Tippett's Second Symphony occupies a unique, significant, yet also somewhat problematical position within the composer's stylistic development. The symphony (1956–7) is often referred to as ‘transitional’, as leading from the tonal focus and lyricism of The Midsummer Marriage (1946–52) to the new structural and stylistic direction of King Priam (1958–61). According to Ian Kemp, ‘between The Midsummer Marriage and Symphony No. 2 Tippett's style changed, but not so rapidly as to conceal the evidence of organic development. Between the Symphony and King Priam however a change occurred of such rapidity that to many commentators of the time it seemed to lack necessity.’ What renders this transitional position more problematical is the individual identity and integrity of the work. The particular realisation of the Beethovenian symphonic model (Tippett's ‘historical archetype’) and the obvious sense of harmonic polarity at several structurally significant points create a soundworld which is both highly specific and unique.

What further problematises the situation of the work is its striking reference to an apparent Stravinskian neoclassical praxis, a factor which is highlighted, together with the Symphony's transitional position, by Tippett himself: ‘by the time I returned to the problem of orchestral music with my Symphony No. 2 … I had completed a long opera, The Midsummer Marriage. Although I found the symphonic problems as intractable as ever, the work became a sort of turning-point.