GMG Classical Music Forum

Another symphony poll: your favorite by a composer who for whatever reason (early death, laziness, etc.) only completed one symphony.

In keeping with the spirit, choose only one.

don't we get to choose Berlioz or Grieg, then?   :(

Quote from: Jared on April 15, 2011, 07:20:25 AM
don't we get to choose Berlioz or Grieg, then?   :(

That's what "other" is for. Didn't Berlioz write more than one thing called "symphony"?

I was tempted to say Eisler just to be different, but I don't like the piece that much. I very recently discovered Zimmermann's Sinfonie in einem Satz thanks to Scarpia and it packs a punch - a bit harsh but with traces of melody, a very concentrated, forceful piece.

Of the ones you list, I voted for Korngold, although Webern and Moeran come close.

Out of the choices it's a toss up between Bizet and Webern, I chose Bizet.

I voted with my listening and home library, both: Webern.

Quote from: Velimir on April 15, 2011, 07:24:02 AM
That's what "other" is for. Didn't Berlioz write more than one thing called "symphony"?

Absolutely! The Symphonie funèbre et triomphale, too.

Arriaga would be a good choice.

The first symphony which came to mind for such a category:

Ernest Chausson: Symphony in Bb.

Great work!  I had a record once which paired it with Le Chasseur Maudit by Cesar Franck (Charles Munch and Boston maybe?)  A slam-bang combo!

Hmm, I just thought of Turangalîla, and Bliss's Colour Symphony - tempted to go for the latter, but the Korngold piece is just too good :)

OK, have added Chausson and Messiaen "Turangalila" (jeez, how could I forget the latter!).

My personal vote goes to that lovable anachronism, Shapero's Symphony for Classical Orchestra. Though I came very close to voting for Vorisek.

Quote from: Velimir on April 15, 2011, 07:24:02 AM
That's what "other" is for. Didn't Berlioz write more than one thing called "symphony"?

Symphonie fantastique
Grand Symphonie funebre et triomphale
Harold en Italie
Romeo et Juliette

Quote from: haydnfan on April 15, 2011, 07:50:41 AM
Out of the choices it's a toss up between Bizet and Webern, I chose Bizet.

Bizet wrote two: "Roma" and the symphony in C

Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on April 15, 2011, 07:25:16 AM
I was tempted to say Eisler just to be different, but I don't like the piece that much. I very recently discovered Zimmermann's Sinfonie in einem Satz thanks to Scarpia and it packs a punch - a bit harsh but with traces of melody, a very concentrated, forceful piece.

Eisler also wrote a chamber symphony and "Kleine Sinfonie" in addition to the Deutsche Sinfonie

Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on April 15, 2011, 08:57:56 AM
Hmm, I just thought of Turangalîla, and Bliss's Colour Symphony - tempted to go for the latter, but the Korngold piece is just too good :)

Love threads like this, which wind up reminding me of good pieces which are apt to have fallen off my radar, such as the Korngold . . . .

I went with Korngold. What a shame he didn't write others to accompany that masterpiece!

Fwiw, some other (afaik) single-symphony composers:

Dukas
Kodaly
Harty
Lalo
Leifs
Paderewski
Smetana
Wagner (finished one plus part of another)

Heeeyy, we had an agreement, we don't spam your thread with suggested symphony cycles... :P

Seriously though, I forgot the Leifs which is excellent, same for Dukas. The Harty is completely not excellent, although perhaps I am being harsh.

Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on April 15, 2011, 09:30:14 AM
Heeeyy, we had an agreement, we don't spam your thread with suggested symphony cycles... :P

Seriously though, I forgot the Leifs which is excellent, same for Dukas. The Harty is completely not excellent, although perhaps I am being harsh.

Not spam, just info for those who wish to pursue the matter. (My name is Grazioso, and I'm a symphony addict.) I personally would never vote for the Leifs, for example, which is almost unlistenable to me.

Korngold. Many excellent choices there, though!

If "La Mer" doesn't count as a symphony this is a purely semantic poll.   0:)

(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/feb2010/KornSymPrev.jpg)


Sarge

Cesar Franck.

And Dukas.

But my favorite probably is Finn Mortensen.

Vorisek gets my vote in absence of the Bliss Colour Symphony and the Dukas Symphony in C.  And the Lalo is a delightful work.

No one seems to have remembered Cherubini or Grieg.

Looking on Wikipedia, some other one symphony composers of note:

Karlowicz
Hamilton Harty
Ildebrando Pizzetti
Arthur Benjamin
Bernard Herrmann
George Barati
Norman Dello Joio
Irving Fine
Julian Orbon
Michael Torke

Quote from: Daverz on April 15, 2011, 02:40:45 PM
Bernard Herrmann

The Herrmann would be Mrs. Rock's choice.

Sarge

Frankenstein Symphony by Francis Dhomont

Franck gets my vote with Chausson a close second.

Quote from: Velimir on April 15, 2011, 09:04:13 AM
My personal vote goes to that lovable anachronism, Shapero's Symphony for Classical Orchestra.

I'm very fond of the Shapero.  It really needs a modern recording.  Bernstein's is mono, and Previn's is a little boxy sounding.

Quote from: Bulldog on April 15, 2011, 03:33:41 PM
Franck gets my vote with Chausson a close second.

