Topic: Favourite Top Ten Symphonies ... with a difference

[gmstudio]

I have never heard any of the names in the first X, let alone the subs on the bench.... 

Ignorance WAS bliss.... 

I learned about most of them from this forum!

[longears]

Hmmm...

1) Sibelius
2) Sibelius Mahler Prokofiev Hovhaness Mahler
3) Sibelius Beethoven Mendelssohn Brahms Sibelius
4) Sibelius Mahler Nielsen Beethoven Mahler Sibelius
5) Sibelius!
6) Sibelius Mahler Prokofiev Bax RVW Bruckner Dvorák Beethoven
7) Sibelius Mahler Dvorák Bruckner Rautavaara Beethoven
Sibelius (I wish!) Dvorák Bruckner
9) Beethoven Mahler Bruckner Dvorák Beethoven
10)   

[DavidW]

We have done this before, and it's still a bad idea for listmania.

This concept for the list artificially disfavors symphonies that are not numbered from 1-10.  And it also tends to focus the posters on a handful of composers that wrote the modest Beethoven-ian number of symphonies.  For instance nobody in their right mind would put Mozart or Haydn on the list because their first ten symphonies were not great.  Nobody would put Stravinsky on the list because his symphonies are not numbered.

You want to make list making refreshing, interesting?  That's impossible because lists are boring.  We are talking about PASSIONATE MUSIC DAMNIT!  You don't categorize, list it, inventory it... YOU EXPERIENCE IT!!!  Stop treating your listening like a damned stamp collection!

[longears]

I think you forgot to take your meds today.

[not edward]

We have done this before, and it's still a bad idea for listmania.

This concept for the list artificially disfavors symphonies that are not numbered from 1-10.  And it also tends to focus the posters on a handful of composers that wrote the modest Beethoven-ian number of symphonies.  For instance nobody in their right mind would put Mozart or Haydn on the list because their first ten symphonies were not great.  Nobody would put Stravinsky on the list because his symphonies are not numbered.

You want to make list making refreshing, interesting?  That's impossible because lists are boring.  We are talking about PASSIONATE MUSIC DAMNIT!  You don't categorize, list it, inventory it... YOU EXPERIENCE IT!!!  Stop treating your listening like a damned stamp collection!

I'm sure it is.

However, this sort of list is a great way to bang a drum for some of the more undeservingly neglected works in the repertoire out there. If just one person decides to explore Popov's First or Hartmann's Sixth as a result of reading this thread, I think it'll have more than served its purpose.

[DavidW]

I'm sure it is.

However, this sort of list is a great way to bang a drum for some of the more undeservingly neglected works in the repertoire out there. If just one person decides to explore Popov's First or Hartmann's Sixth as a result of reading this thread, I think it'll have more than served its purpose.

Well honestly that is a good sentiment.  But I don't know if that actually works because all I saw were the big names in this thread because it's hard to read lists in a non-cursory fashion.  However I've seen the Hartmann threads, and it did get me to listen to the sixth.  And for me, the specific composers in general work way more than lists do.

Writing those symphonies on a list doesn't make them sound compelling, something to look forward to listen to.  It doesn't have much of an impact.

[Lilas Pastia]

1 - Sauguet
2 - Schubert
3 - Beethoven
4 - Brahms and Sibelius
5 - Bruckner
6 - Bruckner and Pettersson
7 - Shostakovich and Pettersson
8 - Bruckner
9 - Bruckner

I agreee with DavidW, but I couldn't resist .

[Brian]

Hmmm...

1) Sibelius
2) Sibelius Mahler Prokofiev Hovhaness Mahler
3) Sibelius Beethoven Mendelssohn Brahms Sibelius
4) Sibelius Mahler Nielsen Beethoven Mahler Sibelius
5) Sibelius!
6) Sibelius Mahler Prokofiev Bax RVW Bruckner Dvorák Beethoven
7) Sibelius Mahler Dvorák Bruckner Rautavaara Beethoven
Sibelius (I wish!) Dvorák Bruckner
9) Beethoven Mahler Bruckner Dvorák Beethoven
10)   

    best thing I've seen all day!

[Mark]

We have done this before, and it's still a bad idea for listmania.

This concept for the list artificially disfavors symphonies that are not numbered from 1-10.  And it also tends to focus the posters on a handful of composers that wrote the modest Beethoven-ian number of symphonies.  For instance nobody in their right mind would put Mozart or Haydn on the list because their first ten symphonies were not great.  Nobody would put Stravinsky on the list because his symphonies are not numbered.

You want to make list making refreshing, interesting?  That's impossible because lists are boring.  We are talking about PASSIONATE MUSIC DAMNIT!  You don't categorize, list it, inventory it... YOU EXPERIENCE IT!!!  Stop treating your listening like a damned stamp collection!

Jeez, David, you used to be more fun.

[Sergeant Rock]

Writing those symphonies on a list doesn't make them sound compelling, something to look forward to listen to.  It doesn't have much of an impact.

I don't agree. My mention of Langgaard's 10th, for example, set off a flurry of interest, with a number of people expressing a wish to hear it. And all I did was "list" it.

Sarge

[Sergeant Rock]

You want to make list making refreshing, interesting?  That's impossible because lists are boring.

