Which do you consider to be the greatest ( as opposed to your favourite) 20th Century symphonies? (I have excluded Mahler although his No 9 would otherwise be on my list).
Here are my three:
1 Sibelius: Symphony No 4
2 Shostakovich: Symphony 4
3 Vaughan Williams: Symphony 6
Sibelius 5
Shostakovich 5
RVW 6
Weird how we chose the same composers. I consider Shostakovich to be "difficult" because his most popular ones are not neccessarilly the same as his greatest, nor does any one stand out amongst the field in any substantial way to pick. So I went for one which was both popular and formally strong. It took a lot of discipline as I rarely listen to the piece and much prefer 4 and 15. I ignore Nielsen because it is too difficult to pick one out. This "question" about DSCH is even stronger with RVW, who is very much a love/hate composer. One either finds his music to be a vital expression of the times and full of marvelous tunes, or formally abysmal. I suspect Sibelius will win this race with Mahler discounted :P
I would put Shostakovich 10 ahead of Nos. 4 and 5. Nielsen's 5th would run RVW's 6th close. Agree about Sibelius 4 though.
Hartmann's entire output, but especially the Sixth Symphony.
Ives Symphony #4.
Mahler's Symphonies 5-10.
Martinu's entire output, but especially the Fifth Symphony.
Prokofiev's Symphonies 2,3, and 6.
Shostakovich's Tenth Symphony
Zemlinsky's Lyric Symphony.
Quote from: Dundonnell on May 27, 2009, 03:56:59 AM
I would put Shostakovich 10 ahead of Nos. 4 and 5.
Much of the time, I would, too.
Quote from: ColinNielsen's 5th would run RVW's 6th close.
Oh, if I took this strand up, I should never have done
; )Quote from: ColinAgree about Sibelius 4 though.
Interesting that the consensus seems to be that
Sibelius 'backed off from greatness' after the
Fourth . . . .
In no particular order:
Shostakovich 10th
Ives 4th
Sibelius 7th
Harris 3rd
Mahler # 10
Quote from: Lethe on May 27, 2009, 02:51:01 AM
Sibelius 5
Shostakovich 5
RVW 6
Weird how we chose the same composers. I consider Shostakovich to be "difficult" because his most popular ones are not neccessarilly the same as his greatest, nor does any one stand out amongst the field in any substantial way to pick. So I went for one which was both popular and formally strong. It took a lot of discipline as I rarely listen to the piece and much prefer 4 and 15. I ignore Nielsen because it is too difficult to pick one out. This "question" about DSCH is even stronger with RVW, who is very much a love/hate composer. One either finds his music to be a vital expression of the times and full of marvelous tunes, or formally abysmal. I suspect Sibelius will win this race with Mahler discounted :P
Very interesting indeed and thanks for response. I nearly chose Shostakovich Symphony No 10 and other contenders for me are Nielsen Symphony No 5 and Walton Symphony No 1. Interesting that we both chose Vaughan Williams Symphony No 6.
Quote from: Dundonnell on May 27, 2009, 03:56:59 AM
I would put Shostakovich 10 ahead of Nos. 4 and 5. Nielsen's 5th would run RVW's 6th close. Agree about Sibelius 4 though.
I agree (as ever!) and originally put Shostakovich Symphony No 10.
Mahler's 6 and 7
Quote from: Cato on May 27, 2009, 04:24:11 AM
Hartmann's entire output, but especially the Sixth Symphony.
Ives Symphony #4.
Mahler's Symphonies 5-10.
Martinu's entire output, but especially the Fifth Symphony.
Prokofiev's Symphonies 2,3, and 6.
Shostakovich's Tenth Symphony
Zemlinsky's Lyric Symphony.
V interesting choice. I have all the Hartmann symphonies on LP and must at least get No 6 or 4 on CD. Prokofiev's 6th is indeed a great work.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 27, 2009, 04:40:30 AM
Interesting that the consensus seems to be that Sibelius 'backed off from greatness' after the Fourth . . . .
Not if I"m in the room. ;D
V--What standard do you propose for judging "greatness" if not posters' favorites? I presume you have something in mind other than sheer size (Mahler's 8th must contend)...?
Or, in the absence of an agreed upon standard, perhaps I'm not the only one who would be interested in hearing what qualifies these works as "great" in the judgment of their advocates...?
:: reads this thread ::
:: looks through her list of CDs ::
:: sighs ::
:: heads off to Amazon to load up on works she obviously needs to know, glad she already has Mahler and Nielsen covered ::
Quote from: owlice on May 27, 2009, 05:54:22 AM
:: reads this thread ::
:: looks through her list of CDs ::
:: sighs ::
:: heads off to Amazon to load up on works she obviously needs to know, glad she already has Mahler and Nielsen covered ::
:)
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 27, 2009, 05:44:24 AM
V--What standard do you propose for judging "greatness" if not posters' favorites? I presume you have something in mind other than sheer size (Mahler's 8th must contend)...?
Or, in the absence of an agreed upon standard, perhaps I'm not the only one who would be interested in hearing what qualifies these works as "great" in the judgment of their advocates...?
I suppose an example would be my picking Sibelius 5 over 6, which is my favourite. I personally connect with the subtle, icy atmosphere of the 6th, but can recognise that the 5th is both more accessable, more popular, and no less idiomatic - and in some ways is a definitive of Sibelius' masterful tinkering with form (in seamlessly incorporating the scherzo into the first movement).
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 27, 2009, 05:44:24 AM
Not if I"m in the room. ;D
V--What standard do you propose for judging "greatness" if not posters' favorites? I presume you have something in mind other than sheer size (Mahler's 8th must contend)...?
Or, in the absence of an agreed upon standard, perhaps I'm not the only one who would be interested in hearing what qualifies these works as "great" in the judgment of their advocates...?
In the case of VW Symphony No 6 it is a synthesis of the violence of his Symphony No 4 with the 'spiritual' qualities of No 5. The result is for me a work which possesses great philosophical, spiritual, menacing, lyrical qualities. There is a big question mark hanging over this work - what does it 'mean'? VW denied and programme, only mentioning Prospero's speech from Shakespeare's 'The Tempest'. Is the symphony about nuclear holocaust? These issues are very much still alive (N Korea?) I guess that this is 'greatness' for me.
Quote from: vandermolen on May 27, 2009, 06:26:12 AM
In the case of VW Symphony No 6 it is a synthesis of the violence of his Symphony No 4 with the 'spiritual' qualities of No 5. The result is for me a work which possesses great philosophical, spiritual, menacing, lyrical qualities. There is a big question mark hanging over this work - what does it 'mean'? VW denied and programme, only mentioning Prospero's speech from Shakespeare's 'The Tempest'. Is the symphony about nuclear holocaust? These issues are very much still alive (N Korea?) I guess that this is 'greatness' for me.
The extra-musical implications of the 6th certainly make is easier to pick than the 5th, which is perhaps unfair, given what an amazing work that also is (and in a way, more typical of the composer).
Quote from: Lethe on May 27, 2009, 06:40:51 AM
The extra-musical implications of the 6th . . . .
But, "sometimes a chap just wants to write some music" . . . .
8)
:: bills CDs to vandermolen's Amazon account ::
:D :D :D
Quote from: owlice on May 27, 2009, 07:09:35 AM
:: bills CDs to vandermolen's Amazon account ::
:D :D :D
Fair is fair!
Elgar #2
Elgar #1
C. Nielsen #4
Nielsen 5
Sibelius 7
Shostakovich 11
It is ashame that Mahler can not be included per rules introduced here. Otherwise he would have swept the field. ;)
Quote from: 71 dB on May 27, 2009, 07:24:25 AM
Elgar #2
Elgar #1
C. Nielsen #4
I totally forgot about Elgar! He is another that I could not reasonably pick a single work from - his 1st and 2nd are quite different in feel, and equally successful towards those differing aims.
Quote from: Lethe on May 27, 2009, 07:29:41 AM
I totally forgot about Elgar!
Many of us do.
That's why, there's
Poju ;)
Quote from: owlice on May 27, 2009, 07:09:35 AM
:: bills CDs to vandermolen's Amazon account ::
:D :D :D
You'll never hack into it as there is very strict security to prevent my wife from accessing it ;D
Quote from: springrite on May 27, 2009, 07:25:58 AM
Nielsen 5
Sibelius 7
Shostakovich 11
It is ashame that Mahler can not be included per rules introduced here. Otherwise he would have swept the field. ;)
That's why I excluded him (although he has been included by some) - Interesting choices - all favourites of mine. Shostakovich's 11th perhaps the most controversial but I agree that it is an underrated work and great to see in concert.
Quote from: vandermolen on May 27, 2009, 08:11:35 AM
You'll never hack into it as there is very strict security to prevent my wife from accessing it ;D
Not so she will not use it to buy things, I suspect, but rather, so that she cannot see the extent of your recording purchases, yes? I have found that keeping CDs tidy and nicely shelved makes purchases less noticeable... until a new bookcase/shelving unit is required. Keeping
books all over makes the need for a new bookcase/shelving unit obvious, so as long as one buys something to accommodate the messy books AND the new recordings, one's buying habits may remain a mystery! ;)
My list...
"The A+ List"
Rachmaninov No. 2
Sibelius No. 5
Sibelius No. 7
Shostakovich No. 5
Shostakovich No. 7
Shostakovich No. 9 (!) - vastly underrated, but sly humor can be the hardest thing to pull off!
Shostakovich No. 10 - my pick for the single best symphony of the century. And not because I like it the most (I like the Rach 2 and Shosty 9 more, actually). Mahler said a symphony should capture the entire universe, and this is one of those classics that just has everything. Plus, I blew a couple fuses in my brain when I realized just how brilliantly Shostakovich had woven a "motto" theme into this symphony [not the DSCH theme, though that appears for the first time here] - making the previous "motto theme poster child," Rachmaninov's Second, utterly obsolete (and invoking some pretty direct comparisons). In that respect this is the culmination of the entire Russian symphonic tradition ... I think ...
"The A List"
Prokofiev No. 5
Gorecki No. 3 - I don't care if it's overly popular. That's actually a remarkable accomplishment. So is the incredible orchestral writing in the first movement!
Sibelius No. 2
Atterberg No. 3
"The A- List [Honorable Mentions]"
Atterberg No. 6
Atterberg No. 8
Glass No. 3 (!)
Shostakovich No. 6
"Disqualified for Not Actually Being a Symphony"
Strauss, An Alpine Tone Poem in Disguise
Here are some works I have not listened to yet, which may make my list suspect in your eyes, but on the other hand which I might add once I hear them:
Martinu [all of 'em], Prokofiev [3, 4, 6, 7], Shostakovich [2, 3, 4, 8, 12-15], Rachmaninov [3], Sibelius [3, 4], Elgar [2], Vaughan Williams [all except the London symphony], Bax [all but Nos. 3 and 7], Hartmann [all]
Quote from: Brian on May 27, 2009, 08:24:45 AM
Sibelius [3, 4]
Ack! Don't waste a minute more! Not that most of the others you listed lack merit, but I'm astonished that one who regards Sibelius's 2nd, 5th, & 7th as such great works has wasted so much of his life hearing trifles when Sibelius's 3rd & 4th await! ;)
Going over my original choices (which I did not post), I was struck by just how few 20th century symphonies I really know. I don't like Shostakovich, so I'm not really acquainted with all of his symphonies. I have only passing acquaintance with Allan Pettersson and Robert Simpson. No one has mentioned Honneger yet, either, and I don't know his work well to judge whether it belongs here or not. I must go back and listen to some of the recordings that have been sitting in the CD tower for years.
Some of my automatic choices, like Nielsen and Ives, have already been mentioned, so I'll just add my favorite symphony of the postwar era: Elliott Carter's Symphony of Three Orchestras, which counts because it has the word Symphony in the title.
I'm also fond of the Copland Short Symphony. Then there's Stravinsky's great Symphony in Three Movements, and Webern's Symphony Op. 21.
Oh, and Piston 2. Maybe not a "great" symphony, but I like it very much.
I have no argument with any "nominations from the floor" (although I'd probably pick Rach 3 over Rach 2), but I'd like to add a few:
Hindemith: Symphony in Eb
Howard Hanson: Symphonies #2 "Romantic", #6
Hovhaness: Symphonies #2 "Mysterious Mountain", #50 "Mount Saint Helens"
William Schuman: Symphony #8
Quote from: Joe Barron on May 27, 2009, 08:33:22 AM
...No one has mentioned Honneger yet, either, and I don't know his work well enough to add it here...
I've got Honegger's Symphony #3 "Liturgique", in the composer's own recording. Not sure if it's a "greatest" or not, but it's very fine.
I kindly request those participating in this, um, opinion poll or sorts to tell the rest us why you think the symphonies are "great." :) Only listing the symphonies -- and somehow most of you have restricted yourselves to only three even though Jeffrey didn't explicitly mention a limit -- seems to make this yet another "favourites thread." One is not required to provide justification to name a bunch of symphonies as one's favourites, but the same cannot be said about calling a work "great" or "greatest." [This, of course, doesn't apply to those who have said something about their choices. ;)]
Being an outsider to 20th century music, your views might help me understand the music better. Even a little a bit will be good. Thanks.
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 27, 2009, 08:31:17 AM
Ack! Don't waste a minute more! Not that most of the others you listed lack merit, but I'm astonished that one who regards Sibelius's 2nd, 5th, & 7th as such great works has wasted so much of his life hearing trifles when Sibelius's 3rd & 4th await! ;)
I'm
savoring them. :D
Quote from: owlice on May 27, 2009, 08:19:10 AM
Not so she will not use it to buy things, I suspect, but rather, so that she cannot see the extent of your recording purchases, yes? I have found that keeping CDs tidy and nicely shelved makes purchases less noticeable... until a new bookcase/shelving unit is required. Keeping books all over makes the need for a new bookcase/shelving unit obvious, so as long as one buys something to accommodate the messy books AND the new recordings, one's buying habits may remain a mystery! ;)
My wife - about 20 years ago - said my bibliomania needed to be cured, as it was also expanding into C-Discomania. I demurred, preferring the term bibliophilia, which is not a disease.
