The Cyclopean Symphony Cycle Cyclopedia

[Grazioso]

For me, the symphony--particularly from Beethoven on--represents classical music at its peak: it is, by and large, serious of purpose, grand in scale and architecture, and strikingly diverse, particularly in the 20th century. While I love many genres and eras in classical music, it's above all the symphony to which I listen the most. I've been collecting the complete symphonies (even if that means just one) of different composers for a few years now and am up to around 80 different composers at this point.

Anyone else share the same passion? Which ones do you have? Any major discoveries or big disappointments? Any news about the availability of complete cycles?

As to the latter, here are a couple of new box sets to be aware of:




As to the former, I don't know where to begin because I've found so much great music outside of the "usual suspects" One I've struggled with but keep coming back to by some strange magnetic attraction is Bax, with his unique brand of lush, moody, and curiously instrumented Romanticism. Boccherini has been a constant delight, a fanciful alternative to the Classical model of Haydn and Mozart, and superbly served by a CPO boxed set. Pettersson has been disappointing--so far--in that his large symphonic oeuvre contains a 20th-century masterpiece, the 7th, and a few strikingly good ones, like the 8th, but some that are really, um, less appealing in the dense, thorny structures and unremitting violence. I'm disappointed with Korngold, too, because he only wrote one symphony, and it's so good! I just wish he had managed more.

[Dundonnell]

Yes, I share exactly the same passion for symphonies and for collecting symphonic cycles

Which complete ones do I have? Whew! I couldn't possibly list them all but I will try to list those by composers who wrote four or more symphonies. Complete cycles only, of course

Hugo Alfven; William Alwyn; Hendrik Andriessen, Richard Arnell; Sir Malcolm Arnold; Kurt Atterberg; Sir Arnold Bax; Ludwig van Beethoven; Sir Lennox Berkeley; Franz Berwald; Jose Joly Braga Santos; Johannes Brahms; Anton Bruckner; Carlos Chavez; Felix Draesecke; Antonin Dvorak; George Enescu; Einer Englund; Benjamin Frankel; Roberto Gerhard; Don Gillis; Louis Glass; Alexander Glazunov; Alexander Grechaninov; Camargo Guarnieri(?); Howard Hanson; Lou Harrison; Karl Amadeus Hartmann; Hans Werner Henze; Paul Hindemith; Vagn Holmboe; Arthur Honegger; Hans Huber; Charles Ives; Dmitri Kabalevsky; Giya Kancheli; Leif Kayser; Joonas Kokkonen; Herman D. Koppel; Laszlo Lajtha; Marcel Landowski; Rued Langgaard; Benjamin Lees; George Lloyd; Witold Lutoslawski; Boris Lyatoshinsky; Alberic Magnard; Gustav Mahler; Gian Francesco Malipiero; Bohuslav Martinu; Erkki Melartin; Felix Mendelssohn; Peter Mennin; Nicolai Miaskovsky; Darius Milhaud; Alexander Moyzes; Carl Nielsen; Mikhail Nosyrev; Gosta Nystroem; Sir Hubert Parry; Alla Pavolva; Krzysztof Penderecki; Vincent Persichetti; Wilhelm Peterson-Berger; Allan Pettersson; Walter Piston; Serge Prokofiev; Joachim Raff; Ture Rangstrom; Einojuhani Rautavaara; Joseph Guy Ropartz; Albert Roussel; Edmund Rubbra; Harald Saeverud; Camille Saint-Saens; Aulis Sallinen; Vadim Salmanov; Henri Sauguet; Ahmed Adnan Saygun; Franz Schmidt; Alfred Schnittke; Franz Schubert; Erwin Schulhoff; William Schuman; Robert Schumann; Humphrey Searle; Roger Sessions; Vissarion Shebalin; Dmitri Shostakovich; Jean Sibelius; Robert Simpson; Christian Sinding; Sir Charles Villiers Stanford; Lepo Sumera; Karol Szymanowski; Sergei Taneyev; Boris Tchaikovsky; Peter Tchaikovsky; Alexander Tcherepnin; Sir Michael Tippett; Ernst Toch; Charles Tournemire; Eduard Tubin; Fartein Valen; Ralph Vaughan Williams; Matthijs Vermeulen; Heitor Villa-Lobos; Egon Wellesz; Dag Wiren.

