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

[NorthNYMark]

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.

I am continually puzzled by all the references to Mahler's 7th as "difficult."  To me,  its first movement, in any event, is one of the most memorable and immediately accessible movements of his entire symphonic oeuvre.  I'll agree that the final movement seems a bit overly upbeat in comparison to the rest of the symphony, but I tend to find that to be the case in many 19th century final movements (the final movements of Brahms's Violin Concerto and first Piano Concerto, not to mention the Scherzo in his 4th Symphony, also strike me as out of character with the rest of the work).  In some ways, the vocal song at the end of Mahler's 4th Symphony seems more bizarrely out of place to me, particularly as it comes to a far more satisfying (IMHO) "conclusion" before the vocal kicks in.  I realize, by the way, that the song was composed first, but it still seems like something that could have been left out of the final work. I also realize that my perception may change over time, since many people seem to find that vocal section to be particularly moving.  Perhaps the 7th will start feeling more "difficult" to me as well?

[jochanaan]

I am continually puzzled by all the references to Mahler's 7th as "difficult."...

The "difficulties," I believe, come from the last movement.  For a long time I tended to think that, for all its skill in orchestration and development, it was Mahler's least "heartfelt" movement.  But several years ago I heard it live, by Marin Alsop and the Colorado Symphony Orchestra in a flawless performance; I realized then that this movement was the "pop-music satire" movement, of which there is at least one in every Mahler symphony right back to the "Funeral March in the manner of Callot" from #1.  That realization was the key to appreciating this symphony at the fullest level.

[NorthNYMark]

The "difficulties," I believe, come from the last movement.  For a long time I tended to think that, for all its skill in orchestration and development, it was Mahler's least "heartfelt" movement.  But several years ago I heard it live, by Marin Alsop and the Colorado Symphony Orchestra in a flawless performance; I realized then that this movement was the "pop-music satire" movement, of which there is at least one in every Mahler symphony right back to the "Funeral March in the manner of Callot" from #1.  That realization was the key to appreciating this symphony at the fullest level.

Interesting...do you perceive the entire movement as satire?  I have only heard the Bernstein NYPhil and Sinopoli performances, and did find the movement a bit reminiscent of action movie soundtracks.  However, I thought movie soundtrack cliches were a more recent phenomenon.  What kind of music popular during Mahler's time do you feel he was parodying?  I do sometimes wonder, as I'm listening, whether Mahler's various stylistic pastiches (particularly the laendler) are meant to be taken satirically in the way that some of Bartok's and Shostakovitch's passages apparently are.  With Mahler, it seems harder to tell, as the entire works sometimes have a kind of postmodernist sensibility about them (in that they seem like they may be questioning the very possibility of stylistic authenticity).

[not edward]

The "difficulties," I believe, come from the last movement.  For a long time I tended to think that, for all its skill in orchestration and development, it was Mahler's least "heartfelt" movement.  But several years ago I heard it live, by Marin Alsop and the Colorado Symphony Orchestra in a flawless performance; I realized then that this movement was the "pop-music satire" movement, of which there is at least one in every Mahler symphony right back to the "Funeral March in the manner of Callot" from #1.  That realization was the key to appreciating this symphony at the fullest level.

To a large extent, I agree here. The one thing that (to me) doesn't work with the finale of #7 is playing it straight. It can certainly be played as satire; you can even go Scherchen on it and have it as waking from a nightmare into something even worse.

But I think this is a rather common thread throughout the symphony: most of Mahler's other symphonies have a clear narrative strand which most interpretations cluster around--the 7th is more a Borgesian garden of forking paths. And that makes it a bit harder to pin down than the rest, but endlessly fascinating.

[jochanaan]

Interesting...do you perceive the entire movement as satire?

Affectionate satire, but satire nevertheless. 

I have only heard the Bernstein NYPhil and Sinopoli performances, and did find the movement a bit reminiscent of action movie soundtracks.  However, I thought movie soundtrack cliches were a more recent phenomenon.

You have it backwards.  Movie composers got their inspiration from Mahler.

What kind of music popular during Mahler's time do you feel he was parodying?

Cafe music and popular dance music, especially from Johann Strauss Jr.