There appear to be two types in this world: those who love to make lists and enjoy reading them; and those who don't. There is no doubt which group you belong to, David 

We are talking about PASSIONATE MUSIC DAMNIT!  You don't categorize, list it, inventory it... YOU EXPERIENCE IT!!!  Stop treating your listening like a damned stamp collection!

Believe it or not, it's possible to make lists AND experience the music passionately. One does not cancel out the other.

Sarge

[Sergeant Rock]

I want to hear it too, but am content to wait until 2008-9, sometime during which Thomas Dausgaard will release the symphony in his ongoing (absolutely brilliant) Dacapo cycle.

 

I already have it:



Or is he re-recording it?

Sarge

[not edward]

I don't agree. My mention of Langgaard's 10th, for example, set off a flurry of interest, with a number of people expressing a wish to hear it. And all I did was "list" it.

Sarge

So...how is Langgaard's 10th, stylistically, anyway?

I can't remember which thread I posted in before (this one, probably) but I like the 4th and 6th but find the 5th, 7th and 8th less interesting.

[Sergeant Rock]

This concept for the list artificially disfavors symphonies that are not numbered from 1-10.  And it also tends to focus the posters on a handful of composers that wrote the modest Beethoven-ian number of symphonies.

Well, there's nothing stopping you from making a list of the top 104    ...though after number 41 it would be nothing but Haydn and Dittersdorf versus Segerstam and Hohvaness....making for a pretty boring list because Haydn would occupy all 63 slots.

Sarge

[Lethevich]

There's an easy workaround for Haydn: the symphony number in the list equals the first digit of his symphony numbers, so no.4 can be any of the 40s, etc

[Sergeant Rock]

So...how is Langgaard's 10th, stylistically, anyway? I like the 4th...

The Tenth shares some things in common with the Fourth. Both symphonies are in the unusual key of E flat minor and both evoke nature. The Tenth is more a tone poem than a true symphony and, stylistically, Late Romantic. It's in one movement and recalls Strauss and Scriabin. Expect over-the-top emotion. It has a cinematic sweep and would make a great soundtrack to a ghost story or Hitchcockian thriller set in some isolated, desolate location.

Sarge

[DavidW]

Well, there's nothing stopping you from making a list of the top 104 

The fact that I'm not an idiot stops me from doing that.

[DavidW]

Believe it or not, it's possible to make lists AND experience the music passionately. One does not cancel out the other.

Sarge

Thanks for the superficial Sarge, it just shows that you failed to comprehend what I wrote.

Let me rephrase it-- listmaking threads reaffirm some of the posters' perception that music is about collecting shiny metal objects as a hobby.  Comparing your tops on a thread like this is much like comparing baseball cards.  And yes it's also true that you can be passionate about baseball and collect baseball cards, but baseball fans differentiate between watching a game and collecting cards because they are different.  For the most part the music collection is what you listen to, they are too close together and you get confused as many here do and confuse passion for music with passion for collecting.  They stop associating the music with the experience and start associating it with the purchases.  That is not to say that they stop liking music!   No that is just to say that they driven by the compulsion to build and admire their collection more than they are driven to just simply listen to music.

[locrian]

Thanks for the superficial Sarge, it just shows that you failed to comprehend what I wrote.

Let me rephrase it-- listmaking threads reaffirm some of the posters' perception that music is about collecting shiny metal objects as a hobby.  Comparing your tops on a thread like this is much like comparing baseball cards.  And yes it's also true that you can be passionate about baseball and collect baseball cards, but baseball fans differentiate between watching a game and collecting cards because they are different.  For the most part the music collection is what you listen to, they are too close together and you get confused as many here do and confuse passion for music with passion for collecting.  They stop associating the music with the experience and start associating it with the purchases.  That is not to say that they stop liking music!   No that is just to say that they driven by the compulsion to build and admire their collection more than they are driven to just simply listen to music.

I like it.

[Sergeant Rock]

Thanks for the superficial Sarge, it just shows that you failed to comprehend what I wrote.

Let me rephrase it-- listmaking threads reaffirm some of the posters' perception that music is about collecting shiny metal objects as a hobby.

That's nonsense.

Comparing your tops on a thread like this is much like comparing baseball cards.  And yes it's also true that you can be passionate about baseball and collect baseball cards, but baseball fans differentiate between watching a game and collecting cards because they are different.

Your analogy makes no sense. Baseball cards aren't the game, that's true...but CDs ARE the music...it's how we listen to the music; it's how we hear many different interpretations of the music.

For the most part the music collection is what you listen to, they are too close together and you get confused as many here do and confuse passion for music with passion for collecting.  They stop associating the music with the experience and start associating it with the purchases.  That is not to say that they stop liking music!   No that is just to say that they driven by the compulsion to build and admire their collection more than they are driven to just simply listen to music.

Ridiculous argument. Telling people (via a list) which works of music you love somehow means that one is driven to build a collection, not listen to it? Huh???

Can you please tell me who exactly in this forum, which posters in this thread "build and admire their collection more than they are driven to just simply listen to music." Names please, and then explain how you know that. The only reason I've ever bought a CD is because I want to listen to it. It has no other purpose.

Your lack of comprehension of why people collect music or make lists appalls me...as does your curmudgeonly judgmental attitude. As Mark said, you used to be more fun.

Sarge