Talk:Symphony/Draft

Well, this is the first try. It wouldn't surprise me if this isn't taken down. Tee hee. Hopefully a music scholar can come onboard and pump up the volume, as it were. Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 19:12, 17 October 2007 (CDT)

Looks like an excellent start! --Larry Sanger 22:11, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

Yes, a brave start! One point, which is an issue as it involves a category heading, is that Beethoven symphonies are not normally seen as Romantic: they form a transition between classical and Romantic, and in a sense belong in a category of their own. You have more or less done that, by separating him from the 19th century symphonists, but still -- he was also 19th C :-)) --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 22:43, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

Good, great, integral point, Martin. I'm going to take a rest for a bit, then return, and I'll put Beethoven in a category of his own. I also have to inject Richard Strauss into this, and then figure out a way to characterize the twentieth century (because there is a supposed European "line", but then there are British and American symphonists). I'm picking up eight more books on the subject when the university libraries open, so my eyes'll be zipping along like twin Concordes. Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 23:05, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

W.r.t. the photo, I can't help feeling that it is a bit odd to use an orchestra and hall from Taiwan, rather than Europe or USA! I have been looking for a picture, and so far have found two of the Moscow Phil, but I don't know what the copyright position is. We could try asking and I suspect they would happily give permission.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 12:27, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

Regarding "A Fifth..."; I liked it. --Robert W King 17:14, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

Hey, don't get me wrong: I absolutely loved it at the time! I'm wondering now if I still would...maybe I'd better go buy a copy and listen to it again! Aleta Curry 17:17, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

Lists

What do you all say to removing the list of modern composers from the 20th Century section? It's fine the way it is; my fear is that people with start adding to it and we'll get one of those WP type endless lists, which I hate.

I started catalog of symphonic composers, in any case.

(and thangsalot, Justine--I can't get this music out of my head, now! Singing: This is/the sim-fon-nee/that Schubert wrote and didn't fin-nish!)

Aleta Curry 18:14, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

I am rather impressed that Jeffrey can write so authoritatively on 20th century composers, and welcome the inclusion of these composers in this article. Actually, I was thinking of suggesting a few more to add there:-)

Actually, it's the twentieth century where I feel more comfortable. (And in order to keep it short and snappy, I left out some composers which others may have put in, such as Rachmaninoff, Nielsen, Hindemith, etc. I just didn't want to give the reader an information overload. I think that list of composers of symphonies will be VERY wonderful.) (And it struck me hard as I wrote this article that the history of the symphony kind of in one way ends with Beethoven, and everything that follows him is like a footnote: it's odd, that.) Martin, for my two cents, I love the photograph that you added; it enhances the page marvellously. However, you may have a point about substituting it for another; I won't enter the discussion because, as I say, I love the photograph as it stands; I only hope a picture commensurate in beauty is available! ALSO! Regarding lists, the Appendix A and Appendix B of the Adam Carse book in my bibliography lists what looks like a couple hundred composers of symphonies in the eighteenth century, virtually all of them completely forgotten today. Although they won't warrant inclusion in a CZ list, perhaps we could/should mention that this list (these appendices) exists?Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 00:39, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

Actually, I didn't add the photo. I have two of the Moscow Phil I collected, but they are not public domain, so I didn't upload them. If you are happy with this one, let's leave it there! --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 00:42, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

P.S. YOu can add as many as you like to catalogs, as subpages of this article. Go to Catalogs from the articlke page, and I made a link to another subpage from the Catalogs subpage, which means that we can have as many catalogs there as we like. It sounds complex, but if you look you will see easily. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 00:45, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

Martin, thanks for the info on lists, I'll figure it out in hours to come. (Typing up these appendices of hundreds of names sounds like FUN!) Now I need to withdraw back into this pile of books by my side, to double-check all my facts and maybe add a few. Back later . . . hopefully to "finish" this article Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 00:49, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

Related articles

Trying to figure out how to deal with subpages is way too complicated for me at the moment; I’m gathering info together for articles, so need to keep focused. So I’ll put here information for three subpages for the symphony page and let someone else judge if these are useful and so on:

See also:

Ripieno concerto

Symphonie concertante

Sinfonia characteristica

The ripieno concerto was a popular form of instrumental music in Italy at the outset of the eighteenth century. It was composed for an orchestra without featuring a solo instrument, and was sometimes structured in three movements of contrasting speeds (generally fast-slow-fast). It differed from the concerto grosso insofar as the orchestra for the ripieno concerto wasn’t divided into two antiphonal sections; “ripieno” can translate as “full” and referred to “full orchestra”. Italian composers who wrote ripieno concertos include Antonio Vivaldi, Giuseppe Torelli, and Tommaso Albinoni. Some music scholars relate the ripieno concerto to the development of the symphony, as many early symphonies adhered to a three-movement pattern of fast-slow-fast, but this general structural principle wasn’t exclusive to the ripieno concerto. (See, for example, the Italian sinfonia.) The genre of the ripieno concerto died out during the eighteenth century while the modern form of the concerto grew in prominence in this same period.