I do sometimes wonder, as I'm listening, whether Mahler's various stylistic pastiches (particularly the laendler) are meant to be taken satirically in the way that some of Bartok's and Shostakovitch's passages apparently are.  With Mahler, it seems harder to tell, as the entire works sometimes have a kind of postmodernist sensibility about them (in that they seem like they may be questioning the very possibility of stylistic authenticity).

Where do you think Bartok and Shostakovich got their inspiration? Shostakovich, especially, owes much to Mahler.  Oh, BTW, the famous "Bartok" pizzicato was used by Mahler first, in this very Seventh Symphony!

[Daverz]

I'd add Lutoslawski to my previous list.  Listening to 2 now (Gardner).

[not edward]

With Mahler, it seems harder to tell, as the entire works sometimes have a kind of postmodernist sensibility about them (in that they seem like they may be questioning the very possibility of stylistic authenticity).

I think this may be more coincidence than anything else: Mahler's oft-quoted line about the symphony having to contain the world does in itself admit of all sorts of musical styles, but I think it also implies doing so within a Romantic framework.

As a counterpoint, though, it wouldn't be hard to read some of Mahler's symphonies as questioning the heroic narrative of the Romantic era, though certainly not the first to do so (Brahms 4 and of course Tchaikovsky 6 surely count as predecessors): the refusal to supply anything remotely resembling a conventional finale in the 4th; the catastrophic last pages of the 6th, and, of course, pretty much everything to do with the 7th.

[DavidW]

I've had troubles with the Turangalila Symphony.  I run hot and cold with it,  but know that it is considered a great work.

[NorthNYMark]

Affectionate satire, but satire nevertheless.  You have it backwards.  Movie composers got their inspiration from Mahler. :)Cafe music and popular dance music, especially from Johann Strauss Jr.Where do you think Bartok and Shostakovich got their inspiration? Shostakovich, especially, owes much to Mahler.  Oh, BTW, the famous "Bartok" pizzicato was used by Mahler first, in this very Seventh Symphony!

Great points!  I think I may have been a bit unclear in some of my own, however.  I realize that Mahler inspired a lot of movie music (as the reverse is not possible)--but what I was asking is what he would be parodying with his own "movie music" sounding sections, like the Seventh's final movement.  I hear the Strauss Jr. dance music throughout Mahler's symphonies (perhaps most prominently in the First), but the Seventh's finale sounds much more "heroic" than that sort of thing.  Could it be that he was parodying other "serious" Romantic symphonists there?

[NorthNYMark]

I think this may be more coincidence than anything else: Mahler's oft-quoted line about the symphony having to contain the world does in itself admit of all sorts of musical styles, but I think it also implies doing so within a Romantic framework.

As a counterpoint, though, it wouldn't be hard to read some of Mahler's symphonies as questioning the heroic narrative of the Romantic era, though certainly not the first to do so (Brahms 4 and of course Tchaikovsky 6 surely count as predecessors): the refusal to supply anything remotely resembling a conventional finale in the 4th; the catastrophic last pages of the 6th, and, of course, pretty much everything to do with the 7th.

Really good points (although I still don't quite see the Seventh as all that different from his other symphonies).  I particularly agree with your remark about the Fourth.

[NorthNYMark]

I've had troubles with the Turangalila Symphony.  I run hot and cold with it,  but know that it is considered a great work.

Interesting--that was a work that resonated with me very strongly on a first listen (though I haven't revisited it enough to know whether it will maintain its freshness after multiple listenings).

[jochanaan]

...the Seventh's finale sounds much more "heroic" than that sort of thing.  Could it be that he was parodying other "serious" Romantic symphonists there?

He probably was; he may also have been parodying (affectionately, always) opera composers--always fair game for parody.  ("Kill da wabbit," anyone? )

[xochitl]

for me it's vaughan-williams.  i love the 3rd, but the others somehow just dont touch me at all.

[kyjo]

for me it's vaughan-williams.  i love the 3rd, but the others somehow just dont touch me at all.

That's a shame. I find VW's symphonies to be among the most moving and masterful ever written.

[Christo]

for me it's vaughan-williams.  i love the 3rd, but the others somehow just dont touch me at all.

I have a similar confession to make. For me it's Sibelius. I know I should admire his Seventh Symphony, but I can't. I played it again this afternoon, and responded exactly as I always did.

