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

[jochanaan]

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...

Another example of a work being great for one and not great for another.  I love the Seventh; I think I especially love his juxtaposition of folk-simple melodies with some of the most masterful musical construction ever, plus the long, strong dynamic rise and fall.  (Studying the score, I am impressed by another thing, the amazing sensitivity and specificity of Sibelius' dynamic markings.  Other composers might mark much of their music with a few f's, p's and ff's, but Sibelius's markings go all the way from pppp to fff, with the latter marking used only once and very briefly!  Also "poco f" as a fine gradation between mf and f; I've only seen "poco f" used by one other composer, Brahms.)

[not edward]

I know someone who thinks Sibelius 7 is evidence of alcohol-induced brain damage. 

[DavidW]

I know many members Sarge here considers Havergal Brian's music to be "great",

There fixed that for you.

[Sergeant Rock]

There fixed that for you.

I know many members here Sarge and Johan consider Havergal Brian's music to be "great"

And there, I fixed it for you 


Sarge

[Parsifal]

I know many members here Sarge and Johan consider Havergal Brian's music to be "great"

And there, I fixed it for you 

After listening to Symphonies 10 and 30 on an implicit recommendation by springrite I may be getting there. 

[Sergeant Rock]

After listening to Symphonies 10 and 30 on an implicit recommendation by springrite I may be getting there. 

Excellent! You know, we need more posters, and posts, in the little Brian thread. 

Sarge

[Silk]

I'll do no such thing.

Talk about your artificial constructs! That's "greatness," in spades.

And it has the added feature of being able to present itself as intrinsic and extrinsic, depending on how you look at it. Of course, logically, it can only be one (extrinsic), but so seductive is the intrinsic idea that it never really goes away, even if logic has destroyed it entirely.

In common with many listeners, I also do not favor Mahler's eighth. The things about it that don't work, for me, are too overwhelming for the things about it that I do like. If I were to use the language of the OP, I would say unequivocally that it's not a great piece. And the vastness of the number of people who would agree with me could very well tempt me into thinking my judgment was just.

But really. All it takes is one listener to have a positive experience with Mahler's eighth to destroy the flimsy pretentions of that judgment. Who cares if the overwhelming (illusion) majority of listeners agrees about Mahler's eighth? One person, one positive experience. And that person, hopefully, will be able to continue to enjoy that piece regardless of my snooty attitude towards it.

I'd say "flimsy pretensions" was the flavour of this entire post - that and preposterous obfuscation and word-twisting.  It's not an argument per se is it;  rather a series of twists and turns and semantic posturings.  Oh dear...

[Parsifal]

I'd say "flimsy pretensions" was the flavour of this entire post - that and preposterous obfuscation and word-twisting.  It's not an argument per se is it;  rather a series of twists and turns and semantic posturings.  Oh dear...

I see nothing flimsy or pretentious in the post.  Perhaps you should read it with more care.