Oh dear But you DID ask

The ? after Guarnieri is because I am not sure whether or not he wrote a seventh symphony which has not yet been recorded.

Disappointments among these? Well I suppose that the cycles that I am least keen on-for different reasons of course-would be the Gerhard, the Gillis, the Louis Glass, the Huber, the Lutoslawski, the Raff, the Sessions, the Stanford, the Valen, the Vermeulen and the Villa-Lobos. The rest I love and cherish to differing degrees

[springrite]

I dare you to collect the complete Segerstam or Hovaness!

[Dundonnell]

I dare you to collect the complete Segerstam or Hovaness!

Hovhaness-yes, I am collecting all those that have been released- so that means I have got 23 of them to date

Segerstam-no, I shall give him a miss

Oh, I forgot the Australian Carl Vine from my list above

[Lethevich]

Dundonnell - if I may ask, what do you prefer about Parry's symphonies to Stanford? I must admit that I have a hard time differentiating between the two.

Thread duty: I also enjoy the fruits of the importance attached to the symphony. Quite strangely (despite "the symphony is dead" claims), the 20th century produced dozens upon dozens of notable cycles, all with numerous fascinating musical works. I too find that the "serious" nature attached to the symphony by the Romantics (and the critics even more, after the deaths of these composers) did encourage some of the finest music from the composers who wrote in the form.

I cannot offer any useful insights regarding lost gems, as I don't own anywhere near as many CDs as many of the posters on this forum, but I will chime in to say that Hans Huber was a pleasing discovery for me. I mention him in particular, as his symphonies don't seem to be well liked by posters here - several times the cycle has been mentioned negatively. Strangely, I had quite the opposite reaction: I very much enjoyed these feisty full-hearted works, very fine late (conservative) Romanticism which lacks the "limp" or "timid" qualities which can sometimes annoy me in lesser tonal writing from the late 19th/early 20th century.

Perhaps the most unoriginal choice possible regarding 20th century symphony cycles, but I also feel that if the Vaughan Williams cycle did not exist, music as a whole would be slightly less rich as a consequence. They are exceptional achivements not least for their individualism and absolute assurance of concept, but also for their sheer achivement. Rock solid masterpieces throughout as far as I can hear.

[Dundonnell]

Parry v. Stanford? Hmm.

Well, basically I find Stanford a less interesting composer than Parry. Stanford seems to me to be just too conservative, too conventional. The symphonies are attractive enough works but ultimately unmemorable, inferior to the great masters of the late 19th century-Brahms, Dvorak etc. The best of Stanford is in some of his choral music and in the less pretentious Irish Rhapsodies.

Parry's later choral music is more interesting, more imaginative in my opinion and, although the earlier symphonies are heavily indebted to Brahms, the Fifth Symphony is a majestic work, eloquent and profound and rightly admired by Elgar and Vaughan Williams and by Sir Adrian Boult (who first recorded the work).

[Lethevich]

The best of Stanford is in some of his choral music and in the less pretentious Irish Rhapsodies.

Agreed all-round, the atmosphere of the rhapsodies I heard is incomparable to the symphonies - almost sounds like a different composer wrote them. The choral music is masterful, both liturgical and secular (sea songs, etc). I'll give Parry another shot. *end of off-topic stuff*

[mc ukrneal]

Parry v. Stanford? Hmm.

Well, basically I find Stanford a less interesting composer than Parry. Stanford seems to me to be just too conservative, too conventional. The symphonies are attractive enough works but ultimately unmemorable, inferior to the great masters of the late 19th century-Brahms, Dvorak etc. The best of Stanford is in some of his choral music and in the less pretentious Irish Rhapsodies.

Parry's later choral music is more interesting, more imaginative in my opinion and, although the earlier symphonies are heavily indebted to Brahms, the Fifth Symphony is a majestic work, eloquent and profound and rightly admired by Elgar and Vaughan Williams and by Sir Adrian Boult (who first recorded the work).

Fascinating. You and I listened to the same music and we came to opposite conclusions. I prefer the Stanford myself, although I completely agree that Stanford's choral music and Irish Rhapsodies are among his best works. Stanford seems to me to have more sparkle and zing. But this will always be a subjective preference. I'll have to dig out the Stanford/Parry Piano concerto disc and see which one I like better of those works. 