Ditto.  Franck, and Chausson a close second.

Quote from: Daverz on April 15, 2011, 02:40:45 PMNo one seems to have remembered Cherubini or Grieg.

Grieg wrote a symphony?  I assumed that Cherubini wrote a few dozen at least.

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on April 15, 2011, 04:20:11 PM
Grieg wrote a symphony?  I assumed that Cherubini wrote a few dozen at least.

Grieg supressed it.  Which hasn't stopped anyone from recording it, of course.

Cherubini's lone symphony is very good, one of the more memorable Classical symphonies not by Mozart, Haydn, or Beethoven.

i accidentally voted for "other" because on first glance, I failed to see Franck.  But, at least as of now, Franck's Symphony in D minor is my favorite.   

I'm a little surprised at the results. I expected Franck to run away with it, since he's standard rep and well known, unlike the others. Instead, Korngold edges him.

Quote from: Velimir on April 16, 2011, 01:43:58 AM
I'm a little surprised at the results. I expected Franck to run away with it, since he's standard rep and well known, unlike the others. Instead, Korngold edges him.

One thing I've noticed about the standard rep is that some of the LP favourites (such as the Franck) seem to be very gradually dropping in popularity nowdays. Other works I tend to see on LP a lot and slightly less so nowadays are Rossini/Respighi's Boutique Fantastique, various pieces by Chausson, and possibly Borodin's 2nd and Rimsky's Scheherazade.

Not saying that these pieces aren't still popular, but they appear to have found wider currency in the past.

I've thought so too, especially with reference to the Borodin 2nd, which seems to have dropped off the map of live performance.

My choice was Webern, but I must say that Chausson's Symphonie is a very beautiful work.

And I remember now, there is the great Symphony of Paul Dukas, probably the best French Symphony after Berlioz.

Another one-off: Resphigi's Sinfonia Drammatica

Question:  Is R. Strauss' 'Eine Alpensinfonie' consider a symphonic/tone poem, or a symphony?

If it was and was his only symphony, then I'd change my vote to 'Other' for that work.

From the list I'd have voted for Moeran, Korngold and Rott (never heard Shapero's). As for others mentioned, a supporting vote for Arthur Benjamin and Bernard Herrmann - others include symphonies by Hurum, Dyson and Clifford's 'Symphony 1940'.

Quote from: ChamberNut on April 16, 2011, 05:30:25 AM
Question:  Is R. Strauss' 'Eine Alpensinfonie' consider a symphonic/tone poem, or a symphony?

If it was and was his only symphony, then I'd change my vote to 'Other' for that work.

If Alpine is a symphony so is the Sinfonia Domestica.

Quote from: ChamberNut on April 16, 2011, 05:30:25 AM
Question:  Is R. Strauss' 'Eine Alpensinfonie' consider a symphonic/tone poem, or a symphony?

If it was and was his only symphony, then I'd change my vote to 'Other' for that work.

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on April 16, 2011, 05:50:03 AM
If Alpine is a symphony so is the Sinfonia Domestica.

He wrote two conventional symphonies in his teens, as well, in D minor and F minor.

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on April 16, 2011, 05:50:03 AM
If Alpine is a symphony so is the Sinfonia Domestica.

Ah yes, true enough.  Yuck, that is the one piece of Strauss' tone/symphonic poem output that I just cannot stomach, the Sinfonia Domestica.  ???  I pretty much love all his other orchestral works.

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on April 15, 2011, 10:50:24 AM
If "La Mer" doesn't count as a symphony this is a purely semantic poll.   0:)

Agreed, except that, as per

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on April 16, 2011, 05:50:03 AM
If Alpine is a symphony so is the Sinfonia Domestica.

if La Mer is a symphony so is Iberia, and maybe the Nocturnes too. So Debussy wouldn't be a one symphony guy either  ;)

Quote from: Luke on April 16, 2011, 12:10:43 PMif La Mer is a symphony so is Iberia, and maybe the Nocturnes too. So Debussy wouldn't be a one symphony guy either  ;)

I would reluctantly agree to Iberia (except that I don't really recognize it as music at all, but that's me) but the Nocturnes don't strike me as a symphony because, unlike La Mer, they lack "symphonic" coherence.  They strike me as three independent pieces.

Agreed on the Nocturnes (my point was that one could make the argument....) but

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on April 16, 2011, 12:48:17 PM
I would reluctantly agree to Iberia (except that I don't really recognize it as music at all, but that's me)

Wow! That's quite unexpected!

Quote from: Luke on April 16, 2011, 01:05:52 PMWow! That's quite unexpected!

Spanish music has no appeal to me, and Spanish music written by French composer, even less so.  Spanish music written by Russian composers (Rhapsodie Espagniole) even worse!

