I am currently having a fine time listening to Korngold's early Sinfonietta, Op.5. The liner notes accompanying the Chandos recording describe it as "really a large-scale symphony" (at 43 minutes it is certainly lengthy enough). It is also an absolutely gorgeous piece. So, can members think of pieces by other composers which are symphonies in all but name?
The most famous case, perhaps, is La Mer by Debussy.
And there are more sinfoniettas that could have done without the diminutive. I'm thinking of E.J. Moeran's Sinfonietta, rather his Second Symphony.
Another case is Bohuslav Martinů. Some of his later orchestral output could easily be regarded symphonies, natural successors to his Sixth, Fantaisies symphoniques. In particular his Frescoes of Piero della Francesca ('Symphony No. 7'), The Parables ('Symphony No. 8') and Estampes ('Symphony No. 9' - or a higher number, taking into account other works liks the Toccata e Due Canzoni as well.
Edward German's two large-scale four-movement scores Symphonic Suite in D minor, The Leeds Suite (1895) and The Seasons (1899). German probably fought shy of calling any further works 'Symphonies' after Shaw threw brickbats at No.2, The Norwich (1893)...
:o
Quote from: Christo on Wednesday 07 March 2012, 18:01Did he? :-\
He regarded it as too much in the vein of German's theatre music and thus insufficiently symphonic. Characteristically quixotic, Shaw also criticised German's overture to
Richard III (1889) for containing a carefully-wrought fugal section based on a theme identified with the title-character ...
::)
Thanks for the suggestions. I agree 100% about La Mer.
What about Strauss' Heldenleben? Or Reger's giant-sized Sinfonietta?
Just a thought: is sometimes it a question of perceived mood whether a particular piece of music is designated 'symphony' or not (e.g. the Korngold or Reger?) Or do some composers simply want to avoid the term and all the baggage that goes with it?
I'm not sure why Havergal Brian didn't call his Concerto for Orchestra a symphony: maybe he felt the numbering was getting out of hand. George Lloyd packed up and stopped writing symphonies at no. 12, after 57 years, but he never seems to have quite escaped: his next work was a 'Symphonic Mass' and then his 'Litany' is surely a choral symphony in all but name.
On a slightly different note, Elgar called "The Black Knight" a symphony, but the title has been all but ignored. Indeed, many people have claimed that Mahler's 8th was the first all-choral symphony (ie, sung all the way through), but the Elgar comes earlier. In fact I'm not sure anyone had written an all-choral symphony before him, but doubtless many of you know of other examples.
And then there are the "symphonies" that really aren't: Gottschalk No 1 (Night in the Tropics)....
In its inimitable way, Janacek's Sinfonietta strikes me as being a full fledged symphony. Anyone disagree?
Quote from: mbhaub on Thursday 08 March 2012, 00:29
And then there are the "symphonies" that really aren't: Gottschalk No 1 (Night in the Tropics)....
What would you call it then? I guess it could be a tone poem in two parts or something...
Quote from: chill319 on Thursday 08 March 2012, 02:46
In its inimitable way, Janacek's Sinfonietta strikes me as being a full fledged symphony. Anyone disagree?
Errrr, no. ;)
Some symphonies have a rather dubious history: Crossley-Holland's started out as several different pieces and rather sounds like it, although it's so beautiful I don't care. Boughton's 2nd was just ballet music with the beginning removed, as I recall, but it works well. I would agree that the Janacek could easily be called a symphony and is certainly equal to many of the best; Moeran's too (which I actually rather prefer to the G minor Symphony)
Some have nominated Berg's opus six (1915): Prelude, Reigen and March. I don't know what the key relationships are, or even whether that is an important consideration in the definition of a "symphony."
Hrm. Is Berlioz' Romeo et Juliet close enough to all-choral?
I wouldn't say so, as it has at least two all-orchestral movements, and it was certainly in my mind. 'The Black Knight' is sung basically throughout, as is Mahler's 8th, VW's Sea Symphony, Holst's Choral Symphony and lots of other 20th century ones. But "Romeo and Juliet" is certainly a lot more sung than anything I'm aware of before it.
Admittedly, it's not a symphony in disguise, since it's actually called a "symphony", but I just thought I'd ask. (Relates more to something later in the thread, I suppose.)
I've always thought of two John Adams works as symphonies in all but name: Harmonielehre and Naive and Sentimental Music.
There's another Sinfonietta that belongs here I think: Max Reger's Sinfonietta.
Once a critic mentioned that there is so much material, another composer could easely fill 3 or 4 symphonies with it.
Glad to see someone agreeing with me about Reger's Sinfonietta!
Is Liszt's Berg-Symphonie ("Ce qu'on entend sur la montagne") a tone poem or symphony? It certainly goes on a bit....!
That's a symphonic poem. Isn't it No. 1?
It is indeed JimL!
Just to be cheeky, it really depends on how one defines "symphony". The meaning of the word has changed over the years. And one might (again cheekily) argue that if, as a composer, I choose to call the piece of music I've written a "symphony" then that's what it is. That wouldn't, of course, work for a more clearly defined form - if, for example, I wrote a piece which I called "minuet" when it was manifestly a "waltz", that would be either foolish or bloody-minded!
