To start with my take, in numerical order:
1. Ludvig Irgens Jensen
Arthur Benjamin
Alf Hurum
Zoltán Kodály
Czesław Marek
2. Eugene Goossens
Samuel Barber
Ernest John Moeran
Arthur Bliss
Eivind Groven
Henri Dutilleux
William Walton
Volkmar Andreae
Willem van Otterloo
3. Levi Madetoja
Douglas Lilburn
Igor Stravinsky
Pēteris Vasks
Alan Rawsthorne
Willem Pijper
Henryk Górecki
4. Lennox Berkeley
Stanley Bate
Franz Schmidt
Michael Tippett
Karol Szymanowski
Witold Lutosławski
Albert Roussel
Kaljo Raid
Arnold Cooke
Léon Orthel
Erkki Melartin
Gösta Nystroem
Lepo Sumera
5. Arthur Honegger
Herman Koppel
Ruth Gipps
Ahmet Adnan Saygun
William Alwyn
Hendrik Andriessen
William Grant Still
Joonas Kokkonen
Camille Saint-Saëns
Georges Enescu
6. Joly Braga Santos
Carl Nielsen
7. Camargo Guarnieri
Richard Arnell
Matthijs Vermeulen
Pyotr Ilich Tchaikovsky
Johan Willem Wilms
8, alas. Einar Englund
Charles Tournemire
9. Ralph Vaughan Willams
Malcolm Arnold
Ludwig van Beethoven
Antonín Dvořák
Anton Bruckner
Bohuslav Martinů (three late three-movement 'fantasies' included)
10. Gustav Mahler
Eduard Tubin
11. John Kinsella
Edmund Rubbra
13. Vagn Holmboe
15. Dmitri Shostakovich
32. Havergal Brian
I find Mahler, Bruckner, Brahms, Beethoven, Haydn, Martinu, Nielsen, Sibelius, Vaughan Williams, and Pettersson to be consistent. Not standards of equal greatness, just consistently good. As in, I could pop in any symphony when I'm in the mood for that composer and not be disappointed. I also mean Elgar, but he only wrote two symphonies!
I don't know if consistency is the greatest virtue. Arnold's first six symphonies are good and consistent, but the last three being staggeringly great means well more than matching the consistency of the first six.
Sibelius all
A difficult question, because no composer who wrote many symphonies is completely without fault or some misstep, but for me I'd say Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Sibelius and Vaughan Williams have the most consistently excellent symphonic cycles.
Wojtek Blecharz (3 symphonies that I have heard so far - all perfect), but I also think that it is unlikely that your music will be of low quality if you can get professionals to perform it without having to pay them.
:)
I see you are omitting Stravinsky's "in E flat" and "of Wind Instruments" ;)
Haydn, Mozart, Schubert, Tchaikovsky
I would say Mahler, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Bruckner, Rachmaninov, Sibelius, Brahms, Nielsen and Elgar; with a bonus for Schönberg, if his Chamber Symphonies can be considered. ;)
Quote from: Christo on March 05, 2025, 02:34:19 PMTo start with my take, in numerical order:
1. Ludvig Irgens Jensen
Arthur Benjamin
Alf Hurum
Zoltán Kodály
Czesław Marek
2. Eugene Goossens
Samuel Barber
Ernest John Moeran
Arthur Bliss
Eivind Groven
Henri Dutilleux
William Walton
Volkmar Andreae
Willem van Otterloo
3. Levi Madetoja
Douglas Lilburn
Igor Stravinsky
Pēteris Vasks
Alan Rawsthorne
Willem Pijper
Henryk Górecki
4. Lennox Berkeley
Stanley Bate
Franz Schmidt
Michael Tippett
Karol Szymanowski
Witold Lutosławski
Albert Roussel
Kaljo Raid
Arnold Cooke
Léon Orthel
Erkki Melartin
Gösta Nystroem
Lepo Sumera
5. Arthur Honegger
Herman Koppel
Ruth Gipps
Ahmet Adnan Saygun
William Alwyn
Hendrik Andriessen
William Grant Still
Joonas Kokkonen
Camille Saint-Saëns
Georges Enescu
6. Joly Braga Santos
Carl Nielsen
7. Camargo Guarnieri
Richard Arnell
Matthijs Vermeulen
Pyotr Ilich Tchaikovsky
Johan Willem Wilms
8, alas. Einar Englund
Charles Tournemire
9. Ralph Vaughan Willams
Malcolm Arnold
Ludwig van Beethoven
Antonín Dvořák
Anton Bruckner
Bohuslav Martinů (three late three-movement 'fantasies' included)
10. Gustav Mahler
Eduard Tubin
11. John Kinsella
Edmund Rubbra
13. Vagn Holmboe
15. Dmitri Shostakovich
32. Havergal Brian
Is there anyone
not on your list?
