Six Favorite Symphonists

[Brian]

In order...CHRONOLOGICAL order.

Haydn
Beethoven
Dvorak
Brahms
Sibelius
Martinu

Notes:
1. First person to mention Martinu
2. I'm frustrated by debating whether to include certain composers whose cycles are really uneven to me. For instance, I'm only really transported by 2 of the 6 Mahler symphonies I've heard (I know! not enough!), and ditto only 2.5 of the Bruckner symphonies. I considered including them anyway. Another case is guys like Schubert, Brahms, and Prokofiev, where their final symphonies (to me) are on a totally different level from the earlier ones.
3. Before somebody asks about Dvorak coming chronologically before Brahms: Antonin had 5 symphonies down before Brahms finished his First. My favorites by the two composers are roughly "tied" timewise, but Dvorak started earlier.

[ritter]

...
1. First person to mention Martinu
....

They say that Bruckner composed the same symphony nine times (or eleven, if you will)...that's what I feel with Martinu, though...it's as if I were listening to the same music over and over again...I must revisit these works sometime soon! Any recommendations on which symphony to start with, Brian?

Cheers,

[aligreto]

Beethoven
Sibelius
Mahler
Bruckner
Brahms
Tchaikovsky

[Brian]

They say that Bruckner composed the same symphony nine times (or eleven, if you will)...that's what I feel with Martinu, though...it's as if I were listening to the same music over and over again...I must revisit these works sometime soon! Any recommendations on which symphony to start with, Brian?

Cheers,

In many ways this is true, and you can even hear the same motifs used in the symphonies. Martinu wrote a "cycle" unlike any other given how motivically unified it is...for instance, 'triumphant' rhythms from the Second become 'tragic' in the Third.

The Sixth symphony is the least similar to the other five, being from the 1950s and more wild/fantastical in nature. Definitely not "the same music again."

Broadly (and with excessive generalization), the central trio is a bit like this: No. 2: lyrical, pastoral, happy (one could compare to American music); No. 3: troubled, disturbed, tragic; No. 4: like a rustic Czech country Eroica Symphony. The four movements of No. 4 are so different in mood that I don't know how the symphony works!

No. 1 and No. 5 I don't listen to very often.

[vandermolen]

List No. 2

Honegger
Sibelius
Madetoja
Glazunov
Alwyn
Diamond

[ritter]

In many ways this is true, and you can even hear the same motifs used in the symphonies. Martinu wrote a "cycle" unlike any other given how motivically unified it is...for instance, 'triumphant' rhythms from the Second become 'tragic' in the Third.

The Sixth symphony is the least similar to the other five, being from the 1950s and more wild/fantastical in nature. Definitely not "the same music again."

Broadly (and with excessive generalization), the central trio is a bit like this: No. 2: lyrical, pastoral, happy (one could compare to American music); No. 3: troubled, disturbed, tragic; No. 4: like a rustic Czech country Eroica Symphony. The four movements of No. 4 are so different in mood that I don't know how the symphony works!

No. 1 and No. 5 I don't listen to very often.

Thanks for the comments, Brian. I'll give those central symphonies a spin sometime soon...

[Sergeant Rock]

For instance, I'm only really transported by 2 of the 6 Mahler symphonies I've heard (I know! not enough!), and ditto only 2.5 of the Bruckner symphonies.

I can understand your problem with Mahler (for me, 3 and 4 took a long time to gel) but I'd don't understand your problem with Bruckner. I don't see how anyone can only like a couple of his symphonies when, in effect, they are all the same   Like one, you should like them all. Even the "Study" Symphony has elements that are unmistakably Bruckner; and 0, 1 and 2 could be by no other composer. Sure, there is technical progress, a continual honing of his compositional skills, but the style is the same, his signature elements the same, from Die Nullte to the Ninth.

Sarge

[AdamFromWashington]

Who are your six favorite symphonists? I'll go first....(in no particular order):

RVW
Sibelius
Nielsen
Shostakovich
Bruckner
Mahler

Swap out RVW for Beethoven and that's my list.

[Ken B]

In order...CHRONOLOGICAL order.

