"Greatest" meaning having the most influence and/or being of most historical importance:
Greatest:
Haydn
Beethoven
Bruckner
Mahler
Shostakovich
Favorites:
Bruckner
Mahler
Shostakovich
Tchaikovsky
Sibelius
(it pains me to leave VW out, though :()
Here we go again. :)
Greatest:
Beethoven
Bruckner
Sibelius
Mahler
Brahms
Favourites:
Miaskovsky
Vaughan Williams
Sibelius
Braga Santos
Moeran
Quote from: vandermolen on October 04, 2013, 11:35:25 AM
Bach
Bach!? ??? Unless you're counting the single-movement
Sinfonias from his cantatas, you must be joking! ;D
Quote from: kyjo on October 04, 2013, 11:37:58 AM
Bach!? ??? Unless you're counting the single-movement Sinfonias from his cantatas, you must be joking! ;D
Silly me :o
I had forgotten it was symphonies not composers. I've substituted Brahms now and could have included Haydn, whom I prefer to Mozart.
Quote from: vandermolen on October 04, 2013, 11:41:07 AM
Silly me :o
I had forgotten it was symphonies not composers. I've substituted Brahms now and could have included Haydn, whom I prefer to Mozart.
I debated whether to include Brahms, but, in the end, it was the mere fact that he composed only four symphonies that worked against him being included. I agree with you about preferring Haydn to Mozart. Only recently have I had this opinion, though. Before, I was more attracted to Mozart's sunny melodicism and thought Haydn's music to be more intellectual. Now, I realize Haydn's music is overall deeper and more complex than Mozart's, and has more lasting value. There's still some Mozart that I like, mainly Symphonies 39-41 and the
Requiem, but time has pushed Haydn in front of Mozart for me. :)
Let the silliness continue... 8)
Quote from: kyjo on October 04, 2013, 11:46:13 AM
I debated whether to include Brahms, but, in the end, it was the mere fact that he composed only four symphonies that worked against him being included. I agree with you about preferring Haydn to Mozart. Only recently have I had this opinion, though. Before, I was more attracted to Mozart's sunny melodicism and thought Haydn's music to be more intellectual. Now, I realize Haydn's music is overall deeper and more complex than Mozart's, and has more lasting value. There's still some Mozart that I like, mainly Symphonies 39-41 and the Requiem, but time has pushed Haydn in front of Mozart for me. :)
Kyle, do you know Mozart's Clarinet Concerto, PCs (20-27, say) and
operas! Haydn may be more historically important, but I wouldn't dare to claim that his music has more emotional depth than mature Mozart.
Greatest:
Haydn
Mozart
Beethoven
Brahms
Sibelius
Favourites:
Beethoven
Brahms
Mahler
Sibelius
Shostakovich
I think I'll steal North Star's list for "Greatest."
Greatest:
Haydn
Mozart
Beethoven
Brahms
Sibelius
The only difficulty, for me, is choosing Sibelius vs. Shostakovich.
Favourites:
Haydn
Beethoven
Dvorak
Sibelius
Martinu
The difficulty here was choosing Martinu vs. Tchaikovsky.
Would anybody be interested - I feel like I ask with all these polls - in explanations of why?
Quote from: Brian on October 04, 2013, 03:04:57 PM
Would anybody be interested - I feel like I ask with all these polls - in explanations of why?
Nah...we don't give a shit ;)
Sarge
Quote from: Brian on October 04, 2013, 03:04:57 PM
I think I'll steal North Star's list for "Greatest."
Greatest:
Haydn
Mozart
Beethoven
Brahms
Sibelius
The only difficulty, for me, is choosing Sibelius vs. Shostakovich.
Favourites:
Haydn
Beethoven
Dvorak
Sibelius
Martinu
The difficulty here was choosing Martinu vs. Tchaikovsky.
Would anybody be interested - I feel like I ask with all these polls - in explanations of why?
Damn, I forgot about Tchaikovsky... Still, that doesn't change anything.
I'd certainly like to read your writing,
Brian.
In the 'greatest' list I put emphasis on originality (of each symphony, too), influence, and constant quality.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on October 04, 2013, 03:09:40 PM
Nah...we don't give a shit ;)
Sarge
;D
Beethoven
Dvorak
Bruckner
Sibelius
Mahler
Shostakovich
I guess I'm not too good at counting! ;D Greatest=Favorites for me, the two lists are the same.
Quote from: North Star on October 04, 2013, 02:54:06 PM
Kyle, do you know Mozart's Clarinet Concerto, PCs (20-27, say) and operas! Haydn may be more historically important, but I wouldn't dare to claim that his music has more emotional depth than mature Mozart.
Yes, I do know the late PCs and the Clarinet Concerto and I enjoy them quite a bit. I shouldn't have left them out of my original post. As for the operas, I've stated before that I can't really stomach any opera written before Wagner, so, of course, that would include Mozart's. Outside of the later works, I really like his Symphony no. 25, especially the first movement. I shouldn't give the impression that I dislike Mozart's music, which is far from the case. I just don't put him on a high pedestal like many others do. :)
Quote from: kyjo on October 04, 2013, 03:32:22 PM
Yes, I do know the late PCs and the Clarinet Concerto and I enjoy them quite a bit. I shouldn't have left them out of my original post. As for the operas, I've stated before that I can't really stomach any opera written before Wagner, so, of course, that would include Mozart's. Outside of the later works, I really like his Symphony no. 25, especially the first movement. I shouldn't give the impression that I dislike Mozart's music, which is far from the case. I just don't put him on a high pedestal like many others do. :)
Fair enough.
Not even
Berlioz or
von Weber's Die Freischütz?