She begged to differ, except she didn't beg! 8)
So these days my school shelves and cupboards contain a large portion of the vast Cato Archives, and the good woman is happy! 0:)
On topic: add the
Hindemith Symphonie Harmonie der Welt.
And, after hearing it 4 times in one day last week, I am willing to add the
Elliot Carter Symphonia Sum Fluxae Pretium Spe to the list!
More than just a curiosity! :o
Quote from: Cato on May 27, 2009, 09:01:39 AM
And, after hearing it 4 times in one day last week, I am willing to add the Elliot Carter Symphonia Sum Fluxae Pretium Spe to the list!
And in the company of youngsters! What a great way to pass the day!
As almost always with such lists, it's more a list of favorites as opposed to greatest per se, at least for me. Below are some I rather fancy. There are quite a few, as it turns out. They're in no particular order.
Hartmann – 4-8
Mahler – 6, 7, & 9 definitely, and probably 5 & 8
Szymanowski – 3, 4
Nielsen – 4, 5, 6
Zemlinsky – Lyric Symphony
Sibelius – 5, 6, & 7 definitely, and almost certainly 2, 3, & 4
Rautavaara – 3, 7, 8
Prokofiev – 5, 6
Ives - 2
Martinu – All
Shostakovich – 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15
Honegger – 3
Carter – Symphonia
Vaughn Williams – 3, 4, 5
Messiaen – Turangalila Symphonie
Enescu – 3 definitely, possibly 2
Stravinsky – Symphony in Three Movements
Lutoslawski – 3 & 4
I'm in the midst of exploring Tubin's symphonic output, and it's extremely good. I need some more time with all of the works before deciding for myself how relatively good or great they are.
I would include Mahler's 9th and Sibelius's 7th as the summations of their art for these two composers whose aesthetic principles were so opposed, yet who--for me--were not only the greatest symphonists of the Century, but the only composers of any time who stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Beethoven as symphonists.
Ives's 4th is a contender, for pushing the envelope as no other.
Despite liking many other symphonies, several of which have already been mentioned here, I cannot at this time think of any other candidates for "Greatest of the 20th Century" -- but then I apply terms like "great" more sparingly than most these days.
Symphonies of Wind Instruments, Stravinsky (don't know if this actually qualifies, but I like it anyway)
Milhaud, Symphony #3 (but 5 or 6 are not far behind)
Edouard Lalo's Symphony in G minor
I haven't 'bellied up' to the thread, because . . . Jeffrey set a precedent of three, and I don't believe I could endorse only a set of three as "the greatest"; nor am I sure where to stop, once I removed the brake from five three.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 27, 2009, 10:28:32 AM
Jeffrey set a precedent of three, and I don't believe I could endorse only a set of three as "the greatest"; nor am I sure where to stop, once I removed the brake from five three.
If you can expand on that a bit, you may move it to the Monty Python thread, I do believe.
Couldn't do that to our esteemed Jeffrey, Paul.
Perhaps their advocates have just not yet posted, but I find what is NOT here interesting.
e.g.
Nobody has listed the symphonies of Copland, Henze, or Penderecki.
Quote from: Cato on May 27, 2009, 10:58:03 AM
Perhaps their advocates have just not yet posted, but I find what is NOT here interesting.
e.g.
Nobody has listed the symphonies of Copland, Henze, or Penderecki.
Holmboe
Quote from: Cato on May 27, 2009, 10:58:03 AM
Perhaps their advocates have just not yet posted, but I find what is NOT here interesting.
e.g.
Nobody has listed the symphonies of Copland, Henze, or Penderecki.
Copland's
Short Symphony was mentioned. Personally, if I were to name a Copland symphony I'd say the Organ Symphony. Of the Polish symphonist, I much prefer Luto.
Quote from: springrite on May 27, 2009, 11:05:13 AM
Copland's Short Symphony was mentioned. Personally, if I were to name a Copland symphony I'd say the Organ Symphony.
The
Short Symphony is fine (though, well, short). The
Organ Symphony is on my to-listen-to list. The
Copland Third is the strongest of his symphonies
that I've heard.
Cato! Did you list Toch? $:)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 27, 2009, 11:08:35 AM
Cato! Did you list Toch? $:)
I am...
now! 8)
Ernst Toch came to the symphonic form rather late, and his works in general are compact, 20-30 minutes, with a modest-sized orchestra, but highly worthwhile.
I would in fact give them the edge over
Henze.And
David Diamond anyone? He whom
Schoenberg anointed "an American
Bruckner." (!?)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 27, 2009, 10:28:32 AM
I haven't 'bellied up' to the thread, because . . . Jeffrey set a precedent of three, and I don't believe I could endorse only a set of three as "the greatest"; nor am I sure where to stop, once I removed the brake from five three.
Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number be reached, then lobbest thou thy holy handgrenade towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
I wanted to mention Langgaard, but couldn't decide on which one to mention.
Quote from: opus67 on May 27, 2009, 08:45:15 AM
I kindly request those participating in this, um, opinion poll or sorts to tell the rest us why you think the symphonies are "great." :) Only listing the symphonies -- and somehow most of you have restricted yourselves to only three even though Jeffrey didn't explicitly mention a limit -- seems to make this yet another "favourites thread." One is not required to provide justification to name a bunch of symphonies as one's favourites, but the same cannot be said about calling a work "great" or "greatest." [This, of course, doesn't apply to those who have said something about their choices. ;)]
Being an outsider to 20th century music, your views might help me understand the music better. Even a little a bit will be good. Thanks.
That's a reasonable request.
Hindemith's Symphony in Eb is serious, intense, complex and strongly integrated; the themes of each movement include the same three-note cell (Eb, F, Ab in the first movement, with a few "extra" notes; inverted in the second and third movements, and with even more "extra" notes in the fourth movement).
Hovhaness' "Mysterious Mountain" is both atmospheric and formally strong, including lots of canons; same with "Mount Saint Helens.
Hanson's "Romantic" is unabashedly Romantic and lovely, with no lack of formal strength.
And Schuman's Eighth is proof that a composer can use modernistic technique and style yet create an intense, moving masterwork.
But this isn't quite enough to explain greatness. Each of these symphonies just seems to have that certain something...
Quote from: Cato on May 27, 2009, 04:24:11 AM
Hartmann's entire output, but especially the Sixth Symphony.
Ives Symphony #4.
Mahler's Symphonies 5-10.
Martinu's entire output, but especially the Fifth Symphony.
Prokofiev's Symphonies 2,3, and 6.
Shostakovich's Tenth Symphony
Zemlinsky's Lyric Symphony.
What......no Glazunov or Pfitzner :o ;D
I suppose that what intrigues me the most are the choices made by people which puzzle me in one respect or another. It would be really interesting to know why certain symphonies have been mentioned, eg-
Prokofiev's 2nd and 3rd
Milhaud's 3rd
Toch's symphonies
...and much though I love the Harris 3rd, the Piston 2nd and the Hanson 2nd it is fascinating that some people would place these so high :)
Oh..someone also mentioned the Rachmaninov 2nd :) My least favourite symphony of the twentieth century ;D
Cannot possibly do the "greatest". These are so far, my personal favorites (in no order):
Vaughan Williams 6
Shostakovich 10
Mahler 6 and 9
Sibelius 7
Quote from: Dundonnell on May 27, 2009, 04:43:03 PM
What......no Glazunov or Pfitzner :o ;D
Sorry, they came close, but...no! And if they were included, you would have to find room for
Ferde Grofe! 8)
Thanks, Joe for bringing up Stravinsky's Symphony in Three Movements. I ought to give Carter's Symphonia another hearing (mmust be over 2 years :-[). I'll reserve judgment for now.
I would go along with Vandermolen's three choices and add Pettersson's 6th. When it comes to Shostakovich and V-W, I agree with the choice of 4 and 6 respectively. But with Sibelius I'd be tempted to think of the 7th as his greatest work. But 6 also has claims for the title. As do Pettersson's 9th. And of course I firmly believe Elgar's two symphonies are as good as any of those. But certainly not as important. Oh, well. It's just too hard!
So, something like this:
- Stravinsky, symphony in 3 mvmts.
- Sibelius: symphony no 7
- Vaghan-Williams symphony no 6
- Pettersson: symphony no 6
- Shostakovich: symphony no 4
Other great symphonists include Kancheli, Norholm, Arnold, Alwyn, and th elist of course goes on and on.
Oh gosh, I forgot about Stavinsky. Please add the Symphony of Psalms, the Symphony in C and Symphony in Three Movements to my original list. 8)
Quote from: owlice on May 27, 2009, 08:19:10 AM
Not so she will not use it to buy things, I suspect, but rather, so that she cannot see the extent of your recording purchases, yes? I have found that keeping CDs tidy and nicely shelved makes purchases less noticeable... until a new bookcase/shelving unit is required. Keeping books all over makes the need for a new bookcase/shelving unit obvious, so as long as one buys something to accommodate the messy books AND the new recordings, one's buying habits may remain a mystery! ;)
Yes, this is a correct assessment of the scenario - the amount of books in the house remain another problem ("must you really buy another book?" etc). If it's for work it's ok as the school pays (I'm a history teacher) but it is difficult to convince her that 'The Penguin Guide to Classical CDs' etc is an essential purchase for my professional work!
No, this is a 'greatest' thread and not a 'favourite' thread (I started the thread so I make the rules - right? hehe). Why three only? Well, here is the explanation: As a teenager, when I first discovered clasical music I joined the High Street Kensington and Chelsea music library - where I discovered composers like Miaskovsky, Honegger, Cyril Scott, Klauss Egge, Janis Ivanovs, Allan Pettersson, Patrick Hadley etcetc for the first time (it was a great library). They only let you take out three LPs at a time, so I made my dad join (despite the fact that he only listened to Frank Sinatra) - which meant that I could use his three tickets as well as mine. This is why all the 'favourites' 'greatest' threads started by me have a limit of three or six. If I had to agonize over which three or six works to select so can you ;D. I hope you agree that this is a perfectly rational explanation 8)
Here are my next three:
Honegger Liturgique Symphony (Karajan's is the best in my opinion)
Miaskovsky Symphony 21 (if you like Sibelius you should like this)
Sibelius Symphony No 3
I agree too about the Gorecki Third Symphony - despite the hype. Hanson would come into my 'favourites' list (No 3 and 4). Copland's Third Symphony is a problem for me - it kind of inhabits a No Man's Land between favourites (and it is a favourite of mine) and greatness - it is also a great symphony - now I am confusing myself ???
Quote from: Dundonnell on May 27, 2009, 04:50:39 PM
I suppose that what intrigues me the most are the choices made by people which puzzle me in one respect or another. It would be really interesting to know why certain symphonies have been mentioned, eg-
Prokofiev's 2nd and 3rd
Toch's symphonies
I mentioned the
Prokofiev and the
Toch Symphonies: for
Prokofiev, I find the Beethovenian construction of the
Second, along with its wild, nonuple counterpoint, probably the best illustration of
Schoenberg's dictum that there were still good possibilities in the future for works in C major! With the
Third Symphony, derived from one of the century's best operas, you receive the impact of that opera emotionally in 30 minutes.
I find the
Toch symphonies a bridge between the super-compression of
Webern and the unleashed id-monsters of
Hartmann. They are more spiritual than the latter, emotional in a more subtle way, but all are fairly short (most under half an hour) and modest in a
Webernesque way.
Quote from: Cato on May 28, 2009, 05:15:10 AM
I mentioned the Prokofiev and the Toch Symphonies: for Prokofiev, I find the Beethovenian construction of the Second, along with its wild, nonuple counterpoint, probably the best illustration of Schoenberg's dictum that there were still good possibilities in the future for works in C major! With the Third Symphony, derived from one of the century's best operas, you receive the impact of that opera emotionally in 30 minutes.
I find the Toch symphonies a bridge between the super-compression of Webern and the unleashed id-monsters of Hartmann. They are more spiritual than the latter, emotional in a more subtle way, but all are fairly short (most under half an hour) and modest in a Webernesque way.
Fascinating! I must confess that I had never looked at the Prokofiev 2nd in that way, tending to succumb to the aural assault and battery of the piece. I shall listen to it again!
As for the Toch...again, very interesting. I would agree that his symphonies are more emotional than those of Hartmann who can be rather dry and academic to my ears.
By the way....what is wrong with Ferde Grofe? ;D His Grand Canyon Suite is good fun! He wasn't a symphonist anyway....was he?
Quote from: Dundonnell on May 28, 2009, 05:25:39 AM
Fascinating! I must confess that I had never looked at the Prokofiev 2nd in that way, tending to succumb to the aural assault and battery of the piece. I shall listen to it again!
Splendid,
Colin!
Quote from: ColinAs for the Toch...again, very interesting. I would agree that his symphonies are more emotional than those of Hartmann who can be rather dry and academic to my ears.
Well, I don't think any of the
Hartmann that I have heard at all 'academic' . . . but he is (to echo a comment made lately on another thread) I find his music more Apollonian compared to
Toch's Dionysian . . . .
Quote from: Dundonnell on May 28, 2009, 05:25:39 AM
Fascinating! I must confess that I had never looked at the Prokofiev 2nd in that way, tending to succumb to the aural assault and battery of the piece. I shall listen to it again!
By the way....what is wrong with Ferde Grofe? ;D His Grand Canyon Suite is good fun! He wasn't a symphonist anyway....was he?