I would highlight a few composers of symphonies I've liked (in addition to early posted suggestions):
Lyapunov
Bantock (just discovering him now, but he wrote at least 2-3)
Onslow (wrote at least 4)
Weber (pleasing)
Fibich (3 of them I think and each quite enjoyable)

[Maciek]

Disappointments among these? Well I suppose that the cycles that I am least keen on-for different reasons of course-would be [...] the Lutoslawski

(OK, OK, not that surprised, this isn't the first time you've admitted it. )

[Dundonnell]

(OK, OK, not that surprised, this isn't the first time you've admitted it. )

Sorry! I have tried-I assure you I have the Naxos discs conducted by Antoni Wit. In fact I have almost all of Lutoslawski's orchestral music on disc but-as with composers like Roberto Gerhard or Roger Sessions or Elliott Carter(whisper it not abroad on this forum )-I cannot attune myself to the idiom.

[Grazioso]

Thread duty: I also enjoy the fruits of the importance attached to the symphony. Quite strangely (despite "the symphony is dead" claims), the 20th century produced dozens upon dozens of notable cycles, all with numerous fascinating musical works. I too find that the "serious" nature attached to the symphony by the Romantics (and the critics even more, after the deaths of these composers) did encourage some of the finest music from the composers who wrote in the form.

Exactly. In the past few days, I've listened to symphonies by Martinu, Hindemith, Lilburn, Rubbra, and Arnold (with Boccherini and Tchaikovsky admirably representing older generations). The 20th century saw a veritable explosion in diverse and interesting symphonic writing

I cannot offer any useful insights regarding lost gems, as I don't own anywhere near as many CDs as many of the posters on this forum, but I will chime in to say that Hans Huber was a pleasing discovery for me. I mention him in particular, as his symphonies don't seem to be well liked by posters here - several times the cycle has been mentioned negatively. Strangely, I had quite the opposite reaction: I very much enjoyed these feisty full-hearted works, very fine late (conservative) Romanticism which lacks the "limp" or "timid" qualities which can sometimes annoy me in lesser tonal writing from the late 19th/early 20th century.

I only have the disc with 1/7, and while I understand your take on Huber, I still can't quite warm to this music despite repeated listenings. There are some memorable moments, but I don't find these symphonies to fully cohere dramatically/structurally. Plus, they're too Brahmsian, Brahms being one of my least favorite big-name symphony composers (though I adore some of his chamber works).

[Sergeant Rock]

Another lover of the obscure symphony here. A composer who hasn't been mentioned yet is Richard Wetz (1875-1935) whose three symphonies are composed in a very conservative style: a direct descendant of Bruckner.

Sarge

[Dr. Dread]

GSG

[Dundonnell]

Another lover of the obscure symphony here. A composer who hasn't been mentioned yet is Richard Wetz (1875-1935) whose three symphonies are composed in a very conservative style: a direct descendant of Bruckner.

Sarge

I agree about Wetz I started a thread about him some time ago-

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,6914.0.html

[The new erato]

Another lover of the obscure symphony here. A composer who hasn't been mentioned yet is Richard Wetz (1875-1935) whose three symphonies are composed in a very conservative style: a direct descendant of Bruckner.

Sarge

I was going to mention Fliflet Bræin - but noticed that Dundonnels list was limite to composers with more than three symphonies on their CV.

[springrite]

I was going to mention Fliflet Bræin - but noticed that Dundonnels list was limite to composers with more than three symphonies on their CV.

Well, we are merely assuming the rules here. If Concerti for Orchestra can be included (they are almost symphonies, aren't they?), I'd add Petrassi. 

[Dundonnell]

I was going to mention Fliflet Bræin - but noticed that Dundonnels list was limite to composers with more than three symphonies on their CV.

That was simply to restrict my own list(which was already huge!)

[techniquest]

The symphony is my favourite musical form - I tend to listen mostly to 20th century symphonies, but have some Tchaikovsky and Beethoven among others. Although I don't always set out to buy complete sets, these are those which I have.
Mahler (4 sets: Tennstedt, Haitink (vinyl), Chailly, and a Slovenian set with various conductors)
Arnold (Penny - Naxos white box)
Prokofiev (Rostropovich)
Shostakovich (3 sets - Barshai, Kitayenko, Jansons)
Gerhard (Bamert - Chandos)
Nielsen (Schmidt)
Rimsky-Korsakov (Tjeknavorian / Butt)
Sibelius (Sanderling)
Rangstrom (Jurowski)
Vaughan Williams (2 sets Handley, Davis)
Isang Yun (Ukigaya / Kim)
Langgaard - Stupel
Kancheli (Kakhidze)
Chavez (Mata)
Rachmaninov (Ashkenazy)
Ives (MTT)
Scriabin (Muti)
Vine (Challender / de Waart)
Honeggar (Dutoit)
Searle (Francis)

