Symphony as 'ultimate' form in music?

[Wunderhorn]

I'm curious how important the Symphony is to the people on this sight. I've gotten into all the famous symphonists, and even contemporary ones by Glass. I'm not sure exactly how relevent or important it is to those on this sight what the symphony actually means, and if it was Beethoven who first truly gave birth to the form. To me, many of the French of the 19th and 20th centuries didn't obsessed over the form, more because it was coined an Austro-Germanic idea. Then why didn't this stop Dvorak and Tchaikovsky and many many others? To me I see it, in the end, as trying to make since of a whole thing that is typically in sections. Schenker's theory of harmony and tonal theory, in general, though I'm not aware of its complexities as I am not a musician. It is something to the degree that somehow all music from a piece is related to the tonic of its beginning key, even under Wagnerian complexities and modulations. Often many similarities can be found in the movements. In Bruckner's 8th, one of the most beautiful things I have found, is how the Scherzo relates to the opening movement. Mahler 2nd and 3rd appear like twins, as Scherzo material is brought back in the finally. To me, exactly how the composer can twist and bend the material into a whole form that essentially gives a certain music character to the tonic 'subjets' of the original key borders on an almost ultra obsession. When I here Sibelius's 5th and how he did this in particular, reminds me of how his orchestral color is twice that of Debussy, with a finale as maybe the most brilliant music ever written. I am less intrested in tone-poems, as this particular concern for form isn't present; They are more as a long piano prelude.

[barry guerrero]

hmmmm - well, I'm a little confused. You seemed to have chewed on a number of issues. First off, it's quite obvious that the symphony, as a musical form, was pretty important to composers of virtually every nationality. I don't think it's accurate to say that the symphony wasn't important to French composers. It's probably true that it wasn't that big of a priority with them. Albert Roussell was probably the best French symphonist. But many people, myself included, consider "La Mer" to be a full blown symphony. It just happens to be in three movements, and it just happens not to be terribly long winded. The other great French three-movement symphony is the D-minor by Cesar Franck. Sauget was a pretty good French symphonist who's virtually unkown today. Perhaps the very best symphony written by a Frenchman is the Saint-Saen's third - the "organ" symphony. That's a great piece by any standard.

I happen to feel that the symphony is the highest classical music form. But then again, I'm greatly interested in orchestral literature, so it stands to reason. I'm a big fan of orchestration, as you know.

[Leo K]

I've always felt the Symphony to be the ultimate expression of musical discourse in the context of a public setting, but also consider the Piano Sonata, String Quartet/Quintett and other forms of chamber music just as important for the purpose of intimate, private playing.  Issues of form, discourse and argument as executed by a full orchestra is the most exciting musical experience I can think of...in other words, I am also a huge fan of orchestration, especially the sound of the timbre of the intruments together or solo.  It's what I usually listen for first before consideration of form and etc.

I feel the Symphony really begins with Haydn...especially the London Symphonies.  It's also interesting to hear how Mozart and Beethoven take the symphonic baton in their own characteristic ways...Schubert's 8th and 9th mean alot to me too (with the inclusion of long melodies into Sonata development).











 

 

[Ivor]

I agree with barry that you've rather thrown in several points.

As far as I can see it is because many composers have put some of their most important expressions into what they've called symphonies that I find many of my preferred works to be symphonies. if i think of a dozen top works,a high proportion will be symphonies in my book.

I said 'many' composers, because some have concentrated elsewhere,like opera,the piano,chamber music and so forth.

The symphony arose out of other forms,and tho' Haydn didn't create it,he did get to be the first major composer of the symphony,and some way before the London symphonies. Not to mention Beethoven baby.

I like different forms for what they DO offer rather than not liking them for  not doing what I-I-I-I want. Any musical form I don't like (opera slightly in my case) is MY loss. There are joys to be found in them all. Just different joys.

And certainly the archetypal symphonic form is a fine way to build large structures of music that have shape.

very crudely speaking,there are at least 2 types of listener/critic/composer. Those who make form paramount,and those for whom content is tops. you pays your money and you takes your choice. And the two camps may never be able to agree. I remember reading a book on musical judgment where he says two critics might hear the same performance of the same piece. The classicist might write,"because of the formal perfection of the work,it succeeds altho' the content is not of the first rank,";the romantic might say,"Despite the formal perfection of the work,it fails because the content is poor." (as they used to say in part about GM).

That's putting it crudely in order to highlight the point. The two critics have clearly heard much the same things;they just value them differently.

If I read Wunderhorn aright,you're a 'classicist.' Let a 1000 different types of listeners bloom (as long as the 'I-hate-classical-music' brigade don't win !!!!!!!!!)