# Can a Newbie compose a 'Symphony' in 2017?



## tav.one (Dec 3, 2017)

This might sound like a stupid question, its actually multiple questions.

Is there a certain structure that one has to follow?
Can electronic music elements be used in a symphony?
Is there an unwritten expectation of skill for someone to attempt to write a symphony?
Will it be wrong or irrelevant to use the name symphony for music created in 2017 using unconventional means?

I ask because I'm inspired to write a 'Symphony'
It will be a fusion of western classical, Indian classical, Punjabi folk & electronic music.
I intend to tell a story, with each track connected to each other, building off each other & taking people on a beautiful journey in musical vocabulary that will be native to me but new to many.

Being relatively inexperienced in the classical realm, I want some guidance & invite for a discussion on this topic if its relevant to more people.


----------



## prodigalson (Dec 3, 2017)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony


----------



## CT (Dec 3, 2017)

itstav said:


> Is there a certain structure that one has to follow?



Not really, but if you're going to call something a symphony, it makes sense for it to be roughly symphonic in form. If it isn't, there's probably a better way to categorize it.



itstav said:


> Can electronic music elements be used in a symphony?



Sure.



itstav said:


> Is there an unwritten expectation of skill for someone to attempt to write a symphony?



There shouldn't be, but as soon as you put a label like "symphony" on what you do (or even if you don't), you'll have a fair amount of snobbery from certain "classical" circles to contend with, regardless of your skill level or musical heritage.



itstav said:


> Will it be wrong or irrelevant to use the name symphony for music created in 2017 using unconventional means?



Not necessarily, if what you're doing is really symphonic in form.

It sounds to me like what you're describing could be thought of as a concept album. I'm working on something right now that I initially conceived of as a symphony, but which makes far more sense presented as a concept album.

Good luck!


----------



## SchnookyPants (Dec 3, 2017)

_*“Works of art make rules; rules do not make works of art.”*_

Claude Debussy


----------



## tav.one (Dec 3, 2017)

prodigalson said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony



Hence my post here 

Thanks @miket, I'll look more deeply into symphonic structures and if that is the best name to be given to this project.
To the child inside me, it's so tempting to call it just that.


----------



## tav.one (Dec 3, 2017)

SchnookyPants said:


> _*“Works of art make rules; rules do not make works of art.”*_
> 
> Claude Debussy



Agree & love this quote.
I was asking mainly in the context of using the word "Symphony" in my project.
Sometimes we're not breaking rules but being a fool because of the ignorance, so just saving myself from that by getting some insight from the experienced folks.


----------



## SchnookyPants (Dec 3, 2017)

Well... you could accent thusly: _Sym*PHONY*_.


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Dec 3, 2017)

itstav said:


> This might sound like a stupid question, its actually multiple questions.
> 
> Is there a certain structure that one has to follow?
> Can electronic music elements be used in a symphony?
> ...



I mean..don´t get that wrong: But you can easily make yourself looking like an idiot or joke to others in labeling your music tracks or work as a symphony because there are certain expactations and requirements into that field coming both from history in music and expactation from the audience. And if you fail to pass it then there is a high chance others don´t take you serious. It is like with people calling themselves artists or aspiring composers. They can´t even write a proper AABA form, in other words not even able to write a fundamental simple song form but calling them artists. I wouldn´t even call them composers. Maybe it would be good to just to give the work a meaningful name and let others, the audience and critics decide if it has a proportion to be labeled as a symphony or not.


----------



## Sears Poncho (Dec 3, 2017)

One is free to call a work anything they please i.e. "Bittersweet Symphony". But yeah, the classical and romantic symphony has a form.


----------



## tav.one (Dec 3, 2017)

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> Maybe it would be good to just to give the work a meaningful name and let others, the audience and critics decide if it has a proportion to be labeled as a symphony or not.


Yup, that sounds like a how it should be, thanks.


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Dec 3, 2017)

itstav said:


> Yup, that sounds like a how it should be, thanks.



Maybe if you still like to use something you can label it as a "symphonic fantasy" which makes it not so strict and gives you more freedom. Anyways good luck with your endeavour.


----------



## tav.one (Dec 3, 2017)

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> Maybe if you still like to use something you can label it as a "symphonic fantasy" which makes it not so strict and gives you more freedom. Anyways good luck with your endeavour.


Not attached to the name as much as the respect that carries. I realized I can always consider the album as my first symphony without saying it out loud


----------



## Desire Inspires (Dec 3, 2017)

So you want to.....no, you cannot.


