In the heat of the "Your top...." trend... :D
1.LvB
2. Mahler
3. Tchaikovsky
Sorry, only allowed 3... :)
A "top" thread that we can all get behind:
1. Gustav Mahler
2. Anton Bruckner
3. Carl Nielsen
BEETHOVEN
BRUCKNER
HAYDN
Mahler
Beethoven
Brahms
(Boring list, I know)
1. Sir Edward Elgar
2. Carl Nielsen
3. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
George Enescu
Dimitrie Cuclin
Anatol Vieru
;D
Mahler
Bruckner
Shostakovich Brian ...no, Shostakovich ...or Brian
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on June 22, 2007, 03:14:26 AM
Mahler
Bruckner
Shostakovich Brian ...no Shostakovich ...or Brian
Sarge
Sarge, are you sure we're allowed to put ourselves on the list?
Quote from: MrOsa on June 22, 2007, 03:17:13 AM
Sarge, are you sure we're allowed to put ourselves on the list?
Have you heard my symphonies? Magnificent, I tell you.
Sarge
Yeah, but mine are even better. :P
My list would have to go:
Maciek
Sarge
I don't know...
Maybe Maciek again?
(I know, I know, it should have been Maciek Maciek Maciek... It's just that I'm so modest... Argh! Can't stand myself with it!)
Elgar
Gounod
Lalo
I like your sense of humor, mon vieux!
1 by century :
Haydn
Bruckner
Shostakovich
Please say we don't have to include symphonic poets or I'm lost
At the moment: Kalliwoda, Czerny and Ries.
But that might change when I discover more symphonies or that the above were not that good, after all.
Maybe not original, but here they are:
1. Beethoven
2. Bruckner
3. Mahler
with Shostakovich very close after Mahler.
1. Beethoven
2. Bruckner
3. Brahms
Beethoven
Mahler
Shostakovich
1. Schoenberg
2. Bach
3. Reich
Quote from: ChamberNut on May 14, 2008, 07:10:13 AM
1. Beethoven
2. Bruckner
3. Brahms
It took you
ELEVEN (11) MONTHS to arrive at that list?
Quote from: Hector on June 22, 2007, 05:51:07 AM
At the moment: Kalliwoda, Czerny and Ries.
But that might change when I discover more symphonies or that the above were not that good, after all.
Actually, Kalliwoda might rank on my list too, with Beethoven and Dvorak. Although I think Sibelius is more likely. :(
Oh, crap. Hmm...
Brahms
Beethoven
Some other guy
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on May 14, 2008, 07:13:10 AM
1. Schoenberg
2. Bach
3. Reich
or.....
1. Mahler
2. Brahms
3. Shostakovich
Quote from: MN Dave on May 14, 2008, 07:34:52 AM
Oh, crap. Hmm...
Brahms
Beethoven
Some other guy
Some other guy = Bruckner ;D
I could not possibly comment...... 8)
Since posting my three last year, I've had a chance to hear all 32 Brian symphonies (thanks to Jezetha). I have no hesitation now:
Mahler
Bruckner
Brian
As determined simply by frequency and recency of listening:
Sibelius
Shostakovich
Dvořák
Quote from: karlhenning on May 14, 2008, 07:50:09 AM
As determined simply by frequency and recency of listening:
Sibelius
Shostakovich
Dvořák
If I would do that it would change every 5 minutes, so still, I can't possibly comment. ;)
Oh impossible!!!
"Top three" as in "you consider the finest" = 1. Beethoven
2. Brahms
3. Bruckner
"Top three" as in "your favourites"= 1. Vaughan Williams
2. Edmund Rubbra
3. Shostakovich or should that be Carl Nielsen?
Quote from: Keemun on May 14, 2008, 07:38:19 AM
Some other guy = Bruckner ;D
Maybe. For me, symphonies are nice places to visit but I don't really live there. I'm in a chamber somewhere listening to solo piano or string quartet. 0:)
Quote from: Harry on May 14, 2008, 07:53:04 AM
If I would do that it would change every 5 minutes, so still, I can't possibly comment. ;)
That's our beloved Steamroller! :D
Bruckner
Mahler
Pettersson
Beethoven
Mahler
Brahms
Haydn
Mozart
Beethoven
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on May 14, 2008, 07:48:36 AM
Since posting my three last year, I've had a chance to hear all 32 Brian symphonies (thanks to Jezetha). I have no hesitation now:
Mahler
Bruckner
Brian
Although the symphony is my favourite musical genre, and I wouldn't want to be without Beethoven, Brahms, Sibelius, Nielsen, Magnard, Langgaard... my trio is:
Bruckner
Brian
Mahler
Quote from: Jezetha on May 14, 2008, 02:45:43 PM
Although the symphony is my favourite musical genre, and I wouldn't want to be without Beethoven, Brahms, Sibelius, Nielsen, Magnard, Langgaard... my trio is:
Bruckner
Brian
Mahler
I agonised about including Havergal Brian, Johan....I promise you!
Quote from: Dundonnell on May 14, 2008, 03:24:02 PM
I agonised about including Havergal Brian, Johan....I promise you!
I believe you, Colin. You are forgiven. 0:)
Quote from: Jezetha on May 14, 2008, 03:41:53 PM
I believe you, Colin. You are forgiven. 0:)
Bedankt!
Beethoven
Mahler
Carter
1--Sibelius
2--Beethoven
3--Mahler
Haydn
Mozart
Beethoven
Beethoven
Dvorak
Mahler
For acceptance of the formal strictures of the symphony form, and for outstanding material, development of that material, and lasting innovation in the form, the award goes to:
1. Beethoven
2. Bruckner
3. Sibelius
Quote from: karlhenning on May 14, 2008, 07:50:09 AM
As determined simply by frequency and recency of listening:
Sibelius
Shostakovich
Dvořák
As different as our listening taste sometimes seems to be, Karl, two of our three choices are the same! 8) :)
Three completely different styles but all equally brilliant:
Beethoven
Mahler
Sibelius
Top 3? Preposterous! And Beethoven is pretty much a default choice, so I'm not mentioning him.
Mozart.
Haydn.
Brahms.
Bruckner.
Schumann.
Schubert.
Mendelssohn.
Sibelius.
Mahler.
Berlioz.
Vaughan Williams.
Shostakovich.
Vaughan Williams
Sibelius
Miaskovsky
These are my favourites, if it was the three greatest, my list would be:
Sibelius
Bruckner
Mahler
I'm sorry not to include Tubin/Vagn Holmboe/Bax/Shostakovich, all of whom I hold in the highest regard.
Quote from: Xenophanes on May 14, 2008, 05:02:14 PM
Haydn
Mozart
Beethoven
A pure classicist. Wonderful! :)
Lol, nice necromancy going on there, ChamberNut.
Today for me:
Beethoven
Bruckner
Mahler
Beethoven
Brahms
Mahler
Pretty conservative choices for me.
Should I stir things up by saying Mahler wasn't really a symphonist? >:D
Quote from: eyeresist on May 15, 2008, 10:44:09 PM
Should I stir things up by saying Mahler wasn't really a symphonist? >:D
Ouch! :o
But define 'symphony' first, and then tell us why Mahler shouldn't be considered a symphonist. >:D
Quote from: eyeresist on May 15, 2008, 10:44:09 PM
Should I stir things up by saying Mahler wasn't really a symphonist? >:D
WHAT??? :o
Blasphemy.
Three favourites of mine:
Vaughan Williams
Tubin
Holmboe
Quote from: Jezetha on May 15, 2008, 10:57:06 PM
Ouch! :o
But define 'symphony' first, and then tell us why Mahler shouldn't be considered a symphonist. >:D
Well, I'll first say that I know the definition of "symphony" is debatable, and it was my intention to provoke. That said, my feeling is that a symphony is a large musical statement, that is a statement via and
about music. Of course, the best symphonies have a strong emotional "narrative" (IMO), but I'm trying to distinguish the symphony from programmatic works, i.e. tone poems and operas. Mahler seems to often be writing to a program, e.g. the famous hammer-blow sequence of the 6th. I'm sure you can provide other examples yourself.
But Mahler also uses symphonic form, of course, e.g. sonata form, individual movements with independent musical material. I guess the issue is really
my issue, that I feel a symphony should be
purely symphonic, and going outside those bounds invalidates the claim, or at least confuses the issue.
Quote from: eyeresist on May 16, 2008, 01:59:03 AM
Well, I'll first say that I know the definition of "symphony" is debatable, and it was my intention to provoke. That said, my feeling is that a symphony is a large musical statement, that is a statement via and about music. Of course, the best symphonies have a strong emotional "narrative" (IMO), but I'm trying to distinguish the symphony from programmatic works, i.e. tone poems and operas. Mahler seems to often be writing to a program, e.g. the famous hammer-blow sequence of the 6th. I'm sure you can provide other examples yourself.
But Mahler also uses symphonic form, of course, e.g. sonata form, individual movements with independent musical material. I guess the issue is really my issue, that I feel a symphony should be purely symphonic, and going outside those bounds invalidates the claim, or at least confuses the issue.
You must have big issues with Berlioz, then.
Quote from: eyeresist on May 16, 2008, 01:59:03 AM
Well, I'll first say that I know the definition of "symphony" is debatable, and it was my intention to provoke. That said, my feeling is that a symphony is a large musical statement, that is a statement via and about music. Of course, the best symphonies have a strong emotional "narrative" (IMO), but I'm trying to distinguish the symphony from programmatic works, i.e. tone poems and operas. Mahler seems to often be writing to a program, e.g. the famous hammer-blow sequence of the 6th. I'm sure you can provide other examples yourself.
But Mahler also uses symphonic form, of course, e.g. sonata form, individual movements with independent musical material. I guess the issue is really my issue, that I feel a symphony should be purely symphonic, and going outside those bounds invalidates the claim, or at least confuses the issue.
Point taken, but what of LvB's Pastoral or the 9th with its vocal "message" at the end? What of the journey from darkness to light at the end of the 5th? No one is going to say he wasn't a symphonist. What of Mahler's 7th or 9th as counter-examples to the idea of his works being programmatic? What of the fact that composers can imply, and hearers infer, programs or at least dramatic or emotional meaning in many symphonies that lack any sort of explicit extra-musical ideas?
