# Researching symphonies



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

I have quite a few ideas for symphonies following the philosophy that a symphony should be a statement of the composers belief, philosophy, or life. However, I would like to hold off on composing any of them until I have matured musically a bit more. As part of that process, I intend to read about and listen to what are considered "great" symphonies, and will read about and listen to every symphony composed by those that I personally consider "great" symphonists (i.e. Mahler and Tchaikovsky; I don't care so much for Beethoven's symphonies). I am already quite familiar with Tchaikovsky's symphonies, so I would like to undertake the aforementioned feat of listening to Mahler's entire body of works (18 hours) in one sitting while simultaneously reading about Mahler's life and each of his works.

Therefore, if anyone has some (free) reading material on other great symphonies/symphonists, please share. Also, I'd like to know under what conditions texts are usually included within a larger score. I remember reading that Mahler edited the text for his Resurrection symphony, even going so far as to add entire verses to the original. I think Beethoven did the same with Ode to Joy.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

There is a fantastic symphony by a composer named Reinhold Gliere of the Mahler scope, though entirely different that you may want to add to your list. Its a programmatic symphony, over 70 minutes long, composed the early teens of the 20th I think.

Also, you learn a tremendous amount about symphonic structure by paying careful attention to the Haydn symphonies and then you realize that Bruckner is just a wild and extended version of the same thing in many cases.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Kopachris said:


> ... listening to Mahler's entire body of works (18 hours) in one sitting while simultaneously reading about Mahler's life and each of his works.


Listening to all of Mahler's epic symphonies in one sitting is quite something, let alone simultaneously reading his biography. Good luck! Let us know what you manage to discover from this interesting endeavour.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

This is potentially a vast area, even if you narrow it down to (just) Mahler. Google books may be a good place to start, to at least read samples/extracts of books on him & others with a view to maybe purchasing them (if they're still in print?). A big "downside" to this service is that more often than not, the extracts in the hard-copy versions of the book of the scores are not provided/cut out. But at least you can read about the music & other things, if there is a substantial extract provided.

What this guy was talking about what he heard similarities between bits of Mahler's various symphonies here is basically spot on. I don't know all of Mahler's symphonies well, but even the few that I do know to any depth (from simply listening to them) is that he tends to refer back to ideas/fragments of earlier symphonies. With the first five symphonies - dubbed the "Wunderhorn" symphonies, named for that song-cycle of his - this can be complex, as there are many references between these symphonies (as well as that & his _Songs of a Wayfarer _written at the same time - eg. a number of themes from that song-cycle can easily be heard in his 1st symphony). In other words, to get your head around all of these cross-references (if you're interested in them?), it's a good idea (as you say) to listen to all of his works. They are all basically related in one way or another (I'm not sure though, that the earlier works are that way, eg. the _Klagend lied _or that chamber work with piano). All of his symphonies & song-cycles constitute one single big work, rather than strictly seperate works, imo (& most if not all would agree with that to more or less degree). The "borders" between them are porous, to say the least.

Another thing is to get your head around some of Mahler's contemporaries - Bruckner being the older one & his teacher for some period of time, as well as a younger guy whose music Mahler championed, Schoenberg. Speaking to that, here's a book I found on Google books that may be of value.

Another one that I remember reading, which explained all these cross-references & links within Bruckner's and Mahler's symphonies/works is an oldie but a goodie, still quite highly regarded as I understand -Redlich's seminal book on both these guys written around the 1950's. Some interesting insights in there from both their contemporaries, some of whom were still alive & kicking when it was written. & here'sa more recent book on Mahler only which might be a springboard, there are extracts provided of the text of this.

I do agree that listening to all of Mahler's works in one go seems to be overkill. They are such complex works, I personally find that even listening to one - esp. the longer ones - is not very easy, even if I'm doing it just to listen simply for pleasure. But it's your life, I guess, you do what you think is best & in any case, you can always come back to listen again if you want to discover more/other things.

& I also think that listening to the "biggies" in the symphonic realm like Beethoven (& also Mozart, Haydn & others after the "late Romantic" period) may give you valuable insights into the genre. Beethoven and the others really kicked things of regarding the symphony, they are seen as the greatest innovators in this field, it can be argued that what later generations of composers did/are doing is simply refining their ideas & adding bits & pieces to things that they already put down...


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Everything you need to know is in his scores


----------



## Curiosity (Jul 10, 2011)

I can barely get through a full movement from Mahler's symphonies. Not because they aren't good but because they are mentally exhausting to listen to. There's so much textural thickness that it can be very difficult to follow what's going on until you've listened for the umpteenth time.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Mahler's symphonies (and his life) require a "bit" more studying than a single swing-through, but I guess you already knew that. Personally, I would take a single Mahler symphony and listen to it and read about it until I start understanding it, then the next (actually, that's exactly what I have done), but, you do it your way, more power to you! Also, there's a lot of other great symphonists out there, one can never study too much. How about studying Nielsen, Sibelius, Schubert, Bruckner, Brahms, Schumann, Rachmaninov as well? They all have composed great symphonies. And there's also Saint-Saëns, Elgar, Franck... all top quality stuff. I don't know what books to recommend (I'm looking for good books on all of these guys, myself), but of course Wikipedia and Google are a good start... hmm... do I have a point here somewhere? I guess my point is: study, listen, study, listen, study, listen... "ora, lege, relege, labora et invenies!"


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Curiosity said:


> I can barely get through a full movement from Mahler's symphonies. Not because they aren't good but because *they are mentally exhausting to listen to*. There's so much textural thickness that it can be very difficult to follow what's going on until you've listened for the umpteenth time.


I think you are trying too hard. Just find one of his symphonies you like and let it wash over you.


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

Listening to all of Mahler in one sitting would certainly be (as others have said) quite a feat. I wouldn't want to do it - I love Mahler, but I think I'd just get worn out by such a sustained barrage of sound, and wouldn't be enjoying it anymore after getting through the first two or three symphonies back to back. But if you've got that kind of endurance, more power to you!

As far as reading materials, if you can get through Mahler's complete works all in a row, maybe you can also get through Henry-Louis de la Grange's _Mahler,_ which is definitely the most comprehensive source of information on his life. It's not something you can read for free online, but anything's free if you use the library! I love libraries.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

It seems to me that omitting Beethoven from a study of the symphony would be like disregarding the Roman Empire in a study of history or Shakespeare from a study of literature. I suppose it could be done.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Well, I never _explicitly_ excluded Beethoven's symphonies from my studies. I'll study them; I just don't really care to listen to them as much as I do Mahler or Tchaikovsky's symphonies. I'll also study (at least some of) Mozart and Haydn's symphonies.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Kopachris said:


> Well, I never _explicitly_ excluded Beethoven's symphonies from my studies. I'll study them; I just don't really care to listen to them as much as I do Mahler or Tchaikovsky's symphonies. I'll also study (at least some of) Mozart and Haydn's symphonies.


Well I suppose this is obvious, but as a composer, it's good to understand things in general & then hone in on what you are interested in with regards to what you want to achieve with your symphony, etc. People I know who have gone through conservatorium have studied a wide variety of things at the beginning, "specialising" as they go along. Eg. things like sonata form, counterpoint, harmony are a givens, as are (now, in 2011) things like serial techniques, Xenakis' computer/mathematics based things, non 12 note systems (eg. Harry Partch's microtonal theories/practices). It's all relevant, but at the end of the day, you have to decide which direction you will go as a composer using any of these techniques you deem relevant for your artistic expression...


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Hmm... it would probably also be good to study the differences between Mahler and Sibelius's symphonies.


----------

