Writing Symphonies

[ZacPB189]

Wow!!! Lots of replies!!!!

emeraldimp: I mean if you completed it and were satisfied... so probably not (unless the 1st moveent is also the LAST movement etc...)

Vivaldi: I'm a HUGE Mahler/Bruckner disiple (and anti-Brahms) and I'm pretty flexible with the general idea of the symphony (esp. size of the orch.). Sinfoniettas don't really count (I have 2 and didn't count them).

Yagan Kiely: When I wrote my 2nd, by Band teachers (I wrote that one in Middle School, (I'm a Junior in HS right now starting 2nd Sept.)) insisted on me calling it Bassoon Concerto (it was scored for Bssn, Timp, Vlns, Vlas, Vcs), but I was playing with the early form use around Haydn's time, not writing diologues between the strings/timp and bassoon. There are also numerous "Organ Symphonies" out there (not including Saint-Seans 3rd). I think the Trombone/Soprano thing counts.

jsnfmn: I agree. A symphony is a personal statement. Ustvolskaya's fourth symphony isn't how I would score a symphony, but it works. I'm a ATTACK OF THE OVER SIZED ORCHESTRA kinda person.

(I intended the upper part to be written about a week ago but I couldn't post it so I copy/pasted it in a text file until I could...)

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

As for the rest of the long trechourous discussion:

Isn't the Manfred Symphony number Tchaikovsky's 4th anyway?

Das Lied von Die Erde is a symphony, and so are Das Klagende Lied, Kindertotenlieder, Songs of a Wayfarer, and the Das Knaben Wunderhorn Cycle...

I just meant numbered ones for this perticular topic though.

[Lyle Neff]

If a symphony is a piece of music that makes a personal statement, then practically ANY piece of music can be called a symphony.

That's simply not a criterion that holds up for characterizing the genre of "symphony." It's comparable to calling any piece of music a "song," even if it doesn't have vocal parts.

[jsnfmn]

I think I'll try one more time to explain how I think of this, though I probably shouldn't be writing things like this before falling asleep. Oh well, here goes.

For me, and when I study other composers this seems to be a widespread idea, if I am going to call a piece that I am writing a Symphony, it will at that time be some kind of culmination of my musical thinking, a substantial statement of my own musical thoughts at that point in time. When you look at the symphonies within a composers output, it at least appears to me that they tend to be if not the masterpieces of their oeuvre, at least the attempt at one. This is why I do not see the point of trying to tie down the definition to anything specific as this conglomeration of ideas is going to be different for every composer. It is not usually not going to be wildly different as we all have an inordinate number of shared experiences, and even those who try to write something just to be "different" and then call it a symphony are still tethered to the mass cultural definition, except instead of accepting it, integrating it, they have chosen to stand against it. I don't think this point was lost on Ustvolskaya in writing her later symphonies, in fact I think that this is a very important part of listening to them. I also don't think that this even remotely could be described as the destruction of the term; if the definition did not exist anymore, the entire point of opposing it would be lost.

I also believe that there may be some confusion here as many ensembles have both Symphony and Orchestra in their titles, sometimes going as far as omitting one or the other as a kind of shorthand. I have always thought that orchestra was the half of that phrase that was more denotative of the usual winds, brass, percussion and string group that is being talked about in this thread. Whereas symphony only ever meant things that sound together, in this case, an orchestra.

Here we can go back in time to early 20th century Webster (1913 to be exact) definitions, though dictionary's are by no means authoritative:

1. A consonance or harmony of sounds, agreeable to the ear, whether the sounds are vocal or instrumental, or both. (this is how I tend to think of it)
2. A stringed instrument formerly in use, somewhat resembling the virginal. (not applicable here obviously)
3. (Mus.) (a) An elaborate instrumental composition for a full orchestra, consisting usually, like the sonata, of three or four contrasted yet inwardly related movements, as the allegro, the adagio, the minuet and trio, or scherzo, and the finale in quick time. The term has recently been applied to large orchestral works in freer form, with arguments or programmes to explain their meaning, such as the "symphonic poems" of Liszt. The term was formerly applied to any composition for an orchestra, as overtures, etc., and still earlier, to certain compositions partly vocal, partly instrumental. (3b is again not very applicable to our conversation and ending the definition with this sentence gives a wonderful Ouroboros-like structure to it).

It is definitions like this that I can't stand though, even if they do help me make a point. There is much more meaning to each of us in the word symphony than could ever be contained in a few paragraphs of other words each with their own rich meanings, and that is exactly why it is so hard to state the real meanings of words as we each think of them. Such a definition would consist of every instance of that word that you have experienced in your lifetime, including the times where you felt it was used inappropriately, properly framed in its physical and temporal context; within your life how you had experienced that word previously and how you expected at that point in time to use it in the future. Such a thing would obviously be impossible, which is why we resort to things like dictionary's, but don't for a minute believe that a dictionary definition makes a word what it is, you're the one who does that.

