Symphony

Hi there,

Two questions: must a symphony contain wind, brass (aside from strings), or can it also be entirely string? A whole piece will be played by string players (with no wind, brass, percussion)?

Second, how does it basically differ from orchestra?

Thanks,

Elysian

This used to be the case up until the 1900s. But, somewhere in there, they developed chamber symphonies. However, most of these too had "basically" all the elements of an orchestra, just smaller. Not as many instruments, more independence in the lines.

I, personally, have never heard of a Symphony for strings. But, there is a LOT of music out there.

Thanks, M. Helps a lot. I've come across a symphony for strings by William Schuman. Is this entirely composed of string instruments only? Seems innovative....

^^^^Terrible! :)

A symphony is typical a more extended composition for orchestra. IT CAN be for just strings; however, the term traditionally speak is for symphonic orchestra. A five-minute piece does not constitute a symphony. Please, have respect for our musical language.

There are other ensembles whose works are called symphonies. David Maslanka's Sym. No 4 is for wind ensemble. Traditionally, symphonies are multi-movement works; his is one movement although it has sections rather than movements. Also understand that this piece is also twenty-seven minutes so I think "Symphony" fits well.

"Suite" is typical used for a multi-movement work that is not a symphony like "The Planets" or "First Suite for Band"

This used to be the case up until the 1900s. But, somewhere in there, they developed chamber symphonies. However, most of these too had "basically" all the elements of an orchestra, just smaller. Not as many instruments, more independence in the lines.

I, personally, have never heard of a Symphony for strings. But, there is a LOT of music out there.

How about Britten's Simple Symphony, or Glass's Symphony no. 3 for 19 string instruments?

Nowadays you can pretty much write anything and call it a symphony! I'm sure you have nothing to worry about.

I definitely qualified myself a couple of posts later when I said Mendelssohn had written String Symphonies.

I just didn't know. haha.

But, after listening to them, I don't agree with the term: "symphony" anymore then.

Here at Indiana, they tell us that things like that are outdated anyway. Most of the professors just give a programmic title to their works, even if the piece isn't necessarily programmic. Like, for example. I wrote a Bassoon solo without any particular idea of a "program" in mind. Just something that describes it.

Don't use outdated titles. haha. Also, never put your scores in landscape... just a side comment. I got in big trouble for that. So, it's whatever. Do whatever you want. Just, don't expect me to like it. hahaha.

When I hear a symphony... I wanna hear a SYMPHONY. You know. Something that has it all. The ultimate statement. An emotional experience. I have never heard a pre-1900 classical symphony that didn't do that to me. I have ALWAYS had some sort of emotional connection to each one I have heard. It should take time, dedication, powerful forces to write AND rehearse. It should be virtuosic in ideology and tackle big issues like raw emotions or economic problems. It should delve into your soul and rip your heart out or make you wanna leap out of your seat and praise *insert deity here*.

I dunno. That's VERY biased. But, that's how I was raised. Symphonies are grand works. They aren't subtle. They just STATE. They give off information in the rawest, most emotional form it can.

I dunno. One of my friends wrote a very wonderful Piano Sonata over the summer. He called it a Piano Sonata. And, it was definitely not outdated.. how does music become outdated that way?

Oh, well, I see what you mean. But, I was under the impression that Sonata "Form" determined simply the way the material was presented. I can write something in a key and then write a contrasting section in the dominant and develop it all then recapitulate it all with VERY modern and non-standard harmonies and rhythms and meter and what have you. :D

For example. I could write a very modern piece in three four (in "one" time). I can call that a waltz. That doesn't make it outdated. Even if it is contained that way. It's enjoyable for me to write because I know that it perfectly fits the Waltz description yet is something completely new and fun.

I put a lot of value in classical form. I think it is solid, predictable, and a great way to put yourself in a creative box. I love writing Motets, and Operas, and all those other things classical form determines. Maybe I'm weird. haha.

OHH OH OH OH OH. Ok. I'm sorry. Miscommunication. In that way, YES, I agree with you.

Off-topic: NOW THIS is a great representation of how an intelligent thread is SUPPOSE to happen!