Symphonic Composers

[Steinway]

If you could have but one composer's symphonic output to listen to above all others, be it the Brahms 4 , the Mozart 41, for example, who would you choose??

For me, the choice without hesitation is Mahler.

[Febnyc]

I would choose Sibelius (7), first, and Dvorak (9) second, Beethoven (9) third...

Somewhere in my list I would include Victor Bendix (4).

[maestrob]

Yep, Mahler it is for me too.

But then, I wouldn't want to part with the best of the rest, i.e. Brahms, Beethoven, Bruckner, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Sibelius, Vaughan-Williams, and all that glorious piano music from Bach/Scarlatti forward.....

[Steinway]

maestrob..

Sorry, pal, but in my theoretical world, your choice excludes all others.

I still pick Gustav.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and your bride!

[Kuhlau]

I'd like to believe that I'd choose the symphonies of Sibelius, but the reality is that I'd go for Beethoven's every time. Mahler would never be top choice for me, for the same reason Shostakovich wouldn't: I can only take the symphonies of each composer in small doses. Similarly, Mozart and Haydn wouldn't get a look in - however charming some of their symphonies can be when I'm in the right mood, they'd irritate the crap out of me if they were all I had to listen to.

However, I'd be very sad indeed to leave behind Elgar's, Walton's, Bax's and Brahms' Firsts, Vaughan Williams', Bax's and Sibelius' Seconds, Saint-Saens' Third, Nielsen's and Mahler's Fourths, Vaughan Williams' Fifth, Sibelius' Sixth, Bruckner's Seventh, Shostakovich's Eighth ... I could go on and on.

FK

[Seán]

The Symphonic Music of Gustav Mahler, no surprises there I suppose.

[Mango]

I don't understand the question. Is it asking for a list of favourite symphonies where each composer can be represented only once, or a favourite composer of symphonies? I think it's the former, but I see that some have answered as if it's the latter.

[Steinway]

I'm trying to get folks to select one composer and his total symphony output, if this was the only symphonic music he was permitted to hear.

The thought is painful, but it does require sticking your listening neck out.

[Mango]

Beethoven first but a close second would be Schubert. I'd select Mozart next, followed by Schumann, then Brahms

[Lance]

Boy, that's a tough one to respond to. I'm thinking of the dessert island. For total musical satisfaction, I could never tire of Beethoven. But I must, like Mango, select Schumann, Brahms, Mozart, Schubert, and extend it to include Haydn, Sibelius (Nos. 1 & 2), and Tchaikovsky, probably in that distinct order.

Beethoven first but a close second would be Schubert. I'd select Mozart next, followed by Schumann, then Brahms

[Ken]

Robert Schumann, followed closely by Brahms, followed by Mahler.

[Barry]

It would be tough to leave behind the symphonies of Brahms and Bruckner, but if I can only choose one, it has to be Beethoven.

[Kuhlau]

Can I be honest and admit that I'm surprised to see Schumann's name mentioned? I find his symphonies rather ordinary when placed beside those by some of the other great composers listed so far. Mind you, this could be because I tend to think of Schumann as a much better chamber composer than a symphonic one.

FK

[Lance]

Of course, honesty is the best policy. But if you love Robert Schumann as I do, I think his symphonies are masterworks of the first order. They are among the height of the best of any composer from the high Romantic period. I could not live without them. My favourite is No. 4 in D Minor (which wasn't really his last symphony, but only by virtue of its publication). I always remember Clara's words: "I hear D minor burning wildly in the distance." She was right on! I cannot imagine musical life without Schumann's (or Brahms's) four symphonies.

Can I be honest and admit that I'm surprised to see Schumann's name mentioned? I find his symphonies rather ordinary when placed beside those by some of the other great composers listed so far. Mind you, this could be because I tend to think of Schumann as a much better chamber composer than a symphonic one.

FK

[Seán]

Of course, honesty is the best policy. But if you love Robert Schumann as I do, I think his symphonies are masterworks of the first order. They are among the height of the best of any composer from the high Romantic period. I could not live without them. My favourite is No. 4 in D Minor (which wasn't really his last symphony, but only by virtue of its publication). I always remember Clara's words: "I hear D minor burning wildly in the distance." She was right on! I cannot imagine musical life without Schumann's (or Brahms's) four symphonies.

Can I be honest and admit that I'm surprised to see Schumann's name mentioned? I find his symphonies rather ordinary when placed beside those by some of the other great composers listed so far. Mind you, this could be because I tend to think of Schumann as a much better chamber composer than a symphonic one.

