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

[DavidW]

I don't like the "underrated" questions because it invites the creation of an artificial construct: the hypothetical audience as perceived by yourself, it also creates the self-centered delusion that you are the discoverer and curator of lost treasures.

Let's move away from that construct for this specific thread. 

Now first you have to admit greatness.  If you don't like something, and don't think that you should then all you accomplish is being contemptuous and no fun (that is why I also don't like "overrated" questions). 

If you like something mentioned here, and think you have an angle to help the person get into the music, make suggestions for particular recordings or for alternate genres and composers to get closer to appreciation.  For example, some people didn't like Mahler until they heard his lieder, and then re-evaluated his symphonies.  Some didn't care for him until they heard a specific recording of a specific work.

I'll start off-- Saint Saens Symphonies.  Some fun alliteration there, but yeah I know they are great works, but I never got into them.  Haven't heard anything else by the composer.

[Mirror Image]

I'll start off-- Saint Saens Symphonies.  Some fun alliteration there, but yeah I know they are great works, but I never got into them.  Haven't heard anything else by the composer.

I strongly recommend you check out Saint-Saens' piano concerti. These are his crowning achievement IMHO.

[North Star]

Saint-Saëns wrote some wonderful concert pieces for violin, along with the piano, violin & cello concertos. And Samson & Delilah!!

[springrite]

Simpson 9

Mahler 8

[Karl Henning]

A few short years ago, my reply to your thread (and a very nice thread, BTW) would have been Mahler & Bruckner, Davey. Now that I've acquired a liking for the symphonies of both...this thread finds me unprepared : )

Viz. Saint-Saëns, while I join the chorus in praise of his concerted works (esp. piano), I wanted to add that I never really took to the Organ Symphony, until I heard it live at Symphony Hall.

[not edward]

This used to be Brahms for me (even though I loved his chamber music to distraction) but once the 4th clicked with me thanks to Klemperer, the rest soon followed.

I still find that a Haydn symphony goes a long way, particularly when compared to a Haydn string quartet.

Also, the only Mozart symphony I return to with any regularity is the 40th, but that largely mirrors my pattern of only really connecting with a comparatively small number of his works.


On Mahler: I've noticed a certain parallel between the surprisingly large number of people who seem to start appreciating Mahler in middle age (Karl, Maderna, Boulez et al) and my own changing view of the music. I've always liked his symphonies but in the past I did very much think of him as a "young man's composer"; these days I certainly still respond to the emotional drama implicit in the music, but am also blown away by things I was less impressed by in the past: the clarity of the 4th; the astonishing rhythmic/thematic tautness of the 6th, the expressive ambivalence of the 7th; the radical nature of the 9th (the whole of the first movement, the "insert" in the 3rd that gives the listener an extended preview of the finale, and the way the last four viola notes at the end of the symphony undercut everything that has gone before).

[DavidW]

I'm going to check out Saint Saens Piano Concertos.

[some guy]

Now first you have to admit greatness.

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.

[springrite]

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.

Most of us are more than capable of beating you in snootiness. 

[DavidW]

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. 

[dyn]

A similar topic came up elsewhere. I am distrustful of claims to "greatness" in general, but in respect to composers whose non-symphonic music i generally enjoy, i would name Beethoven, Schumann, Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, and Mozart (excepting nos. 35 and 38-41).

Shostakovich is another composer whose symphonies, while obviously well put together & arranged so as to achieve maximum emotional manipulation of the audience, have never succeeded that well with me, apart from nos. 4 and 14 and possibly 13. That is also true of most of the rest of his music, though, with the other main works of his i listen to more than once every couple of years being the Trio Op. 67, the Violin & Viola Sonatas and the two cello concertos. Vaughan Williams is a similar case, whose music i listen to even less of, although i retain a deep and abiding love for the slow movement of the Fifth Symphony (and i suppose the passacaglia as well, to a lesser extent). Franck's Symphony was one of my favourite works when i was younger but i have rather lost interest in it now, although still willing to acknowledge its merits.

(As for Mahler & Bruckner, i think they—along with Wagner—were thoroughly mediocre composers and find the current fad for their music rather inexplicable, an opinion also beyond the remit of this thread.)

[kyjo]

I strongly recommend you check out Saint-Saens' piano concerti. These are his crowning achievement IMHO.

+1 Definitely get the fantastic Roge/Dutoit recordings. His first, third and fifth PCs are underrated works IMO.

[kyjo]

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.

Hear, hear

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

This used to be Brahms for me (even though I loved his chamber music to distraction) but once the 4th clicked with me thanks to Klemperer, the rest soon followed.

I always liked his symphonies, but not until I got into the chamber music did I understand his stratospheric reputation.