Sometimes, the disguise may be really effective. John Cage's three-movement 4′33″ might also be a symphony in hiding. Who can tell? 8)
No. To my ears it's a concerto for bass sarrusaphone!
I don't wish to be pedantic, but 4'33 is officially a piano piece. The 'pianist' is supposed to walk onto the platform, open the piano's lid and sit there, all part of the 'performance'.
A symphony for piano solo, then? ;)
With bass sarrusaphone ad lib.
Alken, Sorabji, Cage. Not sure I'd want to put them in a symphony together.
Quote from: Jimfin on Sunday 18 March 2012, 20:16
I don't wish to be pedantic, but 4'33 is officially a piano piece. The 'pianist' is supposed to walk onto the platform, open the piano's lid and sit there, all part of the 'performance'.
Sorry to be doubly pedantic, but it isn't!
The score describes David Tudor's first performance of the piece as a piano piece, but Cage simply doesn't specify a particular instrument al all, it just states that the piece can be performed by any instrumentalist or or number of instrumentalists, and may be of any duration. Additionally, the note on the score also says that Tudor
closed the lid to indicate the start of each movement, and only opened the lid again to indicate the movement had ended.
Quote from: Gareth Vaughan on Friday 16 March 2012, 21:00
Just to be cheeky, it really depends on how one defines "symphony". The meaning of the word has changed over the years. And one might (again cheekily) argue that if, as a composer, I choose to call the piece of music I've written a "symphony" then that's what it is. That wouldn't, of course, work for a more clearly defined form - if, for example, I wrote a piece which I called "minuet" when it was manifestly a "waltz", that would be either foolish or bloody-minded!
Also, over the years, 'symphonies' have come to overlap what would otherwise have been termed 'serenades' or 'suites'. And even some serenades suites (Tchaikovsky's 2nd, to name one example) would more closely resemble other people's symphonies in scope, length, form, and subject matter. To make matters worse, some composers are quite vague about which epithet they wish to attach to their pieces. Klughard's Lenore is a good example.
Quote from: doctorpresume on Monday 19 March 2012, 11:02
Quote from: Jimfin on Sunday 18 March 2012, 20:16
I don't wish to be pedantic, but 4'33 is officially a piano piece. The 'pianist' is supposed to walk onto the platform, open the piano's lid and sit there, all part of the 'performance'.
Sorry to be doubly pedantic, but it isn't!
The score describes David Tudor's first performance of the piece as a piano piece, but Cage simply doesn't specify a particular instrument al all, it just states that the piece can be performed by any instrumentalist or or number of instrumentalists, and may be of any duration. Additionally, the note on the score also says that Tudor closed the lid to indicate the start of each movement, and only opened the lid again to indicate the movement had ended.
Perhaps someone could make an arrangement for full orchestra. With full percussion, vibraphones and bass sarussaphone! > ;D<
Quote from: JimL on Monday 19 March 2012, 13:20
Quote from: doctorpresume on Monday 19 March 2012, 11:02
Cage simply doesn't specify a particular instrument al all, it just states that the piece can be performed by any instrumentalist or or number of instrumentalists, and may be of any duration.
Perhaps someone could make an arrangement for full orchestra. With full percussion, vibraphones and bass sarussaphone! > ;D<
As the score already allows for that, I don't think it needs any arranging. Besides, it's already been done! :) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY7UK-6aaNA&feature=fvst)
OK, let's return to the subject of this thread, please...
chill319 - well, 2 of the 3, at least one of Sorabji's works has an hommage to Alkan (unsurprisingly) - though again, it isn't a symphony (though the work that contains it is perhaps a symphony "in disguise" given its length- ca. 8 hours or so?.. - and variety - the symphonic etudes for piano in 3 books, if memory serves, will have to check.)
When Arnold Bax played his piano sonata in Eb to his friends, it was immediately suggested that the material was actually a symphony manqué, whereupon Bax set to work transforming it into his great Symphony No.1. The original piano sonata has been recorded by John McCabe.
well, except for the slow movement of course...
Right.
I'm sure some will not agree, but in my mind Tapiola is a symphony in all but name. And Kullervo, of course. Brings the old fellow to a nice symmetric "9", anyway.
Quote from: JimL on Saturday 10 March 2012, 06:52
I've always thought of two John Adams works as symphonies in all but name: Harmonielehre and Naive and Sentimental Music.
Having just discovered Adams' fabulous
Harmonielehre, I'm inclined to agree with you, Jim. What a piece!
I've seen Scriabin's Poem of Ecstasy labelled as his 4th Symphony on a few occasions. With The Divine Poem already being his Symphony No 3, this would make some sense. There is also the case of Kajanus's Aino occasionally labelled a symphony, though it is clearly a symphonic poem, though Kajanus's Sinfonietta really is a fully fledged symphony.