Quote from: Der lächelnde Schatten on March 09, 2025, 06:49:27 PMA difficult question, because no composer who wrote many symphonies is completely without fault or some misstep, but for me I'd say Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Sibelius and Vaughan Williams have the most consistently excellent symphonic cycles.
This is a helpful way of putting this, for me. On this basis I would have to say...
RVW, Vasks, Tabakov, Holmboe, Tubin, Sibelius, Petterson, and possibly Sawyers.
Not all obvious, maybe, but for me at least, all home runs.
Quote from: foxandpeng on March 12, 2025, 03:00:23 PMThis is a helpful way of putting this, for me. On this basis I would have to say...
RVW, Vasks, Tabakov, Holmboe, Tubin, Sibelius, Petterson, and possibly Sawyers.
Not all obvious, maybe, but for me at least, all home runs.
Barber, because of the small number - but that opens the door to other composers of small numbers.
Nørgård?
Beethoven, obviously.
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 12, 2025, 02:32:48 PMBrian?...
Brian is on the list! (not our Brian, but that other one.)
But I do see no mention of Alberic Magnard (4), Serge Prokofiev (7), Wolfgang Mozart (41? 47?) or Josef Haydn (104). One has to wonder, are these omissions intentional? Seems to me these composers have as much right of place as some of the worthies mentioned. And what, pray, about Alan Hovhaness (who wrote a lot) and Leif Segerstam (too many to count)?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 12, 2025, 05:51:02 PMI do see no mention of Alberic Magnard (4), Serge Prokofiev (7), Wolfgang Mozart (41? 47?) or Josef Haydn (104).
Ahem!...
Reply #6.
Quote from: Florestan on March 12, 2025, 11:55:22 PMAhem!...
Reply #6.
Larry meant absent from a certain seemingly exhaustive list.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 12, 2025, 05:51:02 PMBut I do see no mention of Alberic Magnard (4), Serge Prokofiev (7), Wolfgang Mozart (41? 47?) or Josef Haydn (104). One has to wonder, are these omissions intentional? Seems to me these composers have as much right of place as some of the worthies mentioned. And what, pray, about Alan Hovhaness (who wrote a lot) and Leif Segerstam (too many to count)?
I don't think Mozart belongs on the list. When he was young, he wrote a multitude of mildly interesting symphonies, and then his mature output consists of a handful of absolute masterpieces. That is not terribly consistent.
You also mentioned Prokofiev, and while this forum demonstrates enthusiasm for his entire symphonic output, I personally think that the 1st, 5th, and 6th stand in a higher tier than the rest of his symphonies.
Quote from: Florestan on March 12, 2025, 11:55:22 PMAhem!...
Reply #6.
But no mention on the original list, which also credited Tchaikovsky with 7. So ahem to your ahem . . .
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 13, 2025, 06:41:42 AMBut no mention on the original list, which also credited Tchaikovsky with 7. So ahem to your ahem . . .
A few months ago I listened to Tchaikovsky's "Seventh" as completed by some Soviet and recorded by Ormandy. Thoroughly hated it.
But perhaps they mean Manfred?
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 13, 2025, 06:04:20 AMLarry meant absent from a certain seemingly exhaustive list.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 13, 2025, 06:41:42 AMBut no mention on the original list, which also credited Tchaikovsky with 7. So ahem to your ahem . . .
Oh, my bad then.
And I have a question: how does one symphony only qualify as a symphonic cycle?
Quote from: Florestan on March 13, 2025, 06:59:24 AMAnd I have a question: how does one symphony only qualify as a symphonic cycle?
Because you listen to it over and over again.
Quote from: ChamberNut on March 13, 2025, 07:02:47 AMBecause you listen to it over and over again.
If so, then surely Anton Webern qualifies, because you can listen to his over and over within the span of an hour.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 13, 2025, 07:37:59 AMIf so, then surely Anton Webern qualifies, because you can listen to his over and over within the span of an hour.
You're a wildman!
Nice thread idea!
VW
Sibelius
Bruckner
Bantock
Bax
Walton (only two)
Elgar (including No.3)
Tubin
Gipps
Glazunov
Miaskovsky
Holmboe
Vasks
Shostakovich
Honegger
Rubbra
Alwyn (all good)
Copland
Rootham (only two)
Arnold
Gliere
Brahms
A clearer 'Roast Chicken' here ;D
Quote from: vandermolen on March 13, 2025, 08:00:43 AMA clearer 'Roast Chicken' here ;D
Comes with vegetables, I see. ;D
I do not know the answer to questions like this. Any answer I give would be totally subjective based on my personal tastes.
I do not know if there was a composer who composed nothing but great symphonies. If a composer wrote nine symphonies, one of them would be better than the other eight.