----------



## NoamL (Dec 3, 2017)

SchnookyPants said:


> _*“Works of art make rules; rules do not make works of art.”*_
> 
> Claude Debussy



Well, if you call your piece a symphony then you are implicitly associating it with the forms & rules created by the masters who popularized the symphony. In particular calling your work a symphony implies a sophisticated, deliberate and explicit approach to form. Like, you don't have to follow sonata form, but there probably should be SOME form and that form is "foregrounded" in the audience's consciousness and guides them through the piece. Just having large musical forces, strong themes and a long runtime doesn't make a work a symphony. Like Alexander alluded to, a lot of the works I've ever heard by young composers that those composers have chosen to call symphonies, would be more properly called fantasias or tone poems.


----------



## muk (Dec 4, 2017)

You can write whatever music you like, and call it whatever you want. However, giving a title to a piece is an attempt at communicating with other human beings. And for that communication to succeed, everybody needs to follow certain rules. You are totally free to call a chair 'humbum' from now on. Saying 'I'm sitting on my humbum' might make sense to you in that case, but it doesn't to anybody else. And if everybody else too started giving their own names to things, interpersonal communication would break down alltogether.

In case of the symphony, there are certain expectations bound to the genre. They have been defined most prominently by Beethoven's symphonies. When seeing the title 'symphony', a listener will expect a multi movement work for full orchestra of a certain duration and musical weight. (If you want to write something smaller/less ambitious you could call it 'Sinfonietta'). It is (or certainly was) the most ambitious orchestral genre (similar to the string quartet for chamber music). Brahms, for example, was so profoundly aware of these expectations that it took him 14 years to complete his first symphony. He was 43 years old at that time and had written a lot of music before even tackling the symphony.
The listener will expect a cyclical integration of the movements in one way or the other. Beethoven, for example, often exposed a certain problem in the opening movement that is being worked on in the middle movements and finally resolved in the finale.
And each movement will be expected to have a defined and understandable musical form. Usually the movements will be in different tempi - the first and last movements often being faster, the middle movements often in slower tempi. Likewise, the character and orchestration of the movements will usually exhibit some contrast to each other (while still being tightly bound together and not just being thrown together randomly).

That's some of the expectations I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many more. You are free to meet them or undermine some playfully. But if you ignore too many of them, communication with your audience may fail.


----------



## SchnookyPants (Dec 4, 2017)

Great post, muck.


----------



## Paul Grymaud (Dec 4, 2017)

Yes ! I'm trying to end the "Unfinished symphony"...


----------



## bbunker (Dec 4, 2017)

muk said:


> You can write whatever music you like, and call it whatever you want. However, giving a title to a piece is an attempt at communicating with other human beings. And for that communication to succeed, everybody needs to follow certain rules. You are totally free to call a chair 'humbum' from now on. Saying 'I'm sitting on my humbum' might make sense to you in that case, but it doesn't to anybody else. And if everybody else too started giving their own names to things, interpersonal communication would break down alltogether.
> 
> In case of the symphony, there are certain expectations bound to the genre. They have been defined most prominently by Beethoven's symphonies. When seeing the title 'symphony', a listener will expect a multi movement work for full orchestra of a certain duration and musical weight. (If you want to write something smaller/less ambitious you could call it 'Sinfonietta'). It is (or certainly was) the most ambitious orchestral genre (similar to the string quartet for chamber music). Brahms, for example, was so profoundly aware of these expectations that it took him 14 years to complete his first symphony. He was 43 years old at that time and had written a lot of music before even tackling the symphony.
> The listener will expect a cyclical integration of the movements in one way or the other. Beethoven, for example, often exposed a certain problem in the opening movement that is being worked on in the middle movements and finally resolved in the finale.
> ...



I think muk pretty much nails it. That's in terms of expectation; the thing is that you can very comfortably warp those expectations, as long as you know the expectations, know what you're actually doing in not going along with them, and have a reason for doing it and calling it a symphony.

So, Sibelius can finish his Seventh Symphony in 1924 (it took him EIGHT YEARS...) - a piece in one movement, running just a bit longer than the first movements of plenty of Romantic Symphonies. And it makes sense calling it a 'Symphony' because in that one movement it performs all of the processes that are expected of Symphonies, without doing most of the literal things that would be expected. The handling of keys is different, and the form doesn't have a one-to-one relationship between 'expected' movements and the ones he uses in the way that something like Mahler's Fifth symphony does (which is in an 'unexpected' five movements), where the first two movements feel like one very long first movement. But Sibelius' piece makes its argument in a clean, concise, packaged way that succeeds as a Symphony and as a piece of music.

Here's the thing: the difference between a Symphony and many works is that the Symphony isn't driven directly by Narrative. It often makes sense expressed as a narrative (Tchaikovsky's Romeo and Juliet is a Sonata-Allegro, and still very programmatic) but the basic language of a Symphony is rhetoric - a Symphony is an essay that makes a logical point. That symphonies can 'feel' programmatic or narrative-driven owes more to the relationship between rhetoric and narrative than anything - that being convincing often involves telling a good story goes back to Quintillion - but ultimately, if a composer doesn't have a "thesis" to prove, then they aren't writing a symphony.