For me, LvB and Mahler are the two supreme symphonists in part because of how well they can meld the logical working out of unforgettable ideas (both were truly gifted tune-smiths) with powerful emotional drama. Both display an extraordinary level of craftsmanship, yet their symphonies are never dry or academic, but brimming with feeling.
Quote from: eyeresist on May 16, 2008, 01:59:03 AM
Well, I'll first say that I know the definition of "symphony" is debatable, and it was my intention to provoke. That said, my feeling is that a symphony is a large musical statement, that is a statement via and about music. Of course, the best symphonies have a strong emotional "narrative" (IMO), but I'm trying to distinguish the symphony from programmatic works, i.e. tone poems and operas. Mahler seems to often be writing to a program, e.g. the famous hammer-blow sequence of the 6th. I'm sure you can provide other examples yourself.
But Mahler also uses symphonic form, of course, e.g. sonata form, individual movements with independent musical material. I guess the issue is really my issue, that I feel a symphony should be purely symphonic, and going outside those bounds invalidates the claim, or at least confuses the issue.
so he was a large tone-poemist instead?......
Beethoven
Sibelius
Hartmann
Quote from: CS on May 16, 2008, 10:44:58 AM
Beethoven
Sibelius
Hartmann
Of course: Hartmann! But who's that first one? ;)
Tchaikovsky
Sibelius
Beethoven
Quote from: Grazioso on May 16, 2008, 04:13:01 AM
Point taken, but what of LvB's Pastoral or the 9th with its vocal "message" at the end? What of the journey from darkness to light at the end of the 5th? No one is going to say he wasn't a symphonist. What of Mahler's 7th or 9th as counter-examples to the idea of his works being programmatic? What of the fact that composers can imply, and hearers infer, programs or at least dramatic or emotional meaning in many symphonies that lack any sort of explicit extra-musical ideas?
For me, LvB and Mahler are the two supreme symphonists in part because of how well they can meld the logical working out of unforgettable ideas (both were truly gifted tune-smiths) with powerful emotional drama. Both display an extraordinary level of craftsmanship, yet their symphonies are never dry or academic, but brimming with feeling.
The bolded (emboldened?) quote is something I'm certainly in favour of. Beethoven's 6th is mostly about feelings rather than a sequence of concrete events, but the 9th admittedly prefigures Mahler, especially his 'Resurrection'. I think Mahler's 7th
does have a program, I just don't know what it is. What else would those cow bells be for? I haven't got well enough to grips with Mahler 9 to discuss that here. :-[
Quote from: Wanderer on May 16, 2008, 02:31:42 AM
You must have big issues with Berlioz, then.
Damn that Berlioz!
Shostakovich, Pettersson, Mahler
Vaughan Williams
Shostakovich
Nielsen
Mahler
Shostakovich
Vaughan Williams
Who, technically, are supposed to be the three greatest symphonists? Mozart? Haydn? I know Beethoven is criticized for his sometimes bizarre arrangements. Berlioz comes to mind as someone who was supposed to know how to use the symphony.
Tchaikovsky
Sibelius
Mahler
Good, I see that Tchaikovsky is with some members No. 1. :)
Quote from: Harry on May 19, 2008, 08:45:09 AM
Good, I see that Tchaikovsky is with some members No. 1. :)
And with some, he is number two. ;D
Quote from: MN Dave on May 19, 2008, 08:53:15 AM
And with some, he is number two. ;D
Hehe...... ;)
Personally, I find it stunning how often RVW's name has already apparead on those lists. Maybe the legendary Harold C. Schonberg of the NY Times was right when he wrote that someday, RVW might be recognized as the greatest symphonist of the 20th century. ;D
Quote from: sound67 on May 22, 2008, 02:09:43 AM
Personally, I find it stunning how often RVW's name has already apparead on those lists. Maybe the legendary Harold C. Schonberg of the NY Times was right when he wrote that someday, RVW might be recognized as the greatest symphonist of the 20th century. ;D
Just a reminder to VW admirers in the UK that there is a BBC Four programme about him at 8.00pm tomorrow (Friday 23rd May) "The Passions of Vaughan Williams"
Quote from: sound67 on May 22, 2008, 02:09:43 AM
Personally, I find it stunning how often RVW's name has already apparead on those lists. Maybe the legendary Harold C. Schonberg of the NY Times was right when he wrote that someday, RVW might be recognized as the greatest symphonist of the 20th century. ;D
You're forgetting Sibelius, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, and Mahler?
Quote from: sound67 on May 22, 2008, 02:09:43 AM
Personally, I find it stunning how often RVW's name has already apparead on those lists. Maybe the legendary Harold C. Schonberg of the NY Times was right when he wrote that someday, RVW might be recognized as the greatest symphonist of the 20th century. ;D
That remark used to be my personal consolation too, in times long foregone, when RVW didn't have the status he seems to be acquiring now - and I myself felt like being the only person in this universe who admired him as a great symphonist :D . So let's quote good old Harold C. Schonberg's words once again.
Lives of the Great Composers, Volume Two, p. 196:
`There had been a reaction against Vaughan Williams's music equivalent to the reaction that set in against Elgar's. Elgar, however, has been rediscovered, and Vaughan Williams also will be. He may yet turn out to be hailed as the most important symphonist of the century.'
Quote from: Christo on May 22, 2008, 04:39:21 AM
`There had been a reaction against Vaughan Williams's music equivalent to the reaction that set in against Elgar's. Elgar, however, has been rediscovered, and Vaughan Williams also will be. He may yet turn out to be hailed as the most important symphonist of the century.'
Please, no.......... :( :'(
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on May 22, 2008, 07:08:26 AM
Please, no.......... :( :'(
You're obviously distressed, GGGGRRREEG. ;D But who is
your candidate for the title of 'symphonist of the century'?
Quote from: Jezetha on May 22, 2008, 07:23:49 AM
You're obviously distressed, GGGGRRREEG. ;D But who is your candidate for the title of 'symphonist of the century'?
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on May 14, 2008, 07:13:10 AM
1. Schoenberg
2. Bach
3. Reich
ok, i'm just kidding.......
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on May 14, 2008, 07:36:04 AM
or.....
1. Mahler
2. Brahms
3. Shostakovich
Although, currently I'd put Shostakovich over Brahms- that fact that he wrote 11 more symphonies helps, too.
After that, Prokofiev, Penderecki and Gorecki....... maybe Norgard, too....
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on May 22, 2008, 07:26:47 AM
Shostakovich....
I knew he'd say that. Or Prokofieff.
What no Sibelieff?
On reflection (and reading the paens of the VW thread) VW still wouldn't make my top 5 of the 20th century. I would rank him somewhere below Rachmaninov.
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on May 22, 2008, 07:26:47 AM
Although, currently I'd put Shostakovich over Brahms- that fact that he wrote 11 more symphonies helps, too.
After that, Prokofiev, Penderecki and Gorecki....... maybe Norgard, too....
If the opening post were to have inquired: "pound for pound, which 3 composers give you the most bang for the buck in the symphonic genre?", my response
WOULD include
BRAHMS, because each of his four symphonies is an absolute monumental gem, and unlike Bruckner (
see, e.g., symphonies 00, 0, 1 and 2, the "Saucy Maid") and Beethoven (
see, e.g., Sym. no. 1), Brahms has no duds. My 3 would be (and assuming that ties are permitted):
1. Bruckner
2. Brahms
3. Mahler / Beethoven (tie)Even though he composed a mere 4 symphonies, I would include Brahms among the greatest symphonists.
Quote from: Dm on May 22, 2008, 06:30:04 PMBrahms has no duds.
You like his First Symphony a whole lot more than I do :D
Quote from: Brian on May 22, 2008, 06:31:55 PM
You like his First Symphony a whole lot more than I do :D
:D 0:) (Well, it IS a monumental masterpiece ((blah blah blah))
Beethoven
Mahler
Shostakovich
Runners Up:
Brahms
Bruckner
Quote from: eyeresist on May 22, 2008, 06:05:10 PM
somewhere below Rachmaninov.
As a symphonist? Not everyone might be prepared to consider Rachmaninov's three symphonies a major symphonic cycle of the kind of e.g. those by Nielsen, Shostakovich or indeed RVW.
Quote from: Dm on May 22, 2008, 06:30:04 PM
...and unlike Bruckner ... and Beethoven (see, e.g., Sym. no. 1), Brahms has no duds.
What's wrong with Beethoven's 1st Symphony?
Quote from: Christo on May 22, 2008, 10:58:29 PM
As a symphonist? Not everyone might be prepared to consider Rachmaninov's three symphonies a major symphonic cycle of the kind of e.g. those by Nielsen, Shostakovich or indeed RVW.
Whether it's a "major cycle" (I would include the Symphonic Dances) isn't my argument. I think VW was a 2nd rater who made a great effort, whereas Rachmaninov was a 1st rate talent who, unfortunately, took the path of least resistance. I prefer Rach, for superior orchestration and melodies. Perhaps I can console you by ranking Nielsen below the blessed Ralph?
Quote from: eyeresist on May 23, 2008, 02:34:47 AM
Perhaps I can console you by ranking Nielsen below the blessed Ralph?
No >:D 0:) ;)
(And btw: I'm pretty sure you hardly know RVW's nine symphonies - a common feature with almost all critics who consider him 'second rate') ;) And, btw btw again: I happen to love Rach and even to adore the
Symphonic Dances. But as a symphonist, Rach simply cannot compete with RVW, imo :-*
Quote from: Symphonien on May 22, 2008, 11:27:12 PM
What's wrong with Beethoven's 1st Symphony?
That's what I'd like to know.
Quote from: Symphonien on May 22, 2008, 11:27:12 PM
What's wrong with Beethoven's 1st Symphony?
It does not appeal to me. Then again, I don't care about any symphony (except #6) by Beethoven as much as fans of classical music in general.
Other than from Wanderer I am surprised no one mentioned Schumann. Personally I think he is definitely on the same level as Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Sibelius, Shostakovich, and Nielsen etc. as a symphonist. The 4th symphony really has no equal in the repertore in terms of it's organic unity and richness. And he also wrote 4 symphonies that are so different from each other, much like Brahms I suppose, and they sound so genuine and unpretentious.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on May 23, 2008, 09:27:24 AM
Other than from Wanderer I am surprised no one mentioned Schumann. Personally I think he is definitely on the same level as Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Sibelius, Shostakovich, and Nielsen etc. as a symphonist. The 4th symphony really has no equal in the repertore in terms of it's organic unity and richness. And he also wrote 4 symphonies that are so different from each other, much like Brahms I suppose, and they sound so genuine and unpretentious.