Haydn
Beethoven
Dvorak
Brahms
Sibelius
Martinu

Notes:
1. First person to mention Martinu
2. I'm frustrated by debating whether to include certain composers whose cycles are really uneven to me. For instance, I'm only really transported by 2 of the 6 Mahler symphonies I've heard (I know! not enough!), and ditto only 2.5 of the Bruckner symphonies. I considered including them anyway. Another case is guys like Schubert, Brahms, and Prokofiev, where their final symphonies (to me) are on a totally different level from the earlier ones.
3. Before somebody asks about Dvorak coming chronologically before Brahms: Antonin had 5 symphonies down before Brahms finished his First. My favorites by the two composers are roughly "tied" timewise, but Dvorak started earlier.

Swap Bruckner for Martinu and we have a winner.

[Jo498]

2. I'm frustrated by debating whether to include certain composers whose cycles are really uneven to me. For instance, I'm only really transported by 2 of the 6 Mahler symphonies I've heard (I know! not enough!), and ditto only 2.5 of the Bruckner symphonies. I considered including them anyway. Another case is guys like Schubert, Brahms, and Prokofiev, where their final symphonies (to me) are on a totally different level from the earlier ones.

I can understand this with Schubert (where the gap after 1-6 is fairly obvious) but not with Brahms. All 4 were published within about 10 years by a mature composer and are very close in quality and style.

With Mahler I think it is a common phenomenon to shun some of the symphonies. It's more rare with Brucker (because his are quite similar to each other) but even famous Bruckner conductors have virtually ignored 00-2

[Brian]

I can understand your problem with Mahler (for me, 3 and 4 took a long time to gel) but I'd don't understand your problem with Bruckner. I don't see how anyone can only like a couple of his symphonies when, in effect, they are all the same

I don't get this at all! But I think maybe, because they are all so similar, they live and die (to me) on the strength of the melodic material. So, I find most of the tunes in the Fifth boring, and the outer movements of the Eighth don't connect with me. The horn call at the start of the Fourth is super-evocative, but the horn call at the end of the Fourth just sounds derivative of it. All my opinions, of course. But if you are right about the Bruckner symphonies being so similar, then the reason I prefer some symphonies over others must be the material itself. The Sixth and Seventh are just so darn catchy in addition to being so expansive and meaningful.

By the way, my first post wasn't 100% right; I do enjoy the Third along with 6, 7, and the adagio from 8. And I need to listen to 9 again.

I can understand this with Schubert (where the gap after 1-6 is fairly obvious) but not with Brahms. All 4 were published within about 10 years by a mature composer and are very close in quality and style.

Well the key is the parenthetical remark for me. I am OK with the First Symphony, really like the Second and Third, but the Fourth is the one that speaks to me most.

[Ken B]

... the Fourth is the one that speaks to me most.

This speaks well of you as a human being.

[North Star]

The horn call at the start of the Fourth is super-evocative, but the horn call at the end of the Fourth just sounds derivative of it.

I'm sure that's not unintentional.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

Beethoven
Sibelius
Bruckner
Schubert
Brahms
Mahler

[vandermolen]

In terms of consistent high quality:

Sibelius
Vaughan Williams
Martinu
Honegger
Bax
Tubin

[Mirror Image]

In terms of consistent high quality:

Sibelius
Vaughan Williams
Martinu
Honegger
Bax
Tubin

No Nielsen?

[vandermolen]

No Nielsen?

Hardly ever listen to 1-3 but recognise this is my loss.

[Karl Henning]

Hardly ever listen to 1-3 but recognise this is my loss.

It had been a long time since last I had listened to n^os. 1 & 2, but revisiting them this week, I find they are not a whit less worthy works.

[Mirror Image]

Hardly ever listen to 1-3 but recognise this is my loss.

I personally love all of Nielsen's symphonies, but are ones I prefer over the others? Absolutely, but, for me, even with Symphony No. 1 and The Four Temperaments, I find him quite bold, majestic, but never without that rugged quality that is apparent in his later work.

[vandermolen]

I personally love all of Nielsen's symphonies, but are ones I prefer over the others? Absolutely, but, for me, even with Symphony No. 1 and The Four Temperaments, I find him quite bold, majestic, but never without that rugged quality that is apparent in his later work.

I need to listen to nos 1-3 more.