I learnt to enjoy his Fourth and Fifth and also Tapiola and a few other pieces, and heard many of them live in fine performances, most of them in Amsterdam's Concertgebouw. Indeed, I love Kullervo (also heard live in the Concertgebouw), but I simply cannot force myself to play the first three symphonies for the whole length of them. The first I ever heard, now 35 years ago, was the Second. I was in love already with RVW and guessed Sibelius would make a worthy companion, but I found it utterly banal and I still do - I am very sorry indeed. I use these abusive words only to express my personal response to most of what I hear by this composer, even to late works like the Sixth and Seventh Symphonies. Within one or two minutes there's a motive of theme that in my ears sounds like a cliché or worse and my natural response is always the same: turn it off.

I read a few biographies and indeed whole parts of Erik Tawaststjerna's Mammoth. It's his life and musical world that interest me, but for me personally - just absolutely personally, you all are absolutely right and I'm dead wrong - almost all other Finnish composers are more to my taste than the Old Master. (This applies especially to Madetoja, Melartin, Klami, Kokkonen, Sallinen, Rautavaara, Aho).

How can I be so undiscerning? 

[Mirror Image]

I have a similar confession to make. For me it's Sibelius. I know I should admire his Seventh Symphony, but I can't. I played it again this afternoon, and responded exactly as I always did.

I learnt to enjoy his Fourth and Fifth and also Tapiola and a few other pieces, and heard many of them live in fine performances, most of them in Amsterdam's Concertgebouw. Indeed, I love Kullervo (also heard live in the Concertgebouw), but I simply cannot force myself to play the first three symphonies for the whole length of them. The first I ever heard, now 35 years ago, was the Second. I was in love already with RVW and guessed Sibelius would make a worthy companion, but I found it utterly banal and I still do - I am very sorry indeed. I use these abusive words only to express my personal response to most of what I hear by this composer, even to late works like the Sixth and Seventh Symphonies. Within one or two minutes there's a motive of theme that in my ears sounds like a cliché or worse and my natural response is always the same: turn it off.

I read a few biographies and indeed whole parts of Erik Tawaststjerna's Mammoth. It's his life and musical world that interest me, but for me personally - just absolutely personally, you all are absolutely right and I'm dead wrong - almost all other Finnish composers are more to my taste than the Old Master. (This applies especially to Madetoja, Melartin, Klami, Kokkonen, Sallinen, Rautavaara, Aho).

How can I be so undiscerning? 

I tread a fine line with Sibelius --- one day he's a favorite and the next day he's not even in top contention for one of my favorites. I continue to listen, and admire, him for his Symphonies 4-7. These are, for me, the pinnacle of his oeuvre. I also love several of the tone poems (The Oceanides, Pahjola's Daughter, Lemminkäinen Suite, Nightride and Sunrise, Tapiola). Never cared much for his Violin Concerto and there probably some other works that I don't particularly care for, but I do still come back to these works and always get much enjoyment out of them.

[Christo]

I forgot to mention Englund, perhaps my favourite Finnish composer. 

[Daverz]

I've had troubles with the Turangalila Symphony.  I run hot and cold with it,  but know that it is considered a great work.

I think many acknowledge that the music is pretty kitschy.

I have to be in a certain mood to enjoy Messiaen, and that mood has occurred very rarely in the last 20 years.

[kyjo]

I forgot to mention Englund, perhaps my favourite Finnish composer. 

Yes, I love Englund too! He isn't dubbed the "Finnish Shostakovich" for nothing, but he assimilated the Soviet master's influence better and more personally than did, say, Weinberg IMO. His symphonies (especially no. 2), are dark, gripping works.

[kyjo]

I know many members here consider Havergal Brian's music to be "great", so I'll confess I can't really get into his later symphonies (from about no. 7 onwards). It's hard to describe why exactly I have difficulty warming to them; I just don't think Brian is trying to make emotional connections with the listener in them. Dramatic mood swings such as those that are found in much of Brian's later music aren't a bad thing in theirselves, but IMO Brian couldn't handle these abrupt changes with the mastery of, say Mahler or Shostakovich. Now, don't get me wrong, I adore his earlier symphonies (with the possible exception of no. 4). To my ears, they are more emotional works with stronger connections to the Romantic tradition than the later ones. The Gothic is an undoubted masterpiece and a work of great power.