IMSLP Forums

Some readers here may have been watching a poll here on writing symphonies, and some very interesting points were brought up regarding what makes a symphony a symphony. Is it the form, the orchestration, how do a composers own thoughts on the meaning of the term come to bear on what pieces in their output they chose to attach it to? The particular examples that I brought up there (though they may have been brought up by an earlier poster, I can't be sure as they never officially stated what they were) were Ustvolskaya's 4th and 5th Symphonies (here earlier symphonies are also oddly scored, though larger ensembles, I believe only the first has a fairly standard orchestral strength), both of which are very short, under 5 minutes or so, and scored for very small and unusual ensembles. Trumpet, Tam-tam, Contralto and Piano in the 4th and Violine, Oboe, Trumpet, Tuba, Percussion and Speaker in the 5th. Though it should be noted that at least one member of each of the major sections of the symphony orchestra is present, the instrumentations are still quite unusual and would usually not be considered orchestral in any sense. So the questions is, why does Ustvolskaya choose to call these pieces Symphonies?

These are the things I would like to examine here. I would be very interested in the views of fellow composers, but any fellow music lovers here should feel free to chime in. I am also a professional orchestral performer, and I am well aware that the players of symphonies have a unique viewpoint on this subject, in the case of a lifelong player and a well known repertoire piece, that player may have spent far more time performing and preparing that piece than the composer may have spent actually writing it. If you have already written a symphony, what was your thought process in your attachment of that title to the piece? Did you set out to write a symphony in the first place? Did some ideas you were working on eventually coalesce into something that you felt needed that title? And if so what about the materials made you come to that decision?

I myself have not yet written a symphony. I have various bits and fragments that in the back of my mind I think may have the wherewithal to become something worthy of that title, but who knows what they'll become in the end. I am also working on a piece for what I would like to call an outrageously sized orchestra, but I have never once thought that I would it bestow on that piece some kind of symphonic title. This piece has had a very long gestation period and I have always felt a little bit strange about refusing to grant it this honor. Maybe some musings of others here will help me to work out my own relationship to this piece and give it the proper title when it is finished.

So, any thoughts?

All right, enough of this, I think I am going to start a new thread as this one just doesn't seem to be going anywhere, at least not anywhere that I would like to be.

It is a forum, you can't control where it goes.

I am also tired of having to defend some very well-worn ideas about the philosophy of language.

Well-worn ideas? Where is it written that it is evolution for words that mean something to suddenly change to something that is meaningless? How many specifically descriptive words describe any possible combination of elements? That isn't philosophy of words, that is confusion.

So the questions is, why does Ustvolskaya choose to call these pieces Symphonies?

To be different. This is the same degrading mentality that has plagued the 20th Century, and has been growing ever since Beethoven. So much of 20th century is focused around the abstract, extra-musical notion of needing to be different, even at the expense of the music.

I am in full support for the requirement to be unique from contemporaries and your historical counterparts, but only so much as the music isn't harmed. Ever since Beethoven, the gap of 'uniqueness' has been widening, the result of this is an overload of styles and genres that were never explored, and, sadly, are encouraged not to be explored.

Music in the 20th century has seriously stopped actually being about the music and has dwindled into a popularity contest, each with their own cliques; how to gain attention and notoriety, not how to write music.

This is the sole reason why people try to distort and pervert words, or musical elements, or ideas, in this case 'symphony'. It is to stand out; gain attention through extra-musical forces. It is merely laziness and impatience.

Yagan Kiely wrote:I am in full support for the requirement to be unique from contemporaries and your historical counterparts, but only so much as the music isn't harmed. Ever since Beethoven, the gap of 'uniqueness' has been widening, the result of this is an overload of styles and genres that were never explored, and, sadly, are encouraged not to be explored.

Music in the 20th century has seriously stopped actually being about the music and has dwindled into a popularity contest, each with their own cliques; how to gain attention and notoriety, not how to write music.

This is the sole reason why people try to distort and pervert words, or musical elements, or ideas, in this case 'symphony'. It is to stand out; gain attention through extra-musical forces. It is merely laziness and impatience.

Well you have firmly placed yourself in a very well established and long standing clique, perhaps the longest standing even, that of the Conservatives. Are you seriously proposing that there was no good music in the 20th century? I think I will have to respectfully disagree, there are even plenty of great composers in our own lifetimes that would be considered conservative as well, does their music also fall under the wide banner you spread above, or is their conformity bearable for you?