For symphonies, Schumann is my number 4, right after Brahms. :)
Quote from: 71 dB on May 23, 2008, 09:00:32 AM
It does not appeal to me. Then again, I don't care about any symphony (except #6) by Beethoven as much as fans of classical music in general.
We had agreement up until your second sentence .......
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on May 23, 2008, 09:27:24 AM
And he also wrote 4 symphonies that are so different from each other, much like Brahms I suppose, and they sound so genuine and unpretentious.
Query to what extent Brahms's symphonies were influenced by Schumann?
Quote from: 71 dB on May 23, 2008, 09:00:32 AM
It does not appeal to me. Then again, I don't care about any symphony (except #6) by Beethoven as much as fans of classical music in general.
Good lord, thought you changed ::). Looks like its
de ja vu all over again...
Quote from: Auferstehung on May 23, 2008, 08:27:02 PM
Good lord, thought you changed ::). Looks like its de ja vu all over again...
Change how? Do you expect me to become a clone of you liking exactly the same things?
My opinion about Beethoven's overrated status hasn't changed a bit.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 24, 2008, 02:09:13 AM
Change how? Do you expect me to become a clone of you liking exactly the same things?
My opinion about Beethoven's overrated status hasn't changed a bit.
You mean that your opinion that Beethoven is overrated hasn't changed.
Quote from: Brian on May 22, 2008, 06:31:55 PM
You like his First Symphony a whole lot more than I do :D
One of my favourite symphony, an absolutely ingenious masterpiece.
It is hard to pick between: Haydn, Beethoven, Mendelssohn (3rd), Mahler, Bruckner, Dvorak (7th, 8th), Tschaikovsky (6th), Brahms, Prokofiev
In my current mood I'll pick Beethoven, Mahler and Brahms. But it may change tomorrow.
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 24, 2008, 04:37:26 AM
You mean that your opinion that Beethoven is overrated hasn't changed.
Yes, that's what I'm saying.
1. Beethoven
2. Sibelius
3. Bruckner
Tchaikovsky
Borodin
Kalinikov
:)
Beethoven
Brahms
Shostakovich
s
i
b
e
l
i
u
s
(just felt that his name was not properly represented here :D)
Vaughan Williams
Sibelius
Miaskovsky
(Alternatively Shostakovich/Tubin/Bax)
Quote from: vandermolen on February 24, 2010, 08:08:55 AM
Vaughan Williams
Sibelius
Miaskovsky
(Alternatively Shostakovich/Tubin/Bax)
Brian
Bruckner
Beethoven
(Scandinavian alternative: Sibelius/Langgaard/Nielsen)
Impossible exercise! Mahler, Schumann, Brahms, RVW, Bax... the list is endless.
Proposition: all symphonic roads lead either up to or away from Beethoven and Mahler.
For the third name, however, there are just too many possibilities: Haydn, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Sibelius, Mendelssohn, Rachmaninov would be the prime contenders in my book.
a little provocative list;
1. Hans Pfitzner
2. Uuno Klami
3. Karol Szymanowski
Quote from: abidoful on February 25, 2010, 04:59:04 AM
a little provocative list;
1. Hans Pfitzner
2. Uuno Klami
3. Karol Szymanowski
Interesting! I like Klami's Kalevala Suite etc but never got into the symphonies - I must try again.
Beethoven
Sibelius
Shostakovich
Whew. Not sure of I want to touch that with a ten foot pole. However, some other symphonic cycles I like a great deal (and more than some of those listed- I won't say which!) would include:
Rubbra
Holmboe
Atterberg
Malcolm Arnold
Howard Hanson
Petterson
I'd also be very tempted to put E. J. Moeran up there, if though he only wrote one! But what a great one....
Quote from: vandermolen on February 25, 2010, 05:36:53 AM
Interesting! I like Klami's Kalevala Suite etc but never got into the symphonies - I must try again.
Yeah Klami is great. Especially his PSALMUS!! But i am not sure of his symphonies (actually i dont even know them so well) that was my "provocative"-list ;D since i dont consider those three essentially great symphonists...(interesting works though)
Ives
Sibelius
Hartmann
I'd like to say Brian too.
In the long run, these three:
F. J. Haydn
W. A. Mozart
L. van Beethoven
1. Beethoven
2. Mozart
3. Sibelius
Beethoven
Haydn
Brahms
:)
At the mo' it's:
Martinů
Haydn
Brian
The latter two in particular are always a fixture. It's hard to tire of such diffuse and multi-faceted collections.
Sibelius
Maxwell-Davies
Nørgård
I love Arnold's and Nielsen's symphonies too; quite a difficult choice...
It looks like I should listen to Brian's symphonies. Have all of them been recorded ?
--Gilles
What a question !! Of all the symphonic masterpieces that have been written, we are asked to pick just 3 composers .... :(
OK .... I tried to ask myself who made a revolutionary contribution to the symphonic form and came up with the following
1. Haydn : The inventor, but also the creator of a seemingly endless stream of witty, exciting, beautiful and entertaining symphonies, culminating in the London's.
2. Beethoven : Starting where Haydn left off, with the Eroica he shattered the mould and then produced a string of contrasting and revolutionary works.
3. Mahler : Took the symphony to the pinnacle of its emotional and orchestral possibilities.
It's tough to leave out such favourites as Sibelius, Elgar, Nielsen, Mozart, Brahms, Bruckner, ....etc, but the three above for me represent the three major plateaux of symphonic music.
By the way, I just realized that my choice is 100% Austro-Germanic ...... this was not at all deliberate. Certainly, central Europe clearly left a massive cultural legacy to the world ......
Vaughan Williams
Miaskovsky
Sibelius
Quote from: kentel on April 26, 2010, 02:13:38 PM
It looks like I should listen to Brian's symphonies. Have all of them been recorded ?
They were being recorded in a complete edition by Marco Polo, which Naxos either implied or said it would complete but broke its promise to do so. Naxos has been reissuing the Marco Polo recordings once every blue moon, but has essentially shown very low commitment to the composer, as evidenced by how many recordings languish expensive and not yet reissued. As a result, quite a few are not commercially recorded, but there are a few decent quality bootlegs of some of them (especially fine is the no.27 with Mackerras) available - GMG poster Jezetha should be able to help you out with these.
Such a unique composer doesn't really deserve such shabby treatment, but there's nothing that can be done about it. And I do strongly recommend this composer, as would many others. As much as I love many 20th century symphony cycles, I find much of them small-fry in terms of sheer interest and cranky uniqueness next to Brian.
Quote from: Lethe on April 27, 2010, 07:15:54 AM
They were being recorded in a complete edition by Marco Polo, which Naxos either implied or said it would complete but broke its promise to do so. Naxos has been reissuing the Marco Polo recordings once every blue moon, but has essentially shown very low commitment to the composer, as evidenced by how many recordings languish expensive and not yet reissued. As a result, quite a few are not commercially recorded, but there are a few decent quality bootlegs of some of them (especially fine is the no.27 with Mackerras) available - GMG poster Jezetha should be able to help you out with these.
Such a unique composer doesn't really deserve such shabby treatment, but there's nothing that can be done about it. And I do strongly recommend this composer, as would many others. As much as I love many 20th century symphony cycles, I find much of them small-fry in terms of sheer interest and cranky uniqueness next to Brian.
Interesting.
Havergal Brian is a composer whose music is completely unknown to me, but your post has piqued my interest. Just now checking Amazon, I saw a recording containing his
Symphony #31 - how many did he write?
Quote from: Franco on April 27, 2010, 07:27:55 AM
Interesting. Havergal Brian is a composer whose music is completely unknown to me, but your post has piqued my interest. Just now checking Amazon, I saw a recording containing his Symphony #31 - how many did he write?
32, but his symphonies - especially the later ones - are much shorter than the standard template (sometimes single movements), meaning that as a cycle it's not huge. Only his first four could be described as lengthy.
Jezetha's Mediafire Brian folder would be a good introduction if anybody has the url, as I realise Brian is kind of controversial and has his detractors as well as supporters. I love the doggedness of the music most of all, the composer giving that Byronic impression of overcoming everything thrown at him by sheer bloody-mindedness :P
There's a nice thread on him in the composer index if I recall correctly.
QuoteI realise Brian is kind of controversial and has his detractors as well as supporters.
Why is he controversial?
Quote from: Franco on April 27, 2010, 07:46:45 AM
Why is he controversial?
His symphonies to some are on the surface short, seemingly irrelevent tonal musings. Underneath it's rather complex, making most performances of it less than ideal which gives an impression of crumminess where simply it requires more rehearsal than the label could afford. The "what is underneath" factor is what draws me into the music, very tightly constructed, almost pig-headedly unwilling to milk themes, making sharp or abrupt transitions to new ideas quite rapidly.
The controversy comes in when you get people disliking the music for entirely different reasons, either for being nowhere near as "difficult" as they had anticipated, and finding it rather uninteresting as a result, or for the difficulty making the pieces seem devoid of interest, simply tumult for the sake of it. The style walks a fine line between the obnoxious and the sublime, which I guess is why his fans are so... fanatical about the music, as it "clicks" for them, and the find something wonderful with all the cranky, sometimes poorly performed and recorded works.
Thanks, I found the Brian thread and was reading some - I get it now. BTW, Sarge posted a link to the music web forum (http://www.musicweb-international.com/brian/sym1.htm) I think you were referring to - but it appears to be broken.
I'm still interested and will no doubt invest a some modest amount of $ and time into getting to know this music. Who knows, I may be a HBS candidate. Is hazing involved?
:)
Quote from: Lethe on April 27, 2010, 07:54:09 AM
His symphonies to some are on the surface short, seemingly irrelevent tonal musings. Underneath it's rather complex, making most performances of it less than ideal which gives an impression of crumminess where simply it requires more rehearsal than the label could afford. The "what is underneath" factor is what draws me into the music, very tightly constructed, almost pig-headedly unwilling to milk themes, making sharp or abrupt transitions to new ideas quite rapidly.