FK

Lance, I am delighted to learn that you love the Robert Schumann Symphonies, I do too. Schumann does have his detractors though, that does not bother but it does surprise me.

[Steinway]

Lance..

I, too, am a devotee of Schumann's works, including the symphonies. His works for the keyboard, his chamber works are very special and he never seems to get the raves as a composer that he deserves.

[Scott Morrison]

There are times when I think the slow movement of Schumann's Second Symphony is the loveliest thing I know.

But for me it would be Haydn. One hundred eight symphonies (if you includes the Sinfonia concertante and the Symphonies 'A' and 'B') and not a clinker in the lot.

[Steinway]

Scott..

I use a criteria for music appreciation that's called tears. As much as I love Haydn, he never makes me cry when I hear his symphonies.

Mahler almost always does.

[Lance]

Yes Harris, I quite agree and I can't figure out why. The man has something to say in his symphonies and he does it eloquently IMHO.

Lance..

I, too, am a devotee of Schumann's works, including the symphonies. His works for the keyboard, his chamber works are very special and he never seems to get the raves as a composer that he deserves.

[Chalkperson]

It has to be Beethoven...Mahler, Bruckner and Shostakovich eventually wear you out, musically, much as I love them...LVB is my pick...

[jserraglio]

I agree with Scott Morrison. If my house were burning down, I'd toss this box into the tote bag and know I had it covered.

jjS

[diegobueno]

But for me it would be Haydn. One hundred eight symphonies (if you includes the Sinfonia concertante and the Symphonies 'A' and 'B') and not a clinker in the lot.

I'm with you. A wealth of variety, too, even a few tears.

But really, the extremely wide spectrum of moods, sounds, textures, etc. in the musical repertory is what sustains me in this art. Being confined to one composer just will not do. As much as I love Haydn, Mahler, Brahms, Stravinsky and all the other greats, it's music in its totality that I'm in love with, precisely because it's too vast to be contained in a desert island.

[THEHORN]

I could never limit myself to any one composer of symphonies. I crave variety. Confining myself to one or even a few symphonists would be intolerable to me. Listening to one composer over and over again, now matter how great ,would drive me insane.
And I also love the Schumann symphonies.

[maestrob]

Scott..

I use a criteria for music appreciation that's called tears. As much as I love Haydn, he never makes me cry when I hear his symphonies.

Mahler almost always does.

....but only when led by an outstanding conductor can the effect be achieved. Otherwise, listening is an exercise in frustration.

[Ken]

In regards to Schumann, one of the reasons that I enjoy his Symphonies so much is because they vividly reflect his fascinating personality and, though essentially 'absolute', they are very much biographically-based. As far as I'm concerned, Schumann was the pinnacle of German musical and literary Romanticism, and these works are the hallmarks of his evolution through that genre. Likewise, his orchestral output has that trademark 'Schumann Sound' to it, which, it seems, can either be very attractive to listeners or utterly confusing. When placed in the wrong hands, works like the Cello Concerto and the Rhenish Symphony can sound muddy and incomprehensible, but when done correctly, the genius that underpins their writing really shines through.

[jbuck919]

Scott..

I use a criteria for music appreciation that's called tears. As much as I love Haydn, he never makes me cry when I hear his symphonies.

Mahler almost always does.

Me too, though perhaps not for the same reason.

As for Haydn, I actually once performed (over a period of time, of course) the exercise of listening to all the symphonies in numeric, which more or less corresponds to compositional, order (please make note, Dulcinea). They are all finely crafted, but to me they don't become interesting to the point of bearing many hearings until about halfway down the list, at symphony no. 50 or so. It's not to be expected that the artistic accomplishments of his later works would be present full-blown in his earlier efforts, any more than it is in the symphonies of Mozart.

[Scott Morrison]

As for Haydn, I actually once performed (over a period of time, of course) the exercise of listening to all the symphonies in numeric, which more or less corresponds to compositional, order (please make note, Dulcinea). They are all finely crafted, but to me they don't become interesting to the point of bearing many hearings until about halfway down the list, at symphony no. 50 or so. It's not to be expected that the artistic accomplishments of his later works would be present full-blown in his earlier efforts, any more than it is in the symphonies of Mozart.

Actually, No. 44, the 'Trauersinfonie', is one of my favorites. But in general I agree with you about the later works. (Btw, I just recently did exactly what you did -- listening to them in order. A wonderful experience.)

