THE SYMPHONY
An Introduction
Dr David C F Wright
The word symphony means
sounding together but Harold Truscott
opined that it really meant ensemble.
To some extent he is right. The German
word is sinfonia and in Jacopo Peri's
opera Eurydice of 1600, the opening
item is a sinfonia for three flutes,
in other words, an ensemble for three
flutes. This served as an overture which
is why in early music sinfonia and overture
are synonymous terms. The sinfonia was
usually in three section namely quick,
slow and fast or ABC form. This was
used by such composers as the Italian
Alessandro Scarlatti (1660- 1725) and
this partly explains this ABC form which
was often called an Italian overture.
Later, Schubert was to compose two overtures
in the Italian style. The French equivalent
was Sinfonie which was usually in two
sections slow and fast the fast section
usually in a fugal style. Such examples
can be found in the sinfonia/overtures
of Lully (1632- 1687) who, despite being
Italian by birth, as was Scarlatti,
took on French nationality in 1661.
It was in 1673 that he began to compose
operas.
Another use of the
word symphony was as an interlude such
as the Pastoral Symphony in Handel’s
Messiah.
J S Bach had another
usage of the word in that he wrote one
movement sinfonias for keyboard. In
more recent times Alkan (1813- 1888)
wrote a Symphony for solo piano. Bloch
(1880-1959) wrote a symphony for trombone
and orchestra and, in 1963, Britten
wrote a symphony for cello and orchestra.
Often the Italian sinfonias
were played separately in concerts and
so gained independence which encouraged
symphonies to stand on their own as
complete orchestral works. In this context
the word sinfonia was changed to symphony
as, for example in the splendid symphonies
of Karl Friedrich Abel ( 1725- 1781),
J C Bach (1725-1782) and Dittersdorf
( 1739- 1799) who wrote 115 symphonies,
twelve of which were based on episodes
from Ovid.
But to return to the
sinfonia. Usually they were monothematic
per section. The next major development
of the symphony is attributed to Giovanni-Battista
Sammartini (1698- 1775) an Italian composer
who introduced the second subject or
second theme and probably originated
the sonata form often referred to as
classical form since it was used by
such great composers of the classical
period such as Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven.
The second subject was in a different
key and Sammartini introduced the idea
of developing the material and the recapitulation
and so the sonata form was born.
It therefore consisted
of:-
Introduction, optional
Exposition the two
subjects distanced by a bridge passage
Development of this
material
Recapitulation
Coda, an end piece
- perhaps a final flourish.
This structure is very
satisfactory because it is well defined
and gives order to any piece which employs
it..
An Austrian composer,
Georg Monn (1717-1750) used some unusual
aspects in his symphonies. He depends
on melody and prolongs modulations (changes
of key) making them too important. He
uses little time in the development
section which is an integral part of
sonata form at which Beethoven is the
master. Monn makes the recapitulation
too extended whereas the symphonies
of J C Bach , Mozart and Haydn are better
balanced in construction. Monn often
instruments in the extreme. In his Symphony
in E flat there is an extended solo
for horn which, for its time, was very
difficult.
This leads on to the
consideration of the Sinfonia Concertante
where a symphony employs a soloist or
soloists but where the solo parts are
not necessarily a full concerto contribution.
These were vehicles for soloists in
the orchestras of the European courts
of the day. J C Bach was a master at
this and wrote some impressive works
in this vein. The concerto had the soloist
centre stage whereas sometimes, but
not always, the concertante group was
in the orchestra just as it would be
in a Concerto Grosso which may have
soloists.
Johann Wenzel Stamitz
(1717-1759) introduced into his symphonies
a marvellous emphasis on writing for
string instruments. He elevated the
symphony for strings although Vivaldi
had written some sinfonias for strings
alone but they were brief works. It
is interesting that many present day
composers began writing symphonies with
a symphony for string orchestra. Malcolm
Arnold wrote such a symphony in 1947
some four years before his Symphony
no.1 and Kenneth Leighton also began
with a symphony for string orchestra.