I see a lot of mention of Chausson's excellent symphony, but no votes to speak of. Sad, very sad. I put my vote where my mouth is though and happily vote for the lovely Opus 20 in Bb. Even though it's French... :P

8)

----------------
Now playing:
Andreas Staier - Dussek Op 65 Sonata in Ab Return to Paris 2nd mvmt - Molto adagio con anima ed espressivo

The Turangalîla is the only one I know out of the list of options so it gets my vote!  :D

Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on April 16, 2011, 01:57:37 PM
I see a lot of mention of Chausson's excellent symphony, but no votes to speak of. Sad, very sad. I put my vote where my mouth is though and happily vote for the lovely Opus 20 in Bb. Even though it's French... :P

Then it's just the two of us.   :)

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on April 16, 2011, 02:19:16 PM
Then it's just the two of us.   :)

Kinda scary out here on the edge, eh Scarps?  :o   :D

8)

----------------
Now playing:
Andreas Staier - Op 35 #1 Sonata in Bb for Fortepiano 1st mvmt - Allegro moderato e maestoso

This thread almost makes me wish Kalinnikov had died before he wrote his 2nd :/

Herrmann's seems to be often called "Symphony No. 1", which makes me wonder if there is another one in the archives to be discovered. That would be cool.

I didn't know Webern had written one. Can an eight minute piece really be a symphony? (And is the Yuasa recording any good?)


Anyway, I picked Chausson, especially in the Ansermet performance, which I think has more light and shade than Munch. Get the Australian Eloquence CD of it (with Faure's Penelope prelude and Pelleas et Melisande suite), a delight from start to finish.

I chose Chausson. I heard this a few years ago and I found to be one of the best symphonies to be written by someone who didn't live long enough to compose more.

Messiaen, with Webern in second. But I didn't vote... a couple of them I either haven't heard or it's been way too long since I've listened, so I don't know.

Quote from: eyeresist on April 17, 2011, 07:42:20 PM
This thread almost makes me wish Kalinnikov had died before he wrote his 2nd :/

For shame! But his first is darn good!

Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on April 16, 2011, 01:57:37 PM
I see a lot of mention of Chausson's excellent symphony, but no votes to speak of. Sad, very sad. I put my vote where my mouth is though and happily vote for the lovely Opus 20 in Bb. Even though it's French... :P

8)

I mentioned the Chausson early, before it appeared on the list, and so voted for Rott.


And yes, on the Herrmann Symphony: I have seen recordings calling it #1, as if there is a #2.  But no, only one symphony is among his oeuvre.


Alban Berg wrote an analysis of Arnold Schoenberg's Pelleas und Melisande and indicated that it had a symphonic structure.  But similar to the Strauss "symphonies" (Alpine and Domestic), the proper term is still tone-poem.

Quote from: Velimir on April 15, 2011, 07:10:35 AM
Another symphony poll: your favorite by a composer who for whatever reason (early death, laziness, etc.) only completed one symphony.

In keeping with the spirit, choose only one.

Alexander Krein Symphony No. 1 "After Scriabin."

Après Scriabine, le déluge.

Messiaen for me by a country mile. In his Webern book, Malcolm Hayes was fairly dismissive of Webern's Symphony, claiming that its comparative popularity stems from its being called a symphony, rather than, say, Two Pieces for Orchestra, and in his view it's far from Webern's greatest work. Although I like it, I find far more to savour in the Six Pieces for Orchestra or the Variations.

I think it's pretty groovy that Webern is ahead in a poll. Any poll.

Quote from: Apollon on April 18, 2011, 11:28:14 AM
I think it's pretty groovy that Webern is ahead in a poll. Any poll.

If we had a poll who wrote the least amount of music he might pull ahead in that one too. >:D

Quote from: haydnfan on April 18, 2011, 12:02:26 PM
If we had a poll who wrote the least amount of music he might pull ahead in that one too. >:D

Better him than Henning, je-je-je!

Quote from: Apollon on April 18, 2011, 11:28:14 AM
I think it's pretty groovy that Webern is ahead in a poll. Any poll.

Well, the romantic and neo-romantic vote was divided 7 ways, and Webern captured the entire AC vote.   :D

Do we have a "Favorite Symphony by a 2-Symphony Composer" poll yet? If not, why not? ;D And if we do, could someone direct me to it? 0:)

How about "Favorite Symphony by a 104-Symphony Composer"?

Quote from: westknife on April 18, 2011, 01:23:19 PM
How about "Favorite Symphony by a 104-Symphony Composer"?

Either 88 or 92 (both in G major, BTW). :)

8)

Quote from: Maciek on April 18, 2011, 01:20:28 PM
Do we have a "Favorite Symphony by a 2-Symphony Composer" poll yet? If not, why not? ;D And if we do, could someone direct me to it? 0:)

Don't tempt me! :)

Or, how about a poll asking how many of Segerstam's 244 symphonies people here have actually heard?
I'm up to, um.... about 3 now, and I can't even remember which ones were the other two.  :-X

Quote from: Greg on April 18, 2011, 01:56:49 PM
Or, how about a poll asking how many of Segerstam's 244 symphonies people here have actually heard?
I'm up to, um.... about 3 now, and I can't even remember which ones were the other two.  :-X

I have no interest in Segerstam's music. He's a hell of a conductor though.

Quote from: Apollon on April 18, 2011, 11:28:14 AM
I think it's pretty groovy that Webern is ahead in a poll. Any poll.

'Tis groovy indeed.

Juan Crisostomo de Arriaga (1806-1826): Symphony in D (1824)

[asin]B000025HZM[/asin]

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on April 18, 2011, 12:07:46 PM
Well, the romantic and neo-romantic vote was divided 7 ways, and Webern captured the entire AC vote.   :D

As opposed to the DC vote?   ???

Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on April 18, 2011, 01:30:27 PM
Either 88 or 92 (both in G major, BTW). :)

Hm...favorite symphonies by key would be an interesting poll.

Quote from: Velimir on April 18, 2011, 10:39:45 PM
Hm...favorite symphonies by key would be an interesting poll.

Only if you have perfect pitch! :D  Else it seems like a meaningless classification for a poll.

I chose Grieg.

Quote from: haydnfan on April 19, 2011, 05:53:52 AM
Only if you have perfect pitch! :D  Else it seems like a meaningless classification for a poll.

No, I don't agree. But this leads on to the question of key symbolism and association which we've had many times before. Essentially, we as listeners may or may not have perfect pitch, we may or may not associate different keys with different affekts or associations, but the chances are good that the composers themselves may have done so. And so if, for example, the poll showed that many of the most-loved symphonies are in D minor (biggies such as Beethoven 9, Bruckner 9, Mahler 9 being only some of quite a few obvious contenders) that suggests something. What it suggests is open to interpretation, of course - that the composers saved D minor for their finest thoughts? if so, why? that D minor suggested a certain association to the composer which many listeners value highly? if so, what is the association? etc. etc. But all that makes for potentially interesting discussion.

Quote from: Velimir on April 18, 2011, 10:39:45 PM
Hm...favorite symphonies by key would be an interesting poll.

o.k Here's mine; e-minor
- Brahms 4th, Tsaikovsky 5th, Sibelius 1st, Rachmaninov 2nd

Quote from: westknife on April 18, 2011, 01:23:19 PM
How about "Favorite Symphony by a 104-Symphony Composer"?

Haydn wrote 106 I believe.  :P


With one symphony composers Moeran must be a strong candidate.  I always like to mention Arriaga as well, and it's a shame he wasn't in the poll.

have to add a vote for Moeran-- as soon as I saw the thread title, it wasn't a choice for me...

Quote from: Luke on May 26, 2011, 12:21:38 AM
No, I don't agree. But this leads on to the question of key symbolism and association which we've had many times before. Essentially, we as listeners may or may not have perfect pitch, we may or may not associate different keys with different affekts or associations, but the chances are good that the composers themselves may have done so. And so if, for example, the poll showed that many of the most-loved symphonies are in D minor (biggies such as Beethoven 9, Bruckner 9, Mahler 9 being only some of quite a few obvious contenders) that suggests something. What it suggests is open to interpretation, of course - that the composers saved D minor for their finest thoughts? if so, why? that D minor suggested a certain association to the composer which many listeners value highly? if so, what is the association? etc. etc. But all that makes for potentially interesting discussion.

But Luke
(a) a different forum would have different results, for example on Talk Classical Mahler's 2nd reigns supreme
(b) Mozart's 41st is in C major, Brahms' 4th is in E minor, none of Haydn's London symphonies are even in D minor, Schubert's final symphony "the great" that he worked so hard on is in C major, Tchaikovsky's 6th is in B minor... need I go on?  I don't think you really found interesting with that key.
(c) Correlation is not equal to causation.  Finding several masterpieces in a specific key doesn't mean that key has any special significance.

Didn't we have a member who listened to nothing BUT D minor works?  :D

Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2011, 06:20:36 AM
Didn't we have a member who listened to nothing BUT D minor works?  :D

Yeah Dm is awesome, I'd him to return! :)

Interestingly enough, some of the most beautiful and profound music is in C major --- and by Schubert: Symph #9 and String Quintett.

Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2011, 07:00:39 AM
Interestingly enough, some of the most beautiful and profound music is in C major --- and by Schubert: Symph #9 and String Quintett.

I think we should find that of practically all the keys, really . . . .

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 26, 2011, 07:32:59 AM
I think we should find that of practically all the keys, really . . . .

Quick name 5 masterpieces in A major!  Just kidding. ;D

I think you are misreading me...

Quote from: mozartfan on May 26, 2011, 05:49:29 AM
But Luke
(a) a different forum would have different results, for example on Talk Classical Mahler's 2nd reigns supreme

Whoever said that poll results on forums were scientific? You are right of course, but in that case, what you say applies to all polls, not just this one.

Quote from: mozartfan on May 26, 2011, 05:49:29 AM
(b) Mozart's 41st is in C major, Brahms' 4th is in E minor, none of Haydn's London symphonies are even in D minor, Schubert's final symphony "the great" that he worked so hard on is in C major, Tchaikovsky's 6th is in B minor... need I go on?  I don't think you really found interesting with that key.

