It's something I first thought about years ago and I wonder whether I'm just imagining it or is there really not something unique about so many 6th symphonies?
Let's start with Beethoven - the Pastoral is totally unlike anything else he ever wrote in mood and aim. Bruckner's 6th was frequently largely ignored as it seemed somehow not "serious" enough compared to all the other mature works, despite its beauty (for me it's his greatest). And Tchaikovsky - his 6th is on a completely different level of emotional intensity from all the others.
Into the 20th century and there are more strangenesses -- Mahler's 6th is without question his most violent work and to some extent stands alone. As for Scandinavians, Sibelius 6th is another on the surface (but not in reality) almost too insubstantial to be taken seriously whereas Nielsen reaches new heights of both expressionism and strangeness. As does Martinu's 6th (although not untypical for late Martinu as a whole). Prokofiev's 6th totally gives the lie to his reputation as a relatively superficial tunesmith. And Vaughan Williams describes a strange post-apocalypse landscape a million miles from his popular work like Lark Ascending (although of course there is some unsettling stuff in not least no.4)
Obviously there are exceptions -- it's hard to come up with anything particularity extreme with Dvorak's 6th (probably may favorite after the 3rd). But I wonder where any single number from the most performed composers who wrote, say, at least five, has as many examples of works which seem to deviate more from what as regarded as "typical" for the composer in question. I would welcome alternative theories!
Tchaikovsky
Vaughan Williams
Roy Harris
Hilding Rosenberg
Malcolm Arnold
Arnold Bax
Miaskovsky
Sibelius
Martinu
Prokofiev
...all produced great 6th symphonies (arguably their greatest in the case of Tchaikovsky, Vaughan Williams, Harris, NYM, Sibelius and Prokofiev).
I'll say more about this later when it isn't nearly midnight for me.
But for now I'll restrict myself to noting that even Dvorak didn't treat the modern number 6 as his 6th. As far as he was concerned, the modern "number 1" didn't count because he thought it was destroyed.
And that's just his own notion, never mind the mess from when only (modern) numbers 5 through 9 were published. But yes, basically you can mount an argument that Dvorak's 6th is what we now call the 7th. If that helps.
There is also a long list of unremarkable sixths. I don't see anything necessary special about sixth symphonies, unlike the ninth.
Quote from: lunar22 on November 21, 2024, 03:46:17 AMAs does Martinu's 6th (although not untypical for late Martinu as a whole).
Martinu's 6th wasn't even numbered as a symphony at the beginning - he originally called it
Fantaisies Symphoniques. The number came later. It's really quite separate from his "official" symphonies, with a structure very similar to those other late orchestral triptychs,
Frescoes of Piero della Francesca and
Parables.
Schubert?
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on November 21, 2024, 05:55:59 AMMartinu's 6th wasn't even numbered as a symphony at the beginning - he originally called it Fantaisies Symphoniques. The number came later. It's really quite separate from his "official" symphonies, with a structure very similar to those other late orchestral triptychs, Frescoes of Piero della Francesca and Parables.
which is basically what I was saying regarding similarity to other late orchestral works. I'm referring specifically to how the symphonies are numbered nowadays when there is generally a complete overview of the body of work of a composer. not at the time which everyone knows could be very different for various reasons
Quote from: DavidW on November 21, 2024, 05:08:55 AMunlike the ninth
With the 9th for obvious reasons is where composers were conscious of the significance and either tried to do something special or avoided the issue (like Shostakovich) so this is not at all comparable. My thesis is that through sheer co-incidence, the sixth has a markedly individual character.
Quote from: vandermolen on November 21, 2024, 03:53:37 AMTchaikovsky
Vaughan Williams
Roy Harris
Hilding Rosenberg
Malcolm Arnold
Arnold Bax
Miaskovsky
Sibelius
Martinu
Prokofiev
...all produced great 6th symphonies (arguably their greatest in the case of Tchaikovsky, Vaughan Williams, Harris, NYM, Sibelius and Prokofiev).
I nearly mentioned Miaskovsky as well as it's probably his most celebrated symphony. For that matter, Weinberg's 6th was at least in the Soviet era by far his most popular (and Pettersson's 6th is in my view his greatest) but I guess I'm looking here for a specific character which separates them from their fellows
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 21, 2024, 06:13:06 AMSchubert?
Schubert only wrote two mature symphonies (and one complete one) so I'd be somewhat reluctant to count him.
Quote from: lunar22 on November 21, 2024, 07:09:58 AMSchubert only wrote two mature symphonies (and one complete one) so I'd be somewhat reluctant to count him.
I fail to see the logic behind this, honestly and with all due respect.
Quote from: DavidW on November 21, 2024, 05:08:55 AMThere is also a long list of unremarkable sixths. I don't see anything necessary special about sixth symphonies, unlike the ninth.
There's nothing special about ninths, either. Before 1800 both were a dime a dozen. There is only one remarkable sixth (Haydn's) and not a single remarkable ninth. Symphonies did not begin with Beethoven. ;D
Quote from: lunar22 on November 21, 2024, 07:08:35 AMI nearly mentioned Miaskovsky as well as it's probably his most celebrated symphony. For that matter, Weinberg's 6th was at least in the Soviet era by far his most popular (and Pettersson's 6th is in my view his greatest) but I guess I'm looking here for a specific character which separates them from their fellows
Yes, the Pettersson is a great work (as is the Weinberg).
I wonder if some composers felt they could let their hair down and guard down after completing the Fifth? Not true of Mahler, of course. But I imagine some like Shostakovich and Prokofiev were so nervous about having a suitably heroic, triumphant Fifth that afterwards, they wrote one "for themselves" that was odder and more eccentric...?
