Greatest 20th Century Symphonies

[vandermolen]

Which do you consider to be the greatest ( as opposed to your favourite) 20th Century symphonies? (I have excluded Mahler although his No 9 would otherwise be on my list).

Here are my three:

1 Sibelius: Symphony No 4

2 Shostakovich: Symphony 4

3 Vaughan Williams: Symphony 6

[Lethevich]

Sibelius 5
Shostakovich 5
RVW 6

Weird how we chose the same composers. I consider Shostakovich to be "difficult" because his most popular ones are not neccessarilly the same as his greatest, nor does any one stand out amongst the field in any substantial way to pick. So I went for one which was both popular and formally strong. It took a lot of discipline as I rarely listen to the piece and much prefer 4 and 15. I ignore Nielsen because it is too difficult to pick one out. This "question" about DSCH is even stronger with RVW, who is very much a love/hate composer. One either finds his music to be a vital expression of the times and full of marvelous tunes, or formally abysmal. I suspect Sibelius will win this race with Mahler discounted

[Dundonnell]

I would put Shostakovich 10 ahead of Nos. 4 and 5. Nielsen's 5th would run RVW's 6th close. Agree about Sibelius 4 though.

[Cato]

Hartmann's entire output, but especially the Sixth Symphony.

Ives Symphony #4.

Mahler's Symphonies 5-10.

Martinu's entire output, but especially the Fifth Symphony.

Prokofiev's Symphonies 2,3, and 6.

Shostakovich's Tenth Symphony

Zemlinsky's Lyric Symphony.

[karlhenning]

I would put Shostakovich 10 ahead of Nos. 4 and 5.

Much of the time, I would, too.

Nielsen's 5th would run RVW's 6th close.

Oh, if I took this strand up, I should never have done ; )

Agree about Sibelius 4 though.

Interesting that the consensus seems to be that Sibelius 'backed off from greatness' after the Fourth . . . .

[donaldopato]

In no particular order:

Shostakovich 10th

Ives 4th

Sibelius 7th

Harris 3rd

Mahler # 10

[vandermolen]

Sibelius 5
Shostakovich 5
RVW 6

Weird how we chose the same composers. I consider Shostakovich to be "difficult" because his most popular ones are not neccessarilly the same as his greatest, nor does any one stand out amongst the field in any substantial way to pick. So I went for one which was both popular and formally strong. It took a lot of discipline as I rarely listen to the piece and much prefer 4 and 15. I ignore Nielsen because it is too difficult to pick one out. This "question" about DSCH is even stronger with RVW, who is very much a love/hate composer. One either finds his music to be a vital expression of the times and full of marvelous tunes, or formally abysmal. I suspect Sibelius will win this race with Mahler discounted

Very interesting indeed and thanks for response. I nearly chose Shostakovich Symphony No 10 and other contenders for me are Nielsen Symphony No 5 and Walton Symphony No 1. Interesting that we both chose Vaughan Williams Symphony No 6.

[vandermolen]

I would put Shostakovich 10 ahead of Nos. 4 and 5. Nielsen's 5th would run RVW's 6th close. Agree about Sibelius 4 though.

I agree (as ever!) and originally put Shostakovich Symphony No 10.

[Jay F]

Mahler's 6 and 7

[vandermolen]

Hartmann's entire output, but especially the Sixth Symphony.

Ives Symphony #4.

Mahler's Symphonies 5-10.

Martinu's entire output, but especially the Fifth Symphony.

Prokofiev's Symphonies 2,3, and 6.

Shostakovich's Tenth Symphony

Zemlinsky's Lyric Symphony.

V interesting choice. I have all the Hartmann symphonies on LP and must at least get No 6 or 4 on CD. Prokofiev's 6th is indeed a great work.

[vandermolen]

Mahler's 6 and 7

What about other than Mahler?

[DavidRoss]

Interesting that the consensus seems to be that Sibelius 'backed off from greatness' after the Fourth . . . .

Not if I"m in the room.   

V--What standard do you propose for judging "greatness" if not posters' favorites?  I presume you have something in mind other than sheer size (Mahler's 8th must contend)...?

Or, in the absence of an agreed upon standard, perhaps I'm not the only one who would be interested in hearing what qualifies these works as "great" in the judgment of their advocates...?

[owlice]

:: reads this thread ::

:: looks through her list of CDs ::

:: sighs ::

:: heads off to Amazon to load up on works she obviously needs to know, glad she already has Mahler and Nielsen covered ::

[vandermolen]

:: reads this thread ::

:: looks through her list of CDs ::

:: sighs ::

:: heads off to Amazon to load up on works she obviously needs to know, glad she already has Mahler and Nielsen covered ::

[Lethevich]

V--What standard do you propose for judging "greatness" if not posters' favorites?  I presume you have something in mind other than sheer size (Mahler's 8th must contend)...?

Or, in the absence of an agreed upon standard, perhaps I'm not the only one who would be interested in hearing what qualifies these works as "great" in the judgment of their advocates...?

I suppose an example would be my picking Sibelius 5 over 6, which is my favourite. I personally connect with the subtle, icy atmosphere of the 6th, but can recognise that the 5th is both more accessable, more popular, and no less idiomatic - and in some ways is a definitive of Sibelius' masterful tinkering with form (in seamlessly incorporating the scherzo into the first movement).

[vandermolen]

Not if I"m in the room.   

V--What standard do you propose for judging "greatness" if not posters' favorites?  I presume you have something in mind other than sheer size (Mahler's 8th must contend)...?

Or, in the absence of an agreed upon standard, perhaps I'm not the only one who would be interested in hearing what qualifies these works as "great" in the judgment of their advocates...?

In the case of VW Symphony No 6 it is a synthesis of the violence of his Symphony No 4 with the 'spiritual' qualities of No 5. The result is for me a work which possesses great philosophical, spiritual, menacing, lyrical qualities.  There is a big question mark hanging over this work - what does it 'mean'? VW denied and programme, only mentioning Prospero's speech from Shakespeare's 'The Tempest'. Is the symphony about nuclear holocaust? These issues are very much still alive (N Korea?) I guess that this is 'greatness' for me.

[Lethevich]

In the case of VW Symphony No 6 it is a synthesis of the violence of his Symphony No 4 with the 'spiritual' qualities of No 5. The result is for me a work which possesses great philosophical, spiritual, menacing, lyrical qualities.  There is a big question mark hanging over this work - what does it 'mean'? VW denied and programme, only mentioning Prospero's speech from Shakespeare's 'The Tempest'. Is the symphony about nuclear holocaust? These issues are very much still alive (N Korea?) I guess that this is 'greatness' for me.

The extra-musical implications of the 6th certainly make is easier to pick than the 5th, which is perhaps unfair, given what an amazing work that also is (and in a way, more typical of the composer).

[karlhenning]

The extra-musical implications of the 6th . . . .

But, "sometimes a chap just wants to write some music" . . . .

[owlice]

:: bills CDs to vandermolen's Amazon account ::

[karlhenning]

:: bills CDs to vandermolen's Amazon account ::

Fair is fair!