The Prokofiev 2nd is one of the works I considered nominating as "great(est)." I had the good fortune once to hear it performed by Gergiev and the Kirov (Mariinsky). Such works well illustrate the inadequacy of recordings to convey the complete experience of musical performance, moreso I think for big orchestral pieces than for intimate chamber works.
Have you heard other pieces by Grofe?
I listed the Milhaud 3rd because I simply like it and wanted to name some works that never appear on these kinds of lists for consideration. But, I admit I violated the basis of this thread, which was asking for "not favorites" but the "Greatest" 20th Century Symphonies.
Quote from: Franco on May 28, 2009, 06:40:52 AM
I listed the Milhaud 3rd because I simply like it and wanted to name some works that never appear on these kinds of lists for consideration. But, I admit I violated the basis of this thread, which was asking for "not favorites" but the "Greatest" 20th Century Symphonies.
Hey, we're always conversational at GMG, and it isn't any serious breach of Compliance. And your mention made me think,
Much as I like the Milhaud cycle, is it . . . "great"?
Quote from: Dundonnell on May 28, 2009, 05:25:39 AM
Fascinating! I must confess that I had never looked at the Prokofiev 2nd in that way, tending to succumb to the aural assault and battery of the piece. I shall listen to it again!
As for the Toch...again, very interesting. I would agree that his symphonies are more emotional than those of Hartmann who can be rather dry and academic to my ears.
By the way....what is wrong with Ferde Grofe? ;D His Grand Canyon Suite is good fun! He wasn't a symphonist anyway....was he?
For the
Prokofiev Second, that is a not atypical reaction! 8)
But I have found that the work is like being inside of a clockwork soul: the grand emotions are being cranked out by giant gears, smaller ones by smaller, but there is a calm center (opening of the Second Movement).
No, thank heavens
Grofe did not try his hoof at symphonies: donkey music was his forte! 0:)
Very difficult. All my favorites are sentimental. If I only had three on a desert island, I would have to choose syms. that would keep me occupied and learning, rather than ones I already know every note to (I guess unless it was irresistable). Judging by Van/Dun who between them must have every cd known to...them, haha!!...they have chosen fairly "standard" choices, so I must conclude that aaaaaaall those other symphonists in the "really really lesser known..." thread still haven't supplanted the giants that everyone is familiar with, maybe because the great ones are great BECAUSE of their "greatness." ::) Well, it SEEMS to be true.
I certainly wouldn't pick Webern, HA! I could listen to it 144 times per day, haha...but seriously. Seeing that Van/Dun landed where they did, I feel more confident in (verrry tentatively...very) picking:
Pettersson 9, or 13... probably 13 because of the density
I'm at a loss...everything else is a "favorite" (Sib, DSCH, Harris, Honegger, Schuman, Sessions...any of the other heavyhitters...). The point being, those two Pettersson syms. are NOT neccesarily favs (oy, how could they be?) for "joy of listening", but are so overwhelming with "information" (as Pettersson would say) that it'll surely take you a good while to absorb (and hum, haha!). Still, they ARE "gnarly" favs!
Maybe just to conform to the thread rules I'll pick Pettersson 14 also! SO THERE! ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Cato on May 28, 2009, 09:06:57 AM
For the Prokofiev Second, that is a not atypical reaction! 8)
But I have found that the work is like being inside of a clockwork soul: the grand emotions are being cranked out by giant gears, smaller ones by smaller, but there is a calm center (opening of the Second Movement).
Which has a particularly stunning effect, when it returns
practically unchanged at the end of the cumulative variations.
If I held my breath and jumped off the Cliff of Objectivity into whatever hell lays below, I could perhaps admit that I consider Pettersson's 6th and 7th symphonies to be towering achivements $:)
Thank goodness, Sara, you are speaking only figuratively here! :)
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 28, 2009, 06:17:46 AM
The Prokofiev 2nd is one of the works I considered nominating as "great(est)." I had the good fortune once to hear it performed by Gergiev and the Kirov (Mariinsky). Such works well illustrate the inadequacy of recordings to convey the complete experience of musical performance, moreso I think for big orchestral pieces than for intimate chamber works.
Have you heard other pieces by Grofe?
Have I heard any other pieces by Grofe? Yes....the Mississippi Suite, the Niagara Falls Suite, the Death Valley Suite, the Hudson River Suite and the Hollywood Suite.
None of them is demanding music :) and none of them matches the Grand Canyon Suite for sonic spectaculars but each is attractive enough stuff. There is a place for this sort of 'light' classical music, I reckon.
Haven't weighed in on the "three" question since honestly, I don't know how I would select three from the vast smorgasbord available. How do you compare Webern's Symphony with the Mahler Eighth?
Anyway, my contribution today: I'm listening to Mark Elder and the Hallé Orchestra doing the Elgar First Symphony live on SymphonyCast (quite good, PS, from the Prague Spring International Music Festival). In his introduction, the announcer referenced a comment by Shostakovich, who thought it the greatest symphony of the 20th century.
I want to check some sources when I have time, but if true, most interesting coming from this particular source!
--Bruce
Quote from: bhodges on May 28, 2009, 05:15:55 PM
In his introduction, the announcer referenced a comment by Shostakovich, who thought it the greatest symphony of the 20th century.
I want to check some sources when I have time, but if true, most interesting coming from this particular source!
--Bruce
Yes, where and when would have
Shostakovich encountered the
Elgar First outside of perusing a score?
I know he was allowed occasionally to visit the West: during which visit might this have happened?
Quote from: Cato on May 28, 2009, 05:30:09 PM
Yes, where and when would have Shostakovich encountered the Elgar First outside of perusing a score?
I know he was allowed occasionally to visit the West: during which visit might this have happened?
No further details were included, and I can't imagine, either! Anyway, when I have time later I may do some digging. (And PS, as I'm listening, I certainly like the piece a lot, but don't think I would ever have singled it out as the best of the entire century!)
--Bruce
Though not necessarily belonging to a "greatest" list, I would like to mention Frank Martins particularly fine symphony, since everyone else seems to be mentioning their particular hobby horses.
If we concentrate on what I consider symphonies belonging to the 20th century instead of being leftovers from the previous one, my own list would be Shostakovich 4 (though there are a couple of other Shostakovich alternatives), Sibelius 4 and Vaughan Williams 6 (though this could just as well have been his 4th) .
For the best combination of form and feeling:
Prokofiev 3 (much underestimated) and 6
Vaughan Williams 4, 7, 8 (get the Thomson), and 9 if he'd lived to fix the finale
Sibelius 5
Possibly Hindemith if my Blomstedt set ever arrives; plus I've yet to get into Bax.
Mahler, 6th Symphony
Sibelius, 4th Symphony
Brian, 1st Symphony, 'Gothic'
RVW, 5th Symphony
Harris, 3rd Symphony
Pettersson, 15th Symphony
Nielsen, 6th Symphony
Elgar, 1st Symphony
Stravinsky, Symphony in Three Movements
Martinu, 5th Symphony
Tubin, 6th Symphony
Orthel, 2nd Symphony
Hartmann, 6th Symphony
Prokofiev, 6th Symphony
Shostakovich, 4th Symphony
Honegger, 3rd Symphony
Bax, 1st Symphony
Moeran, Symphony in G minor
and the list goes on...
Quote from: eyeresist on May 28, 2009, 10:53:08 PM
For the best combination of form and feeling:
Prokofiev 3 (much underestimated) and 6
Vaughan Williams 4, 7, 8 (get the Thomson), and 9 if he'd lived to fix the finale
Sibelius 5
Possibly Hindemith if my Blomstedt set ever arrives; plus I've yet to get into Bax.
Agree about Prokofiev No 3. What's wrong with finale of VW No 9? I know that Boult asked him to add some music as he found the end abrupt, but I think that the first and last movement are towering achievements - it is a great score - would add Brian Symphony No 8, Moeran Symphony, Tubin No 4 (now I am subverting my own rules - never mind).
Quote from: vandermolen on May 29, 2009, 01:01:32 AM
Agree about Prokofiev No 3. What's wrong with finale of VW No 9? I know that Boult asked him to add some music as he found the end abrupt, but I think that the first and last movement are towering achievements - it is a great score - would add Brian Symphony No 8, Moeran Symphony, Tubin No 4 (now I am subverting my own rules - never mind).
Brian 8, Prokofiev 3 and Tubin 4 - yes yes yes.
Am I alone in finding Stravinskys Symphony of Psalms his greatest symphony? Or don't we accept it as a symphony?
Quote from: erato on May 29, 2009, 01:17:07 AM
Am I alone in finding Stravinskys Symphony of Psalms his greatest symphony? Or don't we accept it as a symphony?
I would agree with this. I am not a huge fan of Stravinsky but the Symphons of Psalms is beautiful.
My new discovery: Stale Kleiberg: Symphony No 1 'The Bell Reef' - great work.
Quote from: vandermolen on May 29, 2009, 01:01:32 AM
Agree about Prokofiev No 3. What's wrong with finale of VW No 9? I know that Boult asked him to add some music as he found the end abrupt, but I think that the first and last movement are towering achievements - it is a great score - would add Brian Symphony No 8, Moeran Symphony, Tubin No 4 (now I am subverting my own rules - never mind).
I knew that Boult had made suggestions, but didn't know what they were! The abruptness of the ending is the big problem, but I also find the structure of the movement a bit diffuse, when RVW is usually so clear-cut. Still a major achievement of course - I am listening to Previn approach the final bars as we speak...
Regarding Brain, Moeran and Tubin, I can only lament my policy of refusing to pay more than a certain amount for any one CD. On the other hand, there's still so much music to explore for cheap. I just took delivery of a big shipment of music by Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Scriabin, Hindemith, and Khachaturian, totalling 16 CDs of music I've never heard before :D
Quote from: Cato on May 28, 2009, 05:30:09 PM
Yes, where and when would have Shostakovich encountered the Elgar First outside of perusing a score?
I know he was allowed occasionally to visit the West: during which visit might this have happened?
I think that Elgar's first (like Vaughan Williams' sixth) experienced one of those runaway successes which are swiftly forgotten about later on due to them ending quite quickly. I recall from somewhere (helpful, I know! ::)) that the 1st (in marked opposition to the 2nd's fate) was heard in quite a few European cities before the composer rapidly became perceived as being outdated - there is a small chance that DSCH could've even heard it in Russia during that time.
Quote from: eyeresist on May 29, 2009, 03:16:59 AM
Regarding Brain, Moeran and Tubin, I can only lament my policy of refusing to pay more than a certain amount for any one CD.
Brain's Eighth will cost you nothing... ;)
http://www.mediafire.com/file/0jf2yvnm2tj/Brian 8.mp3
Quote from: Jezetha on May 29, 2009, 06:44:07 AM
Brain's Eighth will cost you nothing... ;)
Quote from: Marty FeldmanAbby . . . Abby somebody.
Quote from: eyeresist on May 29, 2009, 03:16:59 AM
Regarding Brain, Moeran and Tubin, I can only lament my policy of refusing to pay more than a certain amount for any one CD. On the other hand, there's still so much music to explore for cheap. I just took delivery of a big shipment of music by Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Scriabin, Hindemith, and Khachaturian, totalling 16 CDs of music I've never heard before :D
Pretty good fellows to risk it on. Moeran's Symphony in G minor is a no-brainer, and there are several inexpensive recordings available such as the Lloyd-Jones disc on Naxos.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 29, 2009, 06:45:59 AM
Not to be confused with the Norwegian composer Edvard Fiflet Braein, composer of three symphonies :)
Quote from: Jezetha on May 28, 2009, 11:22:54 PM
RVW, 5th Symphony
Interesting turnaround :P
Quote from: Jezetha on May 28, 2009, 11:22:54 PM
Bax, 1st Symphony
I wish that Bax produced a symphony that radiates "greatness" just a little more strongly than any of them actually do... Several of them threaten to achieve such status, with the 6th to me seeming like the best candidate (and Vernon Handley seems to agree), but there is something unfathomably oh-so flawed about them all, just like all of the other mature works - I'm not sure that it would have much of an audience due to the patience they require. The 3rd and 6th have some kind of drive, but the 5th is almost
comfortable, and the 7th is such a take-it-or-leave-it work. The 1st is the least languorous, but also the least Bax. It's a very good listen, though - kind of reminds me of Honegger's atypical and spikey first.
Quote from: Lethe on May 29, 2009, 07:06:19 AM
Interesting turnaround :P
Well-spotted, Sarah! I have struggled so long with this work, now it has 'clicked' I regard it as RVW's 'deepest' symphony (which doesn't mean I don't love all the others!)
QuoteI wish that Bax produced a symphony that radiates "greatness" just a little more strongly than any of them actually do... Several of them threaten to achieve such status, with the 6th to me seeming like the best candidate (and Vernon Handley seems to agree), but there is something unfathomably oh-so flawed about them all, just like all of the other mature works - I'm not sure that it would have much of an audience due to the patience they require. The 3rd and 6th have some kind of drive, but the 5th is almost comfortable, and the 7th is such a take-it-or-leave-it work. The 1st is the least languorous, but also the least Bax. It's a very good listen, though - kind of reminds me of Honegger's atypical and spikey first.
Seeming indeed - the opening is epic, but the great climax in the finale fails to attain the definitive.
I think the point with Bax is he is simply not interested in Beethovenian logic and inexoribility. He writes symphonic ballads, romances. His symphonies are evocative, poetic, atmospheric, and as such highly succesful. But he doesn't 'clinch' a thing. Only the First does.
You(Lethe and Jezetha) are both very perceptive :)
Quote from: eyeresist on May 29, 2009, 03:16:59 AM
I knew that Boult had made suggestions, but didn't know what they were! The abruptness of the ending is the big problem, but I also find the structure of the movement a bit diffuse, when RVW is usually so clear-cut. Still a major achievement of course - I am listening to Previn approach the final bars as we speak...
