway.

I'd say that some of the esteemed members who've contributed so far might want to listen to a few more, themselves. The first thing I thought of when I read Jeremy's post was "Mahler's sixth." And that's only the first thing.

Not only are there a lot of relationships, there a lot of different counts--some symphonies have one movement, some two, some three, some four (perhaps the majority have four), some five.

Sofia Gubaidulina has a symphony with 12 movements.

There's no substitute for listening for yourself.


----------



## tri2061990 (Aug 19, 2010)

thanks
when I mix differents movements from different symphonies of the same composer to playlist and listen,I sometimes feel funny,interesting,new...or just normal=> I make question"do they relate together?"

Jeremy Marchant
_First movement: 'intellectual', 'serious' piece, more musically rigorous than the other movements need be
Second movement: emotional piece, addressing the heart, as opposed to the head (I)
Third movement: a formal dance - a piece requiring the participation, at least in theory, of the body, as opposed to the mind (I-II)
Fourth movement: straightforward, fun ending appealing to the child in all of us, as opposed to the adult (I-III)_
can you explain more?


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

That's a good question. In the baroque and early classical era (the nursery of the symphony), pieces of music were lumped together that shared tonal relationships. Haydn perfected a coherent model that standardised the way composers would say all they wanted to say and fit it all together. That's why symphonies in, say, C major, rarely deviate from the tonic key (with the exclusion of the second movement which often finds itself in the dominant).


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

The idea behind traditional order of movements, as I see it, is to provide listener with everything in right order. First movement is quintessence of everything that will come, rest of symphony is variation (not literal, of course) on first movement. It's always in moderate tempo (moderato-allegro) and balanced in all possible ways (two contrasting themes). Slow movement goes second, first movement prepared listener for it (first-slow movement could bore the listener). The scherzo/dance movement is chillout for rastafarians. 

And the last movement is summary and/or climax. It often includes most catchy of all themes so the stupid bitches that didn't understand anything from previous movements, so they will have some positive last impression and will leave concert hall satisfied (same is with rondo in classical concert form).


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

It's all about the dramatic contour.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Expaning on the Beethoven 5th example, that symphony has the well known da-da-da Daaahm theme or motif in every movement. It is thinly diguised in places, but it is always there.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

Weston said:


> Expaning on the Beethoven 5th example, that symphony has the well known da-da-da Daaahm theme or motif in every movement. It is thinly diguised in places, but it is always there.


The 5th is one of the ultimate examples of musical cohesion through motif. However, I don't think this truly defines the symphony. All the keys are focused around C/Cm except the slow mvt. which is in the sub-dominant of the relative major of Cm. It was all about key relationships in the classical era.

However, what you say is true. Check out the third mvt., the motif is quite explicit!


----------



## djmomo17 (Aug 12, 2010)

All of the above replies I am in total agreement with. Great topic and answers!

As far as listening habits go, when listening to a symphony for the first time, I listen carefully all the way through. Then I go back and choose which movements I liked the most and just keep those movements on my iPod. Sometimes that's better than dismissing a whole symphony just because there's a boring 20 minute adagio....but I do revisit it from time to time to see if I have "grown into it". 

By the above method I shortened Orff's Carmina Burana to 26 minutes


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Hmmm... A very controversial approach.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Usually, the first movement is played at the start of the piece. The second is normally next, in between the first and the third. The third must come before the fourth. The fourth is last, unless there is a fifth movement, then the fourth is the penultimate movement and the fifth is last, unless there are more than five movements, in which case the last movement is the one before the applause, unless it's an avant-garde symphony, then the applause itself might actually be the final movement. This is, of course, assuming time is in fact linear, but if it isn't, the movements can be heard in any order and at any time.

Hope this helps.


----------



## tri2061990 (Aug 19, 2010)

Aramis said:


> The idea behind traditional order of movements, as I see it, is to provide listener with everything in right order. First movement is quintessence of everything that will come, rest of symphony is variation (not literal, of course) on first movement. It's always in moderate tempo (moderato-allegro) and balanced in all possible ways (two contrasting themes). Slow movement goes second, first movement prepared listener for it (first-slow movement could bore the listener). The scherzo/dance movement is chillout for rastafarians.
> 
> And the last movement is summary and/or climax. It often includes most catchy of all themes so the stupid bitches that didn't understand anything from previous movements, so they will have some positive last impression and will leave concert hall satisfied (same is with rondo in classical concert form).


is your explain right for all symphonies,or all symphonies of Classical and Romantic periods?


----------



## djmomo17 (Aug 12, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> Hmmm... A very controversial approach.


A long time ago I explained my approach to a friend who teaches at Juilliard and he just smiled and walked away, shaking his head. I fully expect all Juilliard students to take this same approach in the near future


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2010)

Argus said:


> Usually, the first movement is played at the start of the piece. The second is normally next, in between the first and the third. The third must come before the fourth. The fourth is last, unless there is a fifth movement, then the fourth is the penultimate movement and the fifth is last, unless there are more than five movements, in which case the last movement is the one before the applause, unless it's an avant-garde symphony, then the applause itself might actually be the final movement. This is, of course, assuming time is in fact linear, but if it isn't, the movements can be heard in any order and at any time.
> 
> Hope this helps.


Argus, you may have just made the best post ever. You have certainly made the one that made me grin the most!!


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2010)

tri2061990 said:


> is your explain right for all symphonies,or all symphonies of Classical and Romantic periods?


Tri, did you read my post? The explain you're referring to, like any explanation of that sort, is not right for all symphonies, nor for all symphonies of a period. No way.

Really. Listen to some symphonies. Listen carefully and sympathetically, meaning, let the composer tell you whatever's to be told. Let each symphony speak its piece, its own piece.

(Hmmm. Nice pun on "piece," there, eh?)


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Argus said:


> Usually, the first movement is played at the start of the piece. The second is normally next, in between the first and the third. The third must come before the fourth. The fourth is last, unless there is a fifth movement, then the fourth is the penultimate movement and the fifth is last, unless there are more than five movements, in which case the last movement is the one before the applause, unless it's an avant-garde symphony, then the applause itself might actually be the final movement. This is, of course, assuming time is in fact linear, but if it isn't, the movements can be heard in any order and at any time.
> 
> Hope this helps.


I'm glad you said "usually," because there is of course Peter Schickele's "Unbegun" Symphony which only has a 3rd and 4th movement.


----------

