PDA

View Full Version : The Art of the Symphony



cptexas
08-07-2005, 02:31 PM
The art of the fugue...the art of the symphony...what's next? I'll just tell you now: the art of the concerto.

NEway,
I know symphonies are orchestral works with four movements, but is there a specific pattern for those movements? From my collection of symphonies I'm guessing that the first is fairly quick, there's only one slow movement and that's either the second or third, and the last one is fairly quick and one of them is minor.

Then again I could be completely wrong.
In other words, I have no clue what I'm talking about and just spew out all your information about symphonies. :D :D

-Chris

Fabio
08-07-2005, 04:44 PM
From a technical point of view, the Symphony is a big Sonata form for Orchestra.

As in the Sonata it's important the caracter of the first mov., usually written as a big exposition of main and secondary themes, developed in the central part and coming back for the ripresa, in a conclusive more affirmative way (the "sonata" form, just extended).

As in the Sonata following mov. are usually in contrast, like a light "scherzo" and a slow or heavy "adagio".

The last one is usually a good conclusion, and recall the caracter of the first mov (or recall some theme and atmosphere of previous movements), but with a more heroic, contrapuntal and compelling caracter.

But during centuries, like the Sonata, the Symphony enlarge or reduced his form, with additional movements, with choir and solos episode, or with a written "programma" like the Symphonic poem.

Recent composers in contrast, are writing sometime little form, of dimension/duration similar to the first classic Symphony (Mozart, Haydn), to enjoy the coherent and solid form of Sonata/Symphony, in a concise and "not too long" concerto piece for orchestra.

This is only the beginning: music history lovers, and professors, please "faites votre jeux..."!! :D

newmewzikboy
08-07-2005, 06:23 PM
This is a difficult subject that I was sucked into a while ago.

The classical symphony as devised by Haydn is not the same model that you might find in something like W Schuman or Harris or anywhere in between

The classical 3 movement form, usually something like SONATA, ADAGIO/MINUETTE, RONDO, was expanded with a SCHERZO by Beethoven...who experimented all to hell with the Sonata form in general, and perhaps anything that had movements involved... But yes, to get to the "spirit" of the symphony, looking at the classical form, as well as some of Beethoven, is a good basis.

I'd invite others to list their favorite symphonie. Personally staying away from the Mahler/Bruchner lines and leaving for others...I'm a fan of Sibelius, some of the english and frenchie folks, and the franco-american school myself. With the french school, prefer the Debussy-like poems than formal symphonies...same with italian schools...

cptexas
08-07-2005, 06:32 PM
I'd invite others to list their favorite symphonie.
Although listing musical references is helpful, sometimes the form is hard to pinpoint from just listening and I'd really like to keep this thread more informational than a big list.

Fabio, thanks for the reply. So symphonies used to be only three movements? Thinking back on Beethoven's symphonies, his fifth follows that sort of form, but the main theme changes. The three eigth note half note motif is gone by the time the fourth movement comes along, except for a small section. But he was more romantic and it was a little more rebellious tward the rules.

I'll have a listen to some Mozart symhponies and look at his scores. Mozart was the perfect one, right? Sometimes too perfect...

-Chris

musical.matthew
08-07-2005, 07:13 PM
Sometimes too perfect...


Never too perfect! :)

newmewzikboy
08-07-2005, 08:14 PM
You will find flaws in EVERYONES music....even in Mozart. That's one of the great lessons you will need to learn and greater to accept.

There are a number of good books on the history of the Symphony. Suggest a quick search on Amazon...

musical.matthew
08-07-2005, 09:22 PM
You will find flaws in EVERYONES music....even in Mozart. That's one of the great lessons you will need to learn and greater to accept.

There are a number of good books on the history of the Symphony. Suggest a quick search on Amazon...

Yes, hence his music was never too perfect! :)

newmewzikboy
08-07-2005, 10:03 PM
Actually his music sucks...all those damn sequences and alberti basses and trilled resolutions will drive you nutz!!

rwayland
08-07-2005, 11:27 PM
Actually his music sucks...all those damn sequences and alberti basses and trilled resolutions will drive you nutz!!

Yes, those alberti things are wearying. But I do like the trills most of the time. But I mostly don't like his development. I like his sonatas up to the first double bar. After that, I have a distinct tendency to let my attention wander when I play them.

Is his music still unacceptable as audtion music for conservatory entry?

