Listening to a composers symphonies straight through

[relm1]

Have you ever listened to a composers symphonies in complete order in a single sitting?  Or at least through a routine (like 2 symphonies on consecutive evenings)?  Since this likely would encapsulate their creative output, what epiphanies did you gleam from doing this? 

Mine:
1. Sibelius might be the greatest symphonist.  Each of his symphonies are so unique and distinctive yet retain their creators fingerprint.  You don't feel like you heard this already.  It is like one massive multi-symphony. 
2. Shostakovitch doesn't hold up as well.   His great symphonies stand out but others feel unnecessary or redundant (to me at least).  He probably should have edited more.
3. Mahler requires the full Symphony No. 10.  His final thoughts on this topic result in a reassessment of sorts of what came before.   Cooke III should be canon.
4. Beethoven is where my love of symphonies began and that remains so.
5. Brahms symphonies are treasure troves of innovation hiding behind his conservatism.
6. Vaughan Williams does not get enough credit.  Each of his symphonies are unique even though they fall into categories. 
7. Prokofiev is more melodist than people give him credit for being since he has a propensity for vulgarity at times.
8. Tchaikovsky matured considerably.

[TheGSMoeller]

From your list I would find Prokofiev to be the most interesting to listen to straight through. His bookmarks of Nos. 1 and 7 are musically the most simplistic, and in some ways are the easiest on the ears, although the 7th can be very melancholy. But I hear it almost as if Prokofiev is going full circle with his symphonies. Traveling through the industrial 2nd, the fiery 3rd and into the wartime 6th really display an eclectic style of composition and symphonic form. And of course returning home with his 7th (the original soft ending of course)

[Karl Henning]

From your list I would find Prokofiev to be the most interesting to listen to straight through. His bookmarks of Nos. 1 and 7 are musically the most simplistic, and in some ways are the easiest on the ears, although the 7th can be very melancholy. But I hear it almost as if Prokofiev is going full circle with his symphonies. Traveling through the industrial 2nd, the fiery 3rd and into the wartime 6th really display an eclectic style of composition and symphonic form. And of course returning home with his 7th (the original soft ending of course)

Most interesting ... and not only are nos. 1 & 7 bookends in their "artlessness," but 2 & 6 make a fascinating interior mirror, in their edginess, but also their turns of exquisite tenderness.

[Karl Henning]

Have you ever listened to a composers symphonies in complete order in a single sitting?  Or at least through a routine (like 2 symphonies on consecutive evenings)?  Since this likely would encapsulate their creative output, what epiphanies did you gleam from doing this? 

2. Shostakovitch doesn't hold up as well.   His great symphonies stand out but others feel unnecessary or redundant (to me at least).  He probably should have edited more.

So that I know better how to tailor my contrarian response (the Loyal Opposition, you know) ... tell me which you feel are unnecessary, which redundant, and why? TIA.

[Brian]

I have in fact listened to the Beethoven Nine in a single day, on two different occasions. I'm not sure what lesson was learned, except perhaps that there is a surprisingly low amount of Sturm und Drang overall. Beethoven's Fifth, Ninth, and funeral march stick out in the memory so strongly that one forgets how much there is on the happy side of the balance sheet.

I've also listened to the complete Brahms and Sibelius symphonies in single days. But again, I don't know that I learned something new from the experience - just enjoyed the immersion. For me, there is still a large gap between Brahms 1 and Brahms 234, even though the gap in years between 1 and 2 was not a very large one.

Sibelius seemed to "answer" himself - each symphony is kind of the opposite of the symphony that came before.

[relm1]

So that I know better how to tailor my contrarian response (the Loyal Opposition, you know) ... tell me which you feel are unnecessary, which redundant, and why? TIA.

I found No. 12 to be unnecessary in that it sounded as if he was traversing old ground that had been bettered before..it is really a mixture of No. 11 and 7.  I felt the 3rd and 2nd were really the same work with a few changes.  Your thoughts?

[relm1]

I have in fact listened to the Beethoven Nine in a single day, on two different occasions. I'm not sure what lesson was learned, except perhaps that there is a surprisingly low amount of Sturm und Drang overall. Beethoven's Fifth, Ninth, and funeral march stick out in the memory so strongly that one forgets how much there is on the happy side of the balance sheet.

I've also listened to the complete Brahms and Sibelius symphonies in single days. But again, I don't know that I learned something new from the experience - just enjoyed the immersion. For me, there is still a large gap between Brahms 1 and Brahms 234, even though the gap in years between 1 and 2 was not a very large one.

Sibelius seemed to "answer" himself - each symphony is kind of the opposite of the symphony that came before.

