# In the "favorite" series, what is your favorite form of orchestral music ?



## Handel

Symphony?
Concerto?
Sinfonia concertante?
Orchestral suite?

I tend to prefer the symphony because it gives to the composer a freedom that the other forms do not since a symphony, for example, can include some concertante episodes. Also, the different movement of a symphony can be very various, more than any forms (except maybe orchestral suite).


----------



## Don

I'd go with the concerto for the dialogue.


----------



## Mark Harwood

Concerto. I'm a classical guitar listener, so that's the only option from this list.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

If using the shop-worn "desert-island" metaphor (i.e.: if forced to select one, what would I choose), I would choose symphonies, and I think that it would be the runaway first choice of most (2 prior posters to the contrary). It's a more near-run thing to work out the other places... concertos or suites- with suites, I could "back-door" my way into a bit of great opera & ballet music (_Swan Lake, Firebird, Carmen_), but I still think concertos would pip it at the end. 
If we're going to mention sinfonias concertante, let's also spare a moment for the tone poem, too. Gives us some Liszt, the preponderance of Richard Strauss- and you could even make the case that some Johann Strauss extended waltzes are kind of "proto" tone poems (like anyone other than competitive dancers-in-training _really_ spins about in 3/4 time for all 11 minutes of _Tales from the Vienna Woods_).


----------



## Amade Van Haydn

*3:2 for Symphonies!*


----------



## opus67

Concert-O...


----------



## Frasier

Orchestral Suite. (This could be a symphonic suite, a collection of movements or by a stretch of credibility, variations, ballet etc). A suite can have the strict form of a (classical) symphony...or not, as the composer chooses.


----------



## Manuel

> Orchestral Suite. (This could be a symphonic suite, a collection of movements or by a stretch of credibility, variations, ballet etc).


Really? I prefer the sense of unity in large scale symphonies (concertos and sonatas too).



> A suite can have the strict form of a (classical) symphony...or not, as the composer chooses.


As in the Rimsky-Korsakov _affair_.


----------



## zlya

Symphony. 

The symphony has historically had a bit of a reputation as the highest form of orchestral music, the most grand, the most epic, the most challenging. Anyone could write a little concerto, but a symphony, ah that was for a master. For this reason I think many composers were inspired, or intimidated, into putting their best work into symphonic form, with of course the notable exception of the growing program-music fad in the 19th C. Still, for the greater part of history the symphony has reigned supreme as the perfection of the orchestral art.


----------



## Keemun

Symphony.


----------



## ChamberNut

Keemun said:


> Symphony.


Symphony, although I like the 3 mvt. typical Concerto format.


----------



## Edward Elgar

I have to go with symphony because it's got more soul than a concerto. A concerto says "look at me look at me", whereas a symphony says "look at us look at us". I know it's a bit socialist of me to say this, but the more people recognised, the greater the enjoyment IMO.


----------



## tutto

each symphony has its best movement. the first or the last


----------



## rojo

The symphony is fantastic, but to expand on what tutto just said, I find I often want to listen to just a single movement and not the entire symphony, because I prefer that one movement to the others. I think the tone poem is perhaps more up my alley. One main idea, (perhaps more concise in that sense,) and also freer in terms of form. Many of my fav works are tone poems.


----------



## 4/4player

As a romanticist, I'd have to say symphony=)


----------



## Guest

rojo said:


> The symphony is fantastic, but to expand on what tutto just said, I find I often want to listen to just a single movement and not the entire symphony, because I prefer that one movement to the others. I think the tone poem is perhaps more up my alley. One main idea, (perhaps more concise in that sense,) and also freer in terms of form. Many of my fav works are tone poems.


I tend to agree the more I think about it. Not many symphonies are uniformly good throughout, save for a few by Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, and Schubert. Several of Tchaikovsky's, for example, contain some odd or drab movements, and I find this to be the case with a lot of Bruckner and Mahler (many of which are far too long-winded).


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

zlya said:


> The symphony has historically had a bit of a reputation as the highest form of orchestral music ... For this reason I think many composers were inspired, or intimidated, into putting their best work into symphonic form ...