I wasn't suggesting that I had. You misread me. What I was suggesting was this - that if one was to order lists of most popular symphonies by key, or sort them by listener, or investigate some other method of measuring things statistically, one might observe interesting things; I was postulating just one possible such a thing. A few posts down from the one I'm quoting, someone mentions ex-member D minor - and there's an example of precisely what I mean. D minor, presumably, took that name because he feels an affinity for what on the surface of things (if all keys are much of a muchness) must be a statistically unlikely number of pieces in that key. One could therefore reasonably assume that there must be some other reason for his liking for these pieces, and that the reason might be that composing in D minor (the key) tends to lead composers to writing music in a certain affektive vein which D minor (the member) finds conducive. Or, what amounts to the same thing, that when wanting to write pieces in such a vein, composers may well tend to reach for D minor, perhaps just instinctively. Extrapolating to a larger level, we might find that if a list of favourite symphonies produced a statisitcally large number of D minor works, then perhaps (this is the same argument) there is something in the key which leads composers in a certain direction, and perhaps that direction is one that a large number of listeners rate. The whole subject of key associations and so on is intimately connected with this, and as I've said before, in other threads, it doesn't matter if the listener doesn't have the key association, and it doesn't matter if there are many exceptions to the 'rules' - composers tend to have a feeling for keys, which can come from all manner of places, but which filters into the music. There's a reason that Beethoven 5 is in C minor and 9 is in D minor, and its roots are in Beethoven's mind and his own conception of what those keys 'felt like' or 'meant' or whatever. The different tones of the two works are reflected in (not caused by) the key choices, and therefore those who prefer no. 9 to no. 5 may well be more likely to prefer the tone of many D minor works to that of many C minor ones.

NB I am not, in fact, making any particular claims for D minor as a 'superior' key; I only pulled it out as on obvious example. Similar cases could be made for other keys. But D minor is quite a striking phenomenon nevertheless.

Quote from: mozartfan on May 26, 2011, 05:49:29 AM
(c) Correlation is not equal to causation.  Finding several masterpieces in a specific key doesn't mean that key has any special significance.

I think I answered that above.

Luke, you raised an interesting subject: the psychology of the keys.

Are the different moods usually associated with particular keys just artificial cultural constructs or are they deeply ingrained in our psyche? I mean, are we culturally or naturally "programmed" to hear "profundity" in D minor and "gaiety" in A major? 

The abstract of an academic study on key-mood perceptions:

http://www.icmpc8.umn.edu/proceedings/ICMPC8/PDF/AUTHOR/MP040020.PDF

Quote from: Grazioso on May 27, 2011, 04:06:50 AM
http://www.icmpc8.umn.edu/proceedings/ICMPC8/PDF/AUTHOR/MP040020.PDF

Quote
One reason why the key-mood association myth persists to the present day is the tradition of associating sharp keys with bright and positive moods and flat keys with dark and negative moods, which has been perpetuated by some musical commentators over the past two hundred years

All right, but what's of interest is why did this very tradition arose in the first place? Why not making the inverse association?

Quote from: Florestan on May 27, 2011, 04:14:38 AM
All right, but what's of interest is why did this very tradition arose in the first place? Why not making the inverse association?

I love this topic, though discussion always tends to hover round the same arguments, and I always feel, when having them, that the really interesting, revealing questions - what made the composer choose the key he chose? what was happening in his head, what unspoken urges were there that pushed him in the direction of one key rather than another? - are ignored in favour of the rather functional ones - all keys are fundamentally the same in ET, and if you don't have perfect pitch you can't often tell them apart, so therefore key choice isn't interesting. As an answer, that seems to me wilfully to ignore an area which was probably of interest to the composer himself, and I never really understand it; it seems to be shutting off an area of discovery, which I find odd - it's almost as if, for some reason I can't grasp, some people are offended by the idea that something as irrational as key associations may exist in some form. I could go on about this subject, and probably will, though I don't really have time now and this will probably make me late for my next lesson!

To answer your question, some basic key associations arose because of a complex of musical facts, and then over the years other more subtle layers of associations gathered around these fundamental associations.

So, one basic fact is that in the pre ET days, the more distant (sharper or flatter keys) sounded more exotic and often more discordant, and the more extreme a key was, the more it tended to gather extreme associations

Another such fact, which pertains to pre ET music but even more so to post ET, is the idea that moving sharpwards through the keys is somehow equivalent to a kind of lifting, or an increase of tension - one can almost feel oneself lift, in fact, when music modulates to the dominant or further sharpwards. Likewise flatwards motion entails some kind of a depression, or a relaxation.

The result of this is that, for instance, sharper keys tended - and of course this is only a tendency, though one which can be illustrated by dozens of examples - to be used for music concerned with the heavenly - E major, the sharpest key commonly used in the baroque, is very often found to be a 'heavenly' key. And flat keys would either be concerned with more earthly concerns -  'peasant/pastoral' music in the case of F major (Beethoven's Pastoral, Vivaldi's Autumn...there's a tradition of these things) or, perhaps with more aristocratic or even voluptuous concepts (B flat and E flat often had aristocratic associations, A flat  and in later years D flat and G flat had more sensuous ones (see also what I say about Messiaen below)...) (please remember that these are not rules, not statements of even statistical fact, just feelings, urges, tendencies that, it seems, many composers followed; there are all manner of reasons why a piece might not follow these tendencies, and certainly I'm not saying that all composers felt these things anyway). OTOH very flat minor keys were more starkly tragic than the sharp minors - D minor that stern key of strife and endeavour, C minor heroic and funereal, F minor (the flattest minor in common use) often reserved for depictions of Hell.