Regarding Brain, Moeran and Tubin, I can only lament my policy of refusing to pay more than a certain amount for any one CD. On the other hand, there's still so much music to explore for cheap. I just took delivery of a big shipment of music by Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Scriabin, Hindemith, and Khachaturian, totalling 16 CDs of music I've never heard before :D
Thanks. The end of No 9 works for me - it's abruptness seems right in context but I am no musicologist - it is a gaunt craggy work, which I love. The Stokowski recording on Cala is now my favourite version. Moeran's Symphony and Sinfonietta are coupled together on Naxos - so, not expensive and these are servicable performances worth exploring. Brian's 'Gothic' is also on Naxos (2CDs).
Although I have my own favourites as contenders for this thread, it seems to me that many composers achieved more with their symphonic corpus as a whole than the individual components within (same thing with all these formidable 20th Century string quartet series).
The names of Alwyn, Koppel, Simpson, Rubbra, Arnold, Sauguet, Tournemire, Orthel, Langgaard, Norholm, Pettersson, Rautavaara, Aho, Bax, Jones and many others would be more readily discussed. But that's the subject of another thread ;).
Quote from: Jezetha on May 28, 2009, 11:22:54 PM
Mahler, 6th Symphony
Sibelius, 4th Symphony
Brian, 1st Symphony, 'Gothic'
RVW, 5th Symphony
Harris, 3rd Symphony
Pettersson, 15th Symphony
Nielsen, 6th Symphony
Elgar, 1st Symphony
Stravinsky, Symphony in Three Movements
Martinu, 5th Symphony
Tubin, 6th Symphony
Orthel, 2nd Symphony
Hartmann, 6th Symphony
Prokofiev, 6th Symphony
Shostakovich, 4th Symphony
Honegger, 3rd Symphony
Bax, 1st Symphony
Moeran, Symphony in G minor
and the list goes on...
But still no Langgaard? Not surprisingly, perhaps, my own list would be almost identical - with the exception of Petterson 15, Hartmann 6 and Bax 1, symphonies that I didn't play enough, and Elgar 1 (that I don't care about that much ;)). And I would add some that were not mentioned in this thread before, I think, like:
Holmboe 6, 8, 9
Simpson 9
Vermeulen 2
... and of course Vaughan Williams 3, 6, 8, 9 ;)
and many more, especially from Lilas Pastia's list of composers to which I would other symphonists like Saygun, Guarnieri, Lennox Berkeley, Goossens, Wordsworth, Braga Santos, Pijper, Diamond, Barber, Irgens-Jensen
Quote from: Lilas Pastia on May 29, 2009, 07:54:31 PM
Although I have my own favourites as contenders for this thread, it seems to me that many composers achieved more with their symphonic corpus as a whole than the individual components within (same thing with all these formidable 20th Century string quartet series).
The names of Alwyn, Koppel, Simpson, Rubbra, Arnold, Sauguet, Tournemire, Orthel, Langgaard, Norholm, Pettersson, Rautavaara, Aho, Bax, Jones and many others would be more readily discussed. But that's the subject of another thread ;).
Wholly agree. That's why
Quote from: Christo on May 29, 2009, 11:00:10 PMBut still no Langgaard?
I didn't include Langgaard, because I don't think any of his symphonies is his all-out masterpiece, though his greatness is apparent in every one of them, to a more or lesser degree. Even in the nationalist and rather 'reactionary', backward-looking symphonies like 7, 8 and 9 there are wonderful mo(ve)ments.
O, thanks to Christo I MUST add Simpson's 9th, one of the greatest of the century (how could I forget?!?), and Vermeulen's 2nd.
But Jeffrey has set us an impossible task. I like the historical underpinning of his 'only three', but the whole concept of '3 greatest' is completely unworkable! :'( ;D
I believe that the three most perfect and deep Symphonies composed in the 20th century are:
Sibelius 4th
Roussel 3rd
Webern's Symphony opus 21
REVISED:
Pettersson 6
Pettersson 9 or 13
Simpson 9
No more!
Quote from: Jezetha on May 29, 2009, 11:44:07 PM
But Jeffrey has set us an impossible task. I like the historical underpinning of his 'only three', but the whole concept of '3 greatest' is completely unworkable! :'( ;D
Quote from: val on May 30, 2009, 12:36:50 AM
I believe that the three most perfect and deep Symphonies composed in the 20th century are:
Sibelius 4th
Roussel 3rd
Webern's Symphony opus 21
hehe ;D
Quote from: vandermolen on May 30, 2009, 01:51:24 AM
hehe ;D
Don't laugh.
You can't restrict yourself to the three greatest
either, otherwise no
Advanced Smuggling Techniques To Bypass Suspicious Spouses would have been necessary... :P
Quote from: val on May 30, 2009, 12:36:50 AM
I believe that the three most perfect and deep Symphonies composed in the 20th century are:
Sibelius 4th
Roussel 3rd
Webern's Symphony opus 21
Oh? Are we supposed to name only three symphonies? And are they really supposed to be "deep" - whatever that may mean? In that case, my shortlist might be:
Vaughan Williams 3 `A Pastoral'
Vaughan Williams 5
Vaughan Williams 6
Or a non-RVW list:
Nielsen 5
Tubin 6
Holmboe 8
Or a not-to-Northern shortlist:
Vermeulen 2
Brian 1 `Gothic'
Simpson 9
Or an even-more-Latin shortlist:
Honegger 3
Braga Santos 3
Guarnieri 3
Which only makes twelve in total ;)
Quote from: Jezetha on May 30, 2009, 01:56:07 AM
Don't laugh. You can't restrict yourself to the three greatest either, otherwise no Advanced Smuggling Techniques To Bypass Suspicious Spouses would have been necessary... :P
Yes, a fair point I guess :)
I am puzzling where to locate Braga Santos's 4th Symphony in all this. It is certainly a favourite - but is it 'great'? I think so ???
Quote from: Christo on May 30, 2009, 02:35:38 AM
Oh? Are we supposed to name only three symphonies? And are they really supposed to be "deep" - whatever that may mean? In that case, my shortlist might be:
Vaughan Williams 3 `A Pastoral'
Vaughan Williams 5
Vaughan Williams 6
Or a non-RVW list:
Nielsen 5
Tubin 6
Holmboe 8
Or a not-to-Northern shortlist:
Vermeulen 2
Brian 1 `Gothic'
Simpson 9
Or an even-more-Latin shortlist:
Honegger 3
Braga Santos 3
Guarnieri 3
Which only makes twelve in total ;)
I would agree with just about all these choices, although the Simpson still eludes me (No 1 is my favourite of his), I would go for BS Symphony No 4, although No 3 is also magnificent, especially the last movement. Holmboe's 7th Symphony stands very high in my estimation. Vermeulen (in my 'complete edition' :))I will listen to again today. Tubin's 1st, 2nd and 4th are my favourites.
So, when you people have listed all the symphonies of the 20th Century, this thread will die...
Gustav Mahler, Symphony #6
Gustav Mahler, Symphony #9
Witold Lutoslawski, Symphony #2
Brian 1 ;D
Sibelius 7 ;D
Rautavaara 5 ;D
Martinu 4 ;D
Mahler 9 ;D
RVW 6 :D
Rangstrom 1 ;D
West Ham 3 ;)
Ajax 2 :D
Green Bay Packers 32 ;D
New York Jets 14 :(
Quote from: John on May 30, 2009, 09:18:15 PM
West Ham 3 ;)
Ajax 2 :D
Green Bay Packers 32 ;D
New York Jets 14 :(
Chelsea 2
Everton 1
;D
Quote from: Brian on May 27, 2009, 08:24:45 AM
Shostakovich No. 10 - my pick for the single best symphony of the century ... I blew a couple fuses in my brain when I realized just how brilliantly Shostakovich had woven a "motto" theme into this symphony [not the DSCH theme, though that appears for the first time here] - making the previous "motto theme poster child," Rachmaninov's Second, utterly obsolete (and invoking some pretty direct comparisons). In that respect this is the culmination of the entire Russian symphonic tradition ... I think ...
Can you expand on this?
Quote from: Cato on May 28, 2009, 05:30:09 PM
Yes, where and when would have Shostakovich encountered the Elgar First outside of perusing a score?
I know he was allowed occasionally to visit the West: during which visit might this have happened?
This won't answer your question, but Elgar does actually get played in Russia from time to time. In the last two concert seasons, I've noticed performances of both concertos and the Piano Quintet, and the 1st Symphony will be played later this year. In fact, I think Elgar gets played here more than Bruckner does.
At least one major Russian conductor (Svetlanov, I think) has recorded some Elgar.
Quote from: Cato on May 28, 2009, 05:30:09 PM
Yes, where and when would have Shostakovich encountered the Elgar First outside of perusing a score?
I know he was allowed occasionally to visit the West: during which visit might this have happened?
I don't (yet?) have a firm answer. But
Elgar's First Symphony enjoyed enviable immediate success, 100 performances in the first year of its existence (1908), and it may well have made its way to Petersburg before the war.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 01, 2009, 04:36:27 AM
I don't (yet?) have a firm answer. But Elgar's First Symphony enjoyed enviable immediate success, 100 performances in the first year of its existence (1908), and it may well have made its way to Petersburg before the war.
It did! But it would be unlikely(?) that Shostakovich heard it in the years prior to war breaking out in 1914 since he would only have been eight years old then.
Quote from: Dundonnell on June 01, 2009, 06:17:40 AM
It did! But it would be unlikely(?) that Shostakovich heard it in the years prior to war breaking out in 1914 since he would only have been eight years old then.
Yes, he was yet just a pup. I mean, if the piece already has a performance history before he attended the Conservatory, at least there's groundwork for plausible familiarity. England was an ally during the war, and the Tsar and George V were relatives.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 01, 2009, 06:20:20 AM
Yes, he was yet just a pup. I mean, if the piece already has a performance history before he attended the Conservatory, at least there's groundwork for plausible familiarity. England was an ally during the war, and the Tsar and George V were relatives.
With respect,
Karl........
Britain was an ally :)
So emended, esteemed Colin :)
Quote from: Spitvalve on June 01, 2009, 12:31:40 AM
This won't answer your question, but Elgar does actually get played in Russia from time to time. In the last two concert seasons, I've noticed performances of both concertos and the Piano Quintet, and the 1st Symphony will be played later this year. In fact, I think Elgar gets played here more than Bruckner does.
At least one major Russian conductor (Svetlanov, I think) has recorded some Elgar.
I'm not surprised about this since Elgar's musical language isn't that different from Russian classical music. I just wish the 2nd symphony got performed too since it's an overlooked masterpiece.
Quote from: 71 dB on June 01, 2009, 08:57:12 AM
I'm not surprised about this since Elgar's musical language isn't that different from Russian classical music. I just wish the 2nd symphony got performed too since it's an overlooked masterpiece.
Maybe Shosty was actually refering to the cello concerto? If that was a symphony, I think it would qualify for this thread.
I have a CD of Elgar's Second Symphony played by the USSR Symphony Orchestra under Svelanov - it is a fine, if rather unidiomatic, performance, featuring the braying Soviet horns etc. Well worth investigating if and when it is back in circulation.
Quote from: eyeresist on June 01, 2009, 09:42:41 PM
Maybe Shosty was actually refering to the cello concerto? If that was a symphony, I think it would qualify for this thread.
I don't get it why people admire the cello concerto so much while looking down the mighty symphonies.
Quote from: 71 dB on June 02, 2009, 08:35:54 AM
I don't get it why people admire the cello concerto so much while looking down the mighty symphonies.
In my case, it is because when I listen to the
Cello Concerto and to the symphonies, I find much more to admire in the concerto.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 02, 2009, 08:38:09 AM
In my case, it is because when I listen to the Cello Concerto and to the symphonies, I find much more to admire in the concerto.
Mine, too. To me his VCC is one of the most sublime achievements in music of the 20th Century, speaking to my soul of faith, yearning, joy, and most powerfully of loss, of the end of innocence and a state of grace that can never be reclaimed. His symphonies, by comparison, are but trifling entertainments. Is there anyone on earth besides Poju who honestly regards either of them as among the noblest musical utterances of that incredible century?
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 02, 2009, 08:38:09 AM
In my case, it is because when I listen to the Cello Concerto and to the symphonies, I find much more to admire in the concerto.
Yeah but why? For me it's the other way around. In my opinion people DO get the concerto but they are completely lost with the symphonies. Elgar himself was confused about why the reception of the 2nd symphony was so lukewarm. People just don't get those symphonies, especially the 2nd. I don't know why. Apart from Gerontius people are completely lost with Elgar's oratorios too.
Quote from: 71 dB on June 02, 2009, 08:50:50 AM
Yeah but why? For me it's the other way around. In my opinion people DO get the concerto but they are completely lost with the symphonies.
Personally, I find the concerto says just as much in a shorter and more concise form. I also prefer the thinner scoring. I also prefer the violin concerto to the symphonies at the moment, as I feel the soloist gives some much-needed focus and impetus, which is a slight difficulty I have with the symphonies.
Quote from: DavidRoss on June 02, 2009, 08:49:01 AM
Mine, too. To me his VCC is one of the most sublime achievements in music of the 20th Century, speaking to my soul of faith, yearning, joy, and most powerfully of loss, of the end of innocence and a state of grace that can never be reclaimed. His symphonies, by comparison, are but trifling entertainments.
While I won't say the symphonies are better than the Cello Cto., I find them rather more than "trifling entertainments." Indeed, they are deep and multifaceted works, more emotionally and structurally complex than the CC. I can understand, however, why some people have trouble with them.
Quote from: Spitvalve on June 02, 2009, 09:56:06 AM
While I won't say the symphonies are better than the Cello Cto., I find them rather more than "trifling entertainments." Indeed, they are deep and multifaceted works, more emotionally and structurally complex than the CC. I can understand, however, why some people have trouble with them.