[Jack Kelso]

Just love the passion of the late Mozart symphonies, all Beethoven, all Schumann, all Brahms, most Bruckner and Sibelius, some Mahler (nos. 1-6 especially), Schubert, Franck, Tschaikowsky, Raff, Dvorak, Elgar, Nielsen, Hindemith, Schostakowitsch, Honegger, etc.

I cannot choose just one---but the first five above come closest. Leonard Bernstein often mentioned that his father's favorite symphony was Schumann's Second. As fine a choice as any!

For those who don't care for Schumann's symphonic style, there are fine books which delve into his myriad and complex contributions to the advancement of form, harmonic expression, rhythm, etc. and John Davario's is among the best.

Tschüß!
Jack

[Ken]

Jack, your symphonic shortlist of composers reads almost identically to how mine would... You don't possibly listen to a little Borodin on the side, do you?

And that Daverio biography is indeed a great read; while we're on the topic, I'd also like to recommend the new biography of the composer by John Worthen--it works to dispel some of the myths that surround the man.

[Kuhlau]

Nice to see the symphonies of Raff and Nielsen getting mentioned in this thread. Raff's Fifth Symphony is a fantastic work; and I wouldn't want to face the prospect of never again hearing Nielsen's Fourth Symphony.

FK

[Jack Kelso]

Jack, your symphonic shortlist of composers reads almost identically to how mine would... You don't possibly listen to a little Borodin on the side, do you?

And that Daverio biography is indeed a great read; while we're on the topic, I'd also like to recommend the new biography of the composer by John Worthen--it works to dispel some of the myths that surround the man.

Thank you, Ken---for the book recommendation! Yes, there are still several myths that need to be dispelled, especially for the uninitiated Schumann listener (e.g., the late works are somehow weaker; his orchestration is perfunctory; his symphonies would not rank among the finest in the repertoire, etc.).

Yes, I love Borodin's three symphonies---especially the Second. Also, Taneyev's Fourth (in C Minor, op. 12) and at least the G Minor Symphony (No. 1) of Kalinnikov. There are lesser-known fine German Romantic Era symphonies by Volkmann, Goldmark (Nr. 2), Goetz (F Major), Raff and especially Draeseke, whom Brahms regarded as his greatest competitor.

Tschüß!
Jack

[Jack Kelso]

Nice to see the symphonies of Raff and Nielsen getting mentioned in this thread. Raff's Fifth Symphony is a fantastic work; and I wouldn't want to face the prospect of never again hearing Nielsen's Fourth Symphony.

FK

Right on about both of these masterpieces, Kuhlau! Don't worry---Nielsen's Fourth won't be "extinguished" for a long, long time.

I'm delighted to see that prejudice against poor Raff isn't universal. I also love "Im Walde" (Nr. 3), "In den Alpen" (Nr. 7), "Frühlingsklänge" (Nr. and "zur Sommerzeit" (Nr. 9). But of course the others are fine, too!

Tschüß!
Jack

[Fergus]

For consistency, inventiveness and simple genius for me it has to be Beethoven followed by Mahler as a close second.

[Seán]

For consistency, inventiveness and simple genius for me it has to be Beethoven followed by Mahler as a close second.

Ahem Mahler first for me, never mind. Fergus, welcome to our little Virtual Village.

[Fergus]

For consistency, inventiveness and simple genius for me it has to be Beethoven followed by Mahler as a close second.

Ahem Mahler first for me, never mind. Fergus, welcome to our little Virtual Village.

Hi Sean,
Thanks for your help earlier on. I have decided to join here to ensure that you are behaving yourself. Someone has to keep an eye on you

[Seán]

For consistency, inventiveness and simple genius for me it has to be Beethoven followed by Mahler as a close second.

Ahem Mahler first for me, never mind. Fergus, welcome to our little Virtual Village.

Hi Sean,
Thanks for your help earlier on. I have decided to join here to ensure that you are behaving yourself. Someone has to keep an eye on you

Hello Fergus, I am delighted that you have joined CMG, stay away from the Pub civility goes out the window entirely when people venture in there. I'm "glad" that you are going to keep an eye on me and my wife thanks you too.

[Donaldopato]

Sibelius, if I would have to choose but one,

[karlhenning]

I could never limit myself to any one composer of symphonies.

The Voice of Reason!