Another basic fact is that composers may have their own, personal, illogical feelings about keys. Sometimes these feelings are related to the fact that the composer is synaesthetic, but certainly not always. Composers with 'typical keys' are very common - e.g. Janacek's were all in the very flat regions, so that there is a great deal of his music in the otherwise very rare keys of D flat minor and A flat minor; Tippett's seemed to be A flat; if I dare introduce my own name here, mine is G (even though the music I write is not common practice tonal)

With ET, and especially in the twentieth century, the more extreme keys became the ones which were more frequently used for the more extreme associations. I don't think it's a coincidence that two composers who were extremely concerned with the celestial (though in very different ways) did so almost exclusively in the sharpest keys - I'm talking of Messiaen and Scriabin. For Messiaen, the flatter keys are earthy, still, lustful, joyous - his Regard de l'esprit de joie (Vingt Regards) and his Joy in the Blood of Stars (Turangalila) movements - two very similar pieces in some ways - are rampant and lusty in their D flat major. Meanwhile the more celestial, chaste, heavenly moments of both pieces always tend to the sharpest keys, F# most prominently, and often very radiantly, purely used. Something similar happens with Scriabin, though his flatter keys are often very dark and demonic...

Another basic fact is that different instruments may be easier or sound better in certain keys. String instruments are easier in the sharp keys, especially those with plenty of open strings - D major, particularly, became a key of brilliance and joyousness partly because it's the best key for a violin section to play in if you want them to give that kind of sound. Wind instruments and brass tend to flatter reasons, which may be one reason is why much outdoors-y, fanfare-y, regal music is in the flatter keys. (again my reminder that I generalise)

As time wore on, other factors came into play. The keyboard, for instance, became the field on which so much music was composed, performed and visualised. C major, with its no sharps and flats, had had obvious connotations such as Neutrality, Science, Knowledge, Abstract Purity (op 111 Arietta...), Light (The Creation...), Intellectual play (the Jupiter Symphony...) but it also took on less high-flown associations - it was the key of piano technique and also the key in which most through-the-keys sets of piano music started (the 48, the Chopin Preludes, the Transcendental Etudes...)- and so we have slews of works from all periods in which C major is used in music which aims to emphasize the idea of the piano technique - the first of Debussy's Etudes, or the first of his Children's Corner, both very striking examples. When in the middle of the early Beethoven E major piano sonata the music wrenches suddenly to C major, the pianist is immediately called upon to play scales such as a piano student might play, for the first time in the work. They thus inject a new element into the piece, and its very possible that this element has its roots in the force of the key association - Beethoven took the piece into C, and the scales were the result (perhaps).

In the past, having these discussion, Sfz has often raised the points that a) many pieces do not conform to these associations and b) pieces are often performed or arranged in transposed forms which must by necessity negate their original key associations. In fact that same Beethoven sonata was transposed y the composer himself, into F, when he was arranging it for string quartet so that the cello's lowest string could be more usefully employed - that's an example I remember Sfz giving.

I don't deny any of these points, but I don't really think they alter the argument; I still think that one would probably find that more than statistically-predictable number of pieces are in keys which in some way conform to one or other association - and that, IMO, as I hope I've emphasized, is a very loose and open bunch of thoughts and ideas and connections - I'm really not talking about strict, limiting, rigid classifications here. What can't be argued, I think, is that a composer is faced with an immediate choice when he writes a piece, and that point is - where on the pitch plane does this feel comfortable, this music, which notes and which keys sit most easily with my gut feelings about the music. Undoubtedly at this inchoate, often subconscious phase, composers will tend to the notes which feel most 'right', and usually some kind of key association is at work there. The simple and frankly often rather inane associations of the Baroque are very fragmented, personalised, individual now, but they pertain in their own ways nevertheless - how else to explain Scriabin, Janacek, Messiaen, Tippet and all the others? As for the phenomenon of transposed pieces - of course. Once the music moves beyond the initial inchoate phase anything might happen. For practical reasons it could well be transposed, yes - but what I find interesting, personally, is that initial moment, that initial choice of key.

Arggh, that reads badly!!  :-[  :-[

Quote from: Grazioso on May 27, 2011, 04:06:50 AM
The abstract of an academic study on key-mood perceptions:

http://www.icmpc8.umn.edu/proceedings/ICMPC8/PDF/AUTHOR/MP040020.PDF

That doesn't look remotely scientific.  If you tell them the key it simply reinforces whatever bias was there before.  Why not conduct a double blind test instead?  If the point was to see how they react *knowing the key* you might as well have just asked them.  What a waste of time.

Luke,

That will take some time for me to absorb, musically illiterate as I am...  Great essay post as usual. :)

Bottom line, and technicalities aside, would you say that, at least in the Western frame of thought, there is a deep psychological basis, maybe innate, for associating a particular key with a particular mood? Or is it all a matter of cultural conditioning?

I'll give you an example: is it because of Mozart's String Quintet KV 516 that we generally and loosely associate G minor with sadness and resignation --- or was this key, from the earliest times, used to express such a mood?

I don't associate KV 516 with sadness and resignation. ???

I don't have time to read this all, but surely keys have had a "social message" ;
For example, when Robert Shumann rewieved Chopin's Piano Sonata in b flat minor he said something  like Chopins "choise of key isn't particularly known for its popularity". Perhaps it was Chopin's attitude of the "enfant terrible" manifested there, which clearly wasn't lost from Schumann.

Quote from: abidoful on May 27, 2011, 06:16:41 AM
. . . but surely keys have had a "social message"

Why?

Quote from: Leon on May 27, 2011, 06:33:07 AM
You may be reading too much into this comment.  What I think he is saying is that there are far fewer works written in B-flat Minor than B-flat Major.