The controversy comes in when you get people disliking the music for entirely different reasons, either for being nowhere near as "difficult" as they had anticipated, and finding it rather uninteresting as a result, or for the difficulty making the pieces seem devoid of interest, simply tumult for the sake of it. The style walks a fine line between the obnoxious and the sublime, which I guess is why his fans are so... fanatical about the music, as it "clicks" for them, and the find something wonderful with all the cranky, sometimes poorly performed and recorded works.
Thank you very much for all these informations ! That sounds promising. I could find (only) 8 symphonies on the NML (Marco Polo all of them, as you said). I'll listen to them as soon as I can :)
--Gilles
Quote from: Christo on May 16, 2008, 12:57:56 AM
Three favourites of mine:
Vaughan Williams
Tubin
Holmboe
They still are. At the moment I'd add Nielsen or Brian perhaps. For me, Nielsen and Holmboe are equals in many respects - except that Holmboe was even much more prolific. ::)
I would certainly advocate the case of Havergal Brian too - a handful of new recordings would be very helpful. :'(
I'd like to thank Sarah (Lethe) for answering the questions concerning Brian. Yes, I am a great admirer of Brian's work. I listen to him every day (I have most of his symphonies as mp3s on my player). I discovered Brian in 1977 just through reading about him. A year later I got hold of his Eighth and Ninth and was sold. My fascination has never gone during these past 33 years, and my love and understanding of the music have remained constant. Anyone wanting to get to know Brian could do worse than listen to these few symphonies (and please report back...):
Havergal Brian Symphony No. 6 (1948). London Philharmonic Orchestra, conducted by Myer Fredman. Commercial recording.
http://www.mediafire.com/file/wijgqyozmjm/Brian (http://www.mediafire.com/file/wijgqyozmjm/Brian) Symphony No. 6 LPO Myer Fredman.mp3
Havergal Brian, Symphony No 8 in Bb minor. Written in 1949. Performed by the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by Sir Charles Groves (commercial recording, EMI, June 1978)
http://www.mediafire.com/file/0jf2yvnm2tj/Brian (http://www.mediafire.com/file/0jf2yvnm2tj/Brian) 8.mp3
Havergal Brian, Symphony No. 10 (1954) Leicestershire Schools Symphony Orchestra - James Loughran - 1972. Commercial recording.
http://www.mediafire.com/file/xztyigy2wjz/Brian (http://www.mediafire.com/file/xztyigy2wjz/Brian) 10.mp3
Havergal Brian - Symphony No. 16 (1960). The London Philharmonic Orchestra, conducted by Myer Fredman. Commercial recording.
http://www.mediafire.com/file/i0uuiz32kjd/Brian (http://www.mediafire.com/file/i0uuiz32kjd/Brian) Symphony No. 16 LPO Myer Fredman.mp3
-1 Beethoven
-2 Haydn
-3 Mozart
Also the baroque symphonies (overtures, sinfonias)?
1. Brcukner
2. Shostakovich
3. Beethoven / Mahler
Beethoven
Mahler
A. Pettersson
Quote from: eyeresist on May 18, 2008, 09:45:49 PM
The bolded (emboldened?) quote is something I'm certainly in favour of. Beethoven's 6th is mostly about feelings rather than a sequence of concrete events, but the 9th admittedly prefigures Mahler, especially his 'Resurrection'.
Beethoven didn't really prefigure people, he couldn't forecast the future. Mahler was greatly influenced by Beethoven with his 2nd, not surprising as Beethoven had been one of the most acclaimed composers through the 19th century.
Quote from: alkan on April 27, 2010, 01:42:27 AM
By the way, I just realized that my choice is 100% Austro-Germanic ...... this was not at all deliberate. Certainly, central Europe clearly left a massive cultural legacy to the world ......
Two of those you list are from the classical period. The centre of classical music then was Vienna. Other periods surely have just as much influence (or more influence even) from other places.
Quote from: Xenophanes on May 14, 2008, 05:02:14 PM
Haydn
Mozart
Beethoven
Quote from: rockerreds on May 14, 2008, 02:36:30 PM
Haydn
Mozart
Beethoven
I'll go along with these two lists. I don't see the top 2 being displaced any time soon. ;D
Mendessohn - No.4 Italian
Mozart - No.40
Beethoven - No.5
Wonderfully constructed, harmonically balanced, beautiful and innovative melodies, moving works, touching and inspiring.
A good place to start with Brian would be No. 7, which is not extremely long or short. It has many of the characteristics Brian is known for but also has a wonderfully extrovert quality. This is approachable Brian, which is not to say Brian is forbiddingly difficult. Perhaps the best way to put it is that this one is "fun" from the first listen on. I realize fun is a quasi-naughty concept in aesthetics, but it seems appropriate here since the composer appears to be having fun himself.
Dvorak
Mahler
Bruckner / Vaughn Williams
Quote from: Bonehelm on June 21, 2007, 08:32:03 PM
In the heat of the "Your top...." trend... :D
1.LvB
2. Mahler
3. Tchaikovsky
Sorry, only allowed 3... :)
Tchaikovsky
Sibelius
Mahler
Quote from: Symphonien on May 14, 2008, 11:14:59 PM
Three completely different styles but all equally brilliant:
Beethoven
Mahler
Sibelius
After reading the first two pages, these seem to be the three most common.
My top 3 symphonists?
1. Bruckner
2. Mahler
3. Vaughan Williams
The bolded (emboldened?) quote is something I'm certainly in favour of. Beethoven's 6th is mostly about feelings rather than a sequence of concrete events, but the 9th admittedly prefigures Mahler, especially his 'Resurrection'.
Beethoven's Ninth Symphony didn't prefigure Mahler's Second, Mahler's Second was influenced by Beethoven's Ninth. Beethoven's Ninth also highly influenced Wagner. Irving Kolodin wrote an interesting book title 'The Continuity of Music'. In it you will be taken on a musical journey, from early music to the 20th Century.
http://www.youtube.com/v/yBuPFkFbu-4 http://www.youtube.com/v/OzT_75Rb52o
http://www.youtube.com/v/UZ6_SOag3pE http://www.youtube.com/v/Mb6y00ind3g
Incidentally Popov loved Shostakovich's 9th.
Discard Martinu if you want, but I couldn't leave him out! :D If this was a top 5 I would choose Nielsen too.
Feldman
Bach
Finzi
Quote from: Guido on February 15, 2011, 11:55:00 AM
Feldman
Bach
Finzi
Unusual. :D
Mine:
Beethoven
Mahler
Brian
Quote from: J. Z. Herrenberg on February 15, 2011, 01:13:24 PM
Unusual. :D
Mine:
Beethoven
Mahler
Brian
Wow, thanks. 0:)
Okay, I'm sorry, but this kind of joke must have occured to me at least 150 times on GMG and I've been such a good boy about not using it. So this is me cashing in my didn't-crack-a-bad-joke points to finally crack one. I promise no more Brian jokes until after the Gothic performance. Or at the interval, if I dislike it.
Quote from: J. Z. Herrenberg on February 15, 2011, 01:13:24 PM
Unusual. :D
Mine:
Beethoven
Mahler
Brian
I was being flippant. Nothing profound in the frippery!
I guess looking back on my previous answer I might have answered pretty hastily. Three is an odd number and a number I'm uncomfortable with especially concerning my top symphonists, let's make bring the number up to 6 --- a nice even number:
In no particular order:
Bruckner
Vaughan Williams
Sibelius
Nielsen
Mahler
Shostakovich
Honorable mentions: Tchaikovsky, Miaskovsky, Borodin, Martinu, Dvorak, Piston, Ives, Milhaud, Langgaard, Rautavaara, Copland, Barber, Chavez, Rubbra, Alwyn, Arnold, Roussel, Honegger, Brahms, Schmidt, and Parry.
My current answer (for personal faves):
- Beethoven
- Sibelius
- Half the Shostakovich cycle (5-11) plus half the Dvorak cycle (2, 6-8)
Is that last answer cheating? :(
Quote from: Brian on February 18, 2011, 11:11:55 AM
My current answer (for personal faves):
- Beethoven
- Sibelius
- Half the Shostakovich cycle (5-11) plus half the Dvorak cycle (2, 6-8)
Is that last answer cheating? :(
Yes, but cheating is perfectly allowed and accepted on GMG, and in fact, it is encouraged!! :)
My favourites are actually probably Sibelius, Hartmann and Ives.
Quote from: Guido on February 18, 2011, 02:43:04 PM
My favourites are actually probably Sibelius, Hartmann and Ives.
Ives is SO underrated as symphonist. I love Ives so much. I may be mistaken, but I think he just gets no respect around here. Some of my first Ives recordings came from Bernstein and MTT. These two conductors helped me understand his genius.
Happy to report that I think you are mistaken on this one - I've seen nothing but respect and love for Ives on this board, and some posters - Joe B, when he was here, Guido, of course, to mention just two - who have a terrific and profound passion for him and deep knowledge of his music. And that's as it should be!
Quote from: sul G (again) on February 18, 2011, 02:55:20 PM
Happy to report that I think you are mistaken on this one - I've seen nothing but respect and love for Ives on this board, and some posters - Joe B, when he was here, Guido, of course, to mention just two - who have a terrific and profound passion for him and deep knowledge of his music. And that's as it should be!
This is good to know Luke (???). There are always a bunch who really have a deep passion for the composer in question. Good to see that Ives' music has touched people and continues to do so.
Yesterday, I listened for the first time to Ives' symphonies 1-3 and was really impressed. The combination of respect for elders and mischievous independent spirit in No 1, the all-around terrific No 2 with its genius ending, and the Third with a really surprising direct emotional appeal. Can't wait to hear them again.
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 18, 2011, 02:59:12 PM
This is good to know Luke (???). There are always a bunch who really have a deep passion for the composer in question. Good to see that Ives' music has touched people and continues to do so.
Ives does this for me, too, I should add, though less of his output reaches my heart than it does for Guido etc. At his best, though, he finds extraordinary places no one else even knew where there. For me the Concord Sonata stands alone, head and shoulders above everything else he wrote, even the Fourth Symphony - not exactly a contentious choice, maybe (it's a recognised out and out masterpiece of the greatest importance), but I suspect one that not everyone will share. But there we are!
And yes, it's Luke, under an old name, trying to avoid log-in hell, but still having to log in quite frequently....
Whose recordings of the Concord do you prefer, Luke?