The symphonie concertante (or sinfonia concertante; symphony concertante) was a genre related to the symphony which grew in prominence during the 1770s – 1780s in Europe but which died out for the most part by 1800. It was a symphony-concerto hybrid, organized in two movements, and scored for up to six soloists and orchestra. Some composers of symphonie concertantes were Carl Stamitz, Giovanni Giuseppe Cambini, and Jean-Baptiste Davaux. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart composed at least one finished symphonie concertante, Sinfonia concertante in E-flat major for Violin and Viola, K. 364, in 1779.

The sinfonia characteristica (or sinfonia caractéristique, characteristic symphony) was a type of symphony composed mainly in the eighteenth century which was embellished with a printed text (either one line or many paragraphs long) which pointed the listener in a specific direction, so that the music would convey a thematic expression, i.e., “tell a story”. Music scholar Richard Will has identified over 225 such works written between 1750 – 1815, the majority of subjects being these five: pastoral, military, hunts, storms, and national or regional expressions. As a term, “characteristic symphony” is the forerunner of the “program symphony” of the nineteenth century which gained major prominence with Hector Berlioz’s Symphonie Fantastique. Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 05:28, 21 October 2007 (CDT)

DONE!! --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:41, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

Nice job, Martin! Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 12:55, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

List of twentieth century composers

I think Robert Thorpe was exactly right to add Carl Nielsen to the list of twentieth century composers. Why? Because Nielsen indeed had an intrinsic role to play in the development of the symphony (esp. Symphonies No. 1 and 5). That I left him out in that list was an unfortunate oversight. Of course, more names could be added, but I don't think any of the names on the list can be left out; each name can be defended in one way or another. My criteria for this list was, first and foremost: who in the twentieth century expanded the vocabulary of the symphony (i.e., innovated) without discarding the concept of a "great tradition" of the symphony? Of course, some would argue that a couple more names could be added, such as, say, Penderecki. But why I didn't add, say, Philip Glass, is because I don't think he fits in to this "great European tradition". Others may disagree, and that's cool with me. Who made me right? In the end, I thought that it would be wrong to discuss the merits of each choice in the article itself because it would simply make the article longer and longer, and if/when each composer has his own page, it can be there where the composer's merits are best explained. Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 18:50, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

Congrats! A Few Comments and Comparisons

First of, my congrats to Jeffrey Bernstein for writing such an important and well-written article. Jeffrey asked me to take a look, and I really like what I see! For an introductory article primarily for non-scholars, it has nearly exactly the right chronological and geographical balance. The most commonly performed and recorded symphony composers are right front and center. It's tiny compared to the New Grove article, of course, but gives a much better overview than that dictionary can. We can use sub-pages and related articles to go into detail about the 18th-century symphony; Grove can't, so there one reads pages before getting to the first name most people have heard of. It's a wonderful feature that the Wiki-encyclopedias have, and not made any clearer than here. The article far surpasses the slightly longer Wikipedia article in its clear organization and firm editorial hand. (That article was far worse before the removal of every notable composer ever to write a symphony). The chronological approach really must be the best way of discussing a form that has changed so much over the centuries.

The lede is quite good. I would cut "In the present day the symphony is the musical form performed more than any other in concert programs by orchestras in the United States and Europe" and transform it to a statement about how it is the form at the heart of orchestral concerts today, and how indeed the very name "symphony orchestra" attests to its predominance in the classical concert hall. The number of performances can still be cited as evidence for its importance, but it's really not the important thing in itself. This proposed rewording also lets us get in the equation of "symphony = orchestra" which should be mentioned somewhere. There's also a less strong usage of symphony being a stand-in for all classical music, orchestral or not ("Going to symphony hall"), that could be mentioned. (Both with a quick "See 'orchestra'" or "See 'classical music'").

