Huh?
The symphonies of many composers form a well-known core of their output, but there are some composers who have composed symphonies and had those works largely overshadowed by their pieces in other genres. I'm thinking of composers like Wagner, Holst, Lalo, Boccherini, Smetana, Grieg, Respighi, Rimsky-Korsakov, et al.
Any particular ones worth hearing? Any that have been unjustly ignored?
Boccherini is unusual in this category, in that he composed relatively extensively in the genre: over two dozen symphonies. While they won't cause anyone to forget Haydn or Mozart, they are definitely worth a listen, sharing the melodiousness and sunny Mediterranean warmth of his chamber music.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/510gro5slvL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
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.
Quote from: Grazioso on February 28, 2011, 04:51:47 AM
Boccherini is unusual in this category, in that he composed relatively extensively in the genre: over two dozen symphonies. While they won't cause anyone to forget Haydn or Mozart, they are definitely worth a listen, sharing the melodiousness and sunny Mediterranean warmth of his chamber music.
A good choice agreed on all accounts, although
La casa del Diavolo has a rather dark outlook --- try
Il Giardino Armonico with
Giovanni Antonini for a thrilling performance.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41Unl4O5WRL._SS400_.jpg)
OTOFMH I'll throw in
Carl Maria von Weber, with two splendid early Romantic symphonies.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51s5CExi3GL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Along the lines of Weber, Gounod wrote a worthy two, which have been quite widely recorded considering how merely "decent" they are.
Is Franck a non-symphonist for having written only one? Liszt with the Dante and Faust symphonies which hardly ever get performed? Saint-Saens, who wrote a few, but only No.3 gets performed reasonably regularly?
I think that Liszt falls in with Strauss as writing two mature works entitled symphonies, but which don't really do enough to justify their break from their previous series of tone poems. Admittedly with Liszt, he does seem to have felt the need to create more ambitious works to live up to the title.
Strauss also wrote two student symphonies, the second of which is decent but I can't muster much enthusiasm for it.
Quote from: Mensch on February 28, 2011, 07:41:13 AM
Is Franck a non-symphonist for having written only one?
For my part, it's not a question of how many, but rather how much attention a composer's symphonies have received vis-a-vis his or her works in other genres and whether that level of attention is reasonable or unjust.
Berlioz, for example, wrote only a few symphonies, but one of them is a seminal work that's well established in the core repertoire. Messaien only wrote one, yet it's one of his most famous pieces and widely recorded.
Weill certainly should qualify as his oeuvre in general is very unsymphonic. No2 in particular is a good one!
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on February 28, 2011, 07:21:15 AM
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.
Thank goodness Boccherini's reputation is starting to flourish anew. He was a major composer (and recognized as such in his day) who for a long time was treated more like a cute historical curiosity.
I can't wait for the day when integral recorded sets of his works in various genres (quartets, quintets, etc.) are as common as they are for Haydn and Mozart.
QuoteKorngold's is a masterpiece in its style
Agreed. I was stunned the first time I heard it. I think it's one of the great 20th-century symphonies and deserves at least the respect accorded his other music.
Quote from: Grazioso on February 28, 2011, 09:43:57 AM
Thank goodness Boccherini's reputation is starting to flourish anew. He was a major composer (and recognized as such in his day) who for a long time was treated more like a cute historical curiosity.
I can't wait for the day when integral recorded sets of his works in various genres (quartets, quintets, etc.) are as common as they are for Haydn and Mozart.
I admire your optimism, but you've got a very long wait ahead of you (some of it past your expiration date).
Quote from: Bulldog on February 28, 2011, 10:16:07 AM
I admire your optimism, but you've got a very long wait ahead of you (some of it past your expiration date).
Most likely, but stranger things have happened in classical music recording...
Quote from: Grazioso on February 28, 2011, 11:09:17 AM
Most likely, but stranger things have happened in classical music recording...
Well, the way you're feeling now about Boccherini is how I felt back in 1970. The past forty years hasn't resulted in any appreciable change, and I don't even have another forty ahead of me.
I think Bizet's Symphony in C stands near the top of this odd little genre. Another major example imho is Nino "more than just film scores" Rota, whose three symphonies are genial while still being serious, and at times even weighty.
How about Bortkiewicz, who's much more known for his piano works but has two fiery, Rachmaninovian symphonies? Or Kabalevsky and Khachaturian, whose concertos (and, in the latter case, ballets) are heard far, far more than their symphonies? Lars-Erik Larsson is most widely-known for his neoclassical miniatures, but he has three quite excellent symphonies, which are for the most part in the Romantic tradition.