OTOMH, only Tchaikovsky's First PC share this key.

You forgot Havergal Brian's 8th? I'm stunned and shocked!  ;D

Re the Chopin - Schumann is correct, of course, there aren't and certainly weren't an enormous number of works written in B flat minor. All sorts of reasons for that. But key choice does not an enfant terrible make. Schumann isn't unkown for his excursions into these realms himself.

BTW, haven't time to try to answer your other post now (not that I have any more qualification to do so than anyone else here...) But I will try later if possible.

Quote from: Luke on May 27, 2011, 05:30:49 AM
I love this topic, though discussion always tends to hover round the same arguments, and I always feel, when having them, that the really interesting, revealing questions - what made the composer choose the key he chose? what was happening in his head, what unspoken urges were there that pushed him in the direction of one key rather than another? - are ignored in favour of the rather functional ones

Fascinating post.  The psychological "moods" of keys also segues to the notion of synesthesia and the association some composers have between colors and  keys.  I've always been intrigued by the fact that, although Scriabin and Rimsky Korsakov had taking the trouble to map out an association between keys and colors, their maps did not always agree, and there was a key that Rimsky could not "see".  Also interesting that Scriabin would see the same color for E and A#, as well as C and F#.  Although I've heard some suggest the ideas that colors, like pitch are distinguished by frequency, and this may explain it, that theory would not explain how these to differ, or why Scriabin would perceive the same color for different keys.

Key	Scriabin	Rimsky Korsakov
C	Red	White
C#	Violet	Dusky
D	Bright Yellow	Yellow
E	Steel Gray	Bluish Gray
F	Bluish White	Sapphire Blue
F#	Red	Green
G	Orange-Rose	Brownish Gold
G#	Purple Violet	Grayish Violet
A	Green	Rosy
A#	Steel Grey	None
B	Bluish White	Dark Blue

Quote from: Luke on May 27, 2011, 06:52:57 AM
You forgot Havergal Brian's 8th? I'm stunned and shocked!  ;D

Your reproof is something too round!

Quote from: Luke on May 27, 2011, 06:52:57 AM
You forgot Havergal Brian's 8th? I'm stunned and shocked!  ;D

Who?  ;D

Quote from: jowcol on May 27, 2011, 06:55:23 AM

Key	Scriabin	Rimsky Korsakov
C	Red	White
C#	Violet	Dusky
D	Bright Yellow	Yellow
E	Steel Gray	Bluish Gray
F	Bluish White	Sapphire Blue
F#	Red	Green
G	Orange-Rose	Brownish Gold
G#	Purple Violet	Grayish Violet
A	Green	Rosy
A#	Steel Grey	None
B	Bluish White	Dark Blue

5 out of 10 more or less the same. Is the bottle half empty or half filled?  :)

FWIW I don't think synaesthesia is really related to the ideas of key association I was outlining earlier, even though I did mention it in that post as something with can affect a specific individual composer's feelings for a key.

AFAIK no two composers or musicians would agree on a list of colours for all keys, even though there was once such a list (Matthesson provides it), and even though there is - probably because of the Baroque Heaven/Earth dichotomy between sharps and flats that I mentioned earlier - possibly a tendency for quite a few to see (e.g.) E major as blue and F as red/brown. This isn't a matter of perfect pitch; it's one of learnt association, I think. Certainly E major and F major can have this effect on (non-perfect-pitch) me, when I am listening to or reading or playing or thinking about such pieces. I don't particularly 'see' blue, but I do feel that the piece is blue in other, harder to explain ways.

Quote from: Florestan on May 27, 2011, 06:58:17 AM
5 out of 10 more or less the same. Is the bottle half empty or half filled?  :)

Or, from a geek's perspective, is it within a 95% confidence interval?

Quote from: Leon on May 27, 2011, 07:19:35 AM
Which begs the question, how much of this associating is integral to the music or a cultural overlay?

That is the question...

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 27, 2011, 06:22:40 AM
Why?

Why? Your plain "why ?"baffles me :D
Maybe "social message" even isn't the right epithet for the phenomenom i'm thinking of.
When  i think Chopin at this stage /late 1830's) sonata was something he  was IMO littlel uncomfortable with. Too "classical", old-fashioned. But since he clearkly had decided to devote his energies writing only solo piano music perhaps it was to happen sooner or later he had to try the sonata. And when he did, well; very a'la Chopin it was! Yes maybe I'm reading too much to the choise of key, but I've always found that work a little toung-in to cheek, over the top over gloomy and moody. Of course it isn't just that, but still; a little provocative.

And about keys in general, when I wrote as a teenager (careful of not boasting now...) a violin sonata in c-minor, I was very aware of the Grieg sonata in that same key. And I seem to notice the similar kind of awareness with the Rachmaninov cello sonata, written in the same key of  g-minor as chopin's.
And think of Nikolai Medtner's sonat-ballade in F sharp, where he quotes Chopin's (well, I seem to be very aware of music connected with this composer) Barcarolle---yes, written in that same key!
Well, this subject is a very shady one admittedly. But still,perhaps  there's something there? I wonder what Sibelius meant when he said that" the air is full of summer and C-major" (hope i didn't misquote----anyway the though, that's what counts). He might only be thinking of his Third Symphony. Though he had synesthetic experiences, although that's not what i'm talking of. Really, I' dont know what i'm talking of :D
Over and out.