Quote from: kolaboy on Thursday 12 April 2012, 09:36
I'm sure some will not agree, but in my mind Tapiola is a symphony in all but name.
I certainly agree. It is a one movement symphony like No. 7.
Quote from: suffolkcoastal on Sunday 06 May 2012, 11:44I've seen Scriabin's Poem of Ecstasy labelled as his 4th Symphony on a few occasions.
I have a boxed set of Symphonies 1 to 5, No. 5 being Prometheus: The Poem of Fire.
Quote from: kolaboy on Thursday 12 April 2012, 09:36
I'm sure some will not agree, but in my mind Tapiola is a symphony in all but name. And Kullervo, of course. Brings the old fellow to a nice symmetric "9", anyway.
I might well agree. And what a piece - frightening, elemental, nature in the raw. If Sibelius had written only this, it would be sufficient to secure him a place in the musical pantheon...
Quote from: kolaboy on Thursday 12 April 2012, 09:36
I'm sure some will not agree, but in my mind Tapiola is a symphony in all but name. And Kullervo, of course. Brings the old fellow to a nice symmetric "9", anyway.
The four Lemminkäinen Legends are clearly a symphony; that together with Kullervo gives us 9 Sibelius symphonies; and if you count Tapiola as well (which is a symphony, if the seventh is), that would give us no less than 10 of them. Picking up Sibelius' favourite 20th century composer, Béla Bartók's Music for string, percussion and celesta is yet another 'symphony in all but name'.
anasik - the legends op22 - I think more a suite or suchlike by Sibelius' standards- even from his first numbered symphony he showed he had some clear notions what he, personally, meant by the word, and I'm not positive the Legends qualify?
Quote from: Alan Howe on Wednesday 02 May 2012, 22:23
Quote from: JimL on Saturday 10 March 2012, 06:52
I've always thought of two John Adams works as symphonies in all but name: Harmonielehre and Naive and Sentimental Music.
Having just discovered Adams' fabulous Harmonielehre, I'm inclined to agree with you, Jim. What a piece!
Check out the other one. If that isn't a symphony too, what is?
Perhaps a bit late to comment, as this thread is not new, but in the opinion of forum members, what distinguishes (or even defines!) a symphony compared to a suite (other than the composer's own title)?
Goodness, so far as I'm concerned, Shostakovich's song cycle on Akhmatova lyrics (once on Decca CD coupled with a memorable account of his 14th symphony) is something of a brief vocal symphony in disguise, my point was that Sibelius had his standards , I believe, for what constituted a symphony and what didn't - just as Holmboe did too, just for example - and they weren't the same standards ... or my standards either - but they did lead to e.g. the latter composer's getting maybe pretty far toward a 9th symphony twice (one such work becoming, I believe, one of his Symphonic Metamorphoses) before his actual one.
hi, what do you think about Tchaikovsky's Manfred?
Interesting thread. As to Tapiola not being designated a symphony by Sibelius, I think he had two reasons - 1) the inspiration is clearly programmatic and 2) there is only a single, but very powerful mood. Though Tapiola is just as stringent as Symphony No. 7, the latter work feels 'larger' and is more varied.
Quote from: reineckeforever on Sunday 13 May 2012, 18:19
hi, what do you think about Tchaikovsky's Manfred?
It's a looser, programmatic symphony - but a symphony all the same.
Manfred's also a declared symphony, not one in disguise :)
Which could lead to the question of unnumbered symphonies. Some people, like Britten, didn't number their symphonies (as they don't really form a cycle), but others wrote symphonies with numbers and others without, like Tchaikovsky's Manfred and Arnold's Toy, String and Brass symphonies. Obviously they felt them somewhat apart from the cycle, lighter or programmatic.
It makes me wonder how little I know. Such as:
Which composer was first to number his own symphonies?
If there are works which are not called symphonies yet actually are, then which works are named as symphonies but aren't?
How many symphonies have been written?
What does the chronological mapping of symphonic composition look like?
What proportion of total symphonic output has been recorded?
Quote from: anssik on Monday 07 May 2012, 08:01
Quote from: kolaboy on Thursday 12 April 2012, 09:36
I'm sure some will not agree, but in my mind Tapiola is a symphony in all but name. And Kullervo, of course. Brings the old fellow to a nice symmetric "9", anyway.
The four Lemminkäinen Legends are clearly a symphony; that together with Kullervo gives us 9 Sibelius symphonies; and if you count Tapiola as well (which is a symphony, if the seventh is), that would give us no less than 10 of them. Picking up Sibelius' favourite 20th century composer, Béla Bartók's Music for string, percussion and celesta is yet another 'symphony in all but name'.
I love the op.22 Legends - but they (to me) come across more as a suite of related, but ultimately stand-alone pieces, much like Klami's op.23. As per Tapiola being falling short of the "symphonic mark" by virtue of it's programme, that's never personally been an issue for me, seeing as how I tend to ignore the programmatic aspect. Just as absolute music - without any mythological associations - the piece never fails to move me.
Perhaps there would have been greater contrasts of mood in the eighth... and I hope someday we will have the great privilege to find out :)