The 2nd symphony especially has a heck of a lot going on, emotionally and structurally. I can't wait until it does "click" for me, because it's ever fascinating, but I can't quite enjoy it yet...
Quote from: Spitvalve on June 02, 2009, 09:56:06 AM
While I won't say the symphonies are better than the Cello Cto., I find them rather more than "trifling entertainments." Indeed, they are deep and multifaceted works, more emotionally and structurally complex than the CC. I can understand, however, why some people have trouble with them.
'Trifling entertainments' is a mischaracterization of the pieces (they're far too substantial to be entertaining after the manner of
Mozart symphonies . . . so I rather expect
Dave was tugging a foot). Speaking for myself, I have no trouble with the emotion, structure or complexity of the
Elgar symphonies. They just ("just") fail to move me to anything like the degree of the concerti.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 02, 2009, 10:07:17 AM
they're far too substantial to be entertaining after the manner of Mozart symphonies
You mean Cartellieri symphonies I think ;)
Quote from: Lethe on June 02, 2009, 10:06:29 AM
The 2nd symphony especially has a heck of a lot going on, emotionally and structurally.
That is both the attraction and the stumbling block in that piece, IMHO - there's almost
too much going on; it's also full of that atmosphere of subterranean unease and worry that is characteristic of Elgar's best pieces. It's easy to understand why the relatively straightforward 1st Symphony was an instant hit, and the 2nd was an initial flop.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 02, 2009, 10:07:17 AM
'Trifling entertainments' is a mischaracterization of the pieces (they're far too substantial to be entertaining after the manner of Mozart symphonies . . . so I rather expect Dave was tugging a foot). Speaking for myself, I have no trouble with the emotion, structure or complexity of the Elgar symphonies. They just ("just") fail to move me to anything like the degree of the concerti.
Not so much foot-tugging as qualified in a way that's been neglected: "compared to the VCC." Certainly they're less trifling--though perhaps also less entertaining--than the
Oscar Mayer Wiener Song.
Judge for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/v/aNddW2xmZp8
Quote from: Lethe on June 02, 2009, 10:06:29 AM
The 2nd symphony especially has a heck of a lot going on, emotionally and structurally. I can't wait until it does "click" for me, because it's ever fascinating, but I can't quite enjoy it yet...
It's a remarkable work, quite a departure from the 1st.
Quote from: vandermolen on June 02, 2009, 08:00:15 AM
I have a CD of Elgar's Second Symphony played by the USSR Symphony Orchestra under Svelanov - it is a fine, if rather unidiomatic, performance, featuring the braying Soviet horns etc. Well worth investigating if and when it is back in circulation.
One might have thought Barbirolli would produce a definitive interpretation of this piece. His EMI recording seems overblown and downright sloppy. I should probably go for the Boult/Lyrita. In the meantime the Handley/LPO is the one I would recommend to anyone interested in investigating it.
Quote from: drogulus on June 02, 2009, 01:49:52 PM
It's a remarkable work, quite a departure from the 1st.
One might have thought Barbirolli would produce a definitive interpretation of this piece. His EMI recording seems overblown and downright sloppy. I should probably go for the Boult/Lyrita. In the meantime the Handley/LPO is the one I would recommend to anyone interested in investigating it.
I think that there are two recordings by Barbirolli on EMI of Elgar's Second Symphony. The earlier one is often more highly rated for being a sharper and more incisive performance.
Quote from: Lethe on June 02, 2009, 09:52:39 AM
Personally, I find the concerto says just as much in a shorter and more concise form.
Well, Elgar's cello concerto is amazingly economic work.
Quote from: Lethe on June 02, 2009, 09:52:39 AMI also prefer the thinner scoring.
Always? For me it varies. Today thin scoring, tomorrow thick. That's why we have symphonies and oratorios for "thick" days and violin sonatas and solo cello suites for thin days. People complain Elgar's thick "overblown" scoring but I think it's just that they have calibrated themselves with works by other composers with thinner style. I see it so that Elgar was one of those "brave" composers who took the scoring on the level 20th century symphonies deserve and what is logical considering the advantages in orchestration during the 19th century.
Quote from: Lethe on June 02, 2009, 09:52:39 AMI also prefer the violin concerto to the symphonies at the moment, as I feel the soloist gives some much-needed focus and impetus, which is a slight difficulty I have with the symphonies.
Elgar's violin concerto is awesome.
Quote from: Lethe on June 02, 2009, 10:06:29 AM
The 2nd symphony especially has a heck of a lot going on, emotionally and structurally. I can't wait until it does "click" for me, because it's ever fascinating, but I can't quite enjoy it yet...
Yes, it is a complex work but everything works perfectly as always with Elgar. I had to hear it 6-7 times before I felt I understand everything. Fortunately Elgar has layers and his works open to us layer by layer so at least for me the first time is always enjoyable too (and makes me very interested to understand more).
Quote from: 71 dB on June 03, 2009, 07:50:26 AM
Well, Elgar's cello concerto is amazingly economic work.
Compared to Wagner, Bruckner, and Mahler, at least.
Hmmm... (I've heard Elgar #1 once, #2 not at all, but the Cello Concerto many times and I've also played it in orchestra, so perhaps my comments will be a little prejudiced.)
I suspect the reason many of us prefer Elgar's Cello Concerto to his Symphonies is more emotional than technical. Symphony #1 is an essentially optimistic work, while the Concerto is essentially pessimistic and thus more in tune with 20th- and 21st-century angst.
Quote from: jochanaan on June 03, 2009, 09:50:35 AM
Hmmm... (I've heard Elgar #1 once, #2 not at all, but the Cello Concerto many times and I've also played it in orchestra, so perhaps my comments will be a little prejudiced.)
I suspect the reason many of us prefer Elgar's Cello Concerto to his Symphonies is more emotional than technical. Symphony #1 is an essentially optimistic work, while the Concerto is essentially pessimistic and thus more in tune with 20th- and 21st-century angst.
Surely Elgar's Second Symphony is shot through with a sense of foreboding - the end of Empire etc. I think that there are also some dark currents in Symphony No 1. Both symphonies I find more 'emotional' than 'technical'. Today I bought the CD with Elgar conducting his own First Symphony which I am looking forward to playing.
The "Greatest 20th Century Symphonies" thread is turning into the "Elgar" thread ;D
I like the symphonies, but they seem bloated to me, and I don't think he handled the structures as well as he might (the symphonies near the 1 hour mark, while the vc concerto is half that).
I think this is the unfortunate influence of his period. Elgar is very much a peer of Mahler and R Strauss, IMO, but his efforts to partake in the humungousness of Late Romantic symphonic music worked against what I might characterise as his typically taciturn English nature. OTOH, I believe his symphonies would benefit from performances at once much swifter, and more romantically expressive in the older tradition.
Quote from: eyeresist on June 03, 2009, 06:16:41 PM
I believe his symphonies would benefit from performances at once much swifter, and more romantically expressive in the older tradition.
Judging by Elgar's own recordings, he would agree with you. So would some later conductors, like Solti, who deliberately took Elgar's recordings as a model.
Quote from: Spitvalve on June 03, 2009, 09:51:31 PM
Judging by Elgar's own recordings, he would agree with you. So would some later conductors, like Solti, who deliberately took Elgar's recordings as a model.
Axiomatic but untrue - Solti is swifter than the modern standard, but without the shaping of the older performances.
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 27, 2009, 05:44:24 AM
Not if I"m in the room. ;D
V--What standard do you propose for judging "greatness" if not posters' favorites? I presume you have something in mind other than sheer size (Mahler's 8th must contend)...?
Or, in the absence of an agreed upon standard, perhaps I'm not the only one who would be interested in hearing what qualifies these works as "great" in the judgment of their advocates...?
So many great ones over the centuries mentioned on This thread. There is one symphony I think is superb. The problem is that it was not yet recorded for general distribution. I received it courtesy of the Joseph Marx Society. I'm referring to the "Herbstsymphonie."
A couple of months ago I posted a thread on masterworks with sustained intensity. Many works mentioned on this thread relate to this. Then so does the "Herbstsymphonie. I believe it was fairly recently performed in New York.
Thia "Autumn Symphony is not a work that contains just "moments" of inspiration. Marx wrote several interesting works with superb sections, at least in my perspective. Marx must have been consumed by supreme genius upon composing this work. Early 1920,s I believe. It is an exhilarating, intensely romantic, subtle color infusions, dramatic work with absolutely no "weak" passages. I listen to it over and again, and it is still fresh for me. Just a personal asseveration.
Quote from: vandermolen on June 02, 2009, 03:59:25 PM
I think that there are two recordings by Barbirolli on EMI of Elgar's Second Symphony. The earlier one is often more highly rated for being a sharper and more incisive performance.
... or you could all save up for the next ten months and come watch it with me on Saturday April 3 2010:
Chicago Symphony Orchestra
Elgar 2
Chicago Symphony Orchestra
Sir Mark Elder, conductor
Elena Urioste, violin
Tippett - Concerto for Double String Orchestra
Vaughan Williams - The Lark Ascending
Elgar - Symphony No. 2
Quote from: vandermolen on May 30, 2009, 03:09:03 AM
I would agree with just about all these choices, although the Simpson still eludes me (No 1 is my favourite of his), I would go for BS Symphony No 4, although No 3 is also magnificent, especially the last movement. Holmboe's 7th Symphony stands very high in my estimation. Vermeulen (in my 'complete edition' :))I will listen to again today. Tubin's 1st, 2nd and 4th are my favourites.
There are so many great ones including that are are unknown or Even recorded. This is not unlike a confession as I'm listing personal favorites which may not seem great to our posters. 'll bite and a few that I consider transcendental.
Honneger's 5th
VW's 4th and 6th
Bax's 3rd. 5th, and 6th
Tchaikovsky's "Manfred"
Krein's 1st Symphony "After Scriabin;"
Gliere's 3rd.
Barber's 1st (all may not agree here!)
Uuno Klami's "Symphonie enfantine"
Schostakovich's 10th Symphony
Paul Creston's 2nd, (underrated)
Sibelius' 4th, 5th, and 6th
Suk "Asrael" Symphony
Marx "Herbstsymphonie"
Quote from: schweitzeralan on July 06, 2009, 07:39:46 PM
There are so many great ones including that are are unknown or Even recorded. This is not unlike a confession as I'm listing personal favorites which may not seem great to our posters. 'll bite and a few that I consider transcendental.
Honneger's 5th
VW's 4th and 6th
Bax's 3rd. 5th, and 6th
Tchaikovsky's "Manfred"
Krein's 1st Symphony "After Scriabin;"
Gliere's 3rd.
Barber's 1st (all may not agree here!)
Uuno Klami's "Symphonie enfantine"
Schostakovich's 10th Symphony
Paul Creston's 2nd, (underrated)
Sibelius' 4th, 5th, and 6th
Suk "Asrael" Symphony
Marx "Herbstsymphonie"
Once again I am in agreement. Tell me about Krein's First Symphony which I don't know. Coincidentally I have recently been playing Creston's Second Symphony (which I have on Koch, Chandos and Naxos ::)). I agree that it is one of the great American symphonies, as is David Diamond's Third Symphony which should also be much better known. I don't know the Marx either. I love Honegger's 5th but No 3 is his greatest IMHO.
ps added later: I'm interested to see that Alexander Krein wrote a piece entitled 'USSR, Shock Brigade of the World Proletariat'!
For another great, but virtually unknown, symphony let me add Frank Martin's. Buy the Chandos (I've probably plugged it before, though).
Quote from: vandermolen on July 07, 2009, 02:58:22 AM
Once again I am in agreement. Tell me about Krein's First Symphony which I don't know. Coincidentally I have recently been playing Creston's Second Symphony (which I have on Koch, Chandos and Naxos ::)). I agree that it is one of the great American symphonies, as is David Diamond's Third Symphony which should also be much better known. I don't know the Marx either. I love Honegger's 5th but No 3 is his greatest IMHO.
ps added later: I'm interested to see that Alexander Krein wrote a piece entitled 'USSR, Shock Brigade of the World Proletariat'!
Krein is not a particularly prolific composer. He did compose a good deal of vocal pieces. I have several piano sheet music, plus the one recording of the Symphony and the exquisite Piano Sonata. He has a great "feel" of what I would call "color" in his work. Not literal. Not synesthetic. His few works that I know are subtle and engaging.
Quote from: Jezetha on May 28, 2009, 11:22:54 PM
Mahler, 6th Symphony
Sibelius, 4th Symphony
Brian, 1st Symphony, 'Gothic'
RVW, 5th Symphony
Harris, 3rd Symphony
Pettersson, 15th Symphony
Nielsen, 6th Symphony
Elgar, 1st Symphony
Stravinsky, Symphony in Three Movements
Martinu, 5th Symphony
Tubin, 6th Symphony
Orthel, 2nd Symphony
Hartmann, 6th Symphony
Prokofiev, 6th Symphony
Shostakovich, 4th Symphony
Honegger, 3rd Symphony
Bax, 1st Symphony
Moeran, Symphony in G minor
and the list goes on...
My three are at the top of Jezetha's list.
Sarge
Quote from: DavidRoss on June 02, 2009, 08:49:01 AM
Is there anyone on earth besides Poju who honestly regards either of them as among the noblest musical utterances of that incredible century?
Yes, there are quite a few who believe that...and not all of us are Englishmen ;) Elgar rather defines "nobility" in music.
Quote from: eyeresist on June 03, 2009, 06:16:41 PM
I believe his symphonies would benefit from performances at once much swifter, and more romantically expressive in the older tradition.
For me Sinopoli mines the greatest emotional depths in the Second Symphony, and he does that by employing slower than normal tempos and exaggerating the expressive elements. He, in effect,
Mahlerizes Elgar. I prefer slower tempos in Elgar's First also.
