What Are the Ideals to Aim for in a symphony ?

[Adrian Allan]

Nobody has ever written a text book explaining how to write a symphony. All we have is a legacy of symphonies that over the years, some of which are widely regarded as being "great".

So what do you think constitutes the ideal symphony ? I'm attempting to write my own, and for an exercise in self criticism, I came up with the following factors:

1. Musical interest and originality sustained throughout an extended piece of music.
2. A sense of variety within unity in each individual movement
3. Some sense of unity through the whole symphony (although I think this is less important that 2, as themes do not have to straddle movements)
4. Thematic strength - nobody wants wishy-washy themes to underpin a symphony
5. Development - themes that develop logically and sound entirely natural. Development should be so natural it should sound "organic"
6. A high level of competency in orchestration - the composer understands how to use each section of the orchestra to its best potential, and contrasts and blends each section to best effect to produce a wide range of tone colour.
7. A wide range of emotions evoked - I think a symphony should take you on a journey through a whole range of human emotion, from pride, to joy, to despair - whatever the composer chooses. And definitely not just "happy and sad".
8. Convincing transitions between sections - so the piece doesn't sound broken up into sections, but flows seamlessly along.
9. A sense of balance or form in each movement. No, it doesn't have to conform to a text-book example of sonata form, but it should "feel" like the form makes sense to the listener - which of course is almost impossible to quantify.
10. The exploration of a wide range of tonal centres. It would be almost impossible to imagine an extended work like a symphony being fixed in the same key. It would create extreme monotony. Key changes add tension and interest to a longer piece of music.

The same could be said for tonality; would a successful symphony be in the major throughout, or would it pass through minor and perhaps dissonant sections ?

Have I missed anything or do you disagree with anything ?

[Alexander Sadovski]

Everybody who wants to write a good symphony should know that the music comprises rhythm, melody, harmony, timbre, emotion and idea. Of course also he should have good musical education and practice.

[Adrian Allan]

I actually agree with what you're saying, but if it's true, then one movement from one symphony could theoretically be swapped with another, so long as the contrast in each full symphony is retained.

I would like to say that this is true, but we imagine a symphony to be such a profound and unified statement, we dare not imagine that it is possible.
I

[Adrian Allan]

I though that might be the answer - that the unity within a symphony is more a product of the unique style of the composer than any themes or ideas that run through all movements.

This is what I'm aiming for... P.S. I cordially invite you to try out the first two movements of my symphony on my page.

Best wishes

adrian

[Gijs van Beusekom]

I think first of all there is no set of aims thinkable for all symphonys. A symphony in the classical style has different aims as a symphony in the romantic style. And what if Glass writes a symphony? Would he aim for the things you guys have listed. Propebly not.

So I think nowadays a more important question to ask yourself might be 'What do I want to aim for in this specific symphony?.' And maybe the next symphony can be alltogether different.

[Adrian Allan]

I get what you're saying, but a symphony is usually regarded as the place where the composer can make the boldest statements and display the full range of his compositional skills.

Although it's culturally determined (of course) I can't imagine many people wanting to write a symphony which doesn't pack the punches in one way or another.

[Fredrick zinos]

A more important question might be "Why do I want to write a symphony?" Aside from the absurdity and entirely unbelievable contention that some one asked you to do it, what are you motives? Assuming you can honestly state what form of psychosis is driving you to consider such a drastic and unseemly undertaking the "aims" of the noise you are about to make should become clearer.

Even if someone asked you to "write s symphony" would that be reason enough to do it? If someone asked you to drive the get away car while they robbed a bank, would you do it? Moreover, it can probably be shown by facts and figures that composing a symphony is much less fun and carries a heavier penalty than aiding and abetting a bank felony.

Gijs van Beusekom said:

I think first of all there is no set of aims thinkable for all symphonys. A symphony in the classical style has different aims as a symphony in the romantic style. And what if Glass writes a symphony? Would he aim for the things you guys have listed. Propebly not.

So I think nowadays a more important question to ask yourself might be 'What do I want to aim for in this specific symphony?.' And maybe the next symphony can be alltogether different.

[Adrian Allan]

I like writing music and I enjoy the challenge of a longer piece. Is that a good enough reason ?

Yes, it's hard and I can't begin to do it justice, but maybe the expression "labour of love" comes to mind.

Can it be any harder than the sheer pain and frustration of learning an instrument - and I think we've all done that ?


Fredrick zinos said:

A more important question might be "Why do I want to write a symphony?" Aside from the absurdity and entirely unbelievable contention that some one asked you to do it, what are you motives? Assuming you can honestly state what form of psychosis is driving you to consider such a drastic and unseemly undertaking the "aims" of the noise you are about to make should become clearer.