I hope some of that makes sense to at least some people out there as I tend to drop entire words when I am typing quickly while half asleep. I ask not for agreement, only amiable argument!

So, in summary: A Symphony Orchestra is both a Symphony and an Orchestra. Discuss.

[Yagan Kiely]

or me, and when I study other composers this seems to be a widespread idea, if I am going to call a piece that I am writing a Symphony, it will at that time be some kind of culmination of my musical thinking, a substantial statement of my own musical thoughts at that point in time. When you look at the symphonies within a composers output, it at least appears to me that they tend to be if not the masterpieces of their oeuvre, at least the attempt at one.[/quote]But that is not their definition, and that is certainly not the reason that they called it a symphony.

I also don't think that this even remotely could be described as the destruction of the term; if the definition did not exist anymore, the entire point of opposing it would be lost.

If a definition does not exist, the word is not a word. The only singular point of language is to communicate, getting rid of meaning, means the word communicates nothing. Doing so is destroying the word.

It is definitions like this that I can't stand though, even if they do help me make a point. There is much more meaning to each of us in the word symphony than could ever be contained in a few paragraphs of other words each with their own rich meanings, and that is exactly why it is so hard to state the real meanings of words as we each think of them.

Every article in every dictionary is a generalisation. What do you want them to say? Your definition fails to define the overwhelmingly large majority of symphonies, and also defines Wagner's operas as Symphonies, Chopin's piano pieces as Symphonies - none of which were.

I ask not for agreement, only amiable argument!

Oh please, you were the one throwing ad hominem attacks around.

Such a thing would obviously be impossible, which is why we resort to things like dictionary's, but don't for a minute believe that a dictionary definition makes a word what it is, you're the one who does that.

Of course a dictionary doesn't make a word, history does, evolution does, but a dictionary is a (if current) generalisation of the current meaning of the word. Generally, that definition of a symphony was correct (at least at it's time). Mahler didn't name his symphonies as 'symphonies' because "A symphony must be like the world. It must embrace everything." but described his symphonies are like that.

If a symphony is a piece of music that makes a personal statement, then practically ANY piece of music can be called a symphony.

And we already have a name for that 'piece'. When something has no meaning it also fails at being a personal statement. If every word in the English language was a personal statement, no-one would understand anyone, because no words would communicate a general meaning. Language needs everyone to have a general understanding of a word, otherwise it falls apart.

[jsnfmn]

If a definition does not exist, the word is not a word. The only singular point of language is to communicate, getting rid of meaning, means the word communicates nothing. Doing so is destroying the word.

Why do you keep insisting that I am saying to get rid of meaning? Have you actually read my posts all the way through? It is very frustrating that your arguments keep hinging on me saying things that I have not which is why I waited for some other posts before I posted again.

Your definition fails to define the overwhelmingly large majority of symphonies, and also defines Wagner's operas as Symphonies, Chopin's piano pieces as Symphonies - none of which were.

Actually, it doesn't define those as symphonies for the very simple reason that they, the composers themselves, did not call them symphonies.

Mahler didn't name his symphonies as 'symphonies' because "A symphony must be like the world. It must embrace everything." but described his symphonies are like that.

Your grammar here is a little too confusing here for me to make out what you are saying, if you could edit for clarity that would be helpful.

I am quite familiar with the Mahler quote which I find apt here as I have always felt that many people misinterpret this quote, they take it too literally. Mahler was at his compositional height at the same time as Freud was beginning to reach his. I don't know remember if Mahler made that quote before or after he saw Freud, but I have always felt he was talking more about his own inner world. Not to mention that so many composers disagreed with Mahler's characterization, especially Sibelius. I believe the quote was supposed to have come from a conversation he had with Sibelius even. There was an interesting article in The Atlantic several years back that has an interesting take on this:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98dec/mahler.htm

The relevant portion is near the end of article, but if you're at all interested in his 10th Symphony, there's some good stuff here.

A bit of a tangent there, but oh well. Anyways, I don't think more recent dictionary entries will save us here, just take a look here:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/symphony

Some terrible definitions here, and a ridiculous range of concept. There are quite a few definitions that would support just about any way you could want to define the term, some of the more specific ones almost stupidly disqualify half the symphonies written in the past 100 years simply by specifying the number of movements. The Etymology Dictionary entry is interesting though, I had no idea that "symphony orchestra" was of such recent vintage.[/quote]

[jsnfmn]

Sorry to post again so soon, but I wanted to add what I think is an interesting comparison for this subject, and since I already brought up Sibelius, or more properly Mr. Kiegen did by quoting Mahler, I thought it would be appropriate.

