What symphonists will you admit are great but you don't personally favor?

[mc ukrneal]

  ...laying the sarcasm on a bit heavily, Neal    The first movement does what it is supposed to do given the text. If you want to call it bombast, fine...you wouldn't be the first. But have you listened to Part II? which is more than double the length of Part I? Your description doesn't fit. It's quiet, for the most part, intimate, with chamber sonorities. And it's brilliant music that doesn't overstay its welcome. When I heard it in Berlin, the hour passed so quickly I was actually surprised--despite knowing the work well--when the final chorus started.

Of course my evalution of M8 is self-centered and delusional...but then that describes everyone who posts here 

Sarge

Bombastic was the wrong word. It's one of those words that I learned to use incorrectly and I sometimes forget to catch myself. And perhaps I was reading into some posts, but it seems like everyone who complains about it thinks it's too big (and maybe I am mistaken), so I was responding to that specific issue. Of course, like all good music, there are many facets, and M8 has it's proper share as you duly noted. I shall sit in the penalty box for a while to review the error of my ways. 

On the delusional point, I must protest. I am just plain whacko! 

[Pat B]

For me, Bruckner, Brahms, AND Mahler. Of those three I have listened to Brahms the most, and either I haven't found the right performances or I just don't like his symphonies. His Violin Concerto is also not among my favorites, though I do like the Double. Bernstein's NYPO Mahler 4th may have opened up Mahler to me. I haven't given Bruckner many chances yet.

I've never had any problems with Tchaikovsky. The 6th especially has always struck me as a very unified work. I have a few recordings now, but Jansons is the one I grew up with.

This blog post made Ives click. I wish more liner notes had writing like this instead of academic lists of key modulations.

[Karl Henning]

I'm not sure why anyone wouldn't like Mahler's 8th. Isn't the hugeness of the sound and the forces just awesome!?!?! I mean, this is LOUD, bombastic, passionate music!!There is never anything wrong with that in my book.

But that's exactly the problem I have with the Part I. He takes a hymn to the Holy Spirit, and makes it over into the symphonic equivalent of a college fight song.

[jochanaan]

None.  If I don't like a composer's works, how can I admit his or her greatness?

This is not solipsism.  I recognize that others think some composers are great that I don't favor.  But, ultimately, views on "greatness" are personal and, to a large extent, non-transferable.  I do not make the mistake of supposing that my views on music and musicians are the end-all and be-all; in the end, I can only decide for myself (and perhaps make suggestions to others based on what they've told me).

[kyjo]

But that's exactly the problem I have with the Part I. He takes a hymn to the Holy Spirit, and makes it over into the symphonic equivalent of a college fight song.

I've never cared for Mahler 8 at all. I think I even like the completed version of no. 10 better!

[jochanaan]

I've never cared for Mahler 8 at all. I think I even like the completed version of no. 10 better!

The perfect example to prove my point.  I love M8; it may be, in the long run, the greatest of his symphonies for me.  But, as I said, I can't make the claim of greatness on behalf of anyone else.

[Daverz]

Gerhard, maybe.  No. 1 is not too hard to follow, but the others are just streams of sonorities to me.

Also, I liked one Mennin symphony (3?), but the others were disappointing.

[some guy]

That's nice some guy but the point of the thread is not to have laborious discussions on the meaning of words or navel gazing pseudo-philosophical discussion on the meaning of greatness, we're here to talk about music.

You're the one who brought it up.

[Gurn Blanston]

None.  If I don't like a composer's works, how can I admit his or her greatness?

Well, Jo, it's not so hard; I love Brahms' and Dvorak's chamber music, for example. I admit they are great composers but I don't care for their symphonies. Or any other symphonies post 1840 or so. Just not my kind of music.

[jochanaan]

Well, Jo, it's not so hard; I love Brahms' and Dvorak's chamber music, for example. I admit they are great composers but I don't care for their symphonies. Or any other symphonies post 1840 or so. Just not my kind of music.

Hmmm...Chamber vs. orchestral?  Or some thing about big vs. small orchestras... Or maybe you just don't think "Symphony past 1840" is a great genre?

[kyjo]

Well, Jo, it's not so hard; I love Brahms' and Dvorak's chamber music, for example. I admit they are great composers but I don't care for their symphonies. Or any other symphonies post 1840 or so. Just not my kind of music.

Sorry to hear that you aren't enthusiastic about symphonies written after 1840, Gurn. What exactly is it about mid/late-romantic and modern symphonies that you find unappealing? If I know this, I'd be happy to give you suggestions of symphonists who I think you'd enjoy. For example, let's say you don't like symphonies of these periods because you feel they are overblown or emotional roller-coaster rides. If that is so, then I'd recommend symphonists such as Roussel, Thompson, Madetoja or other composers who composed "lighter" but still satisfying and rewarding works in the form. I'm in love with the symphony, so just ask me for advice for where to start appreciating this wonderful form.

[dyn]

I wouldn't call this a "current fad." Whatever you think about them, they've been hugely influential for over 100 years. Particularly Wagner, who was a dominating influence as early as the 1860s.

One could argue about the extent or lack of extent of Wagner's influence for days. In the interests of forestalling that argument i'll suggest that his influence has tended to be overstated by the small but influential cult of Wagner admirers, but either underestimated or vastly overestimated (to the point of attributing "the decline of music" to him) by the equally small and influential cult of Wagner detractors. His music did strongly influence many of the composers born between roughly 1850 and 1890, but it was mostly the aspects of his music that were least important to him—an influence almost in spite of itself. Nobody wrote music dramas after the death of Wagner, nor did the concept of Gesamtkunstwerk gain much traction, etc, etc. But that's a tangent.