So now that we have the obligatory post from the last thread, let's try to stay on the topic at hand. I would appreciate some thoughts on the actual topic of this thread as outlined. You have done much to demean the symphonies of others because they do not fit your own definitions, but you have not said much about why you would call a piece of yours a symphony. I think the most you had said earlier was that you felt it needed to be for a typical orchestral ensemble, but beyond that you have been silent.

And please attempt to stay away from the grandiose claims that I am somehow destroying language, you have really started to beat this into the ground despite it never being the point in the first place.

So what say you, what does a Yagan Kiely Symphony look and sound like?

Well you have firmly placed yourself in a very well established and long standing clique, perhaps the longest standing even, that of the Conservatives.

Actually, I support change, uniqueness and difference. You would have noticed that I did say that. I said, however that I don't support uniqueness at the expense of Music. So you do support it at the expense of music? Odd stance to take for a musician.

Calling someone conservative, is like calling someone liberal (in a political argument). It is an ad hominem, it is a blanket statement, and it simple attempt at shutting down an argument because of your (in this case wrong) assumption, without any strength behind it. All in all, it is a rather simple but gross straw tiger.

Are you seriously proposing that there was no good music in the 20th century?

I don't remember ever having said that, most likely because I never did. I asked you previously not to misrepresent me, and I'll ask you again, please stop.

or is their conformity bearable for you

Conformity to music? Yes, I am sorry to reveal that if a composer conforms to music that I can bear them.

You have done much to demean the symphonies of others because they do not fit your own definitions

Actually, I didn't demean the piece. I advise you go back and reread my posts.

but you have not said much about why you would call a piece of yours a symphony. I think the most you had said earlier was that you felt it needed to be for a typical orchestral ensemble, but beyond that you have been silent.

That's because that is not this topic. You said in your original post:

'So the questions is, why does Ustvolskaya choose to call these pieces Symphonies?'

I answered that question. Just because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean it is wrong.

And please attempt to stay away from the grandiose claims that I am somehow destroying language, you have really started to beat this into the ground despite it never being the point in the first place.

Actually, the topic was that. You, however tried to hijack the thread (which is why you created this).

Yagan Kiely wrote:Calling someone conservative, is like calling someone liberal (in a political argument).

This is not a political argument, but an artistic one, the meaning is much different and is not meant an insult. The point here was that you were deriding a vast swath of 20th century composers of not writing music, that composition has:

Yagan Kiely wrote:dwindled into a popularity contest, each with their own cliques; how to gain attention and notoriety, not how to write music.

Your method of argument however brings to mind some politically conservative strategies. Constantly claiming to not have said things that you have is a common strategy.

jsnfmn wrote:Are you seriously proposing that there was no good music in the 20th century?

Yagan Kiely wrote:I don't remember ever having said that, most likely because I never did. I asked you previously not to misrepresent me, and I'll ask you again, please stop.

Yagan Kiely wrote:So much of 20th century is focused around the abstract, extra-musical notion of needing to be different, even at the expense of the music.

This does not sound very complimentary to me.

Yagan Kiely wrote:Actually, I didn't demean the piece. I advise you go back and reread my posts.

You reveal that you have barely read some of my posts. From the earlier thread:

jsnfmn wrote:I never wanted to imply that you were dismissing her "music" per se (I don't think you ever mentioned if you had listened to the piece anways), but I do think that dismissing her choice of title is in fact dismissing a salient part of the music as a whole.

This is what I was referring to.

Yagan Kiely wrote:I answered that question. Just because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean it is wrong.

No, you spent a lot of time specifying why you dislike a vast amount of music and gave no insight into your own process.

Yagan Kiely wrote:Actually, the topic was that. You, however tried to hijack the thread (which is why you created this).

Actually, all I did was try to stimulate some conversation on some things that I find interesting about the topic that was under discussion. The only reason I brought in some ideas on on definitions and classifications was that in your second post there post you stated:

Yagan Kiely wrote:I don't appreciate this overly flexible definition, but I can't do much about it.

If you give something to much freedom, it starts losing it and the situation turns into chaos. Classifications are there for a reason, and if you extend every classification to include anything, it defeats the purpose.

I do appreciate this overly flexible definition, and we are going to have to agree to disagree here as you will find it difficult to change my mind on a subject that I have spent so much thought on, and the reasons I will not change it have been multiply spelled out in the previous posts given on my ideas of definitions, but this was the only reason they were ever brought up, they were never the "point." Your sentence on classifications though is more unfortunate. Classifications exist for study, they help us to link many different things by looking for what they have in common and if applicable how they have evolved over time from other things. They should not however be used as a crutch in the creation of new things. The classifications adapt to the world as it evolves and not the other way around.

