Thank you for creating this video! I am a writer and this video just inspired me. Not to write a symphony, but use what a symphony embodies and connect it to my artistic expression of the written word. I draw inspiration from everywhere. That is the artist in me. The music lover in me has recently became curious with exploring symphonies. Then, I was an elementary school teacher for 14 years which makes me want to learn more about symphonies to teach my 4 year old who loves Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata. I want to expand for him to expand. So here I am on your video 😂🤷♀️ Keep doing what you are doing! You never know who you will inspire or touch with your heart felt content! 🤍
Mahler’ second symphony is the best one ever composed imo. Beethoven’s ninth one come very close, but it’s not as dramatic (while it’s still very impressive).
Interesting you start with that Mahler quote. He expressed that idea to Sibelius once when they had a conversation about the symphonic form. Sibelius disagreed with Mahler’s idea that the symphony should embrace anything and instead believed the symphony should be self-contained. He took that to the extreme in his seventh symphony, which he drafted as several movements but published as one. He felt a symphony should be a struggle from Place A to Place B, more or less. It is continuous development. You can hear that in most of his works in fact. They’re all tense. But not many composers that I know of subscribed to Sibelius’ brand of the symphony anyway
I've always been curious; what, if anything, is the difference between a symphony and a suite? The suites of Grofe and Holst seem very symphonic in form. I often double-feature Dvorak's 9th with Grofe's Grand Canyon Suite. The tone poems of Respighi feel like mini-symphonies to me, while Pictures at an Exhibition feels like a symphony in 15 movements. Could Beethoven have called his 6th The Pastoral Suite and gotten away with it?
It is a unique achievement telling the story of the symphony without at least mentioning the name of Anton Bruckner even in that short-winded overview.
"Any composer within the last 300 years worth his salt has aspired to write a symphony" - are Ravel and Debussy aren't worth their salt!? (I realise I shouldn't take that comment too seriously, and don't take this comment too seriously either, but still!) Anyhow, I've always preferred the slow movement as the 3rd movement (or if more than 4 movements, the second to last assuming the last is a fast one). The contrast between a slow and sometimes a perhaps elegiac movement with a brilliant fast final movement, to me just makes the final movement so much more satisfying. Currently writing a symphony myself, and made careful consideration to put the slowest movement, in lento, as the penultimate movement (although I'm doing 7 movements, more like a modern suite). By having a light-hearted movement right before the finale, to me it just loses some of the potential drama of that final movement within the context of the piece, when especially hurts when the final movement is usually supposed to be *the* finale, what the listener is left with once the piece is over. Oh, and would have liked if you'd shed a bit more light on more contemporary symphonists - Rautavaara, Glass, etc. And Messiaen's Turangalila symphony!
I would say that "Any composer worth his salt wrote a symphony" comment is a little inaccurate. I adore symphonies from all eras, but it's just 1 form out of many. A composer like Debussy never wrote one and he is definitely a composer worth his salt! Same with Lili Boulanger, composers before the Classical era like Bach, etc. I love symphonies, light and serious ones, but I don't like how composers who didn't write symphonies are taken less seriously than others who did.
Thank you for creating this video!
I am a writer and this video just inspired me. Not to write a symphony, but use what a symphony embodies and connect it to my artistic expression of the written word. I draw inspiration from everywhere. That is the artist in me. The music lover in me has recently became curious with exploring symphonies. Then, I was an elementary school teacher for 14 years which makes me want to learn more about symphonies to teach my 4 year old who loves Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata. I want to expand for him to expand. So here I am on your video 😂🤷♀️
Keep doing what you are doing! You never know who you will inspire or touch with your heart felt content! 🤍
This is so helpful. Thank you.
Mahler’ second symphony is the best one ever composed imo. Beethoven’s ninth one come very close, but it’s not as dramatic (while it’s still very impressive).
Disagree, Eroica is the best, choral comes next, than Jupiter, Mahler9,2
@@Hakkkkk Eroica is not even close to the power of this symphony.
Interesting you start with that Mahler quote. He expressed that idea to Sibelius once when they had a conversation about the symphonic form. Sibelius disagreed with Mahler’s idea that the symphony should embrace anything and instead believed the symphony should be self-contained. He took that to the extreme in his seventh symphony, which he drafted as several movements but published as one. He felt a symphony should be a struggle from Place A to Place B, more or less. It is continuous development. You can hear that in most of his works in fact. They’re all tense. But not many composers that I know of subscribed to Sibelius’ brand of the symphony anyway
My granny couldn`t have explained it better to me!
I've always been curious; what, if anything, is the difference between a symphony and a suite? The suites of Grofe and Holst seem very symphonic in form. I often double-feature Dvorak's 9th with Grofe's Grand Canyon Suite. The tone poems of Respighi feel like mini-symphonies to me, while Pictures at an Exhibition feels like a symphony in 15 movements. Could Beethoven have called his 6th The Pastoral Suite and gotten away with it?
It is a unique achievement telling the story of the symphony without at least mentioning the name of Anton Bruckner even in that short-winded overview.
"Any composer within the last 300 years worth his salt has aspired to write a symphony" - are Ravel and Debussy aren't worth their salt!? (I realise I shouldn't take that comment too seriously, and don't take this comment too seriously either, but still!)
Anyhow, I've always preferred the slow movement as the 3rd movement (or if more than 4 movements, the second to last assuming the last is a fast one). The contrast between a slow and sometimes a perhaps elegiac movement with a brilliant fast final movement, to me just makes the final movement so much more satisfying.
Currently writing a symphony myself, and made careful consideration to put the slowest movement, in lento, as the penultimate movement (although I'm doing 7 movements, more like a modern suite). By having a light-hearted movement right before the finale, to me it just loses some of the potential drama of that final movement within the context of the piece, when especially hurts when the final movement is usually supposed to be *the* finale, what the listener is left with once the piece is over.
Oh, and would have liked if you'd shed a bit more light on more contemporary symphonists - Rautavaara, Glass, etc. And Messiaen's Turangalila symphony!
What song was the very last one he played?
I would say that "Any composer worth his salt wrote a symphony" comment is a little inaccurate. I adore symphonies from all eras, but it's just 1 form out of many. A composer like Debussy never wrote one and he is definitely a composer worth his salt! Same with Lili Boulanger, composers before the Classical era like Bach, etc.
I love symphonies, light and serious ones, but I don't like how composers who didn't write symphonies are taken less seriously than others who did.