Let's take two works of Sibelius, his last Symphony, No.7 and his last orchestral work, Tapiola. Both works are in one continuous movement, though with several changes in tempo. Tapiola usually lasts about 16-17 minutes, the Symphony somewhere around 20 minutes. They both seem to hover constantly around their home keys, this seeming to tie them together even more so than the constant development of very small thematic fragments. So, why did Sibelius call one a Symphony and give another a title placing it in the Tone Poem category? Did he feel the Symphony was the more dramatic or complete statement? If anything the he felt that Tapiola was the more traditional of the two, even going so far as to claim that it was "in strict sonata form." So, what can we learn about Sibelius, about the symphony, and about music in general from Sibelius' choice of title?

Now, it is this discussion that I would have liked to have had about the Ustvolskaya. She is trying to say something with her choice of title. Mr. Kiely, I never wanted to imply that you were dismissing her "music" per se (I don't think you ever mentioned if you had listened to the piece anways), but I do think that dismissing her choice of title is in fact dismissing a salient part of the music as a whole. I think we would all agree that finding an appropriate title for a piece we have written is an important part of the process of composition as a whole, sometimes even an agonizing one. As such, I think that we should respect that choice in the works of others, and in turn use it to inform ourselves.

[Yagan Kiely]

Why do you keep insisting that I am saying to get rid of meaning?

Because if the deffinition is different (at least possibly) for every indivudual, there is no possibility of communicating meaning, which is effectively meaningless.

Have you actually read my posts all the way through?

Please stop being aggressive.

It is very frustrating that your arguments keep hinging on me saying things that I have not which is why I waited for some other posts before I posted again.

You haven't said it, but what you have said only have one possible outcome: lack of meaning.

Actually, it doesn't define those as symphonies for the very simple reason that they, the composers themselves, did not call them symphonies.

You actually did, let me quote your own words for you:

"I would currently, personally define the term "Symphony" as a significant musical statement, nothing more, nothing less."

Under this definition, the works I quoted can easily be a symphony.

Your grammar here is a little too confusing here for me to make out what you are saying, if you could edit for clarity that would be helpful.

Much like the typos in your posts, I work my way around the one word error.

"Mahler didn't name his symphonies as 'symphonies' because "A symphony must be like the world. It must embrace everything." but described his symphonies as that."

Some terrible definitions here, and a ridiculous range of concept. There are quite a few definitions that would support just about any way you could want to define the term, some of the more specific ones almost stupidly disqualify half the symphonies written in the past 100 years simply by specifying the number of movements. The Etymology Dictionary entry is interesting though, I had no idea that "symphony orchestra" was of such recent vintage.

I agree, they do omit a few symphonies, but only if you actually take them literally (as opposed to accurately). They are still much more helpful than a 'definition' that could mean absolutely anything under the sun, which is ipso facto, meaningless.

[jsnfmn]

Under this definition, the works I quoted can easily be a symphony.

Did you miss that I said personally? I did not write Wagner's operas or Chopin's piano pieces, which is why I did not give them their titles. Had I written them though, and had I felt them to be in line with my thoughts on the Symphony, I don't see why I couldn't give them that title. Having said that, I still probably wouldn't give them a symphonic title.

Much like the typos in your posts, I work my way around the one word error.

"Mahler didn't name his symphonies as 'symphonies' because "A symphony must be like the world. It must embrace everything." but described his symphonies as that."

This still doesn't make much sense, though I think I get your meaning a little bit better. This quote came from a meeting between Sibelius and Mahler where they supposedly talking about what we are talking about here, what a symphony is. Are you saying that Mahler was not thinking about this when he was writing his symphonies? That this was only an after the fact characterization? If so, I'll have to again disagree. Maybe if he hadn't written any symphonies at the point that made that quote, you might be on to something. But even then, I would think that we would be rather more interested in how composers thought of the symphony, rather than interested observers. At least, I find that more interesting.

Personally, I don't fine the definitions in all of those dictionary's helpful at all. Sure they may give a decent approximation of the word to someone who is completely unfamiliar with it, or only has a very vague idea of it. But the symphonies themselves are far more instructive in this regard and should be our starting point. Which is why the Ustvolskaya pieces are so important to our conversation. We should be giving the composer the benefit of the doubt that they meant something when they gave a piece the title of Symphony, and not dismiss that simply because it does not fit a narrow dictionary-like definition.

[Yagan Kiely]

Did you miss that I said personally? I did not write Wagner's operas or Chopin's piano pieces, which is why I did not give them their titles. Had I written them though, and had I felt them to be in line with my thoughts on the Symphony, I don't see why I couldn't give them that title. Having said that, I still probably wouldn't give them a symphonic title.