Sarge
Even though most people disagree, I'm going to pull an Eric and disagree with consensus and say that Stravinsky is one of the finest symphonists of the 20th century. All of his small handful of symphonies are all remarkably different from each other in style, but all exceptional, beautiful and thrilling works.
Quote from: DavidW on July 07, 2009, 07:03:58 AM
Even though most people disagree, I'm going to pull an Eric and disagree with consensus and say that Stravinsky is one of the finest symphonists of the 20th century. All of his small handful of symphonies are all remarkably different from each other in style, but all exceptional, beautiful and thrilling works.
I agree with this (although I haven't heard the early Sym. in Eb). I even have high regard for the Symphony in C, a work which (for reasons that escape me) a lot of people seem to have trouble with.
Quote from: Spitvalve on July 07, 2009, 09:30:21 AM
I agree with this (although I haven't heard the early Sym. in Eb). I even have high regard for the Symphony in C, a work which (for reasons that escape me) a lot of people seem to have trouble with.
Yeah that Symphony in C many are bored by many, but even now I can instantly recall that wonderful opening of that symphony, it sings in my head. 0:)
it begs the question about what constitutes a symphony in the 20th century. Does something have to be called a symphony to count? Dutilleux's Metaboles is every bit as much of a symphony as his Symphony #2. Do no orchestral works by Bartok, Ligeti or Xenakis count? Does only Turangalîla qualify in Messiaen's repertoire?
Adams's Naive and Sentimental Music seems like a symphony. Pretty good music, too.
Did Bartók write any symphonies, whether named as such or not?
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 07, 2009, 04:59:07 PM
Did Bartók write any symphonies, whether named as such or not?
He apparently did, but only a scherzo movement survives (BB 25, DD 68).
Another attempt, to keep this thread alive: ;)
Mahler 6
Vaughan Williams 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 :)
Nielsen 5, 6
Tubin 6, 8
Holmboe 7, 8
Brian 1 (`Gothic'), 8
Martinů 5
Stravinsky Symphony in three movements
Braga Santos 3
Shostakovich 15
Barber 2 $:)
Simpson 9
Honegger 5
Moeran
Arnold 9
Quote from: Christo on July 08, 2009, 03:06:35 AM
Another attempt, to keep this thread alive: ;)
Mahler 6
Vaughan Williams 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 :)
Nielsen 5, 6
Tubin 6, 8
Holmboe 7, 8
Brian 1 (`Gothic'), 8
Martinů 5
Stravinsky Symphony in three movements
Braga Santos 3
Shostakovich 15
Barber 2 $:)
Simpson 9
Honegger 5
Moeran
Arnold 9
Choices with which I wholeheartedly agree (I don't know the Stravinsky well)
Barber No 2 is indeed very underrated (not least by the composer himself)
Here we go again ;D
Tubin Symphony 2 and 4
Braga Santos (for it is he 8)) Symphony 4
Bax Symphony 5
Moeran Symphony
Lilburn Symphony 1
Copland Symphony 3
Creston Symphony 2
Bernstein Jeremiah
Orr Symphony in one movement
Miaskovsky Symphony 17
Martinu Symphony 4
Honegger Symphony 3 and 5 (you can get them on one CD on Chandos)
Alwyn Symphony 2
Arnold Symphony 6
Rosenberg Symphony 3
Langgaard Symphony 4
Brian Symphony 2,8,9,10
Pettersson Symphony 6 ('the long struggle towards the sunrise') and 7
Vaughan Williams Symphony 6
Elgar Symphony 2 and reconstructed 3
Mahler Symphony 6 and 9.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on July 07, 2009, 06:30:27 AM
For me Sinopoli mines the greatest emotional depths in the Second Symphony, and he does that by employing slower than normal tempos and exaggerating the expressive elements. He, in effect, Mahlerizes Elgar. I prefer slower tempos in Elgar's First also.
I do agree that Elgar the symphonist is in fact a brother of Mahler. Of course, I like reasonably swift tempos (plus expressiveness) in my Mahler too.
Quote from: schweitzeralan on June 12, 2009, 02:12:51 PM
So many great ones over the centuries mentioned on This thread. There is one symphony I think is superb. The problem is that it was not yet recorded for general distribution. I received it courtesy of the Joseph Marx Society. I'm referring to the "Herbstsymphonie."
A couple of months ago I posted a thread on masterworks with sustained intensity. Many works mentioned on this thread relate to this. Then so does the "Herbstsymphonie. I believe it was fairly recently performed in New York.
Thia "Autumn Symphony is not a work that contains just "moments" of inspiration. Marx wrote several interesting works with superb sections, at least in my perspective. Marx must have been consumed by supreme genius upon composing this work. Early 1920,s I believe. It is an exhilarating, intensely romantic, subtle color infusions, dramatic work with absolutely no "weak" passages. I listen to it over and again, and it is still fresh for me. Just a personal asseveration.
Also, I forgot to mention Alexander Krein's sympony "After Scriabin." Agaon, much color, chromatic and beautifully conceived musical themes which impregnate this wonderful work. Not a prolific composer, unfortunately. His "Piano Sonata," although obviously not symphonic, is a gem; an admixture of Russian color, Scriabinesque harmonies, and Jewish elements thrive in most of his pianistic works.
Quote from: bwv 1080 on July 07, 2009, 04:24:21 PM
it begs the question about what constitutes a symphony in the 20th century. Does something have to be called a symphony to count? Dutilleux's Metaboles is every bit as much of a symphony as his Symphony #2. Do no orchestral works by Bartok, Ligeti or Xenakis count? Does only Turangalîla qualify in Messiaen's repertoire?
What is it that makes the Turangalila so great? What an I mising? I have other works by Messiaen including some early with evident post Ravelian influences as well as several with modernist orientation. Several of these I do appreciate; yet his supposed masterwork escapes me. Pour quoi Olivier?
Quote from: schweitzeralan on August 01, 2009, 05:09:33 AM
What is it that makes the Turangalila so great?
I have been wondering that too. :P It's a tiresome mess of random noises but perhaps many want to hear exactly that.
Well, I don't know about a "tiresome mess of random noises," but I do know a number of Messiaen fans who find that piece a little too--trying to find the right word--"obvious." A lot of his music may have more mystery.
It's a bit showy and effusive, perhaps, and as with a lot of his music, his penchant for repeating figures over and over will either put you in a trance or have you running for the exit. But nevertheless a great performance can have you cheering. (And like most things, it is best heard in person.) I heard a fantastic one last year at Carnegie Hall, with David Robertson and the Saint Louis Symphony Orchestra.
--Bruce
Quote from: bhodges on August 01, 2009, 05:34:18 AM
Well, I don't know about a "tiresome mess of random noises," but I do know a number of Messiaen fans who find that piece a little too--trying to find the right word--"obvious." A lot of his music may have more mystery.
I haven't explored Messiaen beyond Turangalila because it turned me off. There's too much interesting music to explore for one lifetime so why waiste time to Messiaen's mysteries?
Absolutely true. I agree completely. If a composer--any composer--doesn't speak to you after you have given him/her a chance, time to move on.
--Bruce
Quote from: bhodges on August 01, 2009, 06:43:34 AM
Absolutely true. I agree completely. If a composer--any composer--doesn't speak to you after you have given him/her a chance, time to move on.
--Bruce
I think I should give Messiaen another chance. I think I sampled some of his organ music too but I found it extremely slow, tiresome and boring. Messiaen doesn't seem to be a master of rhythm, is he?
Quote from: 71 dB on August 01, 2009, 06:55:36 AM
I think I should give Messiaen another chance. I think I sampled some of his organ music too but I found it extremely slow, tiresome and boring. Messiaen doesn't seem to be a master of rhythm, is he?
Well, can't agree with the rhythm comment, and given your reaction to his organ output, I suspect Messiaen just isn't for you. Thankfully, there are thousands of other composers!
--Bruce
Quote from: bhodges on August 01, 2009, 07:01:11 AM
Thankfully, there are thousands of other composers!
--Bruce
And if all of these composers aren't enough, there's tons of non-classical music. :P
Quote from: vandermolen on July 08, 2009, 05:19:20 AM
Pettersson Symphony 6 ('the long struggle towards the sunrise') and 7
Pettersson's symphonies on BIS has been added to Spotify. I am listening to #7 now. My first taste of this composer! 0:)
Quote from: 71 dB on August 01, 2009, 06:55:36 AM
I think I should give Messiaen another chance. I think I sampled some of his organ music too but I found it extremely slow, tiresome and boring. Messiaen doesn't seem to be a master of rhythm, is he?
I think he's hit and miss. I like Quartet for the End of Time. I think Messiaen is polarizing, fanatics find his music to be deeply stirring, and everyone else thinks it's tiresome! :D
Quote from: DavidW on August 01, 2009, 08:02:48 AM
I think he's hit and miss. I like Quartet for the End of Time. I think Messiaen is polarizing, fanatics find his music to be deeply stirring, and everyone else thinks it's tiresome! :D
See, I love the Quartet for the End of Time. The Turang. Symphony is definitely different.....a unique work for sure.
Wonder if there is a thread on composers that are "Who you think are the most polarizing composers?" I'm sure Wagner and Messiaen would both rank high on that list. :) I'm thinking Debussy and Schoenberg as others too. And dare I say it......Beethoven! ;D
Quote from: bhodges on August 01, 2009, 05:34:18 AM
Well, I don't know about a "tiresome mess of random noises," but I do know a number of Messiaen fans who find that piece a little too--trying to find the right word--"obvious." A lot of his music may have more mystery.
I've heard the Turangalila live -twice - and while parts of it are exhilarating, there is far too much repetition and what to me seems like aimless noise (and I'm not adverse to noise). The problem with Messiaen to me, is that his mysterious music to me is simply dull. Aimlessly unstructured and plain dull. That doesn't leave much. I'm guessed I'm not cut out for meditative mystery, chanting ooooooommmmmmmmmmmm for hours.
And I have the 32 CD DG box.......
Quote from: ChamberNut on August 01, 2009, 08:22:29 AM
Wonder if there is a thread on composers that are "Who you think are the most polarizing composers?" I'm sure Wagner and Messiaen would both rank high on that list. :) I'm thinking Debussy and Schoenberg as others too. And dare I say it......Beethoven! ;D
Let's see also Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Schumann, Wagner, and Mahler all have drawn their share of love/hate relationships on this forum... ;D
Quote from: bhodges on August 01, 2009, 07:01:11 AM
Well, can't agree with the rhythm comment, and given your reaction to his organ output, I suspect Messiaen just isn't for you. Thankfully, there are thousands of other composers!
--Bruce
Well stated. Messiaen will have his fans.
Not the greatest, perhaps. But at least the greatest symphony I `discovered' recently and keep listening to, even during my holidays in Lesbos. I mean the unjustly neglected Arnold Cooke (1906-2005) and his masterly First Symphony (1947). Its only recording dating from as long ago as 1989, only te have been released in 2007 and hardly reviewed or paid any attention to, AFAIK. Yet the most impressive `unknown' symphony I've heard in years:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51v8zLYeRJL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Quote from: James on August 01, 2009, 11:12:06 AM
Only to your unadjusted ears in which it may take some time, but his music is very much-so meticulously structured, it just flows & is formed in a different manor that's quite alien to the western classical tradition.
I know, and I'm not blaiming Messiaen; but of all (presumedly) great composers, he's the one I absolutely cannot seem to get a grip on. I try, and try again, and end up getting bored to death, or getting seasick of all the (seemngly) aimlessly changing tonalites and all the frantick movement going nowhere.. I'm quite aware that there's method to the madness. "But not for me"; to quote Gershwin.
Mahler 6 & 7
Stravinsky, symphony on three movements
Webern, symphony op 21
Lutoslawski, symphonies 2, 3 & 4
I can't understand how people are ranking Vaughan Williams' symphonies among the greatest of the century. The fact that he was eclectic is not the issue, but the way he cobbled together other composers techniques & ideas is just not funny. I can hear the influence of Beethoven, Brahms, Puccini, Ravel, Busoni, Mahler in RVW's symphonies. The worst, not the best, has to be the 6th which is a rehash of ideas from other composers. Probably the best is the monothematic 4th, which is quite direct & unaffected. Basically, I don't think RVW can be ranked along Mahler, Shostakovich, Martinu or even Bax as a great symphonist of the C20th. At best, he was just a minor composer.
Everybody is entitled to an opinion. The fact that a sizable number of music lovers - and conductors - rate VW' symphonies highly indicates he has a devoted following - like Martinu, Prokofiev or Nielsen. Can't you live with that simple fact without developing an ulcer? :P
Quote from: Sid on August 04, 2009, 05:31:33 PM
The worst, not the best, has to be the 6th which is a rehash of ideas from other composers. At best, he was just a minor composer.
Both of these statements are rubbish.
Quote from: James on August 01, 2009, 10:57:54 AM
You haven't been listening close enough then. Rhythm is one of the unique hallmarks of his music.
Messiaen - Quatuor pour la fin des temps 6th mouvment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhOZCdevBEM
Driving Messiaen Fugue from Vingt Regards
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtE0Y7wUfCQ
Messiaen - Oiseaux Exotiques - Aimard, Boulez Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht5qqE_e1UE
Thanks for the examples!
Sorry, but this music is incomprehensible to me. I'm sure Messiaen had some weird systematic methods to create his music but I perceive it all as random notes. Well, actually the first example sounds like a starting point of a work by Michael Torke who's music I enjoy but I prefer finished works.
People have different tastes or some people just don't have the required intelligence to decode certain music. Classical music can be bad for your self-esteem. It makes me feel inferior not to get Messiaen. This kind of music is dangerous when we try to lure people into the world of classical music. They will run away for good! :P
Quote from: Lilas Pastia on August 04, 2009, 06:23:45 PM
The fact that a sizable number of music lovers - and conductors - rate VW' symphonies highly...
