Non-Symphonist Symphonies

[The new erato]

To further stump for Rota's symphonies, I went and located YouTube snippets from his opening of his First http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdDVMFzKfJE and the complete scherzo of his Second http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVJSY7K7wb8
Sadly, the performances (especially of the First, which can soar in the right hands) aren't nearly as good as the recording with the Japan Philharmonic Symphony Orchestra under Naoto Otomo on the Japanese label Firebird... but that CD is very out of print: http://www.amazon.com/Nino-Rota-Symphony-Collection-1911-1979/dp/B000I6P1ZU

Tha Chandos disc of the Rota symphonies is absolutely wonderful and one of my finds of last year.

[Florestan]

Max Bruch, known especially for his violin concertos, also composed three symphonies, the second being particularly lovely IMO.

[asin]B000007OTH[/asin]

[listener]

and
GOLDMARK   "Rustic Wedding"  - very nice
PFITZNER  in C op. 46
PADEREWSKI   "Polonia" Symphony
SULLIVAN  "Irish"
CHERUBINI in D
a couple by DOHNANYI
and one by Marcel DUPRÉ

[Luke]

The term "symphony" has many connotations, and a lot of baggage .. I wouldn't get too hung up on it, I'd rather focus on the music first, and not even worry about categorical things or pigeonholing musicians.

One of those special, tresurable ocassions where I agree with James completely! (as I hinted at on another thread recently) But OTOH, although I don't think 'symphony' is a term that ought to be valued above all others, as some seem to (it's implied in many posts round here), the term is nevertheless a very special one, and 'symphonic thought,' to my mind, is something special too, and distinct from 'composign a symphony.' Therefore, to me (and I stress, this is only my own internal reaction to things) there are composers of symphonies - a large group - and there are composers to whom symphonic thinking is their natural mode of speech - a much smaller one. I can envisage a composer of only one symphony who is a more natural symphonist than a composer a twenty (though IRL I can't think of any examples). To me, Havergal Brian is the exemplar par excellence of symphonic thought - once he started writing symphonies, he never stopped, having found his natural way of expressing himself, and despite the fact that no two symphonies follow the same formal scheme, despite the fact that some of them are a million miles from the traditional symphony, they all have a type of internal logic which is utterly symphonic. The 8th, for instance, despite being in one movement, with two concluding passacaglias and not a vestige of traditional symphonic form, is nevertheless deeply symphonic in much more profound ways - it recreates the form from the inside and is one of the most symphonic symphonies I know...

Ramble over, I have to get back to work...

Lethe's interesting post (below) also discussed this issue of symphonism

This subject interests me and I'm glad somebody brought it up. I noticed the problems with the "symphonist" designation from using last.fm. I used the "symphonist" tag for composers of at least one or two major works, but it was hard to know where to draw the line. Elgar easily made the cut, despite only writing 2.5, because of their prominence. Walton too. Rimsky also made it for me, simply by dint of writing three which vaguely resembled Scheherazade. Without Scheherazade's popularity, I may not have included him. Boccherini is a major symphonist of his period - I think that current perceptions should be ignored in the face of clear facts - during his time his symphonies were very notable works.

The non-symphoniest brigade doesn't only have to contain writers of student works (Grieg, Wagner, Smetana, Suk) - Marx's solitary Herbstsymphonie is superb, as is Hausegger's Natursymphonie. Korngold's is a masterpiece in its style, as is Bliss's A Colour Symphony, Eisler's Deutsche Sinfonie, Goldmark's Rustic Wedding Symphony (he wrote two, but I don't really think of him as a symphonist - or anything, really, just a writer of quality curiosities) as well. Despite the quality of these works, I would not consider any of them to be a "symphonist".

Koechlin wrote many but it's hard to think of him as a symphonist due to how eclectic they are, and how arbritrary the designation can seem.

Edit: More strangeness: somebody like Friedrich Gernsheim who wrote four numbered works in the Brahms mould I would easily consider a symphonist, and yet I would consider every one of his symphonies inferior to the works included on my list of non-symphonist symphonies.

[Grazioso]

No, the Symphony in E flat is a much different composition.  And I had forgotten the Symphony for Band!  It's a very fine piece too.  It's surprising that Hindemith's symphonic output isn't better-known, most especially the E flat Symphony--a genuine masterpiece but very seldom performed or recorded; I only know of the Bernstein recording...A worthy piece.  If anything, I like the two middle movements better than the outer ones.  The second is a lovely aria for flute, and the Scherzo rocks!

