Top 5 Symphony Cycles--Minus the Obvious

[Grazioso]

Oh, the shame, the horror. My first poll!

What are your top 5 symphony cycles, outside of some of the obvious big names of the field?

Composers I've excluded are ones I perceive to be some of the biggest names (most performed, recorded, discussed) in the genre: Brahms, Beethoven, Bruckner, Dvorak, Haydn, Mahler, Mendelssohn, Mozart, Nielsen, Schubert, Schumann, Shostakovich, Sibelius, Tchaikovsky, RVW. When in doubt, I've included big-name composers who might be known for just one or two symphonies, while the others are relatively ignored (e.g., Berlioz).

I've tried to pick a decent sampling of alternatives, and only alternatives where the composer, afaik, wrote at least two mature symphonies and all are available on disc. I treat "cycle" loosely here and include some symphonists who didn't write a numbered series.

By my count, there are about 200 or so symphony cycles available on disc atm, so naturally I left a lot out

[Luke]

Without even going down the 'where on earth is symphonist-par-excellence-if-anyone-is-a-symphonist-it's-him and GMG-favourite Havergal Brian on this list?' route, I have to say the most glaring gap is Vaughan Williams - he's not one of the 'obvious' ones you say you've excluded, and he doesn't even make this list of second, third and even lesser placers? 

[Grazioso]

Without even going down the 'where on earth is symphonist-par-excellence-if-anyone-is-a-symphonist-it's-him and GMG-favourite Havergal Brian on this list?' route, I have to say the most glaring gap is Vaughan Williams - he's not one of the 'obvious' ones you say you've excluded, and he doesn't even make this list of second, third and even lesser placers? 

Quite right about RVW! Re Brian, I was under the impression many of his symphonies are not available on disc; ergo, not included in this poll since listeners need easy access to the complete cycle to judge it.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Without even going down the 'where on earth is symphonist-par-excellence-if-anyone-is-a-symphonist-it's-him and GMG-favourite Havergal Brian on this list?' route,

Too obvious.

[karlhenning]

I question whether Haydn is obvious for these purposes. Yes, obvious in the general reverence duly ascribed to him as a composer; but listeners making the effort to listen through the entire cycle is hardly a commonplace.

[Grazioso]

I question whether Haydn is obvious for these purposes. Yes, obvious in the general reverence duly ascribed to him as a composer; but listeners making the effort to listen through the entire cycle is hardly a commonplace.

The same is true of Mozart, but it's an imperfect world 

[Jared]

Quite right about RVW! Re Brian, I was under the impression many of his symphonies are not available on disc; ergo, not included in this poll since listeners need easy access to the complete cycle to judge it.

This isn't a citicism, but RVW is in fact very well served by Boult, Previn, Haitink, Davis, Handley, Hickox and others on disk... we really are spoilt for choice with good quality interpretations, which, beinga big RVW fan myself, is nothing short of.. 

Anyway, I've made my votes, but I would just say its a shame that you omitted Borodin from this list... his three symphonies *might* just have crept in at No 5 for me... if only 'cos I LOVE No 2.. 

[Grazioso]

This isn't a citicism, but RVW is in fact very well served by Boult, Previn, Haitink, Davis, Handley, Hickox and others on disk... we really are spoilt for choice with good quality interpretations, which, beinga big RVW fan myself, is nothing short of.. 

Yes, that's why added him to my "excluded" list. I have three or four RVW cycles myself.

Anyway, I've made my votes, but I would just say its a shame that you omitted Borodin from this list... his three symphonies *might* just have crept in at No 5 for me... if only 'cos I LOVE No 2.. 

Yeah, Borodin should be on there, but if I start adding in all the ones I neglected or opted against, it will be the biggest poll ever

[karlhenning]

The same is true of Mozart, but it's an imperfect world 

Well, there is a difference between Mozart and Haydn, there. The early Mozart symphonies are juvenilia. Just saying . . . .

[Grazioso]

Well, there is a difference between Mozart and Haydn, there. The early Mozart symphonies are juvenilia. Just saying . . . .

And, as much as I hate to say it of my beloved Mozart, rather boring stuff as I recall. But either way, I excluded guys like Haydn and Mozart to turn the spotlight on symphonies that are seemingly less well known or appreciated. While Mozart and Haydn's early symphonies don't get a lot of attention, their later ones (rightfully) get huge amounts.

[karlhenning]

While Mozart and Haydn's early symphonies don't get a lot of attention, their later ones (rightfully) get huge amounts.

Agreed, in principle. But with Haydn, there are a lot of mature symphonies, well before 'the later ones', which don't get much attention (but which merit attention better than Mozart-in-diapers).

But I can understand that being outside the concern of this thread.

[Maciek]

Oops, was going to vote for Norgard too, but forgot to click him. Too bad, never mind...

Anyway, I'd definitely vote for Szymanowski if he'd made the list.