One name that I think is finally leaving this list is Villa-Lobos, whose symphonies are finally starting to get some fraction of the attention paid to his Bachianas.
And I'll disagree, in passing, that all three of Rimsky-K's symphonies "vaguely resemble Scheherazade". His Second certainly does, but the other two are quite formally constructed, rather than rhapsodic. They're like two more Balakirev symphonies.
-J
Quote from: Bulldog on February 28, 2011, 11:26:19 AM
Well, the way you're feeling now about Boccherini is how I felt back in 1970. The past forty years hasn't resulted in any appreciable change, and I don't even have another forty ahead of me.
In recent years, recordings of his works have flourished, at least relatively, with quite a number of new discs released by Brilliant, CPO, Virgin, Harmonia Mundi, Naive, Cappricio, etc. We've gotten an eight-disc set of the symphonies, plus new complete sets of the clavier quintets, guitar quintets, cello concertos, cello sonatas, etc. Not a bad start.
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on February 28, 2011, 07:25:44 AM
Along the lines of Weber, Gounod wrote a worthy two, which have been quite widely recorded considering how merely "decent" they are.
Are you including the "Petite Symphonie" for winds? It's a lovely piece and a very valuable addition to the wind-ensemble repertoire, right up there with the Mozart and Dvorak serenades. 8)
Dukas certainly should be added to this list, with his very fine Symphony in C. Same with Stravinsky; his symphonies by no means form a central part of his output, although they are certainly masterful. (I'm not including the "Symphonies of Wind Instruments" since it redefines the word "symphonies.) And I think Paul Hindemith qualifies too; I know of three symphonic works from his pen, but only the Symphony in Eb is a "pure" symphony; the "Mathis der Maler" symphony is more like a suite from the opera, and the Symphonic Metamorphoses is also more like a suite than a symphony.
Paul Dukas is known only for his familiar "Sorceror's Apprentice", but his only symphony is a magnificent work,
without a doubt one of the greatest of French symphonies. As is well-known, this composer was extremely self critical and destroyed most of his music, apparently including another symphony.
The symphony in C dates from 1897, and is in three movements . It's full of ardor,nobility and sweep, and is wonderfully melodious . When you hear it, you'll wonder where it's been all your life and ask yourself " why don't conductors perform this?"
There have been a number of recordings, and the EMI CD with Martinon and the ORTF orchestra is greatly admired by CD collectors who know the symphony. I first got to know it back in the 70s from a superb Decca LP with Walter Weller and the LPO, coupled with the Sorceror's apprentce. Unfortunately, this has yet to appear on CD as far as I know, but if it ever does, grab it !
There are other recordings by Slatkin on RCA with the French National, which I haven't heard, and Jean Fournet and a Dutch orchestra on Denon, as well as Yan Pascal Tortelier on Chandos.
Slatkin did the Dukas symphony several years ago with the New York Philharmonic.
But don't miss this symphony if you don't know it ! I wonder if the other symphony Dukas wrote was any good.
Composers aren't always the best judges of their own music, so who knows if he destroyed a genuine masterpiece? It's entirely possible.
Hindemith is a good suggestion, not known as a "symphonist" but wrote quite a few in varying forms. There are the two "opera" works, but also others for band, in concerto for orchestra style, etc:
Mathis der Maler, Die Harmonie der Welt, Symphonia Serena, Symphony in B-flat (maybe two - one for band - it's hard to tell whether it's a revision or not), Sinfonietta, Pittsburgh Symphony.
I hadn't heard of that Gounod, thanks for the suggestion.
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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdDVMFzKfJE) and the complete scherzo of his Second http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVJSY7K7wb8 (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 (http://www.amazon.com/Nino-Rota-Symphony-Collection-1911-1979/dp/B000I6P1ZU)
Someone needs to mention Kodály pretty soon.
Oh, there. Some guy just did.
And Ives. I don't think anyone would call Ives a "symphonist." But he wrote at least one superb symphony and at least two other pretty fine ones.
Otherwise, there's Francis Dhomont's Frankenstein Symphony and Robert Ashley's In Memoriam Crazy Horse symphony.
Otherotherwise, another accolade for Webern's excruciatingly superb symphony and Schoenberg's excellent Chamber Symphony No. 1. And another vote for focussing on the music first, too!
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on February 28, 2011, 03:04:39 PM
Hindemith ... Symphony in B-flat (maybe two - one for band - it's hard to tell whether it's a revision or not)...
