"100 Greatest Symphonies"

Started by mn dave, June 12, 2008, 05:39:22 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

karlhenning

Quote from: M forever on June 12, 2008, 05:55:18 PM
. . . And why do you post that here?

In case some find it of interest, I should think  ;)

Which I do, even while I deplore some of the effete predictability.

I mean, obviously the Beethoven Opus 125 would get planted right up top.

And just as obviously, once you've got started with Beethoven, the next two or three symphonies in the list would necessarily be more Beethoven.

But, good gawd, did all nine of the Beethoven symphonies need to be in the "100 Greatest"?  there are no other symphonies out in the wide world which might, just possibly, be "greater" than the Opp. 21 & 36 ?  Give me the shade of a goddamned break.

Such lists are necessarily flawed at the outset, but this one is crippled by an abysmal lack of imagination.

mn dave


DavidRoss

How about "The 100 1000 greatest karlhenning posts?"
"Maybe the problem most of you have ... is that you're not listening to Barbirolli." ~Sarge

"The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money." ~Margaret Thatcher

(poco) Sforzando

Quote from: MN Dave on June 13, 2008, 02:42:44 AM
I've heard 0.

Neither have I, and I intend to keep it that way.
"I don't know what sforzando means, though it clearly means something."

(poco) Sforzando

Quote from: karlhenning on June 13, 2008, 04:46:24 AM
In case some find it of interest, I should think  ;)

Which I do, even while I deplore some of the effete predictability.

I mean, obviously the Beethoven Opus 125 would get planted right up top.

And just as obviously, once you've got started with Beethoven, the next two or three symphonies in the list would necessarily be more Beethoven.

But, good gawd, did all nine of the Beethoven symphonies need to be in the "100 Greatest"?  there are no other symphonies out in the wide world which might, just possibly, be "greater" than the Opp. 21 & 36 ?  Give me the shade of a goddamned break.

Such lists are necessarily flawed at the outset, but this one is crippled by an abysmal lack of imagination.

Well, the Great List does make LvB 1 and 2 at nearly the bottom of the Top 100.

"I don't know what sforzando means, though it clearly means something."

karlhenning

Quote from: MN Dave on June 12, 2008, 08:14:20 PM
Oh, I would never attempt it. Way out of my league. I think this list was based on a poll. So, the people have spoken!

Yes, best-known, most-popular, something like that.

And, Corey: that really was terrifically funny!

Kullervo

Quote from: karlhenning on June 13, 2008, 08:42:16 AM
Yes, best-known, most-popular, something like that.

And, Corey: that really was terrifically funny!

I figured I was due. ;)

Brian

Quote from: Lethe on June 12, 2008, 09:53:12 PM
It could be assumed that an American compiled the list (not all are as rational as you 0:)) - I've gotten the impression that the 9th is obsessed over there for reasons of its association more than anywhere else.
I'm not usually as rational as myself, either.  ;D

Teresa

Quote from: Grazioso on June 13, 2008, 03:35:31 AM
What would be much more interesting and challenging to generate would be the "100 greatest symphonies by 100 different composers". It would probably be more useful for beginners, too, because if they're serious about exploring classical music, they'll just buy up and listen to all of the symphonies by LvB, Brahms, Sibelius, and the other big names without needing some list to help them. (Easy to do with so many top-notch, dirt-cheap box sets out there.)

Then they'd have good suggestions for further exploration and might check out works by Aho, Arnold, Atterberg, Balakirev, Bantock, Bax, Diamond, Hanson, Harris, Honegger, Hovhaness, Huber, Kokkonen, Korngold, Kraus, Madetoja, Mathias, Miaskovksy, Norgard, Pärt, Pettersson, Rautavaara, Rorem, Roussel, Smith, or Svendsen--to name a few I've enjoyed.