Possibly even for Gorecki, though I don't know his 1st (the CD is a bit rare). But I do love the 2nd and like the 3rd a lot. (I assume that the 4th never was completed.)

[karlhenning]

Hartmann!

[karlhenning]

Mennin!

[Lethevich]

I voted for the Bax, Holmboe, Langgaard and Simpson. I can't pick a fifth, as bizarrely (despite loving 20th century symphonism) I can't muster sufficient enthusiasm for the other cycles as a whole. Plenty of lovely music out there but I can't really obsess and connect with entire swathes of it - there are often weak links, or styles that I admire more than love.

I notice that all four of my choices have many detractors, so I suspect that I may require a flawed/limited personality/style to really personally connect with. Composers such as Honegger I really like but they are too "perfect".

[karlhenning]

I voted for the Bax, Holmboe, Langgaard and Simpson. I can't pick a fifth, as bizarrely (despite loving 20th century symphonism) I can't muster sufficient enthusiasm for the other cycles as a whole. Plenty of lovely music out there but I can't really obsess and connect with entire swathes of it - there are often weak links, or styles that I admire more than love.

Also, I think it's something of a category error to clump Hindemith and Stravinsky in here; neither of them composed a "symphony cycle," and that is not a mere incidental fact, it springs from their compositional outlook.

(I think it quite fair to include Berlioz, though; I remember seeing them implicitly numbered . . . was it when I was reading Barzun? . . .)

Entirely agree in your endorsement of the Holmboe & Langgaard as cycles, Sara.

I do sure wish Mennin and Hartmann were in the poll.  (Even though I don't think it possible yet to listen to the entire Mennin cycle, an objection which the OP raised to Brian.)

[Lethevich]

Also, I think it's something of a category error to clump Hindemith and Stravinsky in here; neither of them composed a "symphony cycle," and that is not a mere incidental fact, it springs from their compositional outlook.

(I think it quite fair to include Berlioz, though; I remember seeing them implicitly numbered . . . was it when I was reading Barzun? . . .)

Entirely agree in your endorsement of the Holmboe & Langgaard as cycles, Sara.

I do sure wish Mennin and Hartmann were in the poll.  (Even though I don't think it possible yet to listen to the entire Mennin cycle, an objection which the OP raised to Brian.)

Indeedie, there are some composers who wrote symphonies, but in terms of symphonism don't seem to place it on the pedestal that others might do.

Conversely, there are some who wrote symphonies seemingly just for the practice or status. I consider Stanford among this number on the most part - he has better works. His cycle is fine but really a historical curiosity, although for fans of the style quite essential.

[mjwal]

I chose Elgar, Martinu, Lutoslawski and Norgard - to list them chronologically. My favourite composer on the list is Berlioz, but I find it difficult to think of him (or Stravinsky, come to that) as the composer of a symphony cycle, so I excluded him (and Igor), and left all those out of consideration whose symphonies I only know in part, since you explicitly say top symphony cycles and not top symphonies - I like the few I've heard of Holmboe's, but I cannot put his cycle in my top 4 in good faith. Same goes for Pettersson. I like 3 of Roussel's 4 but don't know No.1. Does anyone here know all of Miaskovsky's? - Actually, I cheated with Norgard - I don't know his No.1, but 6 out of 7 should suffice  . I do know all of Prokofiev's - but I have not yet heard performances of 2 and 4 that really make sense of them to my ears and soul. And so it goes. Rautavaara for me is a Malcolm Sargent among composers, unfair I know (you've heard the famous Beecham anecdote, I presume?) But where is Humphrey Searle? - I like all of his 5 very much (and recommend his memoirs, Quadrille With a Raven, to be found on the invaluable MusicWeb). And now you mention it, I choose Gerhard's cycle over both Lutoslawski and Norgard...Can't make me mind up, groan!

[Lethevich]

I guess Britten could be added to that small list of non-symphonist symphony writers, although we had a thread about exactly the same subject a month or so ago so I'll stfu

I like 3 of Roussel's 4 but don't know No.1

Don't worry about any lack of quality - it's not a mature work, but as a piece in the D'Indy soundworld, it's very accomplished. Speaking of which - D'Indy would be a decent inclusion, although (as mentioned in the next reply) somewhat irrelevent given how few would vote for him.

But where is Humphrey Searle?

I was tempted to put his name forward (Huber, Stenhammer, etc, too), but I suppose few would vote for them anyway I do find Searle's a compelling cycle, and probably in my top 25.

[mjwal]

Blimey, am I gaga? Top 5, not four, so I revise my list to read: Elgar, Martinu, Gerhard, Lutoslawski and Norgard (who just wins over Searle). However, if Elgar can be in the list (a late addition?) - two is a cycle? (don't talk to me about that Payneful "reconstruction", puhleaze) - then Dutilleux would have to be in - and beat Norgard by a fine hair's breadth. But if in fact 3 are the minimum requirement for a cycle as for a quorum, then I will take MGLSN.