Bear in mind that I only have about 6, I think, the surprise package for me, over some bigger names or ones with a more obvious Ivesian pedigree, is Alexei Lubimov. His recording has a lot of punch, and a lot of profile - nothing gets lost, lots that I don't hear elsewhere is audible here, and yet he also finds more poetry than many others, to my ears. Love that recording!
Thanks, Luke! Will gladly give him a try.
Quote from: Brian on February 18, 2011, 03:01:21 PM
Yesterday, I listened for the first time to Ives' symphonies 1-3 and was really impressed. The combination of respect for elders and mischievous independent spirit in No 1, the all-around terrific No 2 with its genius ending, and the Third with a really surprising direct emotional appeal. Can't wait to hear them again.
Just wait until you hear no.4! It's the greatest of the Symphonies and weird as it may sound for such a wild piece, the logical conclusion of them. Between three and four comes the superb Holiday's Symphony too - not superb as a symphony per se - but as a set of four orchestral movements it is astonishing.
And of course Luke is right - lot's of respect for Ives around here, not least from Luke, but also he is one of my all time favourites - just touches me so deeply, so profoundly and I'm always amazed by his works which is how it should be with your favourites.
Quote from: Guido on February 19, 2011, 02:48:10 PM
Just wait until you hear no.4! It's the greatest of the Symphonies and weird as it may sound for such a wild piece, the logical conclusion of them.
I ought to refresh my acquaintance with nos. 1-3, but yes, my sense is that the Fourth is a significant step ahead.
I love all four of the Ives symphonies, too, with the Fourth taking pride of place - i have always considered it the symphonic equivalent of Joyce's 'Finnegans Wake': simultaneity of all kinds of music here, and of languages there.
Quote from: Bonehelm on June 21, 2007, 08:32:03 PM
Sorry, only allowed 3... :)
You son of a b*tch.
Beethoven
Brahms
Schubert
Wait, Brahms, Dvorak, Bruckner.
Wait, no. Haydn, Mahler, Sebulius.
Forget it.
Quote from: Luke on February 18, 2011, 03:19:20 PM
Bear in mind that I only have about 6, I think, the surprise package for me, over some bigger names or ones with a more obvious Ivesian pedigree, is Alexei Lubimov. His recording has a lot of punch, and a lot of profile - nothing gets lost, lots that I don't hear elsewhere is audible here, and yet he also finds more poetry than many others, to my ears. Love that recording!
Hopefully will get a chance to compare and contrast tomorrow. I only have two version on my ipod (Hamelin and Lubimov). I wish Donald Berman would record it - his playing is absolutely fabulous on the two "Unknown Ives" discs - he was a student of John Kirkpatrick and so had access to all the weird odds and sods that John Kirkpatrick was working up for publication. He has the requisite power and stridency mixed with joyous raucousness, but is also extraordinarily delicate and caressing when needed (he doesn't play as if this is High Modernism), and above all very much how Ives' himself played. His playing of The Celestial Railroad is one of my favourite things ever. But everything on those two discs is a pure delight. Truly revelatory.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 22, 2010, 07:02:16 AM
My top 3 symphonists?
1. Bruckner
2. Mahler
3. Vaughan Williams
Excellent choices John, delighted yet surprised to see that you included Mahler! ;) What would your top 3 be now?
For me:
Mahler
Bruckner
Beethoven
Brahms, Shostakovich, Vaughan Williams after that. But for me, however great the other ones I have mentioned plus a variety of others are, no one comes even close to Mahler! :)
Interesting how few people say Haydn or Mozart, yet they're still usually at the top of a general "top composers" list.
Quote from: The Six on October 21, 2011, 02:25:16 PM
Interesting how few people say Haydn or Mozart, yet they're still usually at the top of a general "top composers" list.
Despite being rough contemporaries who wrote lots of symphonies, their stature is fairly different - most of Mozart's symphonies are barely worth listening to, and as a body they are the least consistent area of his output. Haydn is merely routinely ignored. Many are happy to semi-regularly listen to some of the London symphonies, but beyond that don't like the late classical style enough to consider seriously listening to the rest. I don't blame them, there's a lot to hear.
Quite ironic, I saw this thread pop up and the first name that popped into my mind was Haydn. ;D
1. Haydn
2. Prokofiev
3. Bruckner
Quote from: madaboutmahler on October 21, 2011, 02:18:17 PM
Excellent choices John, delighted yet surprised to see that you included Mahler! ;) What would your top 3 be now?
For me:
Mahler
Bruckner
Beethoven
Brahms, Shostakovich, Vaughan Williams after that. But for me, however great the other ones I have mentioned plus a variety of others are, no one comes even close to Mahler! :)
Yeah, this was back in June of last year. Now, it would probably look like this:
1. Vaughan Williams
2. Shostakovich
3. Bruckner
I probably already answered this one earlier, but in case I didn't:
Top 3, in the sense of the "best"
LvB
Mahler
Sibelius
Top 3, in the sense of personal favorites, shifts and depends on what I'm listening to atm
Bax
Madetoja
Sibelius
Quote from: The Six on October 21, 2011, 02:25:16 PM
Interesting how few people say Haydn or Mozart, yet they're still usually at the top of a general "top composers" list.
With Mozart, that's understandable since his greatest accomplishments are usually considered to lie in the fields of opera and concerto. While Haydn is probably most esteemed for his quartets and symphonies, the relative neglect of the latter probably stems from the relative neglect of the Classical Era as a whole. While the Romantic idiom very audibly ties into our contemporary musical lingua franca (heard in so much film music, for example), the Classical style (for all its worth and joys) sounds clearly antiquated and is built on different aesthetic values than much of the music that came later.
At present (but no doubt I gave a different answer before) they are:
1. Ralph Vaughan Williams
2. Vagn Holmboe
3. Arnold Cooke & Stanley Bate (too little symphonies recorded of both for a final verdict) 8)
Quote from: Christo on October 22, 2011, 02:28:01 PM
At present (but no doubt I gave a different answer before) they are:
1. Ralph Vaughan Williams
2. Vagn Holmboe
3. Arnold Cooke & Stanley Bate (too little symphonies recorded of both for a final verdict) 8)
I'm having a hard time digesting Holmboe's music. I knew you've met the composer personally, so you perhaps have a better grasp of the music than I do. Tell me, in your opinion, what makes Holmboe's music so rewarding for you?
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 22, 2011, 02:39:02 PM
I'm having a hard time digesting Holmboe's music. I knew you've met the composer personally, so you perhaps have a better grasp of the music than I do. Tell me, in your opinion, what makes Holmboe's music so rewarding for you?
Well, its quality. ;) (Sorry, past midnight here, urged by The Authority to go to bed ... ;D)
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 22, 2011, 02:39:02 PM
I'm having a hard time digesting Holmboe's music. I knew you've met the composer personally, so you perhaps have a better grasp of the music than I do. Tell me, in your opinion, what makes Holmboe's music so rewarding for you?
Fwiw, I'll offer my less-knowledgeable opinion, having heard a good number of his symphonies, but not all of them yet: Holmboe is a bit like a cross between Nielsen and Sibelius, with a strong sense of forward momentum, unity, and textural clarity, as well as a slightly gloomy, mysterious sensibility.
Mine:
1. Beethoven
2. Mahler
3. Shostakovich
After that, Brahms, Bruckner, Sibelius, Nielsen and Tchaikovsky.
Quote from: Grazioso on October 23, 2011, 05:29:35 AM
Fwiw, I'll offer my less-knowledgeable opinion, having heard a good number of his symphonies, but not all of them yet: Holmboe is a bit like a cross between Nielsen and Sibelius, with a strong sense of forward momentum, unity, and textural clarity, as well as a slightly gloomy, mysterious sensibility.
I don't hear Nielsen or Sibelius in Holmboe. In fact, I don't hear anything distinctive or even derivative. I draw a blank each time I listen to his music trying to come up with some kind of conclusion as to what this music is trying to accomplish or express. I've simply given up on his music for now.
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 24, 2011, 09:39:27 AM
I don't hear Nielsen or Sibelius in Holmboe. In fact, I don't hear anything distinctive or even derivative. I draw a blank each time I listen to his music trying to come up with some kind of conclusion as to what this music is trying to accomplish or express. I've simply given up on his music for now.
Which symphonies have you heard so far? One of his most accessible, though not necessarily most representative in terms of atmosphere, is No. 3
Sinfonia rustica, which draws on Danish medieval folk music. The first movement:
http://www.youtube.com/v/CjryGcwfKYw
2 and 6 are also on YouTube, fwiw.
His symphonies tend to sound spare, severe, solemn, granitic (shades of Pettersson and perhaps Simpson), though there are certainly moments of tenderness in them, as well as a dignified, restrained lyricism. Based on the ones I've heard (about half so far), this is generally not sunny, smiling music, but none the worse for that. The more I dip into my boxed set of the symphonies, the more I'm rewarded.
Quote from: Grazioso on October 24, 2011, 10:06:20 AM
Which symphonies have you heard so far? One of his most accessible, though not necessarily most representative in terms of atmosphere, is No. 3 Sinfonia rustica, which draws on Danish medieval folk music. The first movement:
http://www.youtube.com/v/CjryGcwfKYw
2 and 6 are also on YouTube, fwiw.
His symphonies tend to sound spare, severe, solemn, granitic (shades of Pettersson and perhaps Simpson), though there are certainly moments of tenderness in them, as well as a dignified, restrained lyricism. Based on the ones I've heard (about half so far), this is generally not sunny, smiling music, but none the worse for that. The more I dip into my boxed set of the symphonies, the more I'm rewarded.
I own the whole BIS set of symphonies. I've heard them all, but bare in my mind when I listened I spread them out over many months. I wish I could get behind the music as much as you, but I can't. Even that movement, which I didn't even remember, failed to make much of an impression on me. Pettersson is a much more distinctive composer than Holmboe in my opinion. I know Pettersson's music almost as soon as it starts.
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 24, 2011, 10:29:54 AM
I own the whole BIS set of symphonies. I've heard them all, but bare in my mind when I listened I spread them out over many months. I wish I could get behind the music as much as you, but I can't. Even that movement, which I didn't even remember, failed to make much of an impression on me. Pettersson is a much more distinctive composer than Holmboe in my opinion. I know Pettersson's music almost as soon as it starts.
How about 8 & 9
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 24, 2011, 10:29:54 AM
Pettersson is a much more distinctive composer than Holmboe in my opinion.