Richard

newmewzikboy
08-08-2005, 09:45 AM
I dont remember Mozart being unacceptable audition material...The usual:

Bach WTC or similar fugue
Classical Sonata - Mozart or Early Beethoven
Romantic - Chopin, Schumann, Brahms (short piece)
Modern - Prokofief, Bartok


BORING!!!

What I would like to hear:
Bach - Goldberg Variations
Beethoven Hammerclavier Sonata
Brahms Sonata OR Schumann Symphonic Variations
Ives - Concord Sonata

And all played within 2 hour audition...

Styxx
08-08-2005, 09:56 AM
NMB - Nice! ;)

cptexas
08-08-2005, 10:52 AM
Guys, no offense, but I really don't want to go OT here. I really don't know anything about symphonies (well, a little bit now), and I want to lean a lot. I understand sonata form, I just now want to know how the movements of symphonies are linked. They always seem so different. Is the main theme supposed to carry through all the movements, or just a fragment of a theme? Or another theme derived from the origional theme? Like Beethoven in his 5th kept that three eighth notes half note thing, but in the third movement he made them three eigth triplets and a quarter.

It's confusing. :confused:

-Chris

newmewzikboy
08-08-2005, 11:11 AM
Cp:

You are being too myopic. Can you show me ANY two symphonies that are structured the same? Some have 1, 2, 3 themes. There are no specific RULES. There are concepts and guidelines. They are only MORE consistent in Haydn and Mozart, but they are never the same. Just like fugues

cptexas
08-08-2005, 11:29 AM
Cp:

You are being too myopic. Can you show me ANY two symphonies that are structured the same? Some have 1, 2, 3 themes. There are no specific RULES. There are concepts and guidelines. They are only MORE consistent in Haydn and Mozart, but they are never the same. Just like fugues
Ahh.
I see.
So the movements can connect in any way or not at all?
I think I understand. :)

I think....

newmewzikboy
08-08-2005, 11:54 AM
I say....listen to as many as you can with scores in hand. Saturate yourself in it. I went MaD trying...dont analyze...just saturate

joaz
08-08-2005, 12:03 PM
Joaz's rules for Symphonies. Usually 4 movt's sometimes 3 ,2 or only 1 movt.
Lots of stuff happens in them.
er.........thats it.
Sorry I couldn't be more helpful.
:)
regards

newmewzikboy
08-08-2005, 12:47 PM
Sometimes 9 movements or 11...or...well, that would be just silly!

Ummm...~~~~ happens yes

Ok, lets learn something easy
like chess
We will start with Nimzo-Indian, Schveshnikov Sicilian, and perhaps something as d4 for white....that should be easier than Symphonies

Fabio
08-08-2005, 02:22 PM
I dont remember Mozart being unacceptable audition material...The usual:

Bach WTC or similar fugue
Classical Sonata - Mozart or Early Beethoven
Romantic - Chopin, Schumann, Brahms (short piece)
Modern - Prokofief, Bartok


BORING!!!

What I would like to hear:
Bach - Goldberg Variations
Beethoven Hammerclavier Sonata
Brahms Sonata OR Schumann Symphonic Variations
Ives - Concord Sonata

And all played within 2 hour audition...

Yes but then you are hearing the final examination of an experienced graduated pianist! Not the entry audition!!!!
:D

PS I affirm without problems:
YES! Mozart is sometime boring and "too perfect" that is meaning formally cold.
This situation, tipical of a lot of his chamber music (sonatas, quartets, trios, some little symphony etc. etc.) is fully balanced by the highness of his masterpieces, a big number of unforgettable compositions, including the requiem, some operas and singspiele, and late symphonies and concertos.

Fabio
08-08-2005, 02:40 PM
Guys, no offense, but I really don't want to go OT here. I really don't know anything about symphonies (well, a little bit now), and I want to lean a lot. I understand sonata form, I just now want to know how the movements of symphonies are linked. They always seem so different. Is the main theme supposed to carry through all the movements, or just a fragment of a theme? Or another theme derived from the origional theme? Like Beethoven in his 5th kept that three eighth notes half note thing, but in the third movement he made them three eigth triplets and a quarter.

It's confusing. :confused:

-Chris

The ancient Sonata form (late XVIII century) was not at all based on thematic link between movements. The first was based on the two tipical theme of the sonata (the main tonal and strong, the secondary, melodic and mellow, fighting each other during development, based as in the fugue on theme fragment and manipulation, and the two theme rejoined in the main tone for the finale (ripresa) of the 1st movement. Then the following are a light dance (usually minuetto) and a heavy slow (usually largo or adagio). The finale is again an elaborated but free movement, counterpoint frequently used.