Another vote for the symphony in E flat, probably my favorite of Hindemith's essays in the genre. You can find recordings--good ones, at that--of all his symphonies in this box set:

But OTOH, although I don't think 'symphony' is a term that ought to be valued above all others, as some seem to (it's implied in many posts round here), the term is nevertheless a very special one, and 'symphonic thought,' to my mind, is something special too, and distinct from 'composign a symphony.' Therefore, to me (and I stress, this is only my own internal reaction to things) there are composers of symphonies - a large group - and there are composers to whom symphonic thinking is their natural mode of speech - a much smaller one. I can envisage a composer of only one symphony who is a more natural symphonist than a composer a twenty (though IRL I can't think of any examples).

Yes, labels can distract, but "symphony" does carry special weight in the classical world, it being, along with the string quartet and opera, one of the "prestige" genres, wherein composers are expected to get in the ring with all the heavyweights of the past and show what they can do in an extended form when they're really serious. I take your point about symphonic thinking being distinct. Not everyone thinks like, e.g., Beethoven, who, for better or worse, pretty much defined what a symphony should be for generations of subsequent composers. One thing I like about the genre, though, is that it can contain multitudes: witness the aforementioned "Antar" of Rimsky-Korsakov, more like a four-movement rhapsody or suite.

[mc ukrneal]

Yes, labels can distract, but "symphony" does carry special weight in the classical world, it being, along with the string quartet and opera, one of the "prestige" genres, wherein composers are expected to get in the ring with all the heavyweights of the past and show what they can do in an extended form when they're really serious. I take your point about symphonic thinking being distinct. Not everyone thinks like, e.g., Beethoven, who, for better or worse, pretty much defined what a symphony should be for generations of subsequent composers. One thing I like about the genre, though, is that it can contain multitudes: witness the aforementioned "Antar" of Rimsky-Korsakov, more like a four-movement rhapsody or suite.

Interesting. I never thought this way. For me, a symphony, tone poem, choral piece, sonata, quartet, concerto, operetta, and all the many other categories, all hold equal weight. I've never thought of a symphony as a 'prestige' genre, but having considered it, I can see in retrospect that many do. I feel much more sympathy towards Luke's way of thinking, where symphonic writing is something that can be identified even if one doesn't write symphonies or makes symphonies in less than typical 'symphonic' structures. I also don't see why the genre should be be a 'prestige' one (or any genre should be for that matter).

This does help explain why composers of operettas and light music have a harder time gaining the respect I feel they do not always receive. Maybe it's like comedies and dramas with the Academy Awards - where comedies are somehow seen as less worthy or 'easier' than dramas (another opinion I do not share). It's an analogy that strikes home for me.

[Bulldog]

Yes, labels can distract, but "symphony" does carry special weight in the classical world, it being, along with the string quartet and opera, one of the "prestige" genres, wherein composers are expected to get in the ring with all the heavyweights of the past and show what they can do in an extended form when they're really serious.

Interesting - prestige genres.  Well, this type of labeling can only stick if enough folks follow the herd.  Once we get beyond labeling for purposes of identification, it's all bull.

[Bulldog]

Interesting. I never thought this way. For me, a symphony, tone poem, choral piece, sonata, quartet, concerto, operetta, and all the many other categories, all hold equal weight.

Now that's a fair minded appraisal of the situation.

[Florestan]

I'll have Winterreise over the most prestigious Parsifal any time of the day and night. 

(Just saying and running away)

[mc ukrneal]

I'll have Winterreise over the most prestigious Parsifal any time of the day and night. 

(Just saying and running away)

But in your humor, you bring up an interesting issue. Many people often choose a small, short work and compare it to long pieces (usually with the implication that they are deeper and say more). I'm especially thinking of poor Fur Elise when I write this.  I don't feel such comparisons help much, but as I think of it, it helps explain some of the thinking discussed above.

[Florestan]

But in your humor, you bring up an interesting issue. Many people often choose a small, short work and compare it to long pieces (usually with the implication that they are deeper and say more). I'm especially thinking of poor Fur Elise when I write this.  I don't feel such comparisons help much, but as I think of it, it helps explain some of the thinking discussed above.

Well, certainly comparing Fuer Elise with the Emperor Concerto is as pointless as comparing Winterreise with Parsifal. 

[jowcol]

E. J. Moeran-- wrote only one symphony, but it may well be my favorite of the 20th century British symphonies-- but the competition for the number one slot is definitely crowded in my head.  Certainly, it's my favorite work of his, but he wasn't too prolific.

