Symphonies with organ

[Ahollingsworth1961]

'Morning AH1961 - and welcome!

Yes, what is a symphony? And is it really a symphony if it has a major role for a single instrument anyway? (Bof, internet very slow this morning: I'm sure it isn't us!)

Thank you

My Internet is fine

I have a feeling that someone in here knows the definition of a symphony and will tell us.

I haven got any idea

[Roehre]

Thank you

I have a feeling that someone in here knows the definition of a symphony and will tell us.

I haven got any idea

A symphony is a symphony as the composer names it a symphony (or "Sinfonia", as long as it is not an orchestral introduction to an opera or oratorio).

Btw, Mahler 8 begins with a massive (rather un-mahlerian) organ chord (and is 8 a symphony for that matter?)

[Pabmusic]

A symphony is a symphony as the composer names it a symphony (or "Sinfonia", as long as it is not an orchestral introduction to an opera or oratorio)...

Very neat. Welcome back!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

A symphony is a symphony as the composer names it a symphony

Quite. And a warm welcome back, Roehre.

... is [Mahler] 8 a symphony for that matter?

Yes. (See above*.)

(* = Unless/Even if you point out the fact that I didn't know (as is your habit) that nowhere on the manuscript score does Mahler ever call/describe it as (a) Symphony.
In fact, can a work be a Symphony even when the composer doesn't so title it?

[BBMmk2]

A symphony is a symphony as the composer names it a symphony (or "Sinfonia", as long as it is not an orchestral introduction to an opera or oratorio).
Btw, Mahler 8 begins with a massive (rather un-mahlerian) organ chord (and is 8 a symphony for that matter?)

Welcome back Roehre!! Much missed!!(

[Roehre]

Welcome back Roehre!! Much missed!!(

Many thanks to you and other for the PMs and good wishes

[french frank]

A symphony is a symphony as the composer names it a symphony

Eminem has just produced his Symphony in H. Doubt if it will feature an organ though. Or an orchestra?

[Roehre]

In fact, can a work be a Symphony even when the composer doesn't so title it?

Yes, and there are works which started to be conceived as a symphony (like Berg's 3 Pieces for orchestra, or -iirc- Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra) and works which are symphonies but weren't named as such.
Petrassi's 8 concertos for orchestra are symphonies in all but name. Petrassi avoided the term for the leaden weight of the tradition.
Milhaud is another example:
After no.12 Milhaud seems to have stopped composing symphonies.
Well, not quite: as his publisher had told him not to compose any symphonies any more as there were already 12 of them and they were very difficult to market, Milhaud continued composing symphonies, only did not call them as such, but named them "Musique pour..." most of the time naming the city from where the piece was commissioned.
Prague is no.13, Indiana 14, Lisbon 15, New Orleans 16, l'univers claudelien 17, Graz 18, Ars Nove 19 and San Francisco 20.
Apart from "17" no symphonies followed 12, and no "Music for" was composed before no.12 had been performed.

An amusing incident surrounded the programme booklets for the Concertgebouw's 1981/'82 season.
For october 1981 a concert was announced (CGA/Haitink ) with i.a. Keuris' "Symphony no.2".
It was still a symphony as Haitink took the first three movements of the score to study and prepare during his summer retreat.
As he returned late August and received the finale, the work was without a title - removed from the the first page of the score and lacking a frontispice. Only mid-september th work was called Movements for Orchestra.
Chandos has recorded the four symphonic works of Keuris' with the The Hague Philharmonic (Residentie orkest Den Haag):
Sinfonia (symphony 1, 1974), Movements (symphony 2, 1981), Laudi - a symphony (Symphony 3, 1993 ) and Symphony in D (symphony 4, 1995) (Btw: Suffolkcoastal seems to have overlooked these works sofar )

Other examples: the original 1841 version of Schumann's 4th symphony is called "Sinfonische Fantasie".
His Ouverture, Scherzo and Finale started to be sketched as symphony, then was called Sinfonietta, and ended with the present title, as Schumann thought the movements could be performed separately.

Mahler 1 started life as "Titan- a symphonic poem in two parts (5 movements)"

[BBMmk2]

What's Keuris's style?

[Roehre]

What's Keuris's style?

post-romantic I'd say, brilliantly orchestrated, immediately recognizable "Keuris-sound" in all his works, be it Passegiate for four recorders, through his clarinet-quintet, the 2 string quartets, to his last works, the Symphony in D and the Preludes for orchestra (played at the proms by Chailly and the RCO) (Keuris died in 1996, just 2 months after his 50th birthday).