This of course doesn't mean anything. Millions of people rate Madonna's music highly. I'm pretty sure VW's symphonies are greater music than Madonna's pop. ;D
Quote from: Sid on August 04, 2009, 05:31:33 PM
I can't understand how people are ranking Vaughan Williams' symphonies among the greatest of the century. The fact that he was eclectic is not the issue, but the way he cobbled together other composers techniques & ideas is just not funny. I can hear the influence of Beethoven, Brahms, Puccini, Ravel, Busoni, Mahler in RVW's symphonies. The worst, not the best, has to be the 6th which is a rehash of ideas from other composers. Probably the best is the monothematic 4th, which is quite direct & unaffected. Basically, I don't think RVW can be ranked along Mahler, Shostakovich, Martinu or even Bax as a great symphonist of the C20th. At best, he was just a minor composer.
I think that either you respond to Vaughan Williams's music - or you don't. Clearly you don't. No composer exists in a vacuum and all are to some extent influenced by what has been written before but I feel that VW has a very distinct style - instantly recognisable after only a few bars. I don't agree that he 'cobbled together' other composers' techniques and ideas. As to his 'greatness' that is a subjective view and we need to respect the different views - but I believe that symphonies 4-6 and 9 are great works of humanity and vision. The 1913 version of A London Symphony has been a revelation too. You don't mention Sibelius whom I regard as perhaps the greatest 20th century composer.
Quote from: 71 dB on August 05, 2009, 01:47:31 AM
This of course doesn't mean anything. Millions of people rate Madonna's music highly. I'm pretty sure VW's symphonies are greater music than Madonna's pop. ;D
Vaughan Williams would no doubt be delighted to be damned with such faint praise ::)
I'd have to put in a vote for Erich Wolfgang Korngold's symphony as a 20th century masterpiece. SS
Greatest? Favourite maybe.
In no particular order:
Pettersson 6,7
Sibelius 3 and 4
Mahler 6
Shostakovich 1,4,10
This thread has reminded me that I need to rip some of RVW's symphonies to put on my new cell phone/mp3 player. Let's see: how about #2 by Previn, 3 by Handley, 4 by Slatkin, 5 by Thomson? These four I treasure--the rest I know less well. Any suggestions as to which of the others I ought have with me at all times? (to accompany all of Beethoven's, Mahler's, Sibelius's, Prokofiev's, and a smattering of others, like Mendelsson's 4th...one never knows when Mendelssohn's 4th may prove just the ticket for turning around a debilitating funk!)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 11, 2009, 06:45:08 AMNo love for Nielsen?
I don't know, never tried Nielsen, always wanted to, but time is limited... Well I still haven't listened to all Mahler, RVW or Shostakovich Symphonies...
Wm. Schuman Symphony # 3
Hindemith Symphony in E Flat
Shostakovich Symphony # 5
Shostakovich Symphony # 8
Mahler Symphonies # 3, 5, 7 & 9
Quote from: Wurstwasser on August 11, 2009, 07:05:38 AM
I don't know, never tried Nielsen, always wanted to, but time is limited... Well I still haven't listened to all Mahler, RVW or Shostakovich Symphonies...
Time is short...better get with it! Man does not live by Sibelius alone. ;D
Quote from: Slezak on August 06, 2009, 05:12:13 AM
I'd have to put in a vote for Erich Wolfgang Korngold's symphony as a 20th century masterpiece. SS
As would I. It really amazes me that that symphony doesn't get more attention/recordings.
First things first-- I'm not going to pretend to know what the "greatest" means for everyone-- this is a purely subjective listing. In some cases I'll latch onto a symphony where, even if I don't like the whole thing as much, there are parts that are worth the price of admission.
I'm also going to limit to one per composer. Some of these are likely to change--
Orthel # 3
Mennin #3
Barber #1
Moeran in G Minor (LOVE THIS)
RVW #6
Prokofiev #3
Shostakovitch # 10
Miaskovsky-- # 16-- for now.
Hanson # 4
Alwyn #3
Diamond #2
Copeland- Organ Symphony
Atterburg #5
Holmboe #4 (for now...)
Walton #1
Bax #2
Arnold #5
Rubbra #4
Sibelius #4
Braga Santos #4
Koechlin 7 Stars
Malipiero 3 (for now...)
Nielsen 6
Bernstein # 2 (second half-- I can skip the first half)
Creston #2 (The second movement for sure)
Rorem #3
Simpson #9
Katchaturian #2
Naturally, your mileage may vary.
Quote from: DavidRoss on August 11, 2009, 07:04:57 AM
This thread has reminded me that I need to rip some of RVW's symphonies to put on my new cell phone/mp3 player. Let's see: how about #2 by Previn, 3 by Handley, 4 by Slatkin, 5 by Thomson? These four I treasure--the rest I know less well. Any suggestions as to which of the others I ought have with me at all times?
7 by Previn is most epic, but I'd edit out the speaking parts. Thomson is my controversial pick for 8 - I find him grandest.
[RVW Antarctica/7]
Quote from: eyeresist on August 12, 2009, 08:03:55 PM7 by Previn is most epic, but I'd edit out the speaking parts.
I like it with the speaking parts. I love the whole Previn 7. Really slow, mighty, unforgiving and hopeless. Hey, is Antarctica a Tone Poem ;)?
I once uploaded the beginning for you, here it is again:
[mp3=200,20,0,left]http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/9/21/1446950/rvw7-1.mp3[/mp3]
Did we forget
Bruckner? I'll add:
- Bruckner Symphonies Nos. 5, 7 and 8.
Quote from: Grazioso on August 12, 2009, 04:34:43 AM
As would I. It really amazes me that that symphony doesn't get more attention/recordings.
I know of 5 recordings - Previn, Kempe, Albert, Downes and Welser-Möst. The last one I still have to hear. Kempe and Downes are very good. I love this work, too.
Quote from: Wurstwasser on August 13, 2009, 05:30:15 AM
[RVW Antarctica/7]
Did we forget Bruckner? I'll add:
- Bruckner Symphonies Nos. 5, 7 and 8.
Unfortunately, he doesn't qualify due to the criteria of the thread. But, he sure does sound like his music could easily fit the 20th century and I'm absolutely certain that many of his works would be cited if not for when composed.
Quote from: DavidRoss on August 12, 2009, 04:29:29 AMTime is short...better get with it! Man does not live by Sibelius alone. ;D
Nielsen is on my radar... One day... No, not "Sibelius alone" just because of my Avatar. Currently I'm listening to RVW a lot. Symphony No. 7 unfortunately covers my current situation pretty well. The difference is, I failed, but can stand up again.
Quote from: Tomo on August 13, 2009, 12:18:33 PMUnfortunately, he doesn't qualify due to the criteria of the thread. But, he sure does sound like his music could easily fit the 20th century
Gna. 20th century :) I was so surprised nobody mentioned Bruckner...
Any love for RVW Symphony No. 2 "London Symphony" here? It's my favourite RVW one. Don't know 1,2,8 though...
Quote from: Wurstwasser on August 13, 2009, 08:01:52 PM
Any love for RVW Symphony No. 2 "London Symphony" here? It's my favourite RVW one. Don't know 1,2,8 though...
Que?
Drunk in the morning isn't good ;). Dont't know RVW 1,8,9. I think I should disappear from this thread. :D
Quote from: Wurstwasser on August 13, 2009, 08:01:52 PM
Nielsen is on my radar... One day...
Great 20th century symphonists cannot be talked about without Carl Nielsen imo. 0:) At least check out his fourth symphony sooner rather than later. ;)
Quote from: Wurstwasser on August 13, 2009, 08:01:52 PMAny love for RVW Symphony No. 2 "London Symphony" here? It's my favourite RVW one. Don't know 1,2,8 though...
Yep, I like #2 very much.
Quote from: Wurstwasser on August 13, 2009, 08:01:52 PM
Nielsen is on my radar... One day... No, not "Sibelius alone" just because of my Avatar. Currently I'm listening to RVW a lot. Symphony No. 7 unfortunately covers my current situation pretty well. The difference is, I failed, but can stand up again.
Gna. 20th century :) I was so surprised nobody mentioned Bruckner...
Any love for RVW Symphony No. 2 "London Symphony" here? It's my favourite RVW one. Don't know 1,2,8 though...
Yes (re VW Symphony No 2), especially in the 1913 original version. VW later cut out the best bit of the symphony - just before the end - big mistake IMHO.
Quote from: Wurstwasser on August 13, 2009, 08:01:52 PM
Any love for RVW Symphony No. 2 "London Symphony" here? It's my favourite RVW one. Don't know 1,2,8 though...
Typo? This reads as though one of the symphonies you don't know, is your favorite . . . .
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 18, 2009, 04:07:40 AM
Typo? This reads as though one of the symphonies you don't know, is your favorite . . . .
I think he already answered my intelligent question about this:
Quote from: erato on August 13, 2009, 09:27:43 PM
Que?
by this:
Quote from: Wurstwasser on August 14, 2009, 07:01:39 AM
Drunk in the morning isn't good ;). Dont't know RVW 1,8,9. I think I should disappear from this thread. :D
Quote from: erato on August 18, 2009, 05:32:22 AM
I think he already answered my intelligent question about this
Got it.
FWIW, I thought your post:
Quote from: erato on August 13, 2009, 09:27:43 PM
Que?
. . . was an appeal to the moderator 0:)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 18, 2009, 05:46:04 AM
Got it.
FWIW, I thought your post:
. . . was an appeal to the moderator 0:)
No, it was a take on Manuel in Fawlty Towers, his standard response when something was beyond him.
Quote from: erato on August 18, 2009, 08:12:35 AM
No, it was a take on Manuel in Fawlty Towers, his standard response when something was beyond him.
(http://www.virginmedia.com/images/manuel-fawlty-towers-290.jpg)
Quote from: Cato on May 27, 2009, 04:24:11 AM
Hartmann's entire output, but especially the Sixth Symphony.
Ives Symphony #4.
Mahler's Symphonies 5-10.
Martinu's entire output, but especially the Fifth Symphony.
Prokofiev's Symphonies 2,3, and 6.
Shostakovich's Tenth Symphony
Zemlinsky's Lyric Symphony.
Khachaturian's 2nd Symphony is right up there.
Quote from: schweitzeralan on December 13, 2009, 04:40:37 AM
Khachaturian's 2nd Symphony is right up there.
I think it's alright, certainly wouldn't say great, but FWIW a lot of critics don't seem to like it at all.
Quote from: Benji on December 13, 2009, 06:20:49 PM
I think it's alright, certainly wouldn't say great, but FWIW a lot of critics don't seem to like it at all.
Understood. So many listeners, professionals and lay listeners alike, vary in their opinions. I recognize so many of the 'great ones," Bach, Haydn, Handel, Vivaldi, et. al. Yet appreciate none of the early Western giants (and midgets alike). I can feel passionate about major and near major composers of the 20th century. I know not why. Just personal, I assume. Asi es la vida.
Quote from: schweitzeralan on December 13, 2009, 04:40:37 AM
Khachaturian's 2nd Symphony is right up there.
I think it's great too ;D
Only just noticed this thread - i have great trouble in defining greatest as opposed to favourite in fact dont think i can define greatest so will do favourite instead
Shostakovich Symphony 8 - my favourite symphony of all i think because of the atmosphere
Vaughan Williams Symphony 5 - i find if virtually impossible to split his 3 4 5 6 all totally different but 5 is so beautiful it wins in a photo finish ;D
Sibelius Symphony 4 - like being lost in a cocoon of shadows - mood music supreme......
I'm unfamiliar with huge swathes of 20th century music so I only really know the works of the most famous composers.From the symphonies I know well I would choose these.I've no idea how great they are, I just know that I like them.
Sibelius no 2, 4 & 5
Prokofiev no 5
Shostakovich no 8 & 11
R Strauss - An Alpine Symphony (not sure if it's a symphony or not)
Rachmaninov no 2
Nielson no 2 & 3
Mahler no 5 & 9
Elgar no 2
Vaughan Williams no 7
Quote from: offbeat on December 14, 2009, 02:46:51 PM
Only just noticed this thread - i have great trouble in defining greatest as opposed to favourite in fact dont think i can define greatest so will do favourite instead
Shostakovich Symphony 8 - my favourite symphony of all i think because of the atmosphere
Vaughan Williams Symphony 5 - i find if virtually impossible to split his 3 4 5 6 all totally different but 5 is so beautiful it wins in a photo finish ;D
Sibelius Symphony 4 - like being lost in a cocoon of shadows - mood music supreme......
What a beautiful, meaningful and representative selection,
offbeat ! I may preffer individual works here and there, but when it's all said and done, the
combination of these three masterpieces seems to summarize the whole century's 'splintered' approach to classical music. Splendid!
Quote from: offbeat on December 14, 2009, 02:46:51 PM
Only just noticed this thread - i have great trouble in defining greatest as opposed to favourite . . . .
Well, with mention of any symphony by Khatchaturian, we may consider the horse out of that barn . . . .
Quote from: Lilas Pastia on December 14, 2009, 07:13:15 PM
Quote from: offbeatShostakovich Symphony 8 - my favourite symphony of all i think because of the atmosphere
Vaughan Williams Symphony 5 - i find if virtually impossible to split his 3 4 5 6 all totally different but 5 is so beautiful it wins in a photo finish ;D
Sibelius Symphony 4 - like being lost in a cocoon of shadows - mood music supreme......
What a beautiful, meaningful and representative selection, offbeat ! I may preffer individual works here and there, but when it's all said and done, the combination of these three masterpieces seems to summarize the whole century's 'splintered' approach to classical music. Splendid!
Hear, hear; lovely selection. And three genuinely great works.