I wholly concur with this. Composers' best ideas generally went into symphonies (unless they were opera composers like Verdi and Wagner). It's a bit of a generalization, there are symphonic composers like Liszt and R. Strauss who could certainly have written symphonies but *chose* not to... but composers who wrote in all the genres certainly put most effort into symphonies.


----------



## Saturnus

Trio sonata (best served with basso obligato)


----------



## rojo

Mango said:


> I tend to agree the more I think about it. Not many symphonies are uniformly good throughout, save for a few by Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, and Schubert. Several of Tchaikovsky's, for example, contain some odd or drab movements, and I find this to be the case with a lot of Bruckner and Mahler (many of which are far too long-winded).


I`m trying to come up with more symphonies that are uniformly good, just out of curiosity. Perhaps Berlioz`s Symphonie Fantastique and Dvorak`s New World would qualify? Even then I still have my fav movements...


----------



## Guest

zlya said:


> Symphony.
> 
> The symphony has historically had a bit of a reputation as the highest form of orchestral music, the most grand, the most epic, the most challenging. Anyone could write a little concerto, but a symphony, ah that was for a master. For this reason I think many composers were inspired, or intimidated, into putting their best work into symphonic form, with of course the notable exception of the growing program-music fad in the 19th C. Still, for the greater part of history the symphony has reigned supreme as the perfection of the orchestral art.


Is this true? I make the following points only to stimulate possible further discussion.

Let's start with *Haydn*. It could be argued that his greatest achievements were in chamber music, oratorio, and concerti. For sure, he wrote some excellent symphonies, but I don't think it can said he put his "best work into symphonic form".

*Mozart*: His greatest achievements were in opera, concerti, other orchestral, chamber. OK, he too wrote some very good symphonies, but if he was assessed only on these he wouldn't be anything like so famous. (Mr Newman please refrain from further silly comment.)

*Beethoven*: Arguably his symphonies are his most memorable achievements, but are they his best or most influential? What about the piano sonatas, chamber music, Mass? It was the outstanding quality of these that really stunned later composers, in addition to his revolution in the drama of symphonic form (albeit largely maintaining classical tradition). I agree that it's more borderline with Beethoven, though.

*Schubert*: His best efforts went into chamber, lieder. In my view, his symphonies are fantastic and I like the "Unfinished" and "Great" as much as any of Beethoven's. But his overall greatness is not based on his symphonic achievements, and his best work lies elsewhere, save possibly for these two symphonies..

*Schumann:* 4 great symphonies but his piano solo is greater in quality. It was the latter in which he really excelled.

*Mendelsshon:* Not primarily a symphonist even though several are excellent.

*Chopin:* Clearly not.

*Bruckner*: Clearly yes, but Bruckner is not one of the real greats.

*Liszt: * Mainly piano solo. His syphomonic poems and symphonies aren't bad but they're not really what his reputation rests upon, even though he was an early proponent of the new form.

*Brahms*: I'd say borderline true at best. His piano concertos, VC, double concerto are excellent. His chamber is excellent. In fact more or less everything Brahms wrote is very good or excellent, and there were only 4 symphonies.

*Tchaikovsky*: Again, arguably his best works are not his symphonies but his ballet scores, piano and violin concertos, and other ad hoc orchestral pieces.

*Wagner:* Definitely not true. And yet Wagner could have gone down the symphonic route if he had wanted to.

*Dvorak: * His early symphonies are not much good, and are outshone by various other incarnations. True his later symphonies are superb. But among his best works is the magnificent cello concerto.

*Mahler:* Definitely does fit the description, even though personally I've only ever been that keen on one or two of his symphonies.

*Verdi: *No

*Debussy*: No

*Ravel*: No

*Sibelius:* Clearly yes

*Prokofiev*: Probably not

*Strauss (R): *No

*Stravinsky: * No

*Shostakovich*: Borderline as not all of his symphonies are great, and he wrote lots of other high quality music​Overall, therefore, I think the proposition in the opening quote is dubious. I don't necessarily think that composers were inspired to put their best work into symphonies. Many did produce excellent symphonies, but the story is far more complex than this smple statement might suggest. On the whole, the best composers put major effort into various forms including purely symphonic.