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Yes, and there are works which started to be conceived as a symphony (like Berg's 3 Pieces for orchestra, or -iirc- Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra) and works which are symphonies but weren't named as such.
Petrassi's 8 concertos for orchestra are symphonies in all but name. Petrassi avoided the term for the leaden weight of the tradition.
Milhaud is another example:
After no.12 Milhaud seems to have stopped composing symphonies.
Well, not quite: as his publisher had told him not to compose any symphonies any more as there were already 12 of them and they were very difficult to market, Milhaud continued composing symphonies, only did not call them as such, but named them "Musique pour..." most of the time naming the city from where the piece was commissioned.
Prague is no.13, Indiana 14, Lisbon 15, New Orleans 16, l'univers claudelien 17, Graz 18, Ars Nove 19 and San Francisco 20.
Apart from "17" no symphonies followed 12, and no "Music for" was composed before no.12 had been performed.

An amusing incident surrounded the programme booklets for the Concertgebouw's 1981/'82 season.
For october 1981 a concert was announced (CGA/Haitink ) with i.a. Keuris' "Symphony no.2".
It was still a symphony as Haitink took the first three movements of the score to study and prepare during his summer retreat.
As he returned late August and received the finale, the work was without a title - removed from the the first page of the score and lacking a frontispice. Only mid-september th work was called Movements for Orchestra.
Chandos has recorded the four symphonic works of Keuris' with the The Hague Philharmonic (Residentie orkest Den Haag):
Sinfonia (symphony 1, 1974), Movements (symphony 2, 1981), Laudi - a symphony (Symphony 3, 1993 ) and Symphony in D (symphony 4, 1995) (Btw: Suffolkcoastal seems to have overlooked these works sofar )

Other examples: the original 1841 version of Schumann's 4th symphony is called "Sinfonische Fantasie".
His Ouverture, Scherzo and Finale started to be sketched as symphony, then was called Sinfonietta, and ended with the present title, as Schumann thought the movements could be performed separately.

Mahler 1 started life as "Titan- a symphonic poem in two parts (5 movements)"

As I said earlier - Welcome Back!

[EdgeleyRob]

Yes, and there are works which started to be conceived as a symphony (like Berg's 3 Pieces for orchestra, or -iirc- Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra) and works which are symphonies but weren't named as such.
Petrassi's 8 concertos for orchestra are symphonies in all but name. Petrassi avoided the term for the leaden weight of the tradition.
Milhaud is another example:
After no.12 Milhaud seems to have stopped composing symphonies.
Well, not quite: as his publisher had told him not to compose any symphonies any more as there were already 12 of them and they were very difficult to market, Milhaud continued composing symphonies, only did not call them as such, but named them "Musique pour..." most of the time naming the city from where the piece was commissioned.
Prague is no.13, Indiana 14, Lisbon 15, New Orleans 16, l'univers claudelien 17, Graz 18, Ars Nove 19 and San Francisco 20.
Apart from "17" no symphonies followed 12, and no "Music for" was composed before no.12 had been performed.

An amusing incident surrounded the programme booklets for the Concertgebouw's 1981/'82 season.
For october 1981 a concert was announced (CGA/Haitink ) with i.a. Keuris' "Symphony no.2".
It was still a symphony as Haitink took the first three movements of the score to study and prepare during his summer retreat.
As he returned late August and received the finale, the work was without a title - removed from the the first page of the score and lacking a frontispice. Only mid-september th work was called Movements for Orchestra.
Chandos has recorded the four symphonic works of Keuris' with the The Hague Philharmonic (Residentie orkest Den Haag):
Sinfonia (symphony 1, 1974), Movements (symphony 2, 1981), Laudi - a symphony (Symphony 3, 1993 ) and Symphony in D (symphony 4, 1995) (Btw: Suffolkcoastal seems to have overlooked these works sofar )

Other examples: the original 1841 version of Schumann's 4th symphony is called "Sinfonische Fantasie".
His Ouverture, Scherzo and Finale started to be sketched as symphony, then was called Sinfonietta, and ended with the present title, as Schumann thought the movements could be performed separately.

Mahler 1 started life as "Titan- a symphonic poem in two parts (5 movements)"

Roehre is back with a bang.
Hey,while you've been away they have been playing symphonies by Leighton,Rawsthorne and Grace Williams on the wireless,I'm not joking....and I've been learning about key signatures and stuff....C sharp minor is the same as E major,I understand now and.......and there's this composer with two names, suffolkcoastal has been telling me about him....Vainberg/Weinberg and and he wrote wonderful music and.....this guy Ivanovs who wrote a zillion symphonies and ....enough,welcome back,you've been sorely missed.