Oh, I differ, indeed I do.Quote from: MII know Pettersson's music almost as soon as it starts.
So do I, the swifter to direct my ears elsewhere ; )
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 24, 2011, 10:29:54 AM
I own the whole BIS set of symphonies. I've heard them all, but bare in my mind when I listened I spread them out over many months. I wish I could get behind the music as much as you, but I can't. Even that movement, which I didn't even remember, failed to make much of an impression on me. Pettersson is a much more distinctive composer than Holmboe in my opinion. I know Pettersson's music almost as soon as it starts.
Different strokes... I would just advise the usual: listen to any piece a few times, try to read up on it, etc. Maybe you'll connect with it eventually, maybe not. Holmboe has grown on me over time. Maybe I should see a doctor... ;D
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 24, 2011, 11:06:26 AM
Oh, I differ, indeed I do.
So do I, the swifter to direct my ears elsewhere ; )
I love some of Pettersson but will readily admit you have to steel yourself for some of his works: swathes of angry polyphonic pounding are not for everyone!
Quote from: Lisztianwagner on October 24, 2011, 09:23:50 AM
Mine:
1. Beethoven
2. Mahler
3. Shostakovich
After that, Brahms, Bruckner, Sibelius, Nielsen and Tchaikovsky.
Won't argue with that Ilaria, exactly the same as mine ;)
Quote from: madaboutmahler on October 24, 2011, 01:13:38 PM
Won't argue with that Ilaria, exactly the same as mine ;)
Apart from you including Vaughan-Williams, and me Tchaikovsky ;)
Quote from: Lisztianwagner on October 24, 2011, 01:27:33 PM
Apart from you including Vaughan-Williams, and me Tchaikovsky ;)
Ah, I meant to include Tchaikovsky as well! ;)
Exactly the sort of thread which I find unnecessary and impossible! ; )
(The response isn't only to this post, but to the last page or so.)
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 24, 2011, 10:29:54 AM
Pettersson is a much more distinctive composer than Holmboe in my opinion.
They draw heavily from the same source in their early symphonies. While they don't sound harmonically like Sibelius or Nielsen, they both shape kernels of their music's development following their models. I consider the two very similar up until their 9th (or thereabouts) symphonies beyond the surface elements, although Pettersson leans towards complexity, and Holmboe to concision, which they would both explore in more depth later. By the end Pettersson is writing highly mechanical music, and Holmboe almost alienatingly lucid.
Both favour a very symphonic means of thinking based on long-lines - Pettersson in making whole symphonies into one structure, Holmboe by his metamorphosing method giving a unity to the material. They both during early maturity include a few spices to keep the listener interested before abandoning these later on. With Pettersson it's the melodramatic aspects of 6-8 which make the knotty and dense music more compelling to many, with Holmboe it is mild aspects of folk music, which while never particularly over-exploited, are fully synthesised into his music even once it seems to have been abandoned.
Both sound like no other, and by their maturity are so far into the cultivation an individual idiom that although Pettersson's music is written uniquely abrasive manner, I don't find it fair to consider that as neccesserally demonstrating superiority due to its immediate recognisability. For example, the music of Kapustin (to resurrect this old chestnut) is immediately recognisable to me, regardless of its merits.
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Pettersson on October 25, 2011, 06:33:19 AM
(The response isn't only to this post, but to the last page or so.)
They draw heavily from the same source in their early symphonies. While they don't sound harmonically like Sibelius or Nielsen, they both shape kernels of their music's development following their models. I consider the two very similar up until their 9th (or thereabouts) symphonies beyond the surface elements, although Pettersson leans towards complexity, and Holmboe to concision, which they would both explore in more depth later. By the end Pettersson is writing highly mechanical music, and Holmboe almost alienatingly lucid.
Both favour a very symphonic means of thinking based on long-lines - Pettersson in making whole symphonies into one structure, Holmboe by his metamorphosing method giving a unity to the material. They both during early maturity include a few spices to keep the listener interested before abandoning these later on. With Pettersson it's the melodramatic aspects of 6-8 which make the knotty and dense music more compelling to many, with Holmboe it is mild aspects of folk music, which while never particularly over-exploited, are fully synthesised into his music even once it seems to have been abandoned.
Both sound like no other, and by their maturity are so far into the cultivation an individual idiom that although Pettersson's music is written uniquely abrasive manner, I don't find it fair to consider that as neccesserally demonstrating superiority due to its immediate recognisability. For example, the music of Kapustin (to resurrect this old chestnut) is immediately recognisable to me, regardless of its merits.
Interesting observations. I must say, though, that's its the lucidity that draws me to Holmboe (hence my reference to him being reminiscent of Sibelius), though I can see how some might hear that as severity or remoteness.
Beethoven
Bruckner
Mahler
Or may be Haydn not Mahler- I was absolutely bored while listening last time to the latter. (The older Bernstein set.) Must check them both. Probably about 2014.
Like a previous poster, I'll take Beethoven as a given.
1. Brahms
2. Sibelius
3. Mozart
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 22, 2010, 07:02:16 AM
My top 3 symphonists?
1. Bruckner
2. Mahler
3. Vaughan Williams
Oh goodness what in the world was I thinking? Now my list would look like this:
1. Shostakovich
2. Vaughan Williams
3. Sibelius
MI, I didn't know that you used to like Mahler! :D
Quote from: DavidW on February 21, 2012, 03:19:15 PM
MI, I didn't know that you used to like Mahler! :D
I didn't either. I don't know what I was thinking. :D
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 21, 2012, 03:13:39 PM
Oh goodness what in the world was I thinking? Now my list would look like this:
1. Shostakovich
2. Vaughan Williams
3. Sibelius
As a matter of fact it was a great surprise to see Mahler instead of Shostakovich in your list. ;)
Quote from: Lisztianwagner on February 21, 2012, 03:52:13 PM
As a matter of fact it was a great surprise to see Mahler instead of Shostakovich in your list. ;)
It was for me too. :D
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 21, 2012, 03:55:01 PM
It was for me too. :D
.......but Mahler had been a better choice ::) ;)
My list might be Haydn, Beethoven, Mahler.
Bruckner, Mahler, Hartmann.
IF I had to narrow it down to just three on a space station hurtling out of the solar system,
I suppose it would be Beethoven, Brahms, and Mahler -
but I'd be aching for Mozart, Shostakovich, Tchaikovsky, and a few from Bruckner, Schubert and ....
I think to cover all the styles you'd need more than just three. Prokofiev was brilliant with orchestration.
Quote from: Cato on February 21, 2012, 04:15:01 PM
Bruckner, Mahler, Hartmann.
I like Hartmann in there! :)
Still, I'd probably have to say:
Haydn
Bruckner
Sibelius
Don't know why everyone seems to include Bruckner without questioning... but somehow his symphonies are the epitome of "symphonic".
Quote from: TheGSMoeller on October 21, 2011, 07:53:08 PM
1. Haydn
2. Prokofiev
3. Bruckner
Now there's a good lineup. ;)
Haydn
Havergal Brian
Alan Hovhaness
just kidding
Beethoven
Mozart
Vaughan Williams....at least I believe he is moving into this position.
Mahler
Beethoven
Rubbra
The above is based on my listening pattern over the past 5 years or so.
Quote from: Elnimio on February 21, 2012, 07:05:30 PM
Haydn
Havergal Brian
Alan Hovhaness
just kidding
Ha! I especially laughed at the last name on this list.
Quote from: lescamil on February 21, 2012, 10:13:34 PM
Ha! I especially laughed at the last name on this list.
What he didn't tell you is that Segerstam is at #4!
Quote from: springrite on February 21, 2012, 10:31:47 PM
What he didn't tell you is that Segerstam is at #4!
I really doubt that any of us have heard a significant amount of his oeuvre to really say anything significant about him. He has over 250 symphonies now! I've heard a few that have really caught my ear, like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAydCG0KTdQ
Quote from: lescamil on February 21, 2012, 11:03:21 PM
He has over 250 symphonies now!
Never heard of him, but there's no way high quality could have been maintained over anywhere near that many ... I'll check him out.
update: Oops! I see I have a Scriabin LP that he conducted the Stockholm Phil on.
The Voting so Far:I've counted only entries mentioning exactly three composers;
I've not counted obvious "I'm-so-clever" entries.
I've tried not to count repeat entries, but may have failed.
Beethoven | x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
|
Mahler | x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
|
Bruckner | x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
|
Sibelius | x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
|
Shostakovich | x x x x x x x x x x
|
Haydn | x x x x x x x x x
|
Brahms | x x x x x x x x x
|
Mozart | x x x x x x x
|
Vaughan Williams | x x x x x x x
|
Tchaikovsky | x x x x
|
Nielsen | x x x
|
Dvorak | x x x
|
Brian | x x x
|
Hartmann | x x
|
Miaskovsky | x x
|
Pettersson | x x
|
Ives | x |
Schubert | x |
Prokofiev | x |
Elgar | x |
Rubbra | x |
Beethoven
Mahler
Sibelius
/fridden
Quote from: Lisztianwagner on February 21, 2012, 04:03:34 PM
.......but Mahler had been a better choice ::) ;)
Oh, no, you don't! ; )
Quote from: Bogey on February 21, 2012, 07:23:07 PM
Beethoven
Mozart
Vaughan Williams....at least I believe he is moving into this position.
Cool, Bill!
Quote from: Cato on February 21, 2012, 04:15:01 PM
Bruckner, Mahler, Hartmann.
Cool, Cato!
Bruckner is my big surprise this week. I do need to dig more into the Hartmann set.
If pressed, though, I guess my own response here would be:
Shostakovich
Sibelius
… can't find it in me to commit to a 3rd!
Quote from: karlhenning on February 22, 2012, 07:01:39 AM
Cool, Cato!
Bruckner is my big surprise this week. I do need to dig more into the Hartmann set.
If pressed, though, I guess my own response here would be:
Shostakovich
Sibelius
... can't find it in me to commit to a 3rd!
So far, Karl, you and I have the exact same composers in our top two. We must be brothers from another mother. ;) :D
Quote from: jlaurson on February 22, 2012, 01:35:28 AM
Beethoven | x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
|
Mahler | x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
|
Bruckner | x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
|
I have voted for the three leaders. What a shame!
Quote from: karlhenning on February 22, 2012, 07:01:39 AM
Shostakovich
Sibelius
... can't find it in me to commit to a 3rd!