Mahler and Bruckner are indeed a fad, but one that has been "artificially" prolonged due to the perceived decline of orchestras and therefore the unwillingness of orchestras to make any significant changes to their concert programmes over the past fifty years. They continue to be performed (along with Beethoven, et al) because orchestras feel they need to present familiar repertoire to avoid losing customers, and customers therefore are unaware that other music exists—and don't really go to concerts to hear the music anyway.

[Johnll]

One could argue about the extent or lack of extent of Wagner's influence for days. In the interests of forestalling that argument i'll suggest that his influence has tended to be overstated by the small but influential cult of Wagner admirers, but either underestimated or vastly overestimated (to the point of attributing "the decline of music" to him) by the equally small and influential cult of Wagner detractors. His music did strongly influence many of the composers born between roughly 1850 and 1890, but it was mostly the aspects of his music that were least important to him—an influence almost in spite of itself. Nobody wrote music dramas after the death of Wagner, nor did the concept of Gesamtkunstwerk gain much traction, etc, etc. But that's a tangent.

Mahler and Bruckner are indeed a fad, but one that has been "artificially" prolonged due to the perceived decline of orchestras and therefore the unwillingness of orchestras to make any significant changes to their concert programmes over the past fifty years. They continue to be performed (along with Beethoven, et al) because orchestras feel they need to present familiar repertoire to avoid losing customers, and customers therefore are unaware that other music exists—and don't really go to concerts to hear the music anyway.

Dyn I understand you fancy yourself a composer. Instead of wringing your hands about the sorry state of classical music and the listeners who are not up to your standards, write us a piece that will curl our collective toes.

[dyn]

Dyn I understand you fancy yourself a composer. Instead of wringing your hands about the sorry state of classical music and the listeners who are not up to your standards, write us a piece that will curl our collective toes.

There are plenty of much more talented composers out there who are also interested in writing orchestral music (which i am not). However, composers no longer have the cultural cachet to "save" classical music. Even the supposedly-conservative listeners, whom composers have traditionally blamed for the decline of classical music, don't have any real power either. Audiences respond well to lesser-known composers on the occasions they are played (even sometimes composers the audience isn't "supposed" to like), but due to hostility from musicians, presenters and institutions—and perhaps their corporate backers—towards any change in the status quo, those occasions remain very rare.

anyway, back to the topic i guess

[Johnll]

There are plenty of much more talented composers out there who are also interested in writing orchestral music (which i am not). However, composers no longer have the cultural cachet to "save" classical music. Even the supposedly-conservative listeners, whom composers have traditionally blamed for the decline of classical music, don't have any real power either. Audiences respond well to lesser-known composers on the occasions they are played (even sometimes composers the audience isn't "supposed" to like), but due to hostility from musicians, presenters and institutions—and perhaps their corporate backers—towards any change in the status quo, those occasions remain very rare.

anyway, back to the topic i guess

The topic is "great" symphonies you do not favor. I am not interested in your political/cultural theories but you be so kind to enumerate those symphonies that are not worthy for you?

[dyn]

The topic is "great" symphonies you do not favor. I am not interested in your political/cultural theories but you be so kind to enumerate those symphonies that are not worthy for you?

You would know that already if you had read the first page of this thread.

[Johnll]

Dyn I did pick up the OP's "it invites the creation of an artificial construct: the hypothetical audience as perceived by yourself, it also creates the self-centered delusion ". As a old fart to a young lady you are most definitely entitled to the last word (words?). God bless!

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Mahler and Bruckner are indeed a fad, but one that has been "artificially" prolonged due to the perceived decline of orchestras and therefore the unwillingness of orchestras to make any significant changes to their concert programmes over the past fifty years. They continue to be performed (along with Beethoven, et al) because orchestras feel they need to present familiar repertoire to avoid losing customers, and customers therefore are unaware that other music exists—and don't really go to concerts to hear the music anyway.

How long does a phenomenon need to exist before you will concede that it is not a fad? M & B have been core composers since roughly the 1960s. Before that, they were basically cult composers who counted among their admirers some of the great musicians of the time.

Your argument, while it makes some points I sympathize with (re the conservatism of orchestral programming), essentially amounts to saying that people don't actually like these composers, yet they continue to get played and  recorded, again and again, somehow.

[NorthNYMark]

For me, at this relatively early point in my appreciation of "classical" music (i.e., I've only been listening with any regularity for less than two years), the symphonists I acknowledge as great but have had a hard time appreciating are Mozart, Haydn, Saint-Saens, and Tchaikovsky (though I appreciate the latter's string serenades and a few other non-symphonic works).  I think what I have a hard time with is the overall "lightness" of what I've heard from these composers (although that may be less the case with Tchaikovsky), which just doesn't resonate very much with me.  I assume that I will come to appreciate at least some (and possibly all) of these composers more over time.

[DavidW]

Going back to Mahler, I also find the 8th to be my least listened to symphony (still great imo).  And the supposed dark sheep 7th symphony I found to be immediately engaging.  Who was the person that called the 7th symphony the dark sheep and why did it stick??

Thanks to Annie for bringing up the Saint Saens PC thread, since I need recs to order.