The Behetoven monotematism was contaminating last sonatas, quartets and symphonies, but it's only a cerebral, hidden method of composition (somebody say that in the early form it was inconscious).

Another Behetoven's revolution was the additional episode inclusion, and the "ripresa" of previous themes in the finale, as the vocal addition to a typically instrumental form.

Brahms used this way of linking movements, with common root for all themes, and previous movements atmosphere ri-evocation in the last movement.

Late '800 is the era of giga-symphonies, and of course every scheme is evolved to reach this huge duration and dimension: a lot of themes, a lot of development, a lot of movements. But as giga-operas, to keep attention during this execution is a true challenge even for amateurs!

Chris: never think that a single rule exist in the art. But anyway try to extract good samples and rules from every scheme you analyze. Then you will re-create your own, with the best or the more suitable to your style and taste.

newmewzikboy
08-08-2005, 03:00 PM
Jesu! I get such a HO when Fabio talks about music. Don't u?

Awwwww...welp, time for a cigarrette

joaz
08-08-2005, 03:11 PM
Jesu! I get such a HO when Fabio talks about music. Don't u?

Awwwww...welp, time for a cigarrette
I love reading Fabio's posts on this forum,he uses the somewhat unusual gambit of talking sense and knowing what he is talking about.A role-model for us all perhaps.......
regards

cptexas
08-08-2005, 03:12 PM
Thanks, Fabio.
That was very helpful. :)

newmewzikboy
08-08-2005, 03:50 PM
Beyond a role model...Fabio'sly - an art in himself. I listen intensly...and suppress my sarcastic nature....why is that?

joaz
08-08-2005, 04:19 PM
Beyond a role model...Fabio'sly - an art in himself. I listen intensly...and suppress my sarcastic nature....why is that?
Dunno, why is that?Perhaps you reserve your sarcasm for more deserving cases. ;)
regards

newmewzikboy
08-08-2005, 05:29 PM
Im going to start a new thread to honour out Fabio here

Fabio
08-09-2005, 05:17 AM
Thanks again, :o

now keep talking about music,

NMB it's always a pleasure talking with you about the music (you seem to know very well) even when you are sarcastic, a way to keep spicy the discussion... (but please go on being sarcastic against the history...;-)) I fear your words as I would fear a sword...when you use it against real persons!!!)

SeanHannifin
08-09-2005, 05:41 AM
This is probably a bit off-topic, but if you're trying to compose a symphony yourself, I wouldn't worry about structure. (If that is not your intent, then this is definitely way off-topic). If you simply compose what you feel is right, then structure will take care of itself. If you try composing to fit a structure, it might not work so well. :)

Fabio
08-09-2005, 06:28 AM
This is probably a bit off-topic, but if you're trying to compose a symphony yourself, I wouldn't worry about structure. (If that is not your intent, then this is definitely way off-topic). If you simply compose what you feel is right, then structure will take care of itself. If you try composing to fit a structure, it might not work so well. :)

Sean, your invitation to "naturalism" and spontaneous composing is appreciated. I agree with the strong need of being spontaneous, but only if it's meaning: "what I write is music, nice music for me". Never accept music that you first don't like or you first are not convinced of. Simply erase it and go back to the beginning in a new way!

What you say about the structure is only half-true: no advantages come from filling a structure, if the structure is "not fitting your ideas" compressing, limiting or enlarging to redundance your material and your capacity.

But never believe that a fugue or a sonata, as then a symphony have structure coming out for magic from the instinct and inconscious dream of the genius...;-)): nothing is more false than this, in music analysis. Rock song writers are using structures too, and they are really able to write music only following instinct.

How do you think possible to write hours of music without a little planning?
-first: to compose it and find new ideas and development should be very very energy-consuming and frustrating.

-second: the result should be an uncontrolled flow of musical steps, interesting in some form, and mainly if short, but probably confusing and boring if prolonged for a while...BUT: it's only MY opinion...
:D

newmewzikboy
08-09-2005, 10:25 AM
Fabio is correct in this regard. Plan well, but do leave something to be discovered. But, doesnt this conflict? Yes, it does. Isn't that great?

If you want to write a symphony, one option is to take three symphonies that you like and extract out the bones of the form. Take what you think is interesting and construct your own structure out of these bones.