That's my problem. The first two are easy for me (Mahler, Bruckner); it's the third that tough. Brian? Haydn? Beethoven? Sibelius? Vaughan Williams? Shostakovich?
Sarge
Hans Rott
Kurt Atterberg
Bruckner
In that order. Just missing out are Mahler, Sibelius, Shostakovich, Rangstrom and Martinu. For some reason I have gone off Brian a bit.
Greatest:
Sibelius
Bruckner
Shostakovich
My favourites:
Miaskovsky
Vaughan Williams
Tubin
Quote from: vandermolen on February 22, 2012, 12:06:01 PM
Greatest:
Sibelius
Bruckner
Shostakovich
My favourites:
Miaskovsky
Vaughan Williams
Tubin
All of these composers are outstanding and are some of my favorites. Glad to see Myaskovsky and Tubin on your list, Jeffrey. Their music is simply stunning. I'm surprised Braga Santos isn't one of your favorites though.
Some of my runners-up in my list are Honegger, Myaskovsky, Tubin, Prokofiev, Milhaud, Villa-Lobos, Nielsen, Roussel, Martinu, Braga Santos, Tchaikovsky, and Ives (as an American I feel Ives' music more than ever now).
Maxwell-Davies
Nørgård
Nielsen
That's an affective choice. However, if I was to make a purely formal ranking based upon the one who have impressed me the most in respect with the perfection of their writing (fluency of melodic ideas, orchestral creativity, perfect adjustement of the rhythmic and the melodic lines and so on - in my subjective opinion), it would be :
Elgar
Dutilleux
Mahler
Quote from: kentel on February 22, 2012, 12:54:24 PMMaxwell-Davies
Maxwell-Davies? Hmmm...I have heard his name for years but haven't heard any of his symphonies. What is his music like?
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 22, 2012, 12:55:55 PM
Maxwell-Davies? Hmmm...I have heard his name for years but haven't heard any of his symphonies. What is his music like?
Pretty uneasy to describe. Imagine an one hour-long symphonic Britten enhanced with the flowing orchestral textures of a Tippett and the magmatic effects of a Birtwistle. I think Britten is the most important there because the evocation of the sea is crucial in all these symphonies, and PMD makes it sounds the same way Britten does : windy and salted (hope it makes sense...). I don't know if it helps... In any case, I find it absolutely enthralling.
Quote from: kentel on February 22, 2012, 01:03:33 PM
Pretty uneasy to describe. Imagine an one hour-long symphonic Britten enhanced with the flowing orchestral textures of a Tippett and the magmatic effects of a Birtwistle. I think Britten is the most important there because the evocation of the sea is crucial in all these symphonies, and PMD makes it sounds the same way Britten does : windy and salted (hope it makes sense...). I don't know if it helps... In any case, I find it absolutely enthralling.
Interesting. Thanks for your feedback. It looks like Naxos will be reissuing all of those Maxwell-Davies recordings from the Collins Classics label. I'll probably pick them up at some point.
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 22, 2012, 01:10:37 PM
Interesting. Thanks for your feedback. It looks like Naxos will be reissuing all of those Maxwell-Davies recordings from the Collins Classics label. I'll probably pick them up at some point.
Yes, that's great because these Collins recordings were really good - not only the symphonies but also the Strathclyde Concertos series. However, only the 6 first symphonies were issued by Collins : the 8th ("Antartica", probably the most beautiful) was made available exclusively in mp3 on the composer's website. This site have been open only a few months and was closed for legal reasons (there's a discussion about this issue on the composer's thread in this forum, if I remember well). So the 8th is a rarity - you had to pay to download it, which I actually did. As for the 7th, I've never heard it nor even seen it anywhere...
Here are the Collins covers of the 6 first :
(http://pixhost.me/avaxhome/14/8c/000e8c14_medium.jpeg)
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 22, 2012, 12:51:20 PMand Ives (as an American I feel Ives' music more than ever now).
Ah, yes, Ives! I just had dinner with a dear friend and mentor and made him edit a review that's essentially a love letter to Ives.
Would NEVER have 'gotten' his music, beyond the Concord Sonata, from recordings. But live, and well played, you can smell the music.
The avant-garde likes to pretend he's a proto-modernist... but that label doesn't quite stick. In some ways he's the American Mahler (marching bands crashing into the music at all points); in other ways he's the anti-Mahler, because his music is of a healthy honest robustness that is more like Bruckner... not the endlessly wrung question marks of ol' Gustav.
Quote from: jlaurson on February 22, 2012, 01:42:58 PM
Ah, yes, Ives! I just had dinner with a dear friend and mentor and made him edit a review that's essentially a love letter to Ives.
Would NEVER have 'gotten' his music, beyond the Concord Sonata, from recordings. But live, and well played, you can smell the music.
The avant-garde likes to pretend he's a proto-modernist... but that label doesn't quite stick. In some ways he's the American Mahler (marching bands crashing into the music at all points); in other ways he's the anti-Mahler, because his music is of a healthy honest robustness that is more like Bruckner... not the endlessly wrung question marks of ol' Gustav.
I think Ives is merely unique. He was deeply influenced by the transcendantalist American writers (Thoreau, Emerson, etc.). The idea was that a creator, being he writer, composer or whatsoever, was to refuse the adherence to aesthetic, ideologic, religious or political principles, and find his own way to express himself independently. In many ways, that's what Ives did - and that's certainly what Thoreau and Emerson did. You've got nothing equivalent to Ive's music in the 1910's. Hence I would say that Ives is not "post-modern" nor anything corresponding to the current classifications of music trends. I think he's "transcendantalist", and probably would have agreed to be considered so. Or at least I guess.
This literary movement has had, through Ives, a deep impact on the history of American classical music. In fact, I don't think you could find such transcendantalist inspired composers outside the USA (guys like Varèse, Nancarrow, Cage, Crumb etc.).
Quote from: jlaurson on February 22, 2012, 01:42:58 PM
Ah, yes, Ives! I just had dinner with a dear friend and mentor and made him edit a review that's essentially a love letter to Ives.
Would NEVER have 'gotten' his music, beyond the Concord Sonata, from recordings. But live, and well played, you can smell the music.
The avant-garde likes to pretend he's a proto-modernist... but that label doesn't quite stick. In some ways he's the American Mahler (marching bands crashing into the music at all points); in other ways he's the anti-Mahler, because his music is of a healthy honest robustness that is more like Bruckner... not the endlessly wrung question marks of ol' Gustav.
I think the combination of a deep reverence of the past, memories from his childhood, and an uncertainty about the future haunt most of Ives's music. You can really hear it in
Holidays Symphony, which, for me, is one of his finest works.
1. Robert Simpson
2. Havergal Brian
3. Carl Nielsen
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 22, 2012, 12:55:55 PM
Maxwell-Davies? Hmmm...I have heard his name for years but haven't heard any of his symphonies. What is his music like?
For me it is a mix of musical lego and meccano. Sorry to say, MaxDav fans that I stay well away from him...if you want to convince me otherwise, by all means try - but what I've heard (Symphonies 1-3), he can not be on my playlists. :(
Quote from: Scots John on February 22, 2012, 02:54:52 PM
For me it is a mix of musical lego and meccano. Sorry to say, MaxDav fans that I stay well away from him...if you want to convince me otherwise, by all means try - but what I've heard (Symphonies 1-3), he can not be on my playlists. :(
Yeah, I've done some research on his music and the more I read about it the less likely I am to buy any of it.
Quote from: calyptorhynchus on February 22, 2012, 02:22:58 PM
1. Robert Simpson
2. Havergal Brian
3. Carl Nielsen
I'm trying to get more into Robert Simpson. I listened to the 6th earlier and I really enjoyed it. Obviously, Simpson isn't a tunesmith, like Prokofiev or Vaughan Williams, but the construction of this particular symphony was fascinating. It certainly had some great rhythmic energy too.
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 22, 2012, 04:36:59 PM
I'm trying to get more into Robert Simpson. I listened to the 6th earlier and I really enjoyed it. Obviously, Simpson isn't a tunesmith, like Prokofiev or Vaughan Williams, but the construction of this particular symphony was fascinating. It certainly had some great rhythmic energy too.
Awesome! Great to hear you getting into Simpson. :)
Quote from: DavidW on February 22, 2012, 04:57:19 PM
Awesome! Great to hear you getting into Simpson. :)
I've enjoyed Simpson off/on, but I have only recently been giving a more careful examination. I own the Handley set on Hyperion.
Quote from: lescamil on February 21, 2012, 11:03:21 PM
I really doubt that any of us have heard a significant amount of his oeuvre to really say anything significant about him. He has over 250 symphonies now! I've heard a few that have really caught my ear, like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAydCG0KTdQ
I've heard 6 of his symphonies (11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18) and I enjoyed every note of them. Just great. Few of them have been recorded though.
The reason why there's so much symphonies lies within his writing process, where improvisation plays a significant part. But the result is awesome IMO.
Quote from: Scion7 on February 22, 2012, 12:39:58 AM
Never heard of him, but there's no way high quality could have been maintained over anywhere near that many ... I'll check him out.
update: Oops! I see I have a Scriabin LP that he conducted the Stockholm Phil on.
I came a cross a
Leif Segerstam BIS CD at the public library back in the 1980's or early 1990's: I believe it contained
Symphony #16 which had a subtitle about "My Thoughts" or something similar, which I found superfluous. I was not impressed. The work reminded me of the one-movement 15-20 minute symphonies cranked out by professors of Music back in the 1940's and 1950's.
He had conducted an excellent performance of the
Hans Rott Symphony on BIS, so I gave him a chance as a composer.
Quote from: Cato on February 23, 2012, 03:46:30 AM
I came a cross a Leif Segerstam BIS CD at the public library back in the 1980's or early 1990's: I believe it contained Symphony #16 which had a subtitle about "My Thoughts" or something similar, which I found superfluous. I was not impressed. The work reminded me of the one-movement 15-20 minute symphonies cranked out by professors of Music back in the 1940's and 1950's.
Thank you for giving him that chance, I'm sure he appreciates. May I ask which "music professors" wrote "15-20 minutes symphonies" in the 40's and the 50's - so that I could listen and try to understand what your criticism is about - ?