Even if someone asked you to "write s symphony" would that be reason enough to do it? If someone asked you to drive the get away car while they robbed a bank, would you do it? Moreover, it can probably be shown by facts and figures that composing a symphony is much less fun and carries a heavier penalty than aiding and abetting a bank felony.

Gijs van Beusekom said:

I think first of all there is no set of aims thinkable for all symphonys. A symphony in the classical style has different aims as a symphony in the romantic style. And what if Glass writes a symphony? Would he aim for the things you guys have listed. Propebly not.

So I think nowadays a more important question to ask yourself might be 'What do I want to aim for in this specific symphony?.' And maybe the next symphony can be alltogether different.

[Raymond Deane]

Of course the assumption here is that it makes any sense at all to write something called a "Symphony" in the 21st century. I've written large-scale orchestral works (the longest = 30') but I haven't called them "Symphony" because for me the term implies adherence to certain formal principles linked to tonality and development. Adrian's initial list of factors include a such terms as "themes", "development", "transitions", "tonal centre", "key changes" that reinforce the assumption that a particular style or tradition is to be taken for granted.
So I'd like to add a supplement to the question: does it make any sense to apply the term "Symphony" to a work that has nothing in common with the classical/romantic/tonal symphony other than its scale and ambition?
Of course there's the Sinfonia by Luciano Berio and the Symphonia by Elliot Carter... but perhaps these composers had their reasons for avoiding the plain ol' word "Symphony"!?

[Adrian Allan]

If you want to abandon these principles then it's your decision. Personally I'd rather build upon the steady development of a great art form rather than rip it up and start again.

In any case, I'd say that "modernist" inconoclasm in the arts is pretty old hat now, and what audiences want is a musical plot that they can follow, rather than 20th century free-form experimentalism.

[Raymond Deane]

Adrian writes:
"In any case, I'd say that "modernist" inconoclasm in the arts is pretty old hat now, and what audiences want is a musical plot that they can follow, rather than 20th century free-form experimentalism."

Clearly we don't speak the same language. "'modernist' iconoclasm" and "20th century free-form experimentalism" are phrases that mean nothing to me. You might as well refer to sonata form as "classical iconoclasm" because it's different from the form of a Scarlatti "sonata". Furthermore, you can't pretend that the 20th century never happened (although you clearly want to).

If composers throughout history had confined themselves to "what audiences want" and only produced "a musical plot that they can follow" then we'd never even have got as far as sonata form in the first place.

[Adrian Allan]

The difference is that previous musical accomplishments did so by building on and extending previous musical conventions.

The problem with most modernist pieces is that they define progress by a complete rejection of what has come before - most notably harmony and recognisable structure.

What I suspect is that many composers use the modernist method as a mask to disguise their own inability to come up with an original and meaningful chord progression and melody.

It's actually easier to write something superficially "difficult" (ie, lots of dots on the page and complicated rhythms) than it is to accomplish to former and achieve something that relates to people and stirs the emotions.

[Raymond Deane]

And of course modernism did exactly the same thing - built on what came before, even while "pulling the plug" on certain aspects of that tradition.
What you mean by "harmony" is "tonal harmony", so your argument is a tautology - its premises are identical with its conclusions. Similarly, what you mean by "recognisable structure" is "structure that is recognisably that of 19th century tonal music", so again your argument is a tautology.
Anyway, there is no such thing as "the modernist method" - there is no single "method" that encompasses Stravinsky, Bartok, Schoenberg, Varese, Satie, Ives, Boulez, Berio, Carter, Feldman, Reich, - but an infinite variety of methods and approaches. For some, of course, this is itself a problem.
I'd love to know where this utopian place is where "the public" offers its appreciation to and acceptance of composers who write symphonies in the ancient manner. As far as the public is concerned in most countries of the world, any unfamiliar name in a symphony concert is a reason for not attending it: they have no curiosity about whether that composer writes tonal or atonal or minimalist music, or whatever. Perhaps in the USA the symphonies of David Diamond - to name just the most reactionary composer I can think of right off - are lapped up by the same public that laps up Mahler, but I actually take leave to doubt it.
What I suspect is that many composers use the modernist method as a mask to disguise their own inability to come up with an original and meaningful chord progression and melody.

It's actually easier to write something superficially "difficult" (ie, lots of dots on the page and complicated rhythms) than it is to accomplish to former and achieve something that relates to people and stirs the emotions.