Another hint is to use graph paper, and mark out the sections in relation to time and metre. Its a bit difficult here as fast harmonic music tends to sound shorter (or is it longer) than music that is slow and has a slower harmonic rhythm, but this approach can give you a visual sense of where you are in the movement, how far you have come, and where you need to go.

A symphony, like a fugue, like a sonata, has specific requirements that you need to choose from as if you were choosing a new car...now, you can elect to go with the economy model and no options, or the full luxury model with singing mirrors. Or buy a volkswagon funny car kit and build your own.

Personally, I like scarpa's...chicks in Milan love them.

SeanHannifin
08-09-2005, 10:53 AM
Of course, there is no right or wrong way to compose a piece, so far be it from me to go about telling others how it should be done. However, I believe Fabio has put into words what I was trying to say fantastically. :D

(And the stars I hear on the radio are too structured for my taste. :D I believe money is the driving factor behind much of that music. :( )

newmewzikboy
08-09-2005, 10:58 AM
disposable music...utilitarian music...4 minutes...no mo....radio spot

= $$$

show me the money

symphony in 4 minutes??? HA!

newmewzikboy
08-09-2005, 11:50 AM
Things have moved away in recent years? Shostokovich? Hmmm...I thought I saw him at the 7-11 the other day...

3-4 movement symphonies are still evoked today. There are no rules that say you cannot.

As for form. Form follows function... Creating an overall form up front is not the only way to go. Its just one approach, and a right deadly one.

Better: build your material in sections and then lay them out and figure how these might come in to connect...Then build the joins, the particell ladedadadeeeee...

Its like being in the fog...you see a little bit of the house at a time...

but now cows....cows and fog should never mix

southportJim
08-09-2005, 11:55 AM
symphony in 4 minutes??? HA!

Didn't Webern squeeze one out in 10 minutes or so?

;-)

trentpmcd
08-09-2005, 12:03 PM
Didn't Webern squeeze one out in 10 minutes or so?

;-)

What a coincidence! I am at this very second listening to Webern's Symphony, Opus 21. The recording I have is 7:52. It's in 2 movements.

jesshmusic
08-09-2005, 12:22 PM
Now that I am firmly rooted in Knoxville and about to take two diagnostic tests before I start my Masters in Composition (Theory and Music History) I can tell you what I have learned of the Symphony in re-studying all of this ~~~~e.

One can conceiveably name anything a Symphony. That is beside the point, I think we want to learn what the traditional symphony's form is. The first symphonies as we know them today came about in the time of Mozart and Haydn. Actually first composed by Sammartini. In it's most well known form it consists of four movements:
I. Fast - Sonata form: Exposition (A B A B) Development Recapitulation (A B) This form can have a discussion all it's own, but in brief the Exposition's A theme is in the tonic, the B section is in the dominate or parallel major if in a minor key. This rule is broken a LOT. No rule is hardfast. ie Haydn and Beethoven. Later a slow introduction was added like in the Pathetique Sonata of Beethoven.
II. Slow - Usually a Rondo (A B A C A B A) form. Beethoven switched the order of the movements II and III, hence a lot of composers after him did the same.
III. Minuet (Scherzo) - Usually, but not always the shortest movement. A fast triple meter movement.
IV. Fast - Sometimes this movement incorporated the very fun to compose Sonata-Rondo form - Exposition [A B] Development [A C] recapitulation [A B] Only difference between it and the Rondo is the lack of the repeat of the A section at the end.

When I am going to give something the name Symphony, this is the layout I use. The sonata and concerto forms are only 3 movements (Fast Sonata form, slow, fast) and the String and woodwind quartets follow the Symphony form.... usually.

I can list sooooo many exceptions to this and no one ever truly stuck to the forms exactly. Good example of the Sonata form is the first movement of Mozart's Symphony number 40 in G minor, and a good example of the Sonata-rondo is the final movement of Beethoven's Pathetique Sonata.

southportJim
08-09-2005, 12:23 PM
What a coincidence! I am at this very second listening to Webern's Symphony, Opus 21.

That's the one!

Is this the shortest with the actual title "symphony"? If so, what would be the longest (maybe Glass has done one for 5 or 6 hours)?

;-)

newmewzikboy
08-09-2005, 01:28 PM
Excellante Jesse

Now, I have a question about form. What standard classical forms are there that could be used for Symphony movements?

Sonata
Minuette
Binary
Ternery (w/ Trio? i dunno)
Rondo
Arch
Extended Arch
Scherzo (not really a form is it?)

