Favourite symphonic cycles: symphonists whose symphonies you find all excellent

[Florestan]

I definitely agree that Mozart's early symphonies are not very interesting. Charming and surprisingly accomplished for a teenager, but entirely forgettable.

To be charming and no more than that was precisely their very purpose.

Think of it this way. In Mozart's time the primary function of a symphony was to entertain the audience, who most likely heard it only once in their whole lifetime, and often in a convivial environment. The pleasing experience of and in the here-and-now was the paramount concern of both composers and listeners. It's only much later that the symphony came to be regarded as an autonomous work of art whose value and significance must be asserted by comparative (and contemplative) repeated hearings and, perhaps even better, by careful study and analysis of the score. In this respect, a symphony by Haydn and one by Brahms can safely be said to belong to completely different genres, what with their completely different functions and completely different aesthetics.

[Madiel]

To be charming and no more than that was precisely their very purpose.

Think of it this way. In Mozart's time the primary function of a symphony was to entertain the audience, who most likely heard it only once in their whole lifetime, and often in a convivial environment. The pleasing experience of and in the here-and-now was the paramount concern of both composers and listeners. It's only much later that the symphony came to be regarded as an autonomous work of art whose value and significance must be asserted by comparative (and contemplative) repeated hearings and, perhaps even better, by careful study and analysis of the score. In this respect, a symphony by Haydn and one by Brahms can safely be said to belong to completely different genres, what with their completely different functions and completely different aesthetics.

I would amend this very slightly and say it's actually later on in Mozart's life (and Haydn's) that the shift begins, just a little, with regular public concerts becoming a feature of the culture in London and Paris (and then Vienna). In Paris they were programming Haydn so frequently that they must have been doing some repeats.

But I think your basic point is sound, and certainly it's true for Mozart's earlier symphonies that were under discussion.

[Jo498]

I have a confession to make.  I've never heard Tchaikovsky's Symphonies No. 1-3 nor Dvorak's Symphonies 1-6. 

Give them a chance. I agree that Dovak's 6th is almost as good as the last 3 and I find 5 also very good and 3+4 worth an occasional listen. Can't remember anything about 1+2, only that I apparently didn't care much for them.
I don't care much for Tchaikovsky's 1-3 but I used to like #1 quite a bit that starts very atmospheric but doesn't quite keep up.
#2 is a very light, entertaining piece, more like a suite.
#3 is rather different from the others. IMO it suffers from Tchaikovsy becoming a bit boring when he is not in either "balletic" or hyperpassionate mood (the same holds IMO for piano concerti 2+3 and most of the orchestral suites, all solidly composed, nicely orchestrated but lack what makes his music special, IMO).

[Roasted Swan]

I have a confession to make.  I've never heard Tchaikovsky's Symphonies No. 1-3 nor Dvorak's Symphonies 1-6. 

Its the musical naughty step for you!!  Marvellous music awaits you in just about every one of those symphonies - even the less good ones are still pretty wonderful.

[Jo498]

To be charming and no more than that was precisely their very purpose.

Think of it this way. In Mozart's time the primary function of a symphony was to entertain the audience, who most likely heard it only once in their whole lifetime, and often in a convivial environment. The pleasing experience of and in the here-and-now was the paramount concern of both composers and listeners. It's only much later that the symphony came to be regarded as an autonomous work of art whose value and significance must be asserted by comparative (and contemplative) repeated hearings and, perhaps even better, by careful study and analysis of the score. In this respect, a symphony by Haydn and one by Brahms can safely be said to belong to completely different genres, what with their completely different functions and completely different aesthetics.

all true, but still there are many people who find e.g. Haydn's "daytime symphonies", Vivaldi's 4 seasons or Bach's Brandenburg concertos more interesting that most of Mozart's early symphonies.
All the former were composed in similar social-historical circumstances and for similar audiences as Mozart's symphonies from around 1770 because not that much had changed between Vivaldi in Venice 1720, Bach entertaining in the Leipzig Café Zimmermann 1735, Haydn impressing his new boss 1761 and Mozart a decade later.