not a symphony

[calimac]

Now I really have to decide how many symphonies I have recordings of, because this month's BBC Magazine recording is of two Organ Symphonies by the French composers Charles-Marie Widor and Louis Vierne. Rather liked the Widor, not so hot on the Vierne. I don't think I'll count them. Although I'm generally of the view that, at least after 1800, a symphony is whatever a composer chooses to call one, and not required to meet certain internal characteristics, I do think that, for my purposes at least, it has to be a work for an instrumental ensemble. And one organist, with two assistants pulling the stops, doesn't count. You are free to organize your collections differently.

Comments

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

For that matter, what about this?

Seriously, I count Boyce's symphonies because they're three-part Italian overtures, the form from which the symphony evolved in the period Boyce was writing. I'd count Webern's if I had it, because it's for orchestra, if a small one, and I do not wish to get into Simpsonian distinctions about what is "really" symphonic. Stravinsky's work is not called a symphony (symphonies in this context is a different word with a different meaning); what about the Symphony of Psalms? Lalo is a tougher case: concertos called symphonies were actually common in the 19th century, but this is the only one that's still remembered.

[asimovberlioz.livejournal.com]

Out of respect, I omitted to mention Berlioz' Roméo et Juliette, symphonie dramatique, which is really a sort of cantata-oratorio-thingy. His most extended concertante work, Harold en italie, is of course a real symphony, in four pretty-much-standard movements, notwithstanding the viola obbligato which dominates the first three. ("Finale problem" strikes again!)

I thought about Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms, but by jigger I actually classify it as a choral symphony. I'm assuming you have no problem with Copland #3, which saves the sonata form for the finale, or such as Barber #1, Harris #3, and Sibelius #7, one-movement works with internal symphonic structures.

And of course there is that one item I ought to have mentioned, but blocked because I have seen and heard it, probably because of its egregious awfulness as a production number in a movie that I only ever watch for the presence of a few of the performers. Its title, amazingly enough, has been re-used in more recent days for something I haven't heard and don't want to hear. There's no point in listening to likely crap when I haven't yet heard all the extant JSBach cantatas.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Of course I don't have problems classifying those various 20th century works as symphonies. The requirement that a symphony begin in sonata form went out before the end of the previous century. Heck, the requirement that a sonata begin in sonata form went out with Beethoven!

If you're going to make an internal/quality distinction among 20th century works called symphonies, you're best with Robert Simpson's definition, which I alluded to earlier. He says a symphony requires the large-scale integration of contrasts, and on those grounds discards Stravinsky's Symphonies in C and in 3 Movements. (I don't think he talks about the Psalms.) Stravinsky himself was doubtful about whether it was fair to call them symphonies.

But he did, and they're somewhere in the ballpark, so I count them. A pop song is not in the ballpark, so I wouldn't count it as a symphony regardless of what its name is.