[Mirror Image]

There are many composers who wrote symphonies, but the term symphonist isn't applied to them for whatever reasons, here are a few that I've thought about:

Rawsthorne - composed three wonderful symphonies, but are often overlooked in favor of his concerti and chamber works

Enescu - composed, like Rawsthorne, three symphonies, but they're not acknowledged as his Romanian Rhapsodies

Part - composed four symphonies with the third being acknowledged as one of his masterpieces, he's not often associated with the symphony

Schoenberg - Chamber Symphonies Nos. 1 & 2

Milhaud - composed twelve symphonies, but was never recognized as a symphonist due to his prolific output where his more jazz-influenced works were more popular

Berg - this could be debated, but I read somewhere when he was composing the symphonic adaptation of his opera Lulu, he had wanted to title it Lulu Symphony

Ives - as mentioned earlier, he's hardly ever thought of as a symphonist, but he composed five (if you include the Holidays Symphony) amazing symphonies

Stravinsky - composed four works with symphony in the title, but never recognized as a symphonist

Adams - composed his Doctor Atomic Symphony, but Naive & Sentimental Music could be considered a symphony in all but a name

Szymanowski - composed four symphonies, but is hardly recognized as a great symphonist, I think, however, that the third and fourth symphonies are masterpieces

Bernstein - not often associated with the symphony because of his more popular works, but composed three symphonies with Symphony No. 1 "Jeremiah" and Symphony No. 2 "Age of Anxiety" being my favorites

Villa-Lobos - like Milhaud, composed twelve symphonies, but isn't recognized as a symphonist, he composed some fine works in this genre, especially Symphonies Nos. 4, 6, 10, & 11

[Florestan]

Well, certainly comparing Fuer Elise with the Emperor Concerto is as pointless as comparing Winterreise with Parsifal. 

Although in the former case a comparison can be made: Schubert created a compelling drama with a piano, a voice and 30 minutes of music, while Wagner had to recourse to countless voices and instruments for 4 consecutive nights to do the same. 

[Luke]

Re the 'prestige' tag that is applied to the symphony genre - it's certainly existant, but it's not necessarily desirable, and can be destructive, I think. if the composer doens't want his piece to be thought of as an entry into the dusty hallowed halls of symphonism... (I exaggerate for emphasis). So the reason, I think, that so many symphonies in the last century have had what are essentially unnecessary titular aditions - in Three Movements, in C, in F (etc. etc.) - is so that the pieces don't become part of some solemn, weighty procession of Numbered Symphonies (Stravinksy's Symphony no. 3 does sound a little wrong, I think!) but are viewed on their own individual merits.

[The new erato]

Although in the former case a comparison can be made: Schubert created a compelling drama with a piano, a voice and 30 minutes of music, while Wagner had to recourse to countless voices and instruments for 4 consecutive nights to do the same. 

Parsifal doesn't run over 4 nights, it only seems so. More - and better - drama in Erlkønig I think.

[Grazioso]

Re the 'prestige' tag that is applied to the symphony genre - it's certainly existant, but it's not necessarily desirable, and can be destructive, I think. if the composer doens't want his piece to be thought of as an entry into the dusty hallowed halls of symphonism... (I exaggerate for emphasis). So the reason, I think, that so many symphonies in the last century have had what are essentially unnecessary titular aditions - in Three Movements, in C, in F (etc. etc.) - is so that the pieces don't become part of some solemn, weighty procession of Numbered Symphonies (Stravinksy's Symphony no. 3 does sound a little wrong, I think!) but are viewed on their own individual merits.

Apparently among many of the avant-gardists of the early to mid century, the symphony was considered a dead or moribund genre. How many of the Darmstadt School bothered with it? (There are some 12-tone symphonies, but not many that have captured widespread attention.) Perhaps the addition of extra descriptive terms was for some a hedge, or a way around that academic orthodoxy.

"People who write symphonies usually do it because they feel able to: a lot of those who don't feel able tell everyone else the symphony is dead...there may be exhausted symphonies and exhausted composers, but the response to a challenge to one's capacity for large-scale organization and development--that can only be exhausted in individuals." --Robert Simpson

Perhaps for some the feelings Brahms had while gestating his first symphony were only exacerbated in the 20th century: "You have no idea how someone like me feels when he constantly hears a giant marching behind him." Because now it was not just Beethoven, but also Brahms, Bruckner, Mahler, Sibelius, etc. towering over the landscape. Let's see who has the guts to write a symphony in the face of that pantheon.

Either way, I'm not sure the prestige traditionally attached to the symphony is a bad thing to be rejected. It's helpful to have a large-scale genre where the expectations and stakes are very high.

[Grazioso]

But in your humor, you bring up an interesting issue. Many people often choose a small, short work and compare it to long pieces (usually with the implication that they are deeper and say more). I'm especially thinking of poor Fur Elise when I write this.  I don't feel such comparisons help much, but as I think of it, it helps explain some of the thinking discussed above.

Depth isn't directly proportional to length or scale, but longer, larger works do require fecundity of imagination to generate enough thematic material, as well as the skill to build and modulate dramatic tension over the long haul in a way that's clear and logical.