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...
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on February 28, 2011, 03:04:39 PM
I hadn't heard of that Gounod, thanks for the suggestion.
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! :D
Quote from: jimmosk on February 28, 2011, 03:09:32 PM
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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdDVMFzKfJE) and the complete scherzo of his Second http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVJSY7K7wb8 (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 (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.
Max Bruch, known especially for his violin concertos, also composed three symphonies, the second being particularly lovely IMO.
[asin]B000007OTH[/asin]
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
Quote from: James on February 28, 2011, 03:43:37 PM
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
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on February 28, 2011, 07:21:15 AM
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.
Quote from: jochanaan on February 28, 2011, 08:18:34 PM
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! :D
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:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/712fIMqDCBL._AA300_.jpg)
Quote from: Luke on March 01, 2011, 04:33:56 AM
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.
Quote from: Grazioso on March 01, 2011, 05:17:08 AM
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.
Quote from: Grazioso on March 01, 2011, 05:17:08 AM
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.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on March 01, 2011, 05:51:04 AM
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. 8)
I'll have Winterreise over the most prestigious Parsifal any time of the day and night. ;D
(Just saying and running away)
Quote from: Eusebius on March 01, 2011, 05:58:43 AM
I'll have Winterreise over the most prestigious Parsifal any time of the day and night. ;D
(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.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on March 01, 2011, 06:07:45 AM
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. :D
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.
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
Quote from: Eusebius on March 01, 2011, 06:13:02 AM
Well, certainly comparing Fuer Elise with the Emperor Concerto is as pointless as comparing Winterreise with Parsifal. :D
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. ;D
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.
Quote from: Eusebius on March 01, 2011, 06:27:26 AM
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. ;D
Parsifal doesn't run over 4 nights, it only seems so. More - and better - drama in Erlkønig I think.
Quote from: Luke on March 01, 2011, 07:31:15 AM
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.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on March 01, 2011, 06:07:45 AM
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.
Quote from: Grazioso on March 01, 2011, 05:17:08 AM
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 :P)
Lethe posted whilst I wrote this - I agree with what she has to say completely.
Quote from: Grazioso on March 01, 2011, 11:07:16 AM
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.
Quote from: Grazioso on March 01, 2011, 11:07:16 AM
"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.
Quote from: Grazioso on March 01, 2011, 11:07:16 AM
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.
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on March 01, 2011, 11:38:29 AM
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.
Martinu brings an interesting addition to the discussion: the quotidian question of money and patronage. His first symphony was a commission, written decades into his compositional career. Likewise Milhaud's 1st symphony.
If pay and performances aren't in the offing, I can imagine some very practical artists not being to keen to engage in the long task of writing a symphony.
Quote
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 :P)
Classification is useful not merely for cataloging the world but precisely because it elicits thoughtful questions. What happens when object X doesn't obviously fit into either category A or B? Perhaps the categories are defined poorly. Perhaps a new category needs to be created. Perhaps we misjudged X in the first place. That sort of goad to more careful observation is salutary.
Quote from: Grazioso on March 01, 2011, 01:25:29 PMClassification is useful not merely for cataloging the world but precisely because it elicits thoughtful questions. What happens when object X doesn't obviously fit into either category A or B? Perhaps the categories are defined poorly. Perhaps a new category needs to be created. Perhaps we misjudged X in the first place. That sort of goad to more careful observation is salutary.
Now these are some interesting observations/conclusions. And here I was just thinking, for the umpteenth time, that philosophical discussion was impossible online. Well, OK. It still may be. But this encourages me to ask a few questions/make a few observations of my own.
I noticed in my own listening that categorizing was more useful when I was just starting out. It's use for me, anyway, as a neophyte, was to provide some sense of stability in an unfamiliar world. But that must have been like in the first few days, for I recall being almost instantly aware of the exceptions--along the lines of why I was such a popular student in elementary school. "But what about...?" I did make my own categories for awhile before giving up the whole venture.
So here are some "perhapses" of my own. Perhaps X is sui generis. Perhaps all truly interesting and valuable things are, to some extent. Which means that perhaps any categories will be insufficient to capture the essence of any thing. Perhaps judging is not quite the most appropriate thing to be doing with
objets d'art (if I may try to recapture the oldest meaning). Perhaps careful observation is not the most important thing about an aesthetic experience. Perhaps careful attention and receptivity are.
If that's true, categorization is possibly not a good idea at all. It certainly seems, in its manifestations in music blogs and online forums anyway, to diminish the splendor of really listening to a piece with all your heart and mind.
