Mahler's Das Lied: Symphony or Song Cycle?

[knight]

Val, Fair enough; however I am with M on this. Having said that, I don;t think it a subject ofer which I shall man the barricades.

Mike

[Godzillaviolist]

I find this whole discussion pointless. Mahler called Das Lied von der Erde a symphony, so that's what it is. Symphonie means nothing more dramatic than "sounding together", roughly in the sense of "sound piece", originally the instrumental opening piece in Italian operas as opposed to the vocal numbers following it. It then underwent the very substantial development you all know to emerge in the basic 4 movement layout of the typical classical symphony. That doesn't mean that anything which doesn't follow that layout exactly in number of movements or form isn't a symphony. It is the great composers who defined the forms a symphony could take, and some of them deviated more or less from earlier formal schemes and scoring conventions. That doesn't mean that they aren't "true" symphonies.

So basically, any peice which the composer titles a symphony, is a symphony? So how do you seperate the symphony from any other form of orchestral music?

[jochanaan]

Can you explain to me, as I cannot hear any, what are the connections between the movements of the 8th symphony?

How long have you got?

Clearest and most obvious to me is the way the opening theme, based on a three-note cell Eb,Bb,Ab, returns in triumph at the end in the antiphonal brass, after the chorus has sung their last chord.  Also, the motive for the first movement's "Accende lumen sensibus"--itself flowing from the same three-note cell--returns as the second movement's opening cello/bass pizzicato.

The next time you listen to M8, you might see just how many times and in how many ways that Eb/Bb/Ab cell is used.  I still don't think I've got them all!

[knight]

Thanks for this, I was genuinely asking rather than waving an opinion about. I will try to listen out for it. I have sung it quite a few times, but apart from anything else, it was always using part scores which make it EVEN less likely I would pick up on these connections.

Mike

[CyberStryke21]

I find this whole discussion pointless.

      Well do you really think there is a right or wrong answer? Do you really think that someone is going to be audacious enough to come out and say "'Das Lied' is a symphony, and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong" ? The point isn't to find the 'right' answer, the point is that it's a stimulus point for discussion. You can say what you want about how pointless the discussion is, but the thread is now four pages long (four pages of content even!), and you've contributed to it And I even learned something about Mahler and the "Curse of the 9th."

[CyberStryke21]

So basically, any peice which the composer titles a symphony, is a symphony? So how do you seperate the symphony from any other form of orchestral music?

      It's a point of contention. Take Berlioz for example - Symphonie Fantastique, Harold in Italy, Romeo and Juliet (the latter two are not titled symphony so far as I know, but are generally assumed to be) -  are these symphonies or dramatic tone poems? As often happens, we run into a wall of confusion - the wall between intended message, and percieved message.

[drogulus]

I find this whole discussion pointless. Mahler called Das Lied von der Erde a symphony, so that's what it is. Symphonie means nothing more dramatic than "sounding together", roughly in the sense of "sound piece", originally the instrumental opening piece in Italian operas as opposed to the vocal numbers following it.

      In other words, there's no point, and here's mine.

      The symphony is a category, not a well defined thing. The boundaries of the category can be very elastic, so as to include the one movement Harris 3rd which lasts about 18 minutes, as well as the Hovhaness St. Vartans (no.9) with 24 movements. The minimum necessary condition for a symphony would be an orchestra. That would be a good place to start. You can add singers and nontraditional instruments, but when you subtract the orchestra you subvert the meaning we are accustomed to. Therefore organ solo symphonies, and symphonies for electric guitar combos and such are probably out.

[jochanaan]

...The minimum necessary condition for a symphony would be an orchestra...

Hmmm...So Mendelssohn's String Symphonies aren't really symphonies?  Or Persichetti's Sixth Symphony or Hovhaness' 23rd, both for concert band?

If Johann Sebastian Bach can write a three-movement piece for one instrument and call it a concerto (the Italian Concerto for solo instrument and harpsichord), then I see no reason why, say, Widor's organ symphonies can't be called symphonies, although that is pushing the envelope a lot.

And of course, there's Lalo's Symphonie Espagnol, really a violin concerto.

[Calaf]

An orchestra is a group of musicians, playing at least two to a part with, I would suppose, a minimum of 4-5 parts.. They can be all winds, all strings, all brass. Therefore there can be string symphonies, or symphonies for winds or brass bands.