Please, your contributions?....I'd accept a list of baroque dances too I guess..

jesshmusic
08-09-2005, 01:53 PM
Excellante Jesse

Now, I have a question about form. What standard classical forms are there that could be used for Symphony movements?

Sonata
Minuette
Binary
Ternery (w/ Trio? i dunno)
Rondo
Arch
Extended Arch
Scherzo (not really a form is it?)

Please, your contributions?....I'd accept a list of baroque dances too I guess..

The first movement is almost always the standard Sonata form. This for can be applied to other movements as well. The third movement is almost always a Scherzo or Minuet, but can be any of the triple meter forms I would assume.

The second and fourth movements can be any of the forms you listed, but Binary and Ternary seem a bit to short for the long form symphony. I prefer to use some variant of the Sonata rondo form, leaves a LOT of room for development, but I sometimes I just make up forms like A B C A D A. The fourth movement since Beethoven went from being a light piece to one of the more thought out parts of the symphony. Most of the baroque dance forms (Sarabande, allemande, gigue) are far too short for what most composers want to do with a symphony: compose something long.

BTW, I can't remember who the composer was, but there was a symphony that was 4 movements, one minute in length.

newmewzikboy
08-09-2005, 02:01 PM
I have to disagree with the baroque idea. There are plenty of neo-classical examples where there was a return to baroque form in symphonies

Anyway, I'm looking for other fun alternative classical forms, regardless of whether they were in the cannon, as options.

Does a Scherzo have any formal structure???

Theme and variation is another idea I missed...

jesshmusic
08-09-2005, 02:27 PM
A scherzo is, I believe, a compound ternary form. The middle section is the trio.


...I think.

Other forms that could be interesting are the Passacaglia or canon. Of course is one is going to use the baroque forms would it not be better to call it a Suite?

newmewzikboy
08-09-2005, 02:31 PM
nono Passacaglia GREAT suggestion.

Using a gigue or a bit of baroque flavour is good. Not a whole suite!

AHA Waltz!

Fabio
08-09-2005, 02:56 PM
The "scherzo" is a free form, as the Italian word say "joke".

The traditional classic Scherzo exist in both the binary A A' and ternary form A B A'.

But as we say, rules are made to be brocken, and so it exist some Scherzo in Rondo or contrapuntistic (canon, invenzione, etc.).

the nature of the scherzo is a light and agile composing, usually simple and fast, as if the composer need a relax from the heavy and complex form of Sonata and Rondo-Sonata form of first and last movements. ;)

newmewzikboy
08-09-2005, 04:15 PM
Free form thatw what i thought!!

PaulR
08-09-2005, 04:23 PM
the nature of the scherzo is a light and agile composing, usually simple and fast, as if the composer need a relax from the heavy and complex form of Sonata and Rondo-Sonata form of first and last movements. ;)

Precisely. Especially when using sample libraries.

Forgive me for butting in on your extremely interesting conversation - it won't happen again. :)

newmewzikboy
08-09-2005, 04:26 PM
More form...bring out your forms!!! This is getting interesting!

gugliel
09-02-2005, 02:46 AM
Prokofiev's fifth symphony, first movement, has an interesting sonata variant, where the repeat of the exposition is actually a variation and the recapitulation is a condensation.

Bruce A. Richardson
09-02-2005, 09:12 AM
I play in a group that improvises film scores to silent films. One of the things I have noticed in listening back to recordings is that even though we do not discuss any musical strategies (in fact, it's against the rules--the band must break up if it has a rehearsal), the finished product always has discernable form.

So, I would say that form could even be something as abstract as moving pictures, or a series of drawings--if you respond artistically to it and try to work within it, it's a form.

To the idea of form being restrictive, expressed earlier...

Form is to music as a vessel is to water. Uncontained water flattens out and evaporates. A vessel preserves and channels it usefully. Form to music (and to art) does the same. It provides a structure on which to safely hang and arrange ideas. The strictest forms can be altered and made new. No harm no foul. If you start out writing Haiku, and you find that the most brilliant thing you've ever written has one more syllable than allowed in a given line--then you've still benefitted by the form, even though you've ultimately abandoned it.

The various standard pop-song formats are even brilliantly effective. It is easy to be dismissive of form, even to rail against it. But form is never at fault. It is the ingenuity applied to the form which is on display, not the form. If the form is the most obvious thing "showing" in the work, that's not the fault of the form!!

southportJim
09-02-2005, 10:37 AM
I play in a group that improvises film scores to silent films. One of the things I have noticed in listening back to recordings is that even though we do not discuss any musical strategies (in fact, it's against the rules--the band must break up if it has a rehearsal), the finished product always has discernable form.


