|
|
 |
wmthor
(375 points)
| 
Its a stupid question but can you change the time singnature of another movement? And what is the recommended amount of movements?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Account Closed
(904 points)
|
To answer the time signature question, yes, you are able to change it for whatever reason (maybe you want to use a waltz-like theme or minuet, or a funeral march). I believe the average number of movements in a symphony is three. Most likely a fast, slow, fast, lay-out of movements or a slow, fast, slow should be about right. Of course, not everyone adheres to the "rules" and that's what makes memorable music.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
werothegreat
(294 points)
|
The traditional number of movements is four, and most of the famous pieces have four (Beethoven's fifth, New World, Mahler's fourth) though some have three or even six. You can change the time signature wherever and however often you want. Be creative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oboistfrk
(131 points)
|
The modern symphony does not have any required form, but many people choose to follow a form anyway. Many people, for example, call Holst's The Planets a symphony, yet it is 7 movements and has no real congruity.
alex
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mini_Mozart
(245 points)
|
The name "symphony" is never given to holsts "the planets" the term symphonic poem is used and they are classified as individual symphonic poems altogether. Not 7 movements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wmthor
(375 points)
|
Only someone who is like a retiree' could have enough time to compose 7 movements of music each at least a few minutes long.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oboistfrk
(131 points)
|
Here's the general idea of a symphony:
Group of 3 or more movements of contrasting style.
that covers it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oboistfrk
(131 points)
|
Oh, and for the books, it's not hard to compose something that's maybe 25 minutes long, and you don't have to be retired.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Account Closed
(394 points)
|
The one and only time I fell asleep at a symphony was a Mahler 90 minute long symphony....really, I like Mahler, I praise his work, but all those modern progressions, and dissonance, and long running phrases that go...who knows where, lost me. Here I am a person who thinks the more complex the better, and Mahler fits the bill, but...yaaaaaaaaawn.....
Look, I was on the edge of my seat with Prokofiev, and Gershwin has me all bubbling up! I love Ravel, and Rachmaninoff as well. I guess I just needed more sleep that night. I have listened to the 5th of Mahler many times, I had to buy it, I felt real bad for catching some shut-eye. (My friend was in the symphony...I hope she doesn't see this post!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scotch
(526 points)
|
A symphony, unless you're using the term symphony figuratively, is a work for orchestra, the first movement of which is in sonata form or some modern analogue of sonata form. Symphonies in one movement, such as Barber's very famous first symphony, are not at all uncommon in the twentieth century.
<Added>
Movements usually vary in tempo, which is why they're called movements in the first place: they move differently.
Since symphony third movements are traditionally scherzos or waltzes in triple meter, changing time signatures from movement to movement is hardly an exceptional practice.
You can also change times signatures within a movement, but be careful: Just because the grouping of pulses changes momentarily doesn't mean you need to change time signatures every other measure or so; always think of reading ease when deciding what time signature to use.
|
|
|
|
|
searching...