[Lethevich]

Yes, labels can distract, but "symphony" does carry special weight in the classical world, it being, along with the string quartet and opera, one of the "prestige" genres, wherein composers are expected to get in the ring with all the heavyweights of the past and show what they can do in an extended form when they're really serious.

I fully agree with this. There is a reason that Bartók, Shostakovich, Simpson, Martinů, Holmboe and many more chose to write clear "cycles" of string quartets, with no other chamber format they wrote in coming close in number - they saw the medium as a kind of proving ground, and also a particularly fertile way to explore the process of invention - the SQ apparently is one of the hardest chamber forms to compose for in terms of balancing and integrating every instrument into the musical tapestry.

Luke's mention of Havergal Brian comes close to the heart of the matter. Here is a composer who viewed the medium not only as a designation for a large orchestral work, but as a means of charting his process towards an elusive final goal through which he refines, develops and sometimes changes his mind on what constitutes a symphony through his own sense of the aesthetic. A composer who puts this much thought, time and feeling into his symphonies is clearly a symphonist.

But for instance, is a composer - such as, say, Martinů or Milhaud - with an output of wider scope equally as committed to this manner of thought in his writing, or do they simply write a symphony because this is the form that arbitrarily comes to mind when they set themselves their current compositional challenge? For example, regardless of the brilliance of Martinů's symphonies, does he ally himself with this concept as strongly as, say, Holmboe or Vaughan Williams? I'm not sure whether it's just a question of number, as Brahms is a total symphonist - he viewed this as a high means of expression and developed it with great precision from his first to fourth.

BTW, if over-thinking like this disgruntles you in some way, then ignore it. I like it. (Pre empting an inevitable "it's all good music, why bother" comment )

[Luke]

Lethe posted whilst I wrote this - I agree with what she has to say completely.

Apparently among many of the avant-gardists of the early to mid century, the symphony was considered a dead or moribund genre. How many of the Darmstadt School bothered with it? (There are some 12-tone symphonies, but not many that have captured widespread attention.) Perhaps the addition of extra descriptive terms was for some a hedge, or a way around that academic orthodoxy.

I think the 12-tone symphony never really took off because its hard to find a huge amount of common ground between the two principles, like the 12-tone sonata (despite many and obvious honourable exceptions). And then of course there was also that specifically post-war (italics deliberate) avant-garde rejection of the old, especially in France, never the most symphonic of countries in the first place. But the 'hedging' around with pointless titular appendages I think is a different issue. When Stravinsky calls his symphony Symphony in Three Movements, there's absolutely no need to do so (Mozart doesn't with the Prague; Dvorak doesn't with his Third etc). He is clearly simply uncomfy with the idea of calling 'Symphony' a piece which is certainly a Symphony, pur sang. And - here's the point - that wasn't because he was shy of the 'dead' traditional forms, nor of calling his pieces by those names - he wrote concerti, sonatas, octets, septets, serenades, you name it. He'd have been the last to say that these forms or the symphony were dead. But, nevertheless, he clearly shied away from the name 'symphony', and only from that. I'm sure that this is because of the - well, call it what you want: prestige, whatever, but I think there's something more, there's something about a capital S Symphony which implies cycles, comparisons, collections, bulk, weight, baggage, importance, profundity, etc which flows over the boundaries of the piece itself and possible hinder it from simply being a piece of music. That's not something you get with sonatas or quartets, even, I think. By the simple expedient of the titular alteration, he avoided this.

"People who write symphonies usually do it because they feel able to: a lot of those who don't feel able tell everyone else the symphony is dead...there may be exhausted symphonies and exhausted composers, but the response to a challenge to one's capacity for large-scale organization and development--that can only be exhausted in individuals." --Robert Simpson

Perhaps for some the feelings Brahms had while gestating his first symphony were only exacerbated in the 20th century: "You have no idea how someone like me feels when he constantly hears a giant marching behind him." Because now it was not just Beethoven, but also Brahms, Bruckner, Mahler, Sibelius, etc. towering over the landscape. Let's see who has the guts to write a symphony in the face of that pantheon.

Yes, and that's really another way of saying what I was saying, only looking at it from a different angle, with a different metaphor. I'm saying that some composers would like to be free of all that weight, all that 'towering' and looming, all the comparing and evaluating, all that heavy pantheon, and just write a orchestral piece which happens to be a symphony, but it can sometimes, and for some, be tricky to do so when the word has become loaded with such baggage. Hence - all the stuff I was saying.

Either way, I'm not sure the prestige traditionally attached to the symphony is a bad thing to be rejected. It's helpful to have a large-scale genre where the expectations and stakes are very high.

It certainly can be, I'm never going to argue that that isn't true.