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 ?

[Adrian Allan]

Although this is an argument that is impossible to win, as it's so subjective, I can only offer a few more of my own thoughts.

This morning I watched a film called "Up" which is, on the surface, a children's animation film produced by Pixar.

After an hour or so into the film, any categorisation (animation, child's film, etc) went out of the window because the film was so touching human in every respect; it had the ability to convey a message that was universal. It could have been translated into any number of languages and still had an impact. It found a truth that most art work, even the high-brow, seldom manages to capture.

The great composers of the classical and romantic tradition (and yes, some of the modernists too) produced works of art that likewise cut across boundaries and found an essence that is common to much of humanity. That is why they remain popular to this day.

Given all that has come before, why do so many "contemporary" composers seem happy to churn out music that does not aspire to find a common message, but, quite the contrary, appeals to a tiny minority of die-hard fans. Instead of finding a bridge across humanity, the aim seems to be to break the shared feeling between composer and audience and create obscure intellectual islands which are cold, forbidding places.

Your aspirations may be less "poetic" than mine, but I've always tried to write music that finds a common link with humanity - even though I won't pretend to have succeeded. I believe that these were Beethoven's aims - and what's wrong with wanting to create art that aims to unify rather than divide ?

How many recent works have truly excited the public and brought them with renewed interest in modern music ? How many new works have just left then feeling cold, remote and alienated ? Is it any wonder that many people have turned away from new works ?

[Samuel Erikson]

If you write music because you've got something inside of you that needs to get out, I think you are good to go. Of course it's not as simple as that. Music is both math and emotions. You need both parts to write a good symphony (or any music). It's kind of like writing a book, you need to have a REASON to write, but you also need to know HOW TO write.

[Steve Chandler]

It seems to me that the traditional symphony has been gone for well over a century. The trouble with composing a symphony is isn't writing it, but hearing it. Unless you are very well connected you can forget a live performance, if that was the case you probably wouldn't be posting here. The virtual symphony is certainly a possibility but you'll always wonder what it would sound like in real life, plus to do it well that takes audio production skills and capability that will take years to acquire. If you have good audio production skills then go for it, but my first question would be what do you want to accomplish or express? A good story about your inspiration may assist you in finding a performance (or two).

 

I'd be the first to agree that the modern orchestra is an incredible instrument. There are so many things that are possible with it that your first task might be to be sure you have a very thorough grounding in orchestration. How well do you know your strings, woodwinds, brass and percussion. How well do you know the orchestral repertoire?

 

It's not my intention to rain on anyone's parade, but orchestral performance opportunities are so dear that you want to be sure you've made every effort that your symphony will be your best possible effort. Anything less and you'll be kicking yourself. Your composing and orchestration skills need to be at their best just in case you find a real opportunity to have your piece heard. Good luck