Quote from: Todd on May 27, 2009, 09:14:12 AM
As almost always with such lists, it's more a list of favorites as opposed to greatest per se, at least for me. Below are some I rather fancy. There are quite a few, as it turns out. They're in no particular order.
Hartmann – 4-8
Mahler – 6, 7, & 9 definitely, and probably 5 & 8
Szymanowski – 3, 4
Nielsen – 4, 5, 6
Zemlinsky – Lyric Symphony
Sibelius – 5, 6, & 7 definitely, and almost certainly 2, 3, & 4
Rautavaara – 3, 7, 8
Prokofiev – 5, 6
Ives - 2
Martinu – All
Shostakovich – 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15
Honegger – 3
Carter – Symphonia
Vaughn Williams – 3, 4, 5
Messiaen – Turangalila Symphonie
Enescu – 3 definitely, possibly 2
Stravinsky – Symphony in Three Movements
Lutoslawski – 3 & 4
I'm in the midst of exploring Tubin's symphonic output, and it's extremely good. I need some more time with all of the works before deciding for myself how relatively good or great they are.
I've been listening to Szmanowski's works for several years. I'm appreciative of many works by this significant composer. There are many forum postings on Szymanowski, including my own. I just listened to his 2nd Symphony. I love that first movement. To be sure, there are some Straussian momens, but the first movement is most special, at least To me. This first movement has become quite special. I ask myself why is this this particular segment so intense. Just curious.
Quote from: vandermolen on December 14, 2009, 05:35:05 AM
I think it's great too ;D
Count me in. It may not be the most subtle, but it's a lot of fun.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 15, 2009, 04:59:59 AM
What a beautiful, meaningful and representative selection, offbeat ! I may preffer individual works here and there, but when it's all said and done, the combination of these three masterpieces seems to summarize the whole century's 'splintered' approach to classical music. Splendid!
Hear, hear; lovely selection. And three genuinely great works.
I personally support so many of the postings on this particular thread. I just wanted to include my profound sentiments in regards to the Sibelian symphonies, in particular the splended 4th. Magnificent work.
Quote from: jowcol on June 16, 2010, 01:17:28 PM
Count me in. It may not be the most subtle, but it's a lot of fun.
Very true and great slow movement with relentless use of Dies Irae theme + tragedy turning to triumph conclusion always appeals to me, as with Shostakovich Symphony 11. Timmyb's choice of Vaughan Williams' 7th Symphony is an interesting one, as most would choose 3-6. I recall that the Haitink recording tended to change some people's view of the Antartica Symphony, seeing it as less of a programme work, cobbled together from film music, and more of a genuine symphony in its own right. I realise that the Haitink cycle is not generally well regarded here.
Mahler's 9th, all of prokofiev and shostakovich's symphonies.
Quote from: offbeat on December 14, 2009, 02:46:51 PM
Only just noticed this thread - i have great trouble in defining greatest as opposed to favourite in fact dont think i can define greatest so will do favourite instead
Shostakovich Symphony 8 - my favourite symphony of all i think because of the atmosphere
Vaughan Williams Symphony 5 - i find if virtually impossible to split his 3 4 5 6 all totally different but 5 is so beautiful it wins in a photo finish ;D
Sibelius Symphony 4 - like being lost in a cocoon of shadows - mood music supreme......
Good point presented in terms of that which is 'greatest' as perhaps distinguished from a listener's adjudication of a particular work due to personal preferences in terms of style, harmonics, rhythm, etc. This may be true in part to my own intense appreciation of Joseph Marx's "Autumn Symphony." I've discussed his works previously on this forum. I truly think it is a symphonic masterpiece. Moreover, I do like the "style," the musical "language" I was most pleased to receive a recording of the work courtesy of the Marx Society. Strauss of course is much better known and recognized. But Marx is a convincing musical voice.
I increasingly like Bloch's early Symphony in C sharp minor, which only just comes into the 20th century. Maybe the influence of Mahler and R Strauss are not assimilated but there are fascinating echoes of Bloch's later style and the redemptive/valedictory ending is terrific.
Quote from: vandermolen on June 21, 2010, 12:32:29 PM
Very true and great slow movement with relentless use of Dies Irae theme + tragedy turning to triumph conclusion always appeals to me...
Do you have a CD recommendation, Jeffery? The Melodiya recording with Khachaturian conducting his Second is being released next month according to JPC. (http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/Aram-Khachaturian-Khachaturian-conducts-Khachaturian/hnum/6538859)
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on June 23, 2010, 05:45:28 AM
Do you have a CD recommendation, Jeffery? The Melodiya recording with Khachaturian conducting his Second is being released next month according to JPC. (http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/Aram-Khachaturian-Khachaturian-conducts-Khachaturian/hnum/6538859)
Sarge
For Kha conducting Kha, what could supercede these?
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51CTLsn45WL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/412HXFV2YDL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Quote from: Scarpia on June 23, 2010, 05:54:07 AM
For Kha conducting Kha, what could supercede these?
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/412HXFV2YDL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Perhaps the Melodiya recording (with the USSR State SO). Soviet music played by a Soviet orchestra is always interesting. But I don't know. I was hoping someone had heard both versions.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on June 23, 2010, 06:00:58 AM
Perhaps the Melodiya recording (with the USSR State SO). Soviet music played by a Soviet orchestra is always interesting. But I don't know. I was hoping someone had heard both versions.
Sarge
Not a big fan of Khachaturian, so having even one seems like a luxury.
Quote from: offbeat on December 14, 2009, 02:46:51 PM
Only just noticed this thread - i have great trouble in defining greatest as opposed to favourite in fact dont think i can define greatest so will do favourite instead
Shostakovich Symphony 8 - my favourite symphony of all i think because of the atmosphere
Vaughan Williams Symphony 5 - i find if virtually impossible to split his 3 4 5 6 all totally different but 5 is so beautiful it wins in a photo finish ;D
Sibelius Symphony 4 - like being lost in a cocoon of shadows - mood music supreme......
I think favorite requires no objectivity, whereas greatest carries the implication that one considers a works place in music generally. That's one way of doing it, anyway.
Rather than choose among works by these composers I'd say that each wrote several symphonies that belong here. A particular great/favorite of mine is the Vaughan Williams 5th in the magical performance by Barbirolli with the Philharmonia.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on June 23, 2010, 05:45:28 AM
Do you have a CD recommendation, Jeffery? The Melodiya recording with Khachaturian conducting his Second is being released next month according to JPC. (http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/Aram-Khachaturian-Khachaturian-conducts-Khachaturian/hnum/6538859)
Sarge
Sarge,
This is my favourite because of the recording (and it is a fine performance too - the opening is wonderfully intimidating). Jpc sent me a 5 euro voucher as I bought something from them before and that new CD of Khachaturian conducting his own Second Symphony on Melodiya looks tempting. However, I have him conducting this on an old Russian Disc CD and wonder if it is the same performance. You would not go wrong with the classic Decca version either (the ASV, I agree, is not so good).
Jeffrey
My favorite 20th Century symphonies? Here are my top 10 in no particular order:
1. Vaughan Williams: Symphony No. 5
2. Sibelius: Symphony No. 5
3. Chavez: Sinfonia India (Symphony No. 2)
4. Tubin: Symphony No. 4
5. Prokofiev: Symphony No. 5
6. Shostakovich: Symphony No. 10
7. Bliss: A Colour Symphony
8. Stravinsky: Symphony of Psalms
9. Bantock: Celtic Symphony
10. Honegger: Symphony No. 2
Hello,
Ah, 20th-century symphonies, one of my lifetime passions ;D
This would be the clearest (!) picture of what I find most essential in the field: http://ttle.perso.neuf.fr/Symphonies/cercles-sy-20s.pdf (http://ttle.perso.neuf.fr/Symphonies/cercles-sy-20s.pdf).
Now, if I had to advise an open-minded newcomer, my suggestion of the day might be the following. Let us start with Northern Europe & the Baltic states.
Sibelius: No. 7 - how material rich enough to fill a 90-minute symphony can be fully expressed within less than 25 minutes and lose none of its grandeur. Has the most wonderful, seamless transitions in any symphony.
C. Nielsen: No. 5 - rhythmic audacity, harmonic series anticipating Messiaen, sublime choral-like parts (especially in the 2nd movement), the dramatic, visionary masterpiece of a great humanist.
Stenhammar: No. 2 - outwardly more traditional than either Sibelius or Nielsen, who were his friends, but with boundless depth, dozens of repeated hearings cannot exhaust this score. Wonderful slow part in the footsteps of Beethoven's 7th.
Rosenberg: No. 4 - more of an oratorio but with intensely symphonic writing. Miraculous oboe solo. Written in 1940, a real work of love and light amidst darkness.
Valen: No. 3 - melancholy, solitary music, demands concentration but the rewards are there, fervent music, perfect melodic lines, counterpoint with a beating heart.
Tubin: No. 8 - one feels more of the craftsman here than in Holmboe, and what beautiful craft that is. No. 8 is less striking than No. 6 but reaches the apex of mystery, nightly sparks, formal elegance. Tubin was a master of endings and this has one of the most magical of all.
Holmboe: No. 11 - less spectacular than No. 8 but maybe even more perfect: mesmerizing beauty blending melody, harmony and timbres, smotth and penetrating light, with the author's ever impressive formal mastery.
Pettersson: No. 13 - as another poster said, one could hesitate with Dante-like No. 9, another giant one-movement symphony. I shall go for the 13th because of its wonderful lyrical islands, the vibrant, almost childlike emotion which can also be found in the 2nd violin concerto.
Kenins: No. 6 - also one of the best Canadian symphonies, a pristine example of Kenins's recreation of the old patterns, here a Bach fugue. The veiled, ghostly textures of the central part are heartbreaking.
Nørgård: No. 3 - demonstrates how triads and harmonic infinity series can actually generate the most complex structures. A scintillating work which really makes you "touch" the celestial spheres, marvellous without being simplistic or even comfortable.
Balakauskas: No. 5 - best synthesis to date of his orchestral universe, a sensual blend of the vivid, daring colours of his more modernist years (e.g. Symphony No. 2) and the more expansive, serene lyricism of his more recent works.
Hello Thanh-Tam Le,
good post and an impressive PDF that is! You raised my interest in some composers again; I'm listening to Holmboe 11 now. Kenins seems to be a very rare case!
Michael
Quote from: Vlad on May 30, 2009, 08:18:31 PM
So, when you people have listed all the symphonies of the 20th Century, this thread will die...
Amazing that no one picked up on this trenchant remark.
Here's another: No one of these people will ever have listened to all of the symphonies of the 20th century. (Not even all of us together.)
And I know that there have been attempts (though no really serious ones on
this thread) to get a handle on this vexing matter of "greatness." And everyone is probably burnt out on it. But I think if we don't get a grip on it, we're doomed to the ceaseless revolving of great/favorite and to the endless squabbles that are so endemic to online discussion forums.
But hey. Some people like revolving ceaselessly and squabbling without end, amen.
So I'll just add Francis Dhomont's
Frankenstein Symphony to the mix and perhaps Z'ev's symphony no. 2.* And let's see. Terterian's symphonies nos. 7 and 8, why not?
*from 2006. Is that a problem?
Quote from: some guy on December 29, 2010, 10:36:27 AMAnd I know that there have been attempts (though no really serious ones on this thread) to get a handle on this vexing matter of "greatness." And everyone is probably burnt out on it. But I think if we don't get a grip on it, we're doomed to the ceaseless revolving of great/favorite and to the endless squabbles that are so endemic to online discussion forums.
Not a problem at all. We all know a lot of"greatness" is often just about "currently favourite" on the information senders side and "collecting useful input" at the receivers side.
Furthermore, I often get sick reading about greatness in classical music. Reviews are full of terms like "incredible", "wonderful", "has never been done as masterly before" etc. etc. - Maybe because we're enthusiasts. We only know exaggeration, black and white :)
Quote from: Tapio on December 30, 2010, 12:20:37 AM
Not a problem at all.
In the sense that there's no "solution" to it, I agree that it's not a "problem." Which is why I referred to it as a "matter." And since it handicaps most of our discussions (the "input" is all about the sender, not about the music, so only "useful" for adding to our knowledge of the sender), I for one would like to see the matter thoroughly and dispassionately* thought out.
*Hahahaha! I make joke!!
(Oh, and just by the way, I of course realize that information about the sender can eventually be used to draw conclusions about the ostensible topic. But what a round-about and laborious method. And at it's best only guesswork. Not that language really allows anything much more than guesswork. But still!)
Interesting to think this over. 20th century symphonism isn't my forte except for Sibelius and such works as Rahmaninov 2nd and the Madetoja symphonies, as well as few Mahlers. But now we are talking about greatest, not favorite and that leaves those Mahlers and Madetojas and the Rach old second out. And, what is more I have to limit myself to three!
Luckily favorite and greatest conviniently coincide in Sibelius.
Strong candidates to pick from the Sibelius cycle are, in different ways the Fourth,the Fifth and the Seventh. I go for a classical choise and pick;
- Sibelius: Symphony 4
- Shostakovich: the Fifth (I do not feel affinity towards Shosta and I even do not know hos symphonies but I had to pick him)
- Anton Webern: Symphony (I have no idea of this work, but had to go for it)
Had to struggle a bit between Sibelius and Nielsen, but being a Finn I hope you understand my choise
Shostakovich is a great symphonist but I have more affinity to Prokofiev.
But to be fair Shosta is greater in that field.
Szymanowski isn't really a symphonist, though he has great music also in that genre.
Skrjabin reminds of Szymanowski as a symphonist, both IMO wrote only three symphonies since Szymanowskis Fourth is really a piano concerto and Skrjabins "fourth" and "fifth" are more of a symphonic poems and not really symphonies.
Could have included Lutoslawski, Meriläinen (interesting late 20th Finnish composer) or Rautavaara also but I went for these three.