What a great idea! Can you let us know where this occurs (or maybe have some recordings you can share)?

;-)

Jimi
09-02-2005, 04:12 PM
The art of the fugue...the art of the symphony...what's next? I'll just tell you now: the art of the concerto.

NEway,
I know symphonies are orchestral works with four movements, but is there a specific pattern for those movements? From my collection of symphonies I'm guessing that the first is fairly quick, there's only one slow movement and that's either the second or third, and the last one is fairly quick and one of them is minor.

Then again I could be completely wrong.
In other words, I have no clue what I'm talking about and just spew out all your information about symphonies. :D :D

-Chris

A "symphony" has been a thing of spirit rather than exact technical categorization for some time now. A symphony can completely ignore all traditional structure, and still be instantly identifiable as a symphony. But certain basic assumptions operate in most symphonies. The concept of development is one of them, even if it isn't exhaustive. It's the difference between, say, The Planets, and Tchiakovsky's 5th. Obviously, this does not mean one is better than the other, it's just a matter of approach. The vast majority of pieces that call themselves syphonies tend to develop less themes in a more superlative way, while a "suite" for example implies many more themes, but far less development.

But this all goes out the window in many cases. Take the Rite Of Spring... not a very extensive development (though there is a suprising amount when you really pick it apart), in only two halves, yet somehow it doesn't "come off" all that different than a symphonie. Go figure...

Same thing with individual movements or sections (sections and movements operate nearly the same in long works... take tone-poems for example). A "schrezo" can forsake scherzo form, but it's plainly evident to any musician that it's still a scherzo, just because it is. The same way you know a bad 70's pop ballad from a disco track.

CallMeZoot
09-22-2005, 08:25 AM
Nowadays, here's how you write a symphony:

1. Write a long piece for orchestra. Preferably 20 minutes or more. Possibly divided into movements, but not necessarily.

2. Put the word "Symphony" somewhere in the title.

Of course, if you're using traditional common-practice-era harmony, you may want to use traditional common-practice form.

A VERY general guideline could be something like this:

I. Sonata form in I (or i)
II. Slow movement (often in V, or sometimes vi)
III. Dance movement, (minuet, scherzo, etc.) often in 3
IV. Uptempo again (often in Sonata form, usually in I)

This is varied liberally.

As far as common themes which keep coming back, I would say go for it. My own personal definition of a symphony is "a large-scale work which creates a world of its own." Beethoven's symphonies (esp. no.3-9) were really the first to do this--earlier symphonies were more or less interchangeable . You could take two Haydn symphonies in the same key, and swap the second movements, and it wouldn't make much of a difference. Put the second movement of Beethoven's 8th in with his 6th, and you have a problem.

chris.

cptexas
09-22-2005, 02:41 PM
Nowadays, here's how you write a symphony:

1. Write a long piece for orchestra. Preferably 20 minutes or more. Possibly divided into movements, but not necessarily.

2. Put the word "Symphony" somewhere in the title.

Of course, if you're using traditional common-practice-era harmony, you may want to use traditional common-practice form.

A VERY general guideline could be something like this:

I. Sonata form in I (or i)
II. Slow movement (often in V, or sometimes vi)
III. Dance movement, (minuet, scherzo, etc.) often in 3
IV. Uptempo again (often in Sonata form, usually in I)

This is varied liberally.

As far as common themes which keep coming back, I would say go for it. My own personal definition of a symphony is "a large-scale work which creates a world of its own." Beethoven's symphonies (esp. no.3-9) were really the first to do this--earlier symphonies were more or less interchangeable . You could take two Haydn symphonies in the same key, and swap the second movements, and it wouldn't make much of a difference. Put the second movement of Beethoven's 8th in with his 6th, and you have a problem.

chris.
Zoot,
(sorry, I couldn't help myself :D )

That's very interesting about a symphony creating a world of it's own. Now that I think about it, You really can't switch around beethoven symphonies but might get away with it with Haydn. I was going to have my Scertzo in four and my slow movement in 3. But like you said, it's not all that strict.

Thanks!
-Chris

SeanHannifin
09-22-2005, 04:27 PM
As far as common themes which keep coming back, I would say go for it. My own personal definition of a symphony is "a large-scale work which creates a world of its own."
I like that definition! :D