For example, one of my favorite symphonists is Nielson. I suspect that the vast majority of the members of this forum believe that he is one of the great symphonists. In spite of his stature, I can not connect with his Sixth Symphony. There are many who would probably think that it is his greatest. If a person really likes his Sixth, why would they be interested in my subjective opinion? In spite of my feelings, one should listen to the symphonies of Nielson and make up their own minds.
Quote from: arpeggio on March 13, 2025, 09:20:41 AMI do not know the answer to questions like this. Any answer I give would be totally subjective based on my personal tastes.
I do not know if there was a composer who composed nothing but great symphonies. If a composer wrote nine symphonies, one of them would be better than the other eight.
For example, one of my favorite symphonists is Nielson. I suspect that the vast majority of the members of this forum believe that he is one of the great symphonists. In spite of his stature, I can not connect with his Sixth Symphony. There are many who would probably think that it is his greatest. If a person really likes his Sixth, why would they be interested in my subjective opinion?
I'm interested in any musical detail you might supply about your non-connection. For me, the interest in that conversation would be less "why doesn't he agree with me?" than, how does he read the piece? We compare subjective opinions all the time here.
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 13, 2025, 09:36:07 AMI'm interested in any musical detail you might supply about your non-connection. For me, the interest in that conversation would be less "why doesn't he agree with me?" than, how does he read the piece? We compare subjective opinions all the time here.
Yes, exactly. If someone else's opinion seems uninteresting, it only reinforces the stance we've already taken. But if it holds something unexpectedly striking, our certainty may waver, or even shift.
One way or another, we'll still decide that we're evolving and making our own choices.
Well, so be it.
Quote from: arpeggio on March 13, 2025, 09:20:41 AMAny answer I give would be totally subjective based on my personal tastes.
Yes, that is the point of the thread. We are sharing our subjective impressions. Let us post our hot takes, not write a Wikipedia article!
OK. Based on my musical tastes, I can only think of two composers who have a symphony cycle that I like every symphony they composed: Tchaikovsky and Sibelius.
Brahms and Mahler are the only ones where I struggle to pick clear favorites or set others at least a bit behind. Maybe Sibelius as well.
This doesn't mean I think that e.g. Beethoven's, Schubert's or Bruckner's 1st symphonies are weak but they seem clearly behind some of their others, so I think it would be underestimating the excellence of Bruckner's 5th or 7th if I'd claim that the 1st or 2nd were very close in excellence.
The lists already posted are very exhaustive, so I'll just mention Koppel, Andriessen and Saygun as symphonists who always leave me wanting more.
I wouldn't call all of my mentions to be completely excellent in their entirety, but rather consistent:
Beethoven
Dvorak
Brahms
Nielsen
Vaughan Williams
Tubin
Casella
Rachmaninov
Martinu
Alwyn
Walton (despite he only wrote 2, they're tremendously great)
Honegger
Sibelius
Quote from: DavidW on March 13, 2025, 06:15:59 AMI don't think Mozart belongs on the list. When he was young, he wrote a multitude of mildly interesting symphonies, and then his mature output consists of a handful of absolute masterpieces. That is not terribly consistent.
You also mentioned Prokofiev, and while this forum demonstrates enthusiasm for his entire symphonic output, I personally think that the 1st, 5th, and 6th stand in a higher tier than the rest of his symphonies.
I definitely agree that Mozart's early symphonies are not very interesting. Charming and surprisingly accomplished for a teenager, but entirely forgettable. From 25 on it was hit and miss: 25, 29, 34 are great. 26, 28, 31 are good. 36-41 are masterpieces. You are right: not terribly consistent.
Hmm. Off the top of my head, I think the ones I'd find most consistent thus far would include:
Beethoven
Brahms
Nielsen
These are the composers where I genuinely feel you could put any of their symphonies up and I'd be pretty enthusiastic about listening to it (I've just finished listening to all the Nielsen cycle, so that really reminded me how I think every one of them is engaging). For other composers I either feel I don't have quite enough of a handle on the cycle to be sure how I feel about it, or there's at least one work somewhere that doesn't entirely convince me.
EDIT: Haydn probably comes darn close to be honest.
I have a confession to make. I've never heard Tchaikovsky's Symphonies No. 1-3 nor Dvorak's Symphonies 1-6. :'(
Quote from: relm1 on April 02, 2025, 06:03:47 AMI have a confession to make. I've never heard Tchaikovsky's Symphonies No. 1-3 nor Dvorak's Symphonies 1-6. :'(
There is some really great music in there. Dvorak's 6th is a masterpiece.
On the one hand, I really enjoy at least Dvorak's middle symphonies, and probably the earliest too though I'm arguably still getting to know them. And number 6 is undoubtedly a mature work.