Are there requirements for who can write one, then? Sort of: the thing about 'proving' some idea, working it through with the musical logic inherent to the format, is that it does take some skill to work the materials through the processes that need to be done.

The great thing about the 'logical' core of the Symphony is that there are within it infinite possibilities that have been largely untapped. Could you use Punjabi Folk, Electronic, or Indian Classical elements? Yes, absolutely!!! The catch is that often other forms come with their own systems of working, which may be more or less compatible with that 'logical core.'


----------



## tav.one (Dec 4, 2017)

Thanks, @NoamL @muk & @bbunker This thread has made me much informed about the subject.


----------



## Piano Pete (Dec 29, 2017)

Everyone else has pretty much covered it, but I'll add my thoughts. (I am surprised that no one bothered to give any credit to Haydn, but I'll let the musicologist in me continue to nod off due to the holiday food-coma.)

A symphony is nothing more than a set form, so you can still write one. Instrumentation is typically assumed to be orchestral, but it is for the most part irrelevant. Just think of it as an expanded sonata for a multitude of forces, and you'll be safe most of the time. Since the 20th century, everything has been expanded upon and morphed so much that depending on how you analyze a piece of music, you can always make arguments for many compositions to be whatever you want, so today, we have more freedom than we give ourselves. 

Now, if you hand it off to someone with that nomenclature, they'll typically expect the following (or some variation upon).

Symphony Crash-course:

1) Sonata Allegro

2) A slow movement- typically theme and variations, rondo, or even something sonata-esque. Whatever you choose is less important than it being slow.

3) A dance- typically minuet-trio, scherzo, or some other form of dance. Typically quick. Whatever you choose is not really important. 

4) Finale- typically rondo (usually ABACA or ABACABA) or even sonata allegro. Typically faster than mvt.3 (usually the fastest, but tempi vary widely). Again, whatever you choose here is not really important.

Some notes:

- The order of movements 2 and 3 can be switched around. In the classical to romantic, they preferred the 1, 2, 3, 4 arrangement. As we progressed through the 20th century, many opted to switch the order of 2 and 3 ( 1, 3, 2, 4) so that there was greater emphasis placed upon the slow movement and the finale; the contrast generated by the stark change in tempi made each respective movements seem slower and faster.

- People have added to and subtracted movements to this form to suit their needs.

- As bbunker stated, the form really has little to do with the music itself and is mostly about how the material is grouped and organized.

-Key centers typically float around a certain home-base, using common relationships, but this is pretty irrelevant.

There you have it, a really simplified version of what is needed for a piece of music to be a symphony. Now, if you wanted to get even more into the artistic nitty-gritty, I would also add that a major element expected in this form is that there needs to be some amount of methodological treatment/development to your musical material, but there is a plethora of works that do this better than others. I would also add that the last sentence in many cases is assumed based on the comprising components, but it really is a side tangent. Some of the greatest moments in music have occurred due to composers purposely, or otherwise, veering from our preconceived expectations, so do not feel that you have to adhere to the form 100%. I should also add that like many things in music, these technical aspects are typically lost upon the majority of concert goers anyways.

Now, from reading your original comment on your goals for each movement and the piece overall, have you considered labeling it the following: Tone Poem, Symphonic Poem, Orchestral Fantasy, Symphonic Fantasy, Overture (typically one movement, but I felt like adding it to the mix), Fantasy-Overture (same as last one), or even a Programmatic Symphony (although this one has more symphonic expectations to fulfill than the others)? I only add this because while it is always fun to say that you are writing a symphony, there is a reason that these forms developed: they have less formal expectations/restrictions placed upon them and work great for pieces that don't need to be squashed into the form of a symphony. (The publication restrictions do not really exist anymore). Regardless of what you choose to do from either a creative or archival perspective, there are plenty examples of non-symphonies being symphonies in all but name and symphonies that don't reflect their presented form in the slightest--although I would personally avoid this scenario. 

My main purpose of the last paragraph is this: do not sacrifice your musical intent to fit your composition within constraints that could potentially compromise your work. I know plenty of people who have butchered works, or worse themselves, in an attempt to be "legitimate composers." If it doesn't have to be a symphony, let it be something else. If it ends up being something that fits within the form, or you just want to slap symphony somewhere in the title area, feel free to do so. Ultimately, the music is the important thing.

Since Beethoven has popped up so much already in this thread, rightfully so, I feel it appropriate to put this here for some music history geekiness-fun. If you have the chance, go take a look at the Prometheus Overture and his first symphony. After that, take a look at the choral fantasy and his ninth. Compositions aside, Beethoven was a master of testing the waters. He was also a master at programming, often rigging the deck in his favor for premieres to be well received. 

Hope this helps.


----------