The Mozart and Haydn sections are quite strong. I'd include the 104 and 41 counts, but put them in some context ("Both were prolific composers of symphonies. The traditional number written by Haydn and Mozart are 104 and 41, respectively, though recent research has attributed to each several formerly unknown or misattributed symphonies."). (The number nine for Schubert is also a traditional number -- he began 13 and finished 7.)

I like how the Beethoven section begins; it's too bad there's not something explicitly on style periods with the symphonies -- at least as long as there is no Beethoven article. The difference between the "second" and "third" style periods is less important in the symphonies, I believe -- the Eighth doesn't really show late style, and the ninth is sui generis. But the differences between 1-2 and 3-7 are worth addressing.

The early nineteenth century section is good, but focuses a bit too much on how we see the 19th century symphony today. A bit of background would help the article extremely without adding much length at all. Mentioning for instance, that Schubert was not considered a symphonic composer for much of the nineteenth century, that the Grove dictionary of 1889 wrote "it might seem almost superfluous to trace the history of Symphony further after Beethoven," because of the perceived inferior quality of later work, etc. In the second half of the century I would discuss Brahms, Bruckner (more correctly 11 symphonies), and Mahler together in a discussion of Austro-German ideas towards the end of the century. The fruitful interaction between symphony and tone poem on the program music side could be made more explicit. I do find that Strauss is given too much real estate in the article, since the two early symphonies are of minor importance and the two later are essentially tone poems and would be discussed there. The Grove article has a chapter on "Mixtures with other genres" which I find useful, since it includes not just tone-poem influence, but also concerto (e.g., Lalo's Symphonie espangnole). Then there's the whole kettle of organ symphony...

The 20th century section handles a diverse group of composers and notions of symphony really well. I think there's really three things we want to do with 20th century symphony: (1) identify the most important symphony composers--that is, those for whom the symphony occupied a (or the) central part of their compositional life (Nielsen, Sibelius, Vaughn Williams, Shostakovich, perhaps Ives). I believe they are best identified in a single sentence to discourage others from adding to the list. (2) mention briefly the most important symphonies by other composers (Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms, among others); again in one or two prose sentences. (3) Most importantly: mention what composers wanted to do by writing a symphony. I think the sentence beginning "Some twentieth century symphonies hark back..." is a good example of this type of writing, and almost the whole 20th century section could be written this way. It also allows much more for discussion of post-WWII works, where with some exceptions (several symphonies of Hovhaness, Glass, Henze), the writing of symphony tends to have a particular extra-musical purpose, either political expression (Gorecki 3), memorial (Corigliano 1), hommage (Schnittke); the creation of anti-symphonies (symphonies in name only) could be mentioned (Gubaidulina);

Names: In many cases, the nicknames of Symphonies precedes the giving of certain numbers. For instance, "New World Symphony" (formerly No. 5, now No. 9), or "Unfinished" (no number when first discovered and performed). This section is necessary, I guess, but a little more trivial than the rest of the article. There may be a way to integrate it higher?

Again, what great work -- really impressive! My comments are so long because I find the writing worth grappling with, not because it needs much or any change.

Michael Scott Cuthbert 20:46, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

One little thing: re: Debussy and Bartok not composing symphonies: It's nothing at all new in the 20th century to have major composers who didn't compose symphonies. It's that we have two major orchestral composers who didn't (though, the "Symphonic Sketches" that are La mer make it nearly a symphony). The 19th century is filled with opera composers who never did (nor did Chopin). Michael Scott Cuthbert 21:37, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

changes made

Okay. I have made virtually every change addressed by Michael Scott Cuthbert in the previous note. I made two of the changes as footnotes (which someone subsequently may want to amend, bringing the information into the body text): the Haydn/Mozart symphony reference, and the Bruckner’s eleven-not-nine-symphonies reference. I added paragraphs on the “end of the symphony” idea, the “Austro-German” bent of the history of the symphony, and the genre of the “tone poem”.

What I didn’t do is anything involving the twentieth century. Why? Since this is a collaborative effort, I’ll let someone else deal with it. Tee hee. Good luck. (Conceivably I COULD do it, but I'll leave it a week or two, in case someone else wants to slip in.)

My last two cents: I truly believe that only one space between paragraphs makes the text very hard to read, if not virtually unreadable. But maybe that’s just me. And who made me right? Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 07:17, 27 October 2007 (CDT)

The readability of the text when there is only one line space between paras is determined by font type and font size. I changed mine because it was driving me crazy :-) --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 07:21, 27 October 2007 (CDT)