Mozart's Gran Partita certainly qualifies for that designation, but it is in the well-known and well-defined form of a Serenade. He wrote two works for the Haffner family, one he termed a symphony, the other a Serenade. In his miind (and those of his contemporaries), there was a clear difference between the two genres.

Such distinctions have gradually been challenged over the years, although Brahms and Dvorak kept them firmly on their own compositional agenda. Ultimately a composer can call his work a symphony even if it is very different from the traditional model of 3-4 movements, with winds, strings and brass. Just like those you mention. It doesn't follow that everybody will be of the same opinion. And why should it be so? Many composers have tinkered over their works' designations.

Sibelius wrote Tapiola right after his seventh symphony. He thought for a while of calling it his eight. He changed his mind for the familiar title. Maybe his real (never published) eight symphony was on his mind, so he calculated it would make it number -gasp-  nine! 

[knight]

Andre, I think I am correct in saying that the Sibelius Seventh is a single movement symphony. No one has so far challanged the catagory Sibelius chose for it. Would some people say Sibelius composed six symphonies? Surely not.

Mike

[drogulus]

Hmmm...So Mendelssohn's String Symphonies aren't really symphonies?  Or Persichetti's Sixth Symphony or Hovhaness' 23rd, both for concert band?

       You can be flexible about the orchestra. You just can't dispense with it altogether. There's William Schumans Symphony for Strings (no.5), for example. Since symphony is a category and not a thing you can make any allowances you want, within reason. String symphonies, chamber symphonies, wind symphonies might be like subspecies. 

[M forever]

You can also write a symphony for trombone and cowbells, if you like. Don't forget Schoenberg's chamber symphonies. I wanted to bring up Mendelssohn's wonderful string symphonies as an example for symphonies which don't use a full orchestra, but someone already did.

[val]

Symphony can have many meanings. Hildegard von Bingen in 1170 called one of her works "Symphonia armonie caelestium revelationum".

But the usual meaning refers to the kind of work initiated by composers such as Vivaldi, Sammartini, CPE Bach, WF Bach, JC Bach, Stamitz, then led to perfection by Haydn (in general with the use of a strong structure, based on the sonata form) and developped by Mozart, Beethoven and the romantics.
Even if the composer doesn't use the sonata form, I think that a composition is a Symphony, not only because of the title, if:
It is composed for several instruments, in order to avoid the confusion with chamber music.
Has any kind of unity between its movements, to avoid the confusion with a Suite.
Has an internal coherency and does not depend to external references to achieve its unity.

So, I would say that Harold in Italy is a Symphony, but I have great doubts about Romeo and Juliet.

To me a Symphony can have 2, 3, 4, 5 or more movements, (or even one in cases like Sibelius 7th or Schönberg first chamber Symphony: in both works there is an organic development that in fact reminds several movements): but they must be logical and have as reference the global work. It can not consist on a number of isolated pieces.

To me, works that are not called Symphonies, are in fact Symphonies: La Mer, Bartok's Music for strings, percussion and celesta, Alban Berg 3 Pieces opus 6, are very good examples.

On the other hand, "Symphonies" like Romeo and Juliet, Mahler's 8th, Das Lied von der Erde, Shostakovitch 14th, Berio Symphony are only Symphonies in title,  because they have not the minimum of conditions that characterized the real Symphonies.
The problem is not the use of voices or Choir. Is the fact that the work is structured not in itself but by the poems that are used in it. The use of some thematic figures is not enough to give that internal coherency.

[jochanaan]

Well, music is a fluid medium in which no definition goes unchallenged.  There are a lot of pieces for which we have to say, "I don't know what it is, but it's wonderful!"   DLvdE is one such; there are many more.

[drogulus]

On the other hand, "Symphonies" like Romeo and Juliet, Mahler's 8th, Das Lied von der Erde, Shostakovitch 14th, Berio Symphony are only Symphonies in title,  because they have not the minimum of conditions that characterized the real Symphonies.
The problem is not the use of voices or Choir. Is the fact that the work is structured not in itself but by the poems that are used in it. The use of some thematic figures is not enough to give that internal coherency.

      That's a strong definition, a little too strong for me. Any program determining structure would likewise invalidate the symphonic designation. You would exclude many works, for example Vaughan Williams Sinfonia Antartica, or Strauss' Sinfonia Domestica or Ein Alpensinfonie.  But if you want a strict definition, you can defend that.