Interesting observations.  Perhaps part of what is considered "sturm und drang" requires early 1800's Viennese ears to hear the vulgarity we are used to.  For instance the opening of the last movement of No. 9 must have been very distasteful.  Then adding all the other oddities of the choral ending, some must have felt these were two different symphonies.

[Karl Henning]

I found No. 12 to be unnecessary in that it sounded as if he was traversing old ground that had been bettered before..it is really a mixture of No. 11 and 7.  I felt the 3rd and 2nd were really the same work with a few changes.  Your thoughts?

I agree that the Twelfth is the weakest argument for his greatness as a symphonist     Your point about the Eleventh and Seventh is interesting; let me mull on that.


The Second and Third both suffer (I think it is a fair word) from the propagandic choral texts;  I think you have a point that he wrote the two with similar method . . .  I guess I find the two pieces a sufficient contrast (and I think in both cases the music rises above the dreadful "poetry"), that I think of them more as bookends, rather than finding any redundancy there.

Your post was especially interesting to me, as I have been listening to the Kitaenko cycle in reverse, and in this process, I did not find myself losing patience with the Twelfth, say.  I get the reasoning behind the Conventional Wisdom that the symphonies, as a cycle, are overall inferior to the string quartets, as a cycle;  yet in the spirit of a point which Luke has made much more eloquently, I find the music and the composer (even here) thoroughly admirable, flaws and all.

[Jo498]

At least parts of Beethoven's 1st and 2nd symphonies were considered mannered and exaggerated by early reviewers. E.g. the very beginning of the 1st, dominated by woodwinds and harmonically daring/confusing for it's day.

(I don't think I have ever listened to all or even half of Beethoven's (or anyone elses) symphonies on one day.)

[Brahmsian]

One of the few that I listen to from beginning of symphony cycle to the end, is Schumann.  And, perhaps interestingly, I almost ALWAYS listen to them from 1-4 in one sitting.

I can't explain why, though? 

[Maestro267]

I've done the Beethoven cycle in a day more than once. On their respective anniversaries, I also listened to the complete symphonies of Vaughan Williams (2008) and Nielsen (2015) in a day, and I did the complete Bax symphonies across a weekend a few years ago. It's a fascinating journey to go on. You get a sense of a composer's evolution through their symphonies, as they're normally spread out across their entire creative career.

[vandermolen]

When the Melodiya boxed set of the Vaughan Williams symphonies ( Rozhdestvensky) appeared I listened to them all through in chronological order over two days. It just reaffirmed my love for the cycle.

[Mandryka]

Years ago I knew someone who was writing an academic paper on the Brahms symphonies, claming that in some abstract musicological sense, all four make a single oeuvre, a single symphony. We used to listen to all four together, I must have done it quite a few times. I recommend the expreience.

I can well imagine that doing the same with Sibelius is great fun. Tchaik may be good to try too - as a sort of record of a person falling apart.

[5against4]

Just while i'm in the neighbourhood, i thought i'd chime in on this interesting topic. My approach for the last few years has always been to listen in chronological order whenever possible (and not just with symphonies, come to that). i always feel the experience - as well as being wonderfully immersive - provides a unique perspective on the composer's evolving thoughts/approaches/outlooks and so on, with a clarity that just can't happen when listening to randomised or isolated works. Revisiting Shostakovich's 15 last year was especially revealing (the first time i'd done it in order), and i'd echo some contributors' remarks on the way a number of them sound like they revisit earlier ideas such that they seem less significant within the larger group (personally, i find 4, 5, 8, 13 and 15 to be the ones that hit home with greatest force; never found 7 that great, despite it being liked by so many). i'm currently working through Sibelius in order, and lined up next i have Brahms and then Schnittke. At some point i'd really like to do Bruckner too; i've never felt that i've really grasped the overall development of his symphonies, but then he's a complex chap.

(Incidentally, of course, none of these were or will be in a single sitting!)

[some guy]

Of course we have probably all listened to a set of symphonies all at one go. My favorite thing, of course, is to listen to all of Franck's symphonies at one sitting. And then, if I'm not too tired, to all of Webern's and all of Zimmermann's. But that's just gluttonous.

Anyway, I'm not sure about the whole epiphany thing. I've found much more is revealed by listening to different genres than by listening to all of a composer's symphonies from earliest to latest, though that's fun, too. Listen to a symphony and a string quartet and a piano concerto and an opera. Especially to an opera. Think about Dvořák, for instance. He wrote nine of 'em, too. And some tone poems and a ton of chamber music as well. And even a piano concerto. But he thought of himself as an opera composer. So listening to Dvořák's operas was much more revelatory to me than listening to all nine symphonies in a row. After all, if you're wriiing a symphony, especially if you're doing it in the nineteenth century, you have certain decisions you're going to be making. You're going to have a certain attitude about development and instrumentation and Beethoven that won't apply to your dramatic music (though the Beethoven thing might still be a thing for your chamber works).