Quote from: Cato on February 23, 2012, 03:46:30 AM
I came a cross a Leif Segerstam BIS CD at the public library back in the 1980's or early 1990's: I believe it contained Symphony #16 which had a subtitle about "My Thoughts" or something similar,
By the way, the title of this symphony is "Thoughts at the Border", not "My Thoughts".
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 22, 2012, 04:36:59 PM
I'm trying to get more into Robert Simpson. I listened to the 6th earlier and I really enjoyed it. Obviously, Simpson isn't a tunesmith, like Prokofiev or Vaughan Williams, but the construction of this particular symphony was fascinating. It certainly had some great rhythmic energy too.
Quote from: DavidW on February 22, 2012, 04:57:19 PM
Awesome! Great to hear you getting into Simpson. :)
Glad to hear this, John! The 6th is one of the ones I am yet to hear. So far I know no.4 and 7 which are both excellent, and very very different. This Saturday when I get back to the academy (we have just had the 'half term' holidays), Matthew is planning on playing me another Simpson symphony, which I am very excited to hear. I think he said it would be no.8 we'll be listening to.
By the way, if you want the most thrilling rhythmic energy, take a listen to the Scherzo from the 4th symphony! Matthew was right in telling me before we listened to it that 'you will have never heard a scherzo quite like this before...'. Such a thrilling piece! :)
Quote from: jlaurson on February 22, 2012, 01:42:58 PM
Ah, yes, Ives! I just had dinner with a dear friend and mentor and made him edit a review that's essentially a love letter to Ives.
Would NEVER have 'gotten' his music, beyond the Concord Sonata, from recordings. But live, and well played, you can smell the music.
The avant-garde likes to pretend he's a proto-modernist... but that label doesn't quite stick. In some ways he's the American Mahler (marching bands crashing into the music at all points); in other ways he's the anti-Mahler, because his music is of a healthy honest robustness that is more like Bruckner... not the endlessly wrung question marks of ol' Gustav.
Musica Viva Munich: Ives, the American Mahler?Ives - Birtwistle - Poppe
Musica Viva Munich: Ives, the American Mahler?http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2012/02/musica-viva-munich-ives-american-mahler.html (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2012/02/musica-viva-munich-ives-american-mahler.html)
In no particular order:
Shostakovich
Mahler
Weinberg
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 22, 2012, 12:45:50 PM
All of these composers are outstanding and are some of my favorites. Glad to see Myaskovsky and Tubin on your list, Jeffrey. Their music is simply stunning. I'm surprised Braga Santos isn't one of your favorites though.
I nearly chose Braga Santos instead of Tubin John. However, I like all the ten completed Tubin symphonies, but only nos 1-4 of Braga Santos.
Quote from: vandermolen on February 23, 2012, 03:11:19 PM
I nearly chose Braga Santos instead of Tubin John. However, I like all the ten completed Tubin symphonies, but only nos 1-4 of Braga Santos.
But the last two Braga Santos symphonies are the best ones!
Quote from: kentel on February 23, 2012, 04:34:15 AM
May I ask which "music professors" wrote "15-20 minutes symphonies" in the 40's and the 50's - so that I could listen and try to understand what your criticism is about - ?
Well, no, you cannot hear them! And consider yourself lucky! 0:)
However, I can explain my criticism, which involves a double-edged sword:
1. Their names have been forgotten because...
2. Their music was uninteresting mathematical wannabe-
Webernian blips and bloops meant to mystify graduate students in Music, who however tended to be more annoyed than mystified.
Trust me: I saw a good number of these scores gathering dust in several university libraries, and my general criticism was echoed by professional critics 40-50 years ago. This professorial dominance with its "wannabe Webernianism" was partially the reason why a cry of freedom - or relief - accompanied the birth of Minimalism.
Quote from: Cato on February 23, 2012, 04:15:27 PM
Well, no, you cannot hear them! And consider yourself lucky! 0:)
However, I can explain my criticism, which involves a double-edged sword:
1. Their names have been forgotten because...
2. Their music was uninteresting mathematical wannabe-Webernian blips and bloops meant to mystify graduate students in Music, who however tended to be more annoyed than mystified.
Trust me: I saw a good number of these scores gathering dust in several university libraries, and my general criticism was echoed by professional critics 40-50 years ago. This professorial dominance with its "wannabe Webernianism" was partially the reason why a cry of freedom - or relief - accompanied the birth of Minimalism.
An example of a composer who deliberately avoided academia (partially) because of this atmosphere was
Gene Gutche'.
http://www.genegutche.org/biography.htm (http://www.genegutche.org/biography.htm)
Quote from: madaboutmahler on February 23, 2012, 08:21:17 AM
Glad to hear this, John! The 6th is one of the ones I am yet to hear. So far I know no.4 and 7 which are both excellent, and very very different. This Saturday when I get back to the academy (we have just had the 'half term' holidays), Matthew is planning on playing me another Simpson symphony, which I am very excited to hear. I think he said it would be no.8 we'll be listening to.
By the way, if you want the most thrilling rhythmic energy, take a listen to the Scherzo from the 4th symphony! Matthew was right in telling me before we listened to it that 'you will have never heard a scherzo quite like this before...'. Such a thrilling piece! :)
Thanks, Daniel. I'll give the 4th another listen at some point. Right now, I just received my ninth Shostakovich symphony cycle (Kondrashin, Moscow Philharmonic) and I plan on making my way through it. I also received Gergiev's Shostakovich set called
The War Symphonies which is #4-9, so I plan on listening to these as well. It looks like I'll be tied up for awhile, plus, tomorrow Markl's set of Debussy comes out, so I'll be acquiring this. So much to listen to!!! :D
Quote from: vandermolen on February 23, 2012, 03:11:19 PM
I nearly chose Braga Santos instead of Tubin John. However, I like all the ten completed Tubin symphonies, but only nos 1-4 of Braga Santos.
I actually like all of Braga Santos' symphonies. The 2nd is actually my favorite though. I do like the 4th a lot too. I need to refresh my memory of Tubin's, but the last Tubin symphony I listened to was the 7th which was riveting.
Quote from: karlhenning on February 22, 2012, 06:58:38 AM
Cool, Bill!
Well, you need to receive a lot of credit for my third choice, Karl. Continued appreciation.
Quote from: lescamil on February 23, 2012, 03:59:21 PM
But the last two Braga Santos symphonies are the best ones!
I meant symphonies 1,2,3 and 4 and totally agree that 3 and 4 are the best. He is certainly one of my favourite composers.
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 23, 2012, 06:37:28 PM
I actually like all of Braga Santos' symphonies. The 2nd is actually my favorite though. I do like the 4th a lot too. I need to refresh my memory of Tubin's, but the last Tubin symphony I listened to was the 7th which was riveting.
And I need to refresh my memory of Tubin's 7th Symphony! Actually, I increasingly like the more challenging nos 5 and 6 by Braga Santos too.
Quote from: Bulldog on February 23, 2012, 09:35:01 AM
In no particular order:
Shostakovich
Mahler
Weinberg
I have greatly enjoyed nos 1 and 3 by Weinberg, although I still think that, of the ones I know, No 5 is the greatest and the choral No 6 is a very powerful and moving work.
Quote from: Cato on February 23, 2012, 04:15:27 PM
1. Their names have been forgotten because...
2. Their music was uninteresting mathematical wannabe-Webernian blips and bloops meant to mystify graduate students in Music, who however tended to be more annoyed than mystified.
Trust me: I saw a good number of these scores gathering dust in several university libraries, and my general criticism was echoed by professional critics 40-50 years ago. This professorial dominance with its "wannabe Webernianism" was partially the reason why a cry of freedom - or relief - accompanied the birth of Minimalism.
Thanks for your answer, I guess I know what kind of stuff you are referring to :) In France, the stereotype of this kind was René Leibowitz, but I could mention many others. Actually, Boulez in his first works wrote things in this vein. Serialism was a kind of recipe, which could warrant the composer immediate success inasmuch as he was in the good "milieu". As for the (many) others, you're right : their scores are now gathering dust in universities and conservatories.
However, Maxwell-Davies and Segerstam sound very different to my ears : it's unmelodious and atonal, but it's not webernian. There's no klangfarbenmelodie with a single note for the clarinet here and a single note for the mandolin there etc. It's much more coherent, there's an atmosphere, it's more sensual than intellectual and it sounds to me highly evocative with a very rich panel of orchestral sonorities.
Well, you may not like it though, it's a question of personal affinities, but I don't think one could assimilate it to post-serial like stuff. To me PMD is a heir of Tippett and Britten - especially Tippett.
Is there a question harder than this one? (Probably would be 'Your all-time favorite composer')
Probably as a first attempt:
Dvorák
Nielsen
Tchaikovsky
As a second attempt it would be:
Vaughan Williams
Shostakovich
Bruckner
Why not a third one?
Martinu
Mahler
Tubin
Haydn
Beethoven
Dvořák (except no.9)
1.Robert Simpson
2. Havergal Brian
3. Holmboe
Quote from: amw on March 19, 2018, 06:03:27 PM
Haydn
Beethoven
Dvořák (except no.9)
Completely agree, except I forgive Mr. D. for No. 9.
My list these days would probably look like this:
Mahler
Bruckner
Nielsen
My top three today:
Vaughan Williams
Shostakovich
Sibelius
Favourites not already mentioned
Tubin
Braga-Santos
Miaskovsky
Three I should have mentioned ::)
Bruckner
Tchaikovsky
Mahler
I can't do without...
1. Mahler
2. Bruckner
3. Shostakovich
As of lately I'm stuck with the 5th by Shostakovich with Manfred Honeck and the Pittsburgh SO (Reference Recordings 2017)... :P
But any Barshai, Bernstein or Mravinsky will do just fine...
Quote from: Cato on February 23, 2012, 04:15:27 PM
Well, no, you cannot hear them! And consider yourself lucky! 0:)
However, I can explain my criticism, which involves a double-edged sword:
1. Their names have been forgotten because...
2. Their music was uninteresting mathematical wannabe-Webernian blips and bloops meant to mystify graduate students in Music, who however tended to be more annoyed than mystified.
Trust me: I saw a good number of these scores gathering dust in several university libraries, and my general criticism was echoed by professional critics 40-50 years ago. This professorial dominance with its "wannabe Webernianism" was partially the reason why a cry of freedom - or relief - accompanied the birth of Minimalism.
I want to bump this comment. Amen brother!
Mahler
Henze
Schnittke