Quote from: abidoful on May 30, 2011, 12:29:27 AM
When  i think Chopin at this stage /late 1830's) sonata was something he  was IMO littlel uncomfortable with. Too "classical", old-fashioned. But since he clearkly had decided to devote his energies writing only solo piano music perhaps it was to happen sooner or later he had to try the sonata. And when he did, well; very a'la Chopin it was! Yes maybe I'm reading too much to the choise of key, but I've always found that work a little toung-in to cheek, over the top over gloomy and moody. Of course it isn't just that, but still; a little provocative.

He certainly was something of a Gloomy Gus, our Frederic.

Would you agree, or rather not? (http://www.wmich.edu/mus-theo/courses/keys.html)

Quote from: Florestan on May 30, 2011, 06:40:26 AM
Would you agree, or rather not? (http://www.wmich.edu/mus-theo/courses/keys.html)

"A minor:   Pious womanliness and tenderness of character."

Yes, that certainly describes the stomping march of Mahler's Sixth  ;D

Sarge

Quote from: Luke on May 26, 2011, 03:02:05 PM
There's a reason that Beethoven 5 is in C minor and 9 is in D minor, and its roots are in Beethoven's mind and his own conception of what those keys 'felt like' or 'meant' or whatever. The different tones of the two works are reflected in (not caused by) the key choices, and therefore those who prefer no. 9 to no. 5 may well be more likely to prefer the tone of many D minor works to that of many C minor ones.

Beethoven at a particular time in his life may well have had a particular view of certain keys.  But how he viewed them could well have changed somewhat through his life, giving greater or lesser importance to particular approaches or exploring the harmonic possibilities in different ways.  And I'm not sure most listeners are conscious of preferring particular keys.  A classical work normally doesn't just stay in one key anyway, and a listener may actually be intrigued by hearing a less familiar key as well.  Some instruments may be associated with particular keys for technical reasons, but even this can be modified over time as instruments change.

D# Minor (Eb Minor) Feelings of the anxiety of the soul's deepest distress, of brooding despair, of blackest depresssion, of the most gloomy condition of the soul. Every fear, every hesitation of the shuddering heart, breathes out of horrible D# minor. If ghosts could speak, their speech would approximate this key.


Seems to describe pretty well Scriabin's Etude in that key (op.8 no.12), and the great Prelude and Fugue from book one of the WTC too (at least in the way it's performed by Barenboim).

Sarge

Quote from: starrynight on May 30, 2011, 07:01:37 AM
Beethoven at a particular time in his life may well have had a particular view of certain keys.  But how he viewed them could well have changed somewhat through his life, giving greater or lesser importance to particular approaches or exploring the harmonic possibilities in different ways.

True, and as I tried to suggest, also true of the general approach to keys over the centuries. Beethoven's sense of C minor may have changed during his lifetime; the works he composed in that key will have had their effect on subsequent composers' senses of the key too, and so on. It's rather a lovely process, actually, the way great works feed other works through the years.

Quote from: starrynight on May 30, 2011, 07:01:37 AM
And I'm not sure most listeners are conscious of preferring particular keys.

Quote from: starrynight on May 30, 2011, 07:01:37 AM
A classical work normally doesn't just stay in one key anyway

No, clearly. Though there's nothing in what I said which would suggest that it is only the tonic of the piece which I am talking about. Indeed, I mentioned a Beethoven sonata where I feel the modulation to C major is charged with key associations. Another example which springs to mind - when Strauss's Don Quixote (the piece is in D minor/major) dreams of a golden age of chivalry, he does so in a sudden, radiant move to F sharp major. The music could have gone anywhere at this point; the choice of F sharp is, it seems to me, full of the associations this key often carries, of a heavenly, distant, perfection (see Messiaen etc).

Quote from: starrynight on May 30, 2011, 07:01:37 AMand a listener may actually be intrigued by hearing a less familiar key as well.

Perhaps.

Quote from: starrynight on May 30, 2011, 07:01:37 AM
Some instruments may be associated with particular keys for technical reasons, but even this can be modified over time as instruments change.

Of course, though personally I think the instrumental link to key choice, whilst the most easy to discuss and 'prove,' is also the least interesting because it doesn't tell us much about the composer's mind, just their technical savvy.

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on May 30, 2011, 06:44:51 AM

"A minor:   Pious womanliness and tenderness of character."

Yes, that certainly describes the stomping march of Mahler's Sixth  ;D

:D :D :D

Getting back on topic, how about Paderewski's Symphony in A or Moszkowski's Symphony?

But there are many others:

Donald Tovey Symphony in D
Piotr Rytel  Symphony in b
Sigismond Stowjowski  Symphony in d
Oskar Lindberg  Symphony in f
Albert Rubenson  Symphony in C
Ernest Schelling Symphony in c
Paul LeBrun  Symphony in e
Edgar Bainton  Symphony in Bb
Walford Davies Symphony in G
Henri Dallier Symphony in F
Josef Hoffman Symphony in E

To name a few with some of the key signatures you've mentioned.  There are scores of others.

Jerry

La Mer is not a symphony.