----------



## Handel

Mango said:


> Is this true? I make the following points only to stimulate possible further discussion.
> 
> Let's start with *Haydn*. It could be argued that his greatest achievements were in chamber music, oratorio, and concerti. For sure, he wrote some excellent symphonies, but I don't think it can said he put his "best work into symphonic form".​




The problem is that he had to compose symphonies for his prince's taste, especially after the Sturm und drang period. So out of 104 symphonies, some can be considered as ordinary. So, it may be true that if you compare all symphonies to all quartets, the last one could be judged better (mainly because many symphonies were composed according to his prince's taste and because quartets were composed for later publishing). But the best of Haydn symphonic production is as good imho as his string quartets production. Let think about symphonies 6-8, 39, 45, 48 and all symphonies between #82 and 104.​


----------



## Guest

Handel said:


> The problem is that he had to compose symphonies for his prince's taste, especially after the Sturm und drang period. So out of 104 symphonies, some can be considered as ordinary. So, it may be true that if you compare all symphonies to all quartets, the last one could be judged better (mainly because many symphonies were composed according to his prince's taste and because quartets were composed for later publishing). But the best of Haydn symphonic production is as good imho as his string quartets production. Let think about symphonies 6-8, 39, 45, 48 and all symphonies between #82 and 104.


I'm not qestioning that Haydn wrote some very good symphonies. I'm only questioning the notion that Haydn put is best effort into creating symphonies as opposed to other muisical forms. Some might say that Haydn's best efforts went into his sacred works oratorios, eg The Creation. He was a very religious man, after all.

I'm also fully aware that, for much of his career, Haydn produced what was expected of him, as the servant of Prince Esterhazy.

What I'm questioning - by evidence in the large - is the notion that the best composers reserved their best efforts for symphonies. Some did, some didn't, and there are several in-betweenies who wrote good music across the piece.


----------



## Handel

Mango said:


> I'm not qestioning that Haydn wrote some very good symphonies. I'm only questioning the notion that Haydn put is best effort into creating symphonies as opposed to other muisical forms. Some might say that Haydn's best efforts went into his sacred works oratorios, eg The Creation. He was a very religious man, after all.
> 
> I'm also fully aware that, for much of his career, Haydn produced what was expected of him, as the servant of Prince Esterhazy.
> 
> What I'm questioning - by evidence in the large - is the notion that the best composers reserved their best efforts for symphonies. Some did, some didn't, and there are several in-betweenies who wrote good music across the piece.


Sigh.

If you read carefully, I agree with you on the very notion that Haydn didn't put his best efforts in ther symphonic form (as a whole) because many of these symphonies were demands from his prince who asked for easier/less dramatic symphonies, especially during the 1770's. But you will agree on me that Haydn's best symphonies are certainly on par with his string quartets.


----------



## Rod Corkin

Saturnus said:


> Trio sonata (best served with basso obligato)


I wouldn't really call the trio sonata an orchestral form. Nevertheless Handel's superb Op2 trio sonatas have been called the pinnacle of the genre. I wouldn't disagree.

Concerti Grossi yes, and again Handel's 12 concertos op6 I amongst others suggest are the pinnacle of the genre.


----------



## Guest

Handel said:


> If you read carefully, I agree with you on the very notion that Haydn didn't put his best efforts in ther symphonic form (as a whole) because many of these symphonies were demands from his prince who asked for easier/less dramatic symphonies, especially during the 1770's. But you will agree on me that Haydn's best symphonies are certainly on par with his string quartets.


Thank you. I would agree with your last sentence but I think his best sacred works are possibly better than either. We are not basically in disagreement though.


----------



## rojo

I thought this article about the symphony was interesting-

http://www.calendarlive.com/music/cl-ca-symphonies24jun24,0,1054344.story?coll=cl-music

I`m thinking. The symphony has changed so very much over time, I wonder if it`s possible that more recent (and today`s) composers simply use the title of 'Symphony' for a work that is orchestral and has no programmatic associations. I mean, the form used now bears no real resemblance to the symphony of Haydn`s day; sometimes they are in one movement, the musical language is completely different, etc. Also, I think a tone poem usually has some sort of programmatic element. Maybe because an orchestral work has no programmatic element, that makes the composer choose to label it a symphony? It`s funny to think that a work has it`s form as it`s title, although I guess this is not unusual. How come there are no works entitled 'Tone Poem'? Or are there? Are there tone poems that do not have a programmatic element? Hmm.