On the other hand... I regard 7, 8 and 9 as among the great masterpieces of the symphonic literature and I find it hard to get past regarding them as just on another level. It's not that I consider the first 6 poor, it's that the last 3 blow my mind.
Quote from: André on March 28, 2025, 02:44:19 PMI definitely agree that Mozart's early symphonies are not very interesting. Charming and surprisingly accomplished for a teenager, but entirely forgettable.
To be charming and no more than that was precisely their very purpose.
Think of it this way. In Mozart's time the primary function of a symphony was to entertain the audience, who most likely heard it only once in their whole lifetime, and often in a convivial environment. The pleasing experience of and in the here-and-now was the paramount concern of both composers and listeners. It's only much later that the symphony came to be regarded as an autonomous work of art whose value and significance must be asserted by comparative (and contemplative) repeated hearings and, perhaps even better, by careful study and analysis of the score. In this respect, a symphony by Haydn and one by Brahms can safely be said to belong to completely different genres, what with their completely different functions and completely different aesthetics.
Quote from: Florestan on April 04, 2025, 12:32:49 AMTo be charming and no more than that was precisely their very purpose.
Think of it this way. In Mozart's time the primary function of a symphony was to entertain the audience, who most likely heard it only once in their whole lifetime, and often in a convivial environment. The pleasing experience of and in the here-and-now was the paramount concern of both composers and listeners. It's only much later that the symphony came to be regarded as an autonomous work of art whose value and significance must be asserted by comparative (and contemplative) repeated hearings and, perhaps even better, by careful study and analysis of the score. In this respect, a symphony by Haydn and one by Brahms can safely be said to belong to completely different genres, what with their completely different functions and completely different aesthetics.
I would amend this
very slightly and say it's actually later on in Mozart's life (and Haydn's) that the shift begins, just a little, with regular public concerts becoming a feature of the culture in London and Paris (and then Vienna). In Paris they were programming Haydn so frequently that they must have been doing some repeats.
But I think your basic point is sound, and certainly it's true for Mozart's earlier symphonies that were under discussion.
Quote from: relm1 on April 02, 2025, 06:03:47 AMI have a confession to make. I've never heard Tchaikovsky's Symphonies No. 1-3 nor Dvorak's Symphonies 1-6. :'(
Give them a chance. I agree that Dovak's 6th is almost as good as the last 3 and I find 5 also very good and 3+4 worth an occasional listen. Can't remember anything about 1+2, only that I apparently didn't care much for them.
I don't care much for Tchaikovsky's 1-3 but I used to like #1 quite a bit that starts very atmospheric but doesn't quite keep up.
#2 is a very light, entertaining piece, more like a suite.
#3 is rather different from the others. IMO it suffers from Tchaikovsy becoming a bit boring when he is not in either "balletic" or hyperpassionate mood (the same holds IMO for piano concerti 2+3 and most of the orchestral suites, all solidly composed, nicely orchestrated but lack what makes his music special, IMO).
Quote from: relm1 on April 02, 2025, 06:03:47 AMI have a confession to make. I've never heard Tchaikovsky's Symphonies No. 1-3 nor Dvorak's Symphonies 1-6. :'(
Its the musical naughty step for you!! Marvellous music awaits you in just about every one of those symphonies - even the less good ones are still pretty wonderful.
Quote from: Florestan on April 04, 2025, 12:32:49 AMTo be charming and no more than that was precisely their very purpose.
Think of it this way. In Mozart's time the primary function of a symphony was to entertain the audience, who most likely heard it only once in their whole lifetime, and often in a convivial environment. The pleasing experience of and in the here-and-now was the paramount concern of both composers and listeners. It's only much later that the symphony came to be regarded as an autonomous work of art whose value and significance must be asserted by comparative (and contemplative) repeated hearings and, perhaps even better, by careful study and analysis of the score. In this respect, a symphony by Haydn and one by Brahms can safely be said to belong to completely different genres, what with their completely different functions and completely different aesthetics.
all true, but still there are many people who find e.g. Haydn's "daytime symphonies", Vivaldi's 4 seasons or Bach's Brandenburg concertos more interesting that most of Mozart's early symphonies.
All the former were composed in similar social-historical circumstances and for similar audiences as Mozart's symphonies from around 1770 because not that much had changed between Vivaldi in Venice 1720, Bach entertaining in the Leipzig Café Zimmermann 1735, Haydn impressing his new boss 1761 and Mozart a decade later.
Quote from: relm1 on April 02, 2025, 06:03:47 AMI have a confession to make. I've never heard Tchaikovsky's Symphonies No. 1-3 nor Dvorak's Symphonies 1-6. :'(
:o Well, you've got a real treat in store! ;)