Why did a small number of 20th Century composers produce large numbers of symphonies?

[ahinton]

Like many musical forms the symphony reached an exhausted state. It's a little analogous to visual art where portraiture was replaced by more abstract forms. Imagine returning to the photographic image of the portrait or its musical equivalent. Shostakovich seems to have been the last great symphonic exponent. And he died in 1976. Or was it 1975? Anyway, 40 years ago. And his string quartets and Preludes and Fugues are pretty amazing, highly individual, glances back to the classical period too.

Shostakovich died in 1975, aged 68. That plenty of other composers during his lifetime and since have devoted their energies to writing symphonies suggests other than the "the symphony reached an exhausted state"; some have written only one or two, some more than that and some have a symphonic tally in double figures. Whilst it is obviously true that a good number of composers have turned their attentions away from symphonic composition since WWII (and indeed some have never turned them to it in the first place), there has never been any evidence in support of the notion that the symphony is somehow "dead". So whilst Shostakovich was indeed one of the past century's greatest symphonic exponents, to describe him as the last - i.e. as though no more important symphonies have been written during the past four decades - would appear to strain credibility.

[Richard Barrett]

Imagine returning to the photographic image of the portrait

Like David Hockney or Chuck Close you mean?

My take on all this is that: symphonic form (especially "sonata form") as such has throughout its history depended on tonal relationships between and within different structural areas, and when tonal relationships are attenuated or removed the raison d'être of the form could be said to evaporate, more or less. (There are always exceptions of course.) So most symphonies written in the second half of the twentieth century and subsequently have been written by composers for whom those relationships still mean something. Why do some of these people write enormous numbers of them? Maybe they think there's a symphony quota that needs to be fulfilled and their colleagues aren't pulling their weight...

[Stanfordian]

Yes, I noticed that as well; I didn't like to mention it!...

Maybe No. 94 should have been named the 'Inevitable' or the 'Foreseeable'.

[Richard Barrett]

Maybe No. 94 should have been named the 'Inevitable' or the 'Foreseeable'.

or perhaps the "Indistinguishable", oh hang on, Nielsen did that one.

[ahinton]

or perhaps the "Indistinguishable", oh hang on, Nielsen did that one.

!!!

[ahinton]

Maybe No. 94 should have been named the 'Inevitable' or the 'Foreseeable'.

No. 42 is evidently Life, the Universe and Everything and apparently (and exceptionally in his output) plays for at least 2½ hours.

No. 45 is subtitled What Ho! Symphony, No. 67 The Tuneful and No. 103 The Swiss Roll (which I was unaware that they did).

Given that a good number of these works extend to half an hour and more, I cannot even imagine how he finds time to write them. I only ever remember hearing one of them, the Wine Symphony, just once some 40 years ago along with the perhaps inevitable "cru bourgeois" jokes that circulated at the time.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

No. 42 is evidently Life, the Universe and Everything

[Lat-Literal]

Thank you for all the posts to date and especially to s-a whose post was a very helpful springboard. Most of the composers I had in mind have been mentioned. Some I would feel I partially comprehend as people. Others less so or not so. Henry Cowell is another who could be mentioned and possibly anyone who wrote nine or more in the period stands out. That includes some already significant people with wide-ranging styles. My initial impression is that those with very big numbers might have been idiosyncratic rather than ultra conservative, grandiose or especially ambitious but I could be wrong. Is there anything else, for example, that Segarstam, Brian, Hovhaness, Cowell etc etc etc have in common?

[BBMmk2]

Bourgeois 102, Hovhaness 21 at last count.

Bourgeois 109 now, I believe.

[Richard Barrett]

Bourgeois 109 now, I believe.

Looking forward to no.144 "The Gross", no.180 "The Dartboard", etc.

[Suffolkcoastal]

I think that circumstance plays a primary role. In the 18th century the majority of composers, on the continent at least, were employed by the aristocracy and therefore the writing of symphonies and orchestral music was influenced by their employers' tastes and requirements. With Beethoven and the rise of the public concert things really changed and in the 19th & early 20th century the symphony became a challenge for those composers who took up the option, and a public statement, a chance to put their orchestral art on display, this combined with a pronounced shift towards composers earning money directly from their art, resulted in composers being more conservative in their symphonic output. Also instrumental development allowed for a widening of possibilities within the various composition genres.
Since the 1920/30s of course the explosion in the diversification of opportunities for composers. and changes in society/music production, allows composers a certain freedom to try their hand more readily at every possible musical genre and to compose greater numbers of works in a specific genre that they feel suits their mode of expression. Symphonically of course, the continued changes in taste of the listening public and the sheer variety of opportunity to listen, has flooded 'the market' and resulted once more in a retreat from symphonic composition by many composers, except those who have made their mark in symphonic music, or those who are able by circumstance, or by those with a devotion & interest to continue to compose symphonic music.

I'll stop waffling now!!!

[Tetrachord]

Shostakovich died in 1975, aged 68. That plenty of other composers during his lifetime and since have devoted their energies to writing symphonies suggests other than the "the symphony reached an exhausted state"; some have written only one or two, some more than that and some have a symphonic tally in double figures. Whilst it is obviously true that a good number of composers have turned their attentions away from symphonic composition since WWII (and indeed some have never turned them to it in the first place), there has never been any evidence in support of the notion that the symphony is somehow "dead". So whilst Shostakovich was indeed one of the past century's greatest symphonic exponents, to describe him as the last - i.e. as though no more important symphonies have been written during the past four decades - would appear to strain credibility.

Let's say "the last significant symphonists". Plenty of composers create works in any number of genres and most won't see the light of day for a variety of reasons. I don't count those people as moving the symphony forward or reaching its apotheosis.

[Tetrachord]

I think that circumstance plays a primary role. In the 18th century the majority of composers, on the continent at least, were employed by the aristocracy and therefore the writing of symphonies and orchestral music was influenced by their employers' tastes and requirements. With Beethoven and the rise of the public concert things really changed and in the 19th & early 20th century the symphony became a challenge for those composers who took up the option, and a public statement, a chance to put their orchestral art on display, this combined with a pronounced shift towards composers earning money directly from their art, resulted in composers being more conservative in their symphonic output. Also instrumental development allowed for a widening of possibilities within the various composition genres.
Since the 1920/30s of course the explosion in the diversification of opportunities for composers. and changes in society/music production, allows composers a certain freedom to try their hand more readily at every possible musical genre and to compose greater numbers of works in a specific genre that they feel suits their mode of expression. Symphonically of course, the continued changes in taste of the listening public and the sheer variety of opportunity to listen, has flooded 'the market' and resulted once more in a retreat from symphonic composition by many composers, except those who have made their mark in symphonic music, or those who are able by circumstance, or by those with a devotion & interest to continue to compose symphonic music.

I'll stop waffling now!!!

Excellent comments!! I appreciate your "waffle".

[Dave2002]

Bourgeois 113 at last count - or at least at last website update - http://www.derekbourgeois.com/catalogu.htm ; Hovhaness at least 66 according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Hovhaness (and I did check the composer's own website but my anti-virus software didn't like the list of works so i backed away from that).

OK. I was doing a quick search on a bus at the time. Here is more about Hovhaness - seemed to have got up to 67 - http://www.hovhaness.com/Sym_46_67.html

The bus I was on was going into Kingston upon Thames - which it seems is where Derek Bourgeois originates from - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bourgeois

[BBMmk2]

If there are Forum Members here who haven't purchased Lyrita's 4cder of "British Symphonies", should do so without hesitation! Very good indeed. Ok some seem to be in mono, but well worth investigating.