# Symphonies - very easy to enjoy?



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

Does anyone else think that symphonies, despite being hard to compose and demanding large orchestra, conductor, a lot of skill from a lot of musicians, etc... are quite easy to enjoy and understand - even much easier than most of the other pieces of music?

For me, really, it's almost the easiest genre to understand and enjoy instantly without too much preparation.

Or maybe I listened only to "easy to get" symphonies.

I listened to all Beethoven's symphonies, Dvorak's New World Symphony, some Mozart's and some Haydn's symphonies, and I didn't find any of them to be very hard to understand. 

If this is really the case with symphonies, could anyone say why is this so?


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent (Feb 28, 2008)

I always saw Symphonies as a way for a composer to show what he/she is capable of/has to offer. A symphony is an easy way to decide whether or not you are going to like the composer. It's basically like a greatest hits for composers. It isn't always the case with some composers. I just always look at a composer's symphonies first. Though some I listen to don't have any symphonies, or they do, and I haven't heard them.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> are quite easy to enjoy and understand


To enjoy, yes, but not to understand.

It's easy to turn loud some Beethoven and enjoy the loud, tasty symphonic sound and BLASTZ. But it's shallow enjoyment. Ludwig Van symphonies are as difficult to understand as his string quartets, sonatas of any kind etc.

It's easier to get excited with monumental orchestral sound, but doing so doesn't equal understanding.


----------



## Norse (May 10, 2010)

If a symphony is accessible or not, depends on the composer/style. A Mozart symphony and a Lutoslawski symphony do not have that much in common, at least on the surface level. I don't think I agree, though. Personally, I have a tendency to mostly listen to symphonies when I'm in that "serious music listening mood", with a certain amount of energy and attention to devote. Again, it depends on the style and composer (and work), though. A lighthearted Haydn symphony is one thing..


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

I agree with *Aramis*.

I personally think symphonies are more challenging than say, a single movement tone poem. With a tone poem, you've got extramusical associations to lean on (even though there is certainly more deeper substance to a tone poem), and of course, its shorter.

Symphonies _in general_, are less concerned about extramusical associations and tends usually to be "absolute music" where construction is a main focus.

I can _enjoy _a symphony just as easily as a tone poem, but a symphony takes me longer to _digest and comprehend_, involving a more concentrated listening effort from me.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

OK, maybe I am wrong about symphonies being that easy to enjoy.

But, I got this impression by comparing symphonies to string quartets and piano sonatas.
String quartets and piano sonatas can be as long as symphonies, and I usually find them much harder to "digest".

Also, I could say that concertos (which, like symphonies include orchestra) are easier to understand than most sonatas and quartets.


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

Quartets and piano sonatas can be structurally just as complex as symphonies (often employing the same forms), but the colours of the orchestra are helpful guideposts for the listener, whereas four strings or piano have a more homogeneous sound, so concentration can be demanding there too, just for reasons of instrumentation. 

To use a visual metaphor, I tend to think of orchestral music as being in full colour, string quartets music in sepia tone, and piano music being monochromatic.


----------