On Mahler: I've noticed a certain parallel between the surprisingly large number of people who seem to start appreciating Mahler in middle age (Karl, Maderna, Boulez et al) and my own changing view of the music. I've always liked his symphonies but in the past I did very much think of him as a "young man's composer"; these days I certainly still respond to the emotional drama implicit in the music, but am also blown away by things I was less impressed by in the past: the clarity of the 4th; the astonishing rhythmic/thematic tautness of the 6th, the expressive ambivalence of the 7th; the radical nature of the 9th (the whole of the first movement, the "insert" in the 3rd that gives the listener an extended preview of the finale, and the way the last four viola notes at the end of the symphony undercut everything that has gone before).

This has been exactly my experience as well. Also, when I first started listening to classical music, the only thing that interested me was big orchestral pieces. Time went by and I got into chamber music and other small-scale forms, and now I appreciate much more the chamber-like aspects of Mahler's works. It's a strong argument for Mahler's greatness that his music holds up well from so many different perspectives. Another thing that helped was getting into modern music, and seeing how powerful the Mahler influence was in that: the Second Viennese School, Shostakovich, etc.

(As for Mahler & Bruckner, i think they-—along with Wagner-—were thoroughly mediocre composers and find the current fad for their music rather inexplicable, an opinion also beyond the remit of this thread.)

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.

[TheGSMoeller]

Tchaikovsky, great composer, and some movements from his symphonies are priceless (scherzo from 4th, finale from 6th) but I've never enjoyed them as a whole.  I don't hear a clear connection between the movements, but rather four separate pieces. It's an issue I have with Brahms 4th, which to me is in the top 5 of three-movement symphonies if the allegro giocoso was removed, not deleted just removed, save it for an individual celebration piece. I've seen Tchaikovsky's 4th and 5th performed in concert, intense works with some high caliber playing required from the musicians, but even then I didn't feel the certain flow that I enjoy from a good symphony.

[North Star]

Tchaikovsky, great composer, and some movements from his symphonies are priceless (scherzo from 4th, finale from 6th) but I've never enjoyed them as a whole.  I don't hear a clear connection between the movements, but rather four separate pieces. It's an issue I have with Brahms 4th, which to me is in the top 5 of three-movement symphonies if the allegro giocoso was removed, not deleted just removed, save it for an individual celebration piece. I've seen Tchaikovsky's 4th and 5th performed in concert, intense works with some high caliber playing required from the musicians, but even then I didn't feel the certain flow that I enjoy from a good symphony.

I understand what you mean - Tchaikovsky had great problems with larger forms. Supposedly he thought that he had got over the troubles but, alas, he didn't live to write his 7th.
Still, I don't have problems with the episodic nature of the symphonies. You could always think you're listening to a symphonic suite like Sibelius's Four Lemminkäinen Legends, Op. 22.

[mc ukrneal]

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.

One of the reasons I love S-S symphonies is that I was able to play a couple of them in a symphonic winds group. I found that added much more to my listening pleasure. But it is harder to pass on that internalized love of the music. I'd have to think about it.

I would not be surprised to see Ives here. He can be a tough nut to crack. Shoenberg fits this category for me. He had such a big impact on music, but I don't care much for his chamber symphonies.  The other possibility is Stravinsky, but I am not sure I would say he was great, though he was quite influential. If being influential means he's great, then he would be there. But I have only ever tolerated his symphonies (at best). So his greatness comes from his being influential, not from the quality of his pieces.

[Opus106]

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. 

I don't think it's that, at all. If calling a composer or a work as 'under-rated' is a contentious issue, then so is attributing the equally poorly defined quality of greatness. Maybe you should say greatness is that which has enabled a composer to occupy so many pages of the Penguin Guide consistently in the last so many years.

[Sergeant Rock]

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.

  ...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

[Gurn Blanston]

I don't think it's that, at all. If calling a composer or a work as 'under-rated' is a contentious issue, then so is attributing the equally poorly defined quality of greatness. Maybe you should say greatness is that which has enabled a composer to occupy so many pages of the Penguin Guide consistently in the last so many years.

Except that we've already decided a thousand times over that this is one of many aesthetically based terms that is indefinable, and so the OP would like to go by feelings instead of philosophical definitions so that the music itself can be looked at rather than the basis for categorizing it.  IOW, I can say that Brahms' music is great without really having to define great every time I use it. The fact that I don't like Brahms' symphonies, nor virtually any symphonies after Schubert's death excepting only Mendelssohn 3 & 4 doesn't mean that I don't admit to the greatness of the composers. Only that I find the works disgustingly loud and large.  0:)