There are those who
wrongly assert that the sinfonia/symphony
evolved from the Dance Suite or Suite
of dances, such dances being gavottes,
allemandes, galliards, courantes, musettes,
minuets an so on. This false premise
is based on the fact that many early
symphonies included a minuet. The minuet
and trio made up a movement in many
classical symphonies but was replaced
by a scherzo and trio, a notable example
being that movement in Beethoven's Symphony
no. 7 in A, Op. 92.
There are many examples
of symphonies which suffer because of
a lack of form or other weaknesses.
The symphonies of Schubert are such
casualties. As many professional musicians
have rightly said, he is inept at development
and depends too much on repetition.
William McNaught refers to the many
serious flaws in his symphonies, and
his other works, and states there are
' matters for reproach.' While not everyone
will agree, Schuman called Berlioz's
Fantastic Symphony formless and it is
a long-winded ramble. It is also a hybrid
work or a parody. The March to the Scaffold
steps out of the pages of Les Franc
Juges and it is a rhapsodic and undisciplined
work although there is a careful planning
of his thematic material. César
Franck's Symphony is another poor work.
Tovey called it a symphonic poem rather
than a symphony and John Manduell rightly
describes it as structurally weak. And,
as with Schubert and Borodin's Symphony
no. 2, there is too much repetition
and the main theme is done to death.
Tchaikovsky's symphonies
are seriously flawed. Hans Keller called
them neurotic. There are passages which
are drawn out as in the first movement
of the Symphony no. 4 but, in my view,
Tchaikovsky was one of the finest orchestrators
of all time, and not often acknowledged
as such, but his music is really grand
light music.
Some of the symphonies
of Mahler create problems from the point
of form and structure. The Symphony
no. 4 is a dreadful piece. Tovey called
the first movement a picture of a poultry
farm. The music is full of endless patterns
and no direction. It has been described
as a very unequal and poor work. The
finale is an indiscriminate juxtaposition
of symphony and song, writes Geoffrey
Sharp. To me, it is crude not only musically,
but in the pictures it conjures up of
big, blond, beefy men swilling beer
and buxom women flirting outrageously.
Alan Rawsthorne called it vulgar.
In Mahler's Symphony
no. 8 we have a hymn and a cantata.
Or is it a one-act opera based on the
Faust story? While I thrill at Veni,
Veni Creator Spiritus, what follows
does not belong and the work is a hybrid
and, therefore, unsatisfactory work.
Yet in his sixth and nine symphonies
we have examples of excellent structure.
It will be argued that
does this all matter? What is in a name?
There are works called
symphony which are not really symphonies
at all such as Zemlinsky's stunning
masterpiece, the Lyric Symphony.
The great Franz Liszt
was not a symphonist and yet his Faust
Symphony and his Dante Symphony are
magnificent works.
Some composers worry
about calling a work a symphony if it
is not long enough. There are some symphonies
which are too long to sustain its material
and interest. Sir Adrian Boult used
to say this about Schubert's Symphony
no. 9.
The great modern Austrian
composer, Anton Webern, wrote a symphony
lasting less than ten minutes which
confirms Truscott's definition.
On the other hand there
are composers who lengthen their symphonies
by the use of padding, that is to say
material that has no bearing on the
work from any point of view. I can think
of a composer who in the first movement
of one of his works introduces a continuous
section of seven minutes of broken chords.
That is padding. It serves no useful
purpose.
Historically, we have
grown up with this accepted definition
of a symphony and its form is very satisfactory.
One musicologist said that adhering
to sonata form indicates the signposts
and directions and every listener has
a right to know where the music is and
where it is going.
The symphony is not
dead and in the last fifty years Britain
has produced some fine symphonies that
conform to classical design. Other countries
have done likewise.
Generally speaking,
most composers want to write at least
one symphony. The form has the loftiest
position in serious composition and
is a pinnacle of musical form.
Dr David C F
Wright
Copyright Dr David
C F Wright 2003. This article or any
part or it must not be copied, used,
stored in any retrieval system, downloaded
or reproduced in any way without the
prior written consent of the author.
Failure to comply could result in action
at law for breach of copyright.