Great idea "100 greatest symphonies by 100 different composers" would give greater variety.  Even though there are 20th century composers listed they left off a few of my favorites:

DAUGHERTY: Metropolis Symphony (1993)
HOVHANESS: Symphony No. 50 "Mount St. Helens", Op. 360 (1982)
MALCOLM ARNOLD: Symphony No. 4, Op. 71 (1960)
DON GILLIS: Symphony No. 5 1/2 "A Symphony for Fun (1947)
HANSON: Symphony No. 2, Op. 30 "Romantic" (1930)
MEIJ: Symphony No. 1 "The Lord Of The Rings" (1987)
PISTON: Symphony No. 2 (1943)


George

Quote from: Teresa on June 15, 2008, 05:32:13 PM
HANSON: Symphony No. 2, Op. 30 "Romantic" (1930)

Which performance do you recommend? I have only heard the composers own recording on Mercury.

Teresa

#50
Quote from: Howard on June 15, 2008, 05:35:22 PM
Which performance do you recommend? I have only heard the composers own recording on Mercury.

That's the one I have:
HANSON, HOWARD (1896-1981)
  Symphony No. 1 in E Minor, Op. 21 "Nordic" (1922)
  Symphony No. 2, Op. 30 "Romantic" (1930)
  Song of Democracy (1957)
    Hanson, Eastman-Rochester Orchestra [SACD] Mercury Living Presence 475 6181

It is an excellent sounding SACD and as you know I love the music.  I have not heard other performances though.

George

I'll have to give it another listen. Unfortunately, the first time through didn't get me looking forward to future listens.

hornteacher

Quote from: Teresa on June 15, 2008, 05:32:13 PM
Great idea "100 greatest symphonies by 100 different composers" would give greater variety.  Even though there are 20th century composers listed they left off a few of my favorites:

DAUGHERTY: Metropolis Symphony (1993)
HOVHANESS: Symphony No. 50 "Mount St. Helens", Op. 360 (1982)
MALCOLM ARNOLD: Symphony No. 4, Op. 71 (1960)
DON GILLIS: Symphony No. 5 1/2 "A Symphony for Fun (1947)
HANSON: Symphony No. 2, Op. 30 "Romantic" (1930)
MEIJ: Symphony No. 1 "The Lord Of The Rings" (1987)
PISTON: Symphony No. 2 (1943)



Great list by the way, you picked some of my favorites.

greg

What a horrible list. Mahler's first entry is at 13, and it's his....... 5th symphony? wtf? And 9 is at 24? :P

hornteacher

Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on June 15, 2008, 06:22:54 PM
What a horrible list. Mahler's first entry is at 13, and it's his....... 5th symphony? wtf? And 9 is at 24? :P


It just goes to show that all lists are subjective.  They're still fun to do though even if no two are alike.

Lethevich

Quote from: hornteacher on June 15, 2008, 06:25:50 PM
It just goes to show that all lists are subjective.  They're still fun to do though even if no two are alike.

Indeedie, but some are less ridiculous than others... 0:)
Peanut butter, flour and sugar do not make cookies. They make FIRE.

ChamberNut

Quote from: karlhenning on June 13, 2008, 04:46:24 AM
I mean, obviously the Beethoven Opus 125 would get planted right up top.

And just as obviously, once you've got started with Beethoven, the next two or three symphonies in the list would necessarily be more Beethoven.

But, good gawd, did all nine of the Beethoven symphonies need to be in the "100 Greatest"?  there are no other symphonies out in the wide world which might, just possibly, be "greater" than the Opp. 21 & 36 ?  Give me the shade of a goddamned break.

Such lists are necessarily flawed at the outset, but this one is crippled by an abysmal lack of imagination.

Yes, how impossible to imagine Beethoven's 9 symphonies all making the top 100.  And such a bias towards German speaking composers too.  What a shame.

Gabriel

Vorísek's symphony is not there. Neither is Cherubini's.

Bad list, bad list. :(

greg

Quote from: hornteacher on June 15, 2008, 06:25:50 PM
It just goes to show that all lists are subjective.  They're still fun to do though even if no two are alike.
True! In the same such way that no people (or snowflakes) are exactly alike.

PSmith08

I don't have much use for a list that can't find room for Honegger's Liturgique.