In any case, the term is just a label. Interesting that the term symphony has endured to this day, considering how much it has morphed over time...

Any thoughts on this?


----------



## sinfonia espansiva

1.Symphony 
2.Symphonic poems


----------



## JohnM

"Anything Good"

I don't consider I have a favourite form at all - I just love great music


----------



## Saturnus

Rod Corkin said:


> I wouldn't really call the trio sonata an orchestral form. Nevertheless Handel's superb Op2 trio sonatas have been called the pinnacle of the genre. I wouldn't disagree.
> 
> Concerti Grossi yes, and again Handel's 12 concertos op6 I amongst others suggest are the pinnacle of the genre.


Oh, I didn't read the thread title well enough. I'd say my favorite orchestral form is the Concerto.


----------



## Guest

I am going to go with the symphony because of it's versatility to the listener. There are 4 movements which can be listened to together or separate. To me there are definitely some that should not be taken apart in my opinion, such as Tchaikovsky’s 6th or Dvorak's 9th but there are those which I tend to like certain movements more than the overall symphony, like Brahms 3rd which is fantastic together but I definitely prefer the 3rd movement way above the other 3 movements so I tend to listen to that alone. Yet I could still listen to it together. And though the other forms are incredible and some composers did not write at there best in this form, such as possibly my favorite Chopin, it still tends to contain the composers best ideas and effort. The symphony to me is the grandest display of music.


----------



## Andrew

Sinfonia concertante. In my opinion it has the best from both Symphony and Concerto.


----------



## Handel

Andrew said:


> Sinfonia concertante. In my opinion it has the best from both Symphony and Concerto.


Really Mr. Bach?


----------



## Andrew

Yes Mr. Handel


----------



## Manuel

Andrew said:


> Yes Mr. Handel


I concur.

-----------------------------


----------



## Rondo

Mango said:


> *Sibelius:* Clearly yes


Really, that's all? His symphonies are great-- I agree, but his symphonic poems are equally admirable.


----------



## Crystal

Concerto! :lol:


----------



## Roger Knox

In my current enthusiasm for late 19th- & early 20th-century music, the symphonic poem is my favourite. It gave composers freedom in form, encouraged wonderful orchestral colour, and brought more of poetry and the natural world into orchestra music.


----------



## maestro267

This thread hasn't been touched for a decade! How on earth did you find it?

Anyway, nothing beats the Symphony. The definitive statements of the great composers.


----------



## Merl

Symphony for me. Simple as that.


----------



## MusicSybarite

I have always regarded the symphony as the most ambitious and powerful example in orchestral music, the most complete thing. I'm a big fan of those. Therefore, I choose the symphonies.

Then come the concertos and the symphonic/tone poems.


----------



## David Phillips

The symphony. It's always been a sadness to me that towards the close of his life, Dvorak, after writing the brilliant New World Symphony, chucked the form and concentrated on not very interesting tone poems.


----------



## Williarw

I am mixed on symphony vs. concerto. I agree with the comments pro-symphony but find myself listening more often to concertos.


----------



## techniquest

Symphony; but I say that in the wider sense so I can include works that are 'almost' symphonies, though not so named e.g Debussy's "La Mer", Rachmaninov's "Symphonic Dances" and Bartok's "Concerto for Orchestra". Is that cheating?


----------



## Subutai

I listened to every genre, century, and most composers. After a decade or so I've settled on the symphony as the expression of everything I needs to hear in classical. I'll indulge in orchestral works occasionally but little else. For now.


----------



## Bulldog

The symphony is a wonderful form, but I'll take a solo fugue 24/7.


----------



## SanAntone

I don't enjoy orchestral music nearly as much as chamber music or solo piano. The string quartet is my favorite form.


----------