[Suffolkcoastal]

Nice to have you back Roehre. I only have the Keuris Symphony in D, none of the others, I can't have every symphony sadly, and there are plenty of gaps in my collection, though I would like to have every symphony of course

[jayne lee wilson]

A symphony is a symphony as the composer names it a symphony (or "Sinfonia", as long as it is not an orchestral introduction to an opera or oratorio).

Btw, Mahler 8 begins with a massive (rather un-mahlerian) organ chord (and is 8 a symphony for that matter?)

Well, I do feel the 8th to be "symphonic", in its use of thematic and motivic material... and of course Mahler would have had less interest than his later listeners in being "Mahlerian". The organ features in No.2 of course. Why not in No.8, with its epic, choral and text-based conception?

I'm intrigued by your idea that "a symphony is a symphony" if a composer calls it that - but then go on to claim that Petrassi's Concertos for Orchestra are really symphonies! Which of course implies that you have an "external" concept of what a symphony is. I've been fond of the Petrassi works since the Tamayo/Netherlands RSO set appeared, and while I might call at least some of them "symphonic" I don't feel them to be symphonies, in the way I feel Lutoslawski's 2nd or 3rd Symphonies to fit the term. This may simply be - autosuggestively - because Lutoslawski called them that, as per your initial idea. But for me, it's almost impossible to define what a symphony is in technical terms. It seems (very subjectively) to be more about "making a statement" a "report on experience", something on a larger, more "philosophical" scale than a "concerto". Perhaps something which isn't (or doesn't feel) just an exploration of sonorities. So Arvo Part's symphonies, or Roberto Gerhard's, might be included - but then along comes Milhaud to wreck the idea! Perhaps deliberately?
...or seeking for compositional respect, like those composers (Walton, Rachmaninov etc.) who include a fugue in a less-than-inspired symphony to give it some (misconceived) seriousness and respectability.

So turn it upside-down and say: if WE see the word "symphony" on the title page or in the programme, we listen to it differently, and quite probably hear it and attempt to "understand" it differently too. Autosuggestion as above.

It will be recalled that Mahler has been seen as "less symphonic" than say, Nielsen or Sibelius (whose techniques are sometimes described as "more organic"). I think Anthony Hopkins once remarked that Sibelius "had a better idea of what a symphony is about" than Mahler - wondering if Mahler might not have been better employed writing symphonic poems (!). Yet Mahler adumbrates classical symphonic form far more obviously than those Scandinavian masters.
When I listen to the last 3 Symphonies of Holmboe, I couldn't imagine using any other term for such close-knit motivic intensity; and I recall Schoenberg saying, of (I think) Shostakovitch and Sibelius, that they "have the breath of symphonists".

I couldn't begin to define, or objectify, whatever that may mean! But sometimes, in the experience of some compositions, I feel it too.

[Roehre]

So turn it upside-down and say: if WE see the word "symphony" on the title page or in the programme, we listen to it differently, and quite probably hear it and attempt to "understand" it differently too. Autosuggestion ...

As composers are human -and listeners to their own music developing- autosuggestion as described does IMO apply to them too. Since Beethoven the "Symphony" is harder -but not impossibly- to define, since Mahler it is a near impossibillity.

We have to take in account too, that the form of a Symphony -i.e. a 3 or 4 mvt work for orchestra, with a fast(ish) opening and closing mvt encompassing a slow(ish) (as well as a "dance"-like )mvt-, mainly developed from the middle of the 18th century onwards and only was a "stable" form between say the 1760s and around the 1850s.

Beethoven blew up the symphonic form not only by the choral Ninth, but earlier already by the 5 mvt Pastoral, years before the musicologists started to try to define what a Symphony was -in their wish to approach compositional processes/architecture from a "scientific" point of view.

"One" mvt symphonies encompassing the "original" 4 mvts into one continuous arch -if we don't account works like Mozart 32, an actual Sinfonia/opera overture in all but name- started to appear shortly after Beethoven (Berwald, Schumann, to some extent Mendelssohn 3), extra-musical impulses from literature or otherwise infused the symphony from the beginning (Haydn 6-8 e.g., or Dittersdorf's Ovid-inspired works).

If we are unable to emulate the 19th century musicologists in ticking boxes what defines a symphony, then I do think that the only way out of this "mess" is the way I tried to define the form, a work is a symphony as soon as the composer says it is one.
With JLW I do feel that there is a kind of autosuggestion involved too, an inner voice which tells us whether a real symphonic architecture or process is going on below the surface, and thus identifying works which are "symphonies" in all but name.

Petrassi explained himself that by naming his works Concertos for Orchestra he tried to escape the pressure these works being compared with the symphonies of his colleagues in past and present (what if Brahms would have followed a similar avenue to escape Beethoven's shadow??)