Cheers,
~Karl

[Chalkperson]

I am delighted that you have joined CMG, stay away from the Pub civility goes out the window entirely when people venture in there.

It's very good advice Fergus, unfortunately we have to tell every new member to avoid the place...but we are more fun here on the Music Board, just as long as you are not a Fan of Simon Rattle that is...

[Fergus]

I am delighted that you have joined CMG, stay away from the Pub civility goes out the window entirely when people venture in there.

It's very good advice Fergus, unfortunately we have to tell every new member to avoid the place...but we are more fun here on the Music Board, just as long as you are not a Fan of Simon Rattle that is...

Chalkperson I am afraid that I will disappoint you already.....

[Seán]

I am delighted that you have joined CMG, stay away from the Pub civility goes out the window entirely when people venture in there.

It's very good advice Fergus, unfortunately we have to tell every new member to avoid the place...but we are more fun here on the Music Board, just as long as you are not a Fan of Simon Rattle that is...

Chalkperson I am afraid that I will disappoint you already.....

Fergus, I didn't tell Chalkie, it must be man's intuition.

[Fergus]

Séan, your innocence is presumed.....on this occasion only

[Wallingford]

PLEASE.........the symphony's a quite overrated form of expression. It's unexplainably and universally considered, somehow, as the the supreme utterance in music. Let's face it: there were only the chosen few who were really cut out to be symphonists and do something significant (or offbeat) enough with it--just as there were precious few cut out to do operas (some focused exculsively on that one), or the small piano piece, or the religious choral work, etc.

[piston]

PLEASE.........the symphony's a quite overrated form of expression. It's unexplainably and universally considered, somehow, as the the supreme utterance in music. Let's face it: there were only the chosen few who were really cut out to be symphonists and do something significant (or offbeat) enough with it--just as there were precious few cut out to do operas (some focused exculsively on that one), or the small piano piece, or the religious choral work, etc.

I don't know about the precious few and this over-rated reputation of the symphony. What I do know is that it generates far more cerebral activity in my head than a dialogue between a soloist and an orchestra or a monologue by a solo cellist or pianist. This "multi-logue" generated by a symphony or a concerto for orchestra is precisely why the string quartet is also a preferred medium: it offers, more embryonically, a similar interactive effect.

I am a student of symphony writers and the notion that it is mastered only by a precious few is, to my mind, not unlike saying that once you've read the works of a handful of great philosophers you've covered the whole discipline. Same parallel with painters and fictional writers....

[Chalkperson]

I am delighted that you have joined CMG, stay away from the Pub civility goes out the window entirely when people venture in there.

It's very good advice Fergus, unfortunately we have to tell every new member to avoid the place...but we are more fun here on the Music Board, just as long as you are not a Fan of Simon Rattle that is...

Chalkperson I am afraid that I will disappoint you already.....

Then don't take offense when I call him Simon Le Rat or Rattie or even perhaps, once in a while, Rattybaby...

[Jack Kelso]

PLEASE.........the symphony's a quite overrated form of expression. It's unexplainably and universally considered, somehow, as the the supreme utterance in music. Let's face it: there were only the chosen few who were really cut out to be symphonists and do something significant (or offbeat) enough with it--just as there were precious few cut out to do operas (some focused exculsively on that one), or the small piano piece, or the religious choral work, etc.

I don't know about the precious few and this over-rated reputation of the symphony. What I do know is that it generates far more cerebral activity in my head than a dialogue between a soloist and an orchestra or a monologue by a solo cellist or pianist. This "multi-logue" generated by a symphony or a concerto for orchestra is precisely why the string quartet is also a preferred medium: it offers, more embryonically, a similar interactive effect.

I am a student of symphony writers and the notion that it is mastered only by a precious few is, to my mind, not unlike saying that once you've read the works of a handful of great philosophers you've covered the whole discipline. Same parallel with painters and fictional writers....

I couldn't have uttered it better myself, Piston! For those who don't care much for the symphony, there's still the ballet, tone poem, concerti and suites.

The symphony may not be the greatest form of orchestral expression, but it sure is way, way ahead of whatever is in second place.

Tschüß!
Jack

[moldyoldie]

As of today, it's the seven of Sibelius for originality, variety, and quality. One might extend it to nine by including Kullervo and Tapiola, as is the wont of many.

[Fergus]

Then don't take offense when I call him Simon Le Rat or Rattie or even perhaps, once in a while, Rattybaby...

Absolutely no offense taken in advance