Quote from: Brian on November 21, 2024, 08:32:09 AMI wonder if some composers felt they could let their hair down and guard down after completing the Fifth? Not true of Mahler, of course. But I imagine some like Shostakovich and Prokofiev were so nervous about having a suitably heroic, triumphant Fifth that afterwards, they wrote one "for themselves" that was odder and more eccentric...?
Fifth symphonies are unique because composers feel they need to be heroic like Beethoven's. Forth symphonies are free wheeling because composers think it's the last symphony they can write before they have to write a heroic symphony. Sixth symphonies reflect the relief that the fifth symphony is behind them. Eighth symphonies are unique because composers think it is the last symphony they can write before the symphony that will kill them. Ninth symphonies are unique because composers know they will die soon afterwards. And tenth symphonies are euphoric because composers realized they didn't die.
You see how that works. :)
Quote from: Spotted Horses on November 21, 2024, 09:35:39 AMFifth symphonies are unique because composers feel they need to be heroic like Beethoven's. Forth symphonies are free wheeling because composers think it's the last symphony they can write before they have to write a heroic symphony. Sixth symphonies reflect the relief that the fifth symphony is behind them. Eighth symphonies are unique because composers think it is the last symphony they can write before the symphony that will kill them. Ninth symphonies are unique because composers know they will die soon afterwards. And tenth symphonies are euphoric because composers realized they didn't die.
You see how that works. :)
How about thirds? :laugh:
The classical era composers were spared such anxiety and stress. When you write them by the dozens, no symphony can scare or haunt you. On the contrary, you go have a tasty ice cream after performance. :laugh:
Quote from: Florestan on November 21, 2024, 09:51:46 AMHow about thirds? :laugh:
The classical era composers were spared such anxiety and stress. When you write them by the dozens, no symphony can scare or haunt you. On the contrary, you go have a tasty ice cream after performance. :laugh:
Did Classical era composers even number their symphonies? I think that was usually done later, by publishers.
With
Bruckner, the
Sixth Symphony is quite different from the
5th and
7th: "
Die Sechste ist die Keckste!"
"
The Sixth is the sassiest!" he said.
And yes,
Prokofiev's Sixth is a great work, as is the wild
Sixth Symphony of
Karl Amadeus Hartmann!
Quote from: Spotted Horses on November 21, 2024, 09:35:39 AMFifth symphonies are unique because composers feel they need to be heroic like Beethoven's. Forth symphonies are free wheeling because composers think it's the last symphony they can write before they have to write a heroic symphony. Sixth symphonies reflect the relief that the fifth symphony is behind them. Eighth symphonies are unique because composers think it is the last symphony they can write before the symphony that will kill them. Ninth symphonies are unique because composers know they will die soon afterwards. And tenth symphonies are euphoric because composers realized they didn't die.
You see how that works. :)
Yes, I do see how that works. And I think that's kind of the point. Psychology is what's at play here.
Quote from: Madiel on November 21, 2024, 11:52:20 AMYes, I do see how that works. And I think that's kind of the point. Psychology is what's at play here.
..and sometimes the psychology works in reverse. When Shostakovich produced his 9th symphony, he rejected the expectation that he would produce a Russian counterpart to Beethoven's 9th, and instead composed a sarcastic, neoclassical work.
So here's why the idea is not crazy, although it's always going to be subject to an element of confirmation bias (noticing the cases where it applies more readily than the cases where it doesn't).
First, we are clearly talking about Beethoven and a post-Beethoven world. But we all know that Beethoven changed how symphonies were thought of. They became the most weighty, significant kind of composition. The place for a composer's most elevated thoughts. You all know the associations with particular numbers like 5 and 9, they can be referenced here in this thread without people requiring an explanation.
The pressure was on when a post-Beethoven composer wrote a symphony. Brahms is the most famous example, as well as whatever internal pressure he had there was also a lot of external pressure on him to be Beethoven's true heir, in an era where the whole notion of "the classics" had developed and hence where the term Classical music, which we still use today, had taken hold.
And from that there are at least two reasons why a 6th symphony could take a particular angle. One is all the associations with the number 5 and having navigated those associations. The other is that if you're a good enough, big enough composer to have dared to tackle the symphony this number of times, it's highly likely that you don't want to repeat yourself or to be seen to repeat yourself. Why do another example of what's seen as the ultimate form for your greatest thoughts if you're just going to keep saying the same things?
In a post-Beethoven world, you don't even do 6 symphonies unless you're aiming for the big time.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on November 21, 2024, 12:11:14 PM..and sometimes the psychology works in reverse. When Shostakovich produced his 9th symphony, he rejected the expectation that he would produce a Russian counterpart to Beethoven's 9th, and instead composed a sarcastic, neoclassical work.
Correct. But reverse psychology is still psychology. Subverting expectations still relies on there being expectations. People constantly comment on the nature of Shostakovich's 9th precisely because they know what a 9th is "supposed" to be.
Quote from: Cato on November 21, 2024, 11:15:13 AMAnd yes, Prokofiev's Sixth is a great work, as is the wild Sixth Symphony of Karl Amadeus Hartmann!
Yes -- the Hartmann is another worthwhile mention. I remember Martin Anderson of Toccata Classics once saying it was a particular favourite of his which to him was the sort of thing contemporary composers could be aiming at. As a result i did have a listen or two and found it certainly a powerful work.
Any number will do. Is there really something unique about 5th symphonies? Is there really something unique about 7th symphonies? And so on.
Could be and it's easy to say that. But I'm still waiting patiently for you to justify the 7th as an example. What is it about 7th symphonies which make them stand out from others in the series?