Categorization is necessary to bring som kind of order into a world that otherwise would seem chaotic (it's much easier to talk about Beethovens 9th than his op 125, or his violin concerto instead of op 61). But with growing knowledge comes the recognition that classification becomes a hindrance, or that putting things into categories makes their uniqueness less obvious. It's the classic conflict between order and content.
Quote from: some guy on March 01, 2011, 10:48:57 PM
I noticed in my own listening that categorizing was more useful when I was just starting out. It's use for me, anyway, as a neophyte, was to provide some sense of stability in an unfamiliar world. But that must have been like in the first few days, for I recall being almost instantly aware of the exceptions--along the lines of why I was such a popular student in elementary school. "But what about...?" I did make my own categories for awhile before giving up the whole venture.
So here are some "perhapses" of my own. Perhaps X is sui generis. Perhaps all truly interesting and valuable things are, to some extent. Which means that perhaps any categories will be insufficient to capture the essence of any thing. Perhaps judging is not quite the most appropriate thing to be doing with objets d'art (if I may try to recapture the oldest meaning). Perhaps careful observation is not the most important thing about an aesthetic experience. Perhaps careful attention and receptivity are.
If that's true, categorization is possibly not a good idea at all. It certainly seems, in its manifestations in music blogs and online forums anyway, to diminish the splendor of really listening to a piece with all your heart and mind.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Enso.jpg)
Have you studied Zen Buddhism by chance? :D "Perhaps careful observation is not the most important thing about an aesthetic experience. Perhaps careful attention and receptivity are" With this I quite agree, with one proviso: it's in the nature of our binaristic, classifying mode of thinking (something must be X or not X) to categorize and analyze (and to try to force round pegs into square holes). While this approach shouldn't be given undue precedence, it is there and it is powerful, so the question is, what to do with it?
Ideally with art, this ingrained way of assessing the world should be a spur to more careful examination. Let's say that someone tells you a pieces is in sonata form. To determine the validity of that assertion, you need to find a working definition of "sonata form" and then must consciously analyze and articulate musical structure when otherwise you might not, and then perhaps return to revise your definition. More like the scientific method than "Is so! Is not! You suck!"
I'd be the first to leap up and say that our emotional response to music is paramount, and yet I won't deny that we are intellectual creatures and that art can raise all kinds of interesting intellectual questions.
I have studied Zen Buddhism a bit. But not by chance. ;D
And I love your Hedberg quote by the way.
I think your question "what to do with it?" is dead on. Perhaps I perceive that so much leads us away from the music instead of deeper into it, that I'm extremely suspicious of things like ranking and categorization and the whole question of "greatness."
Quote from: James on March 02, 2011, 05:43:05 PM
Well there are people who are better at things than others for one, and two .. great art withstands the test of time, and gathers meaning. Nothing to be 'suspicious' about, it's reality.
On the contrary, I think it's healthy to be leery of any categorization since there's often a sort of political component working behind the scenes: categorization is in a sense a tool for exclusion, with one binaristic classification being either overtly or subconsciously privileged over its mate. If it's not X, then it's Y (and we don't really like Y).
In the arts world, exclusion for whatever reason can mean being hidden away or going unsupported or unperformed, to where a work doesn't get a fair chance to stand the test of time.
I saw a very interesting documentary on Rudolf Bauer, one of the great early non-objective painters. He was arrested in Nazi Germany for his "entartete Kunst" (degenerate art) and essentially hounded out of the country. In the US, he was a favorite of Solomon Guggenheim, whose museum was to center on Bauer's work. Yet because of a convoluted falling-out with Guggenheim and the Guggenheim Foundation, the museum opened without any of the 100+ Bauer works they owned being displayed, and the paintings remained locked away in the basement for decades. This for a painter who has been compared to Kandinsky. Only in the last decade has he been getting some attention; it remains to be seen if his work will ever truly come out of the shadows.
"Great art" doesn't magically withstand the test of time all by itself. People need to be involved, with all the problems that might entail.
Classification can be useful as a point of comparison, comparing is a useful tool in assessing and understanding the art of what you hear. Of course if people make comparisons that bear little relation to what they are listening to it can hinder understanding.
Quote from: starrynight on March 03, 2011, 12:27:31 PM
Classification can be useful as a point of comparison, comparing is a useful tool in assessing and understanding the art of what you hear. Of course if people make comparisons that bear little relation to what they are listening to it can hinder understanding.
It's a tool. You can build a house with a hammer or hit someone over the head with it.