Otherwise, the usual quibble applies to the Sibelius assertion--how many symphonies have you listened to like this? You mentioned a trifling few. No Mendelssohn, no Berlioz, no Brahms, and so forth. And also no Ives, no Sessions, no Searle. No Piston or Schuman or Toch, either. And no Wellesz or Krenek. Now there's some interesting stuff to listen to back to back in a short period of time. Wellesz. Interesting trajectory with that guy. (And it's also interesting to listen to one and then nine. Or two and then eight. Just to experience the stylistic gaps in a way that is more startling than the slow, plodding, chronological approach.

But that's all as may be. What I would really like to know is who has listened to all of Karkowski's World as Will recordings back to back in one sitting?

[SimonNZ]

Just while i'm in the neighbourhood, i thought i'd chime in on this interesting topic. My approach for the last few years has always been to listen in chronological order whenever possible (and not just with symphonies, come to that). i always feel the experience - as well as being wonderfully immersive - provides a unique perspective on the composer's evolving thoughts/approaches/outlooks and so on, with a clarity that just can't happen when listening to randomised or isolated works. Revisiting Shostakovich's 15 last year was especially revealing (the first time i'd done it in order), and i'd echo some contributors' remarks on the way a number of them sound like they revisit earlier ideas such that they seem less significant within the larger group (personally, i find 4, 5, 8, 13 and 15 to be the ones that hit home with greatest force; never found 7 that great, despite it being liked by so many). i'm currently working through Sibelius in order, and lined up next i have Brahms and then Schnittke. At some point i'd really like to do Bruckner too; i've never felt that i've really grasped the overall development of his symphonies, but then he's a complex chap.

(Incidentally, of course, none of these were or will be in a single sitting!)

Would you be the same 5against4 that has that amazing blog and YT chanel? If so can i take this opportunity to say how much I admire them.

I've recently been promoting Dillon's Nine Rivers on (sorry about this) another very active but intensely frustrating site, linking to your writings, and its won many converts to both Dillon and the work.

and someguy! two of my favorite writers one after another!

on topic: I've done the Haydn integrale in the mornings at work a few times now: three or four of the early symphonies in a row first thing going down to two or one a morning for the middle or late works - a different set each time. While it doesn't allow for deep listening and the work soundsystem has its limitations, each morning the'll be something spotted that is filed away in the brain for further listening or comparison either when I get home or for the next time round.

Apart from that, no, I wouldn't usually listen to symphonies in order, I'd be more likely to do that with , say, Opus numbers, observing the developments over a year or three accross all the forms the composer was writing in.

[5against4]

Would you be the same 5against4 that has that amazing blog and YT chanel? If so can i take this opportunity to say how much I admire them.

I've recently been promoting Dillon's Nine Rivers on (sorry about this) another very active but intensely frustrating site, linking to your writings, and its won many converts to both Dillon and the work.

Yes, that's me, and thanks!

What's the "intensely frustrating" site where you've been trying to promote Nine Rivers?

[springrite]

I have done so with many composers, including Mahler, in one day.

The most satisfying as I remember are:

Nielsen
Rubbra
Bax
Alwyn
Schumann
Brahms

[SimonNZ]

Yes, that's me, and thanks!

What's the "intensely frustrating" site where you've been trying to promote Nine Rivers?

If I'm allowed to mention other forums here...it's TalkClassical. There's a project that's nearing completion of making a list of member's favorite post-1950 works, though it's constantly being derailed and subverted by one troll (which is let continue). Nine Rivers has made it already to the permanent list, so has after some investigation by the members, met with wide approval.

on the whole: good members, but terrible management.

all the mentions (with links to your YT pages) on their Current Listening raised a certain amount of interest as well

[5against4]

If I'm allowed to mention other forums here...it's TalkClassical. There's a project that's nearing completion of making a list of member's favorite post-1950 works, though it's constantly being derailed and subverted by one troll (which is let continue). Nine Rivers has made it already to the permanent list, so has after some investigation by the members, met with wide approval.

on the whole: good members, but terrible management.

all the mentions (with links to your YT pages) on their Current Listening raised a certain amount of interest as well

Ah, okay. i've never heard of it, but then internet fora are something i generally avoid, so it's hardly surprising.

i don't think you can in the usual sense of the word describe Nine Rivers as a 'work', though; it's clearly a cycle, comprising nine distinct, very different but interrelated works. The nine works are not 'movements' as such (their instrumentations are all entirely different, for one thing), so it's perhaps a bit misleading to include it in that list, unless the list's definition of 'work' encompasses cycles.