Now if we could please get back to the subject. I am tired of having constant back and forth with you, nitpicking at past posts and language use. I do actually want to talk about what the symphonic ideas of everyone here reading and posting in these forums. Again, I am not interested in what you think is the right way or the wrong way to either write a symphony or label a piece with that title, but I am interested in why you, personally would give a piece that title.

This does not sound very complimentary to me.

I very much doubt you are ignorant enough not to notice the difference between being critical of the 20th century, and saying 'that there was no good music in the 20th century', but I'm lost as to why you would completely fail to see it.

This is not a political argument, but an artistic one, the meaning is much different and is not meant an insult.

The meaning is exactly the same, because it is straw/paper tiger. It isn't an argument, merely a diversion from actually arguing. If you read what I said, you'd have realised I had meant that.

Constantly claiming to not have said things that you have is a common strategy.

It isn't actually a strategy at all, when you misrepresent me, and actually say that I say things I didn't, I have a right to correct you.

The point here was that you were deriding a vast swath of 20th century composers of not writing music, that composition has:

You are very black and white with you point of view and arguments. Either I do, or do not like 20th century, I cannot under any circumstances enjoy 20th century music, and be critical of it's process or any methods or social practices involved in it. In reality, however, I can and do both.

No, you spent a lot of time specifying why you dislike a vast amount of music and gave no insight into your own process.

My own process wasn't wasn't in question (the main question anyway), and I have never (in any of these two threads) said I have disliked any music, for the third time, stop misrepresenting (and actually inventing) stuff I say. Your question was why she named it such, I answered the reason why; a driving need to stand out (which involves 'being different). Maybe along the way I gave my opinion of the process (Oh, so I did answer your other question), by saying that uniqueness should be the slave to the music, not music the slave to uniqueness. Just because you disagree with what I say, does not mean it is a) wrong, or b) off topic.

you will find it difficult to change my mind on a subject that I have spent so much thought on

That makes two of us then.

The classifications adapt to the world as it evolves and not the other way around

I agree, and if you read my posts again, I always say I agree with this. The difference is, what you propose is genetic modification, not evolution; it is forcing the evolution, not letting it happen naturally.

Now if we could please get back to the subject.

With the exception of the first to sentences in my first post, I have been discussing only the subject you proposed in the title post.

nitpicking at past posts and language use.

If you stopped misrepresenting my words, we wouldn't have to

I am tired of having constant back and forth with you, nitpicking at past posts and language use. I do actually want to talk about what the symphonic ideas of everyone here reading and posting in these forums

How am I stopping others from posting? On the contrary activity will promote activity from others, simply waiting for others to stroll in gives them nothing to start with, and discourages actual conversation.

I am interested in why you, personally would give a piece that title.

Perhaps you should re-word your title post, because with the wording you have, that does not sound like the principal question. The impression given is that "So the questions is, why does Ustvolskaya choose to call these pieces Symphonies?" is the principal question of this thread, and thus is the main topic.

All right, finally, I give up. I guess I expected more from the conversations in these forums and especially from the replies of an ostensible site admin. Thank you for making me very unwelcome here. I am going to confine my posts in the future to technical and copyright questions (though even in these you have felt the need to post off-topic, negative and nonresponsive posts) and simply continue to contribute scans of obscure and not so obscure scores when possible. I'll confine my conversations on musical content to the locals.

I'm sorry if somehow I have insulted you, but I am not quite sure how.

If you ask a question and get a response you don't want, it should be expected. I have (with the exception of the first two sentence in this thread) been completely on topic to the question I thought was the principal question.

On the contrary to making you unwelcome, I have made you welcome by making your point of view important and noteworthy, that is why I have been arguing with you, if you want me to simply agree with you, I will never, but you do need to expect a different opinion. If I thought you were uneducated, or your point of view had no merit as an argument, I would not have spent this much time on it.

negative and nonresponsive posts

Please, how have I been non-responsive? I've addressed everything in your posts (I may have accidentally overlooked a few thing, and I apologise for that if I did). I don't see how I have been negative, I have disagreed with you, but I have been positive about your point of view, purely by paying it so much attention.

I personally would like others to get involved, but this isn't the most active forum in the world, and this has only been two days.