Quote from: kyjo on October 04, 2013, 03:32:22 PM
I can't really stomach any opera written before Wagner,
What!? I can understand apathy due to lack of exposure, appreciation or understanding but animosity? This is a most irrational statement from you.
Quote from: North Star on October 04, 2013, 03:38:38 PM
Fair enough.
Not even Berlioz or von Weber's Die Freischütz?
Well, maybe "can't stomach" is a bit harsh, but I just can't find much to enjoy in pre-Wagner operas. Berlioz's operas are quite taxing listening for me.
Die Freischutz has some good parts, but not enough to keep me coming back to it. Now back to symphonies.....
Quote from: DavidW on October 04, 2013, 03:40:49 PM
What!? I can understand apathy due to lack of exposure, appreciation or understanding but animosity? This is a most irrational statement from you.
Like I said, David, I didn't mean to sound harsh in saying that, but the almost exclusively vocal dominance in baroque, classical and early romantic operas does not appeal to me at all. It's more of a lack of appreciation than anything. :)
Quote from: kyjo on October 04, 2013, 03:43:49 PM
Like I said, David, I didn't mean to sound harsh in saying that, but the almost exclusively vocal dominance in baroque, classical and early romantic operas does not appeal to me at all. It's more of a lack of appreciation than anything. :)
That is much better stated. FYI "can't stomach" is synonymous with "can't tolerate" not "I don't appreciate."
For those who don't "like" opera: Try Rameau!
Quote from: 71 dB on October 04, 2013, 03:51:55 PM
For those who don't "like" opera: Try Rameau!
Thanks for the rec, 71 dB! Now back to symphonies, please.....
Quote from: North Star on October 04, 2013, 03:16:52 PM
In the 'greatest' list I put emphasis on originality (of each symphony, too), influence, and constant quality.
Originality, influence, constant quality... hey, those were my criteria, too. In deciding between Sibelius and Shostakovich, I was swayed by the lack of any Sibelius "duds," the pretty huge numbers of composers influenced by Sibelius' symphonies, and an extra-symphonic concern: the fact that the symphonies are so central to Sibelius' achievement. Take away the symphonies and you have some tone poems, a concerto, a few other neat things; take away Shostakovich's symphonies and you still have the quartets, trios, operas, preludes and fugues...
I know that last criteria does not belong in a decision about the Greatest Symphonies. But sometimes I'm not rational. ;)
Rameau's operas are brilliant, absolutely agree with the recommendation - except that I guess some might not like the Baroque idiom, as astonishing as that would be.
Quote from: kyjo on July 25, 2013, 08:45:34 AM
You've got a good point! It's just a minor complaint. I'd rather have threads wander off-topic than have a moderator watching your every post with an eagle eye. After all, conversations naturally wander off into different subjects than the original one :)
;)
Quote from: Brian on October 04, 2013, 03:57:37 PM
Originality, influence, constant quality... hey, those were my criteria, too. In deciding between Sibelius and Shostakovich, I was swayed by the lack of any Sibelius "duds," the pretty huge numbers of composers influenced by Sibelius' symphonies, and an extra-symphonic concern: the fact that the symphonies are so central to Sibelius' achievement. Take away the symphonies and you have some tone poems, a concerto, a few other neat things; take away Shostakovich's symphonies and you still have the quartets, trios, operas, preludes and fugues...
I know that last criteria does not belong in a decision about the Greatest Symphonies. But sometimes I'm not rational. ;)
Agreed. Though of course there would still be a large amount of theatre music, solo piano, chamber music and songs, but the symphonies are central, absolutely.
Quote from: Brian on October 04, 2013, 03:04:57 PM
Would anybody be interested - I feel like I ask with all these polls - in explanations of why?
The only question I'd have is why Sibelius belongs in the "greatest" list. Certainly his symphonies are very good, and while I'm not sure how much I
like them, they do arouse strong emotions in me, but I'm not going to get into that all over again :P Nonetheless, in terms of influence and lasting appeal I'm not sure how well he matches up to e.g. Bruckner, Mahler or Chaikovsky, one of whom I'd pick for the fifth spot on your greatest list (probably Bruckner, though I actually don't like him at all; there's no denying his influence on later generations). The other four seem spot on.
edit: I see you answered this in part in a post that appeared while I was writing. Nonetheless, I might put him in a "top 10", but the top 5 seems a bit more exclusive.
Favourites -
Haydn, Schubert, Dvořák, Chaikovsky, Stravinsky
Beethoven, Mozart and Brahms would probably be in my top 10 but I prefer their non-symphonic music. Unfortunately one would probably have to get to the top 20 or 30 before Berwald, Kalliwoda, Gerhard, Lutosławski and co. make it in. Myaskovsky goes back and forth between "meh" and "5 Favourite Guilty Pleasure Symphonists", being in the latter right now; I'm a sucker for all those half-diminished sevenths ;D
I chose Sibelius because he has influenced a great many other symphonists. He does match up well to Bruckner, Mahler and Tchaikovsky.
Greatest:
-F.J. Haydn-While didn't create the genre of the symphony,was the first to take it as a 'serious' (not quite sure if that is the term I am looking for) genre and helped transform it to the genre we know today.
-Beethoven-For the innovations he inputted into the genre. (5th movement in the 6th, the scherzo, Chorus in the 9th, the linking of the movements)
-Berlioz-Introduction of programmatic music as something that is the only thing that can only follow LvB's 9th, which in some minds, was the end of the symphony.
-Mahler.
-Shostakovich
Favorites"
-Shostakovich,
-Beethoven
-Weinberg
-Schumann
-Schubert