Did you miss that I said your definition? Or was that someone else's definition?

Are you saying that Mahler was not thinking about this when he was writing his symphonies?

I am saying that what he said, did not come into consideration when naming his symphony a 'symphony'. Hell, he could've called it a piano concerto if he wanted to eh?

Personally, I don't fine the definitions in all of those dictionary's helpful at all. Sure they may give a decent approximation of the word to someone who is completely unfamiliar with it, or only has a very vague idea of it.

So you would rather a dictionary only define things for those who already know what it is? Why do you criticise a dictionary's definition and then say it's for those only unfamiliar with it?

But the symphonies themselves are far more instructive in this regard and should be our starting point. Which is why the Ustvolskaya pieces are so important to our conversation

Why is the utmost minority oh so important?

We should be giving the composer the benefit of the doubt that they meant something when they gave a piece the title of Symphony, and not dismiss that simply because it does not fit a narrow dictionary-like definition.

Why are you putting words into my mouth so often? I'd like you not to from now on.

What ever they mean isn't communicating anything, because it means nothing when everyone has a different meaning.

When did I say that I follow a 'narrow dictionary-like definition'? Please quote me. I follow a even more generalised definition than the dictionary, and agree it is often poor*, but I don't follow a definition that has no meaning; I don't follow a definition that allows any piece ever composed to theoretically be called a symphony. I also follow the evolution of words, symphony could easily be something different in, say, 50 years (strange it hasn't changed in 200... for an overwhelming majority at any rate {but obviously they aren't important}), but it will change slowly (that's how evolution works) change, and not suddenly change to 'anything'.

*While it is poor, it, however, does give a definition that differs it from other words in the dictionary.

[jsnfmn]

All right, enough of this, I think I am going to start a new thread as this one just doesn't seem to be going anywhere, at least not anywhere that I would like to be. I am just not interested in whether it is right or wrong to name some piece a symphony. I am however interested in why a composer chose to name it that.

I am also tired of having to defend some very well-worn ideas about the philosophy of language. I have said nothing new here and most of it certainly isn't original to me, I have a wide variety of people from Wittgenstein to Hofstedter to thank for that. I never thought I would need to spend reams of internet bits trying to explain and defend these things, especially when it has very little to do with the conversation I was trying to jump start here in the first place.

[sbeckmesser]

Stravinsky called a short (10 minutes) but very great piece "Symphonies of Winds" (note the plural). It has only wind instruments.
Stravinsky wrote a longer but ever greater piece "Symphony of Psalms". Its "orchestra" lacks violins and includes a chorus (including children, a directive usually ignored).
Webern's Symphony Op.21 is extremely short (less than 200 measures) and also takes around 10 minutes to perform. It is minimally scored: clarinet, bass clarinet, 2 horns, harp and strings.

A symphony is a symphony when a composer says it is, regardless of duration or scoring. These two composers designated these pieces as symphonies deliberately to connect them with the great Symphonic Tradition which started with short, often minimally scored Baroque-era operatic sinfonias/overtures. It is probably the same connect-to-tradition impulse that motivated the designation of Vierne's Symphonies for solo organ.

--Sixtus

[KGill]

Well, the title of the Stravinsky you gave as an example actually was supposed to mean 'harmonious/consonant/nice/together sounds', one of the other (more obscure) definitions of the word. (Unfortunately, not having heard the piece, I can't tell you whether or not he actually sticks to this.) However, point taken.

[sbeckmesser]

Precisely. Stravinsky was connecting his work to the beginning of the Symphonic Tradition, as in the operatic "sinfonias" one might find in early Baroque opera (around 1600), which meant precisely the same thing (the Symphony, as it is commonly understood, wasn't invented for another 150 years or so). Webern, for his part was connecting his symphony to the early 20th century end of that same tradition and it can be seen as a 12-tone follow-on to the works of Mahler.

--Sixtus

[Lyle Neff]

The term "symphony" has been used for non-orchestral music, well before the opera/oratorio sinfonia, and well outside of the standard genre for orchestra (with or without voices).

At least one medieval treatise discussing organum applies this term to that music. And there are, of course, the Symphoniae sacrae from the early baroque -- featuring voices, of course, for church music.

Also, let us not forget that Bach's so-called "Three-Part Inventions" were labeled by the composer as sinfonias.

[Yagan Kiely]

A symphony is a symphony when a composer says it is, regardless of duration or scoring.

My main point is this: If anything can be called a 'car', the word 'car' loses all meaning. If any piece of music can be called a 'symphony' the word 'symphony' now carries no descriptive (or otherwise) meaning at all. The only purpose of words is to communicate, the loss of meaning means we cannot communicate effectively.