There are others e.g I have all 3 Khachaturian symphonies but not as a set (and not within the 4 symphony remit...oops). The only set that has been something of a disappointment is the Jansons Shostakovich. Impeccable playing as it is, the works don't seem to have the power or the emotion that are more evident from both Barshai and Kitayenko. Some of the recorded sound on the Rimsky-Korsakov set is very odd, and also the recordings of the Sibelius are variable in quality (though the performances are fine).

[DavidRoss]

I, too, love the symphony above all other musical forms (or at least on a par with the concerto...and maybe the symphonic poem...and I also love the intimacy of chamber music and solo piano...and--but you get the idea!   ).  Although I continue to explore other symphonists, and very much enjoy several works of other composers both famous and obscure, there is no one I've yet discovered whose symphonic body of work so commands my attention, my admiration, and my love like those of Mahler, Beethoven, and Sibelius.  These three speak to my soul like no other.  That's probably why I rarely have more than one complete cycle (if that) of other symphonists, but have more than a dozen each of those three (plus numerous single issues).

BTW, Grazioso, I, too, struggle with but keep coming back to Bax and "his unique brand of lush, moody, and curiously instrumented Romanticism."  There's something uniquely appealing about his symphonies, but it may be their sprawling lack of structural cohesion that makes loving them difficult for me.

[Lethevich]

How about we do some posts describing a couple of potentially interesting cycles? I'm not very good at this, but will give it a shot.

CPO's box of Wilhelm Peterson-Berger was a nice discovery for me last year. The works are roughly from Sibelius's time, although Berger continued composing after Sibelius had retired, and he never had much of an avant-garde quality to his music. His music, however conservative (we can't all be geniuses), is none the less worthy, through its (typical for the time) 'national' quality successfully transcending the abstract sonata formula, and successfully evoking some of the landscapes he strove to picture.

Sometimes 'national' music can sound vigorous/lyrical/militaristic, but leaves you asking "what exactly does this represent about X country without already being aware of the focus?". Peterson-Berger's music escapes this pitfall by having a certain quality which people have come to associate with Nordic music. symphony no.3 in particular cannot help but sound Scandinavian, with an icy unfolding first movement, with winds offering only fleeting glimpses of life, and a piano brilliantly used which at times evokes the sound of distant bells, or droplets of melting water. This symphony also comes closer than most music could to a Sibelian simplicity.

The composer is certainly a full Romantic with literally no modernistic traits, but he works within this formula to create music of a compelling rather than routine nature, including the previously mentioned scoring of a piano in symphony no.3, but also the peculiar structure of no.5, demonstrating a musical personality willing to go beyond the routine within his own choice of style. As a whole his music has many strengths, including fine melodies, strong structure (I found no single movement to be too long - another common problem with Romantics) and very fine writing for every section of the orchestra.

This sensitivity to making full use of the orchestra is a particularly notable feature, with frequent excellent passages of music for solo or small groups of instruments, as is his fine understanding of the textures involved in instrumental combinations. It is this mastery of the nuts and bolts of composition which kept me listening again and again, and what I find sets Peterson-Berger apart from lesser romantics who are fine to listen to, but offer less rewarding long-term qualities. Simply put, there is plenty to engage the listener.

The non-symphonic pieces in the box are just as fine, and more than CD-filler. Yet more Sibelius comparisons might be kindled with his writing of a violin concerto, which is actually very good, perhaps on a similar level to Pfitzner's similarly obscure one. The Doomsday Prophets overture has a superbly brooding atmosphere, and I would love to hear the full opera. Yet further Nordic composer comparisons can be made (this time with Grieg) in Peterson-Berger's complete mastery of the orchestral miniature. The suites included on the discs are actually highlights of the set, full of little melodic gems.

This is a first-rate boxed set, not simply for the symphonies, but also for the fillers, which turn out to be real highlights. I feel that this composer can safely be listened to alongside Hugo Alfvén without negative comparison, despite being lesser-known.