Your top 3 symphonists

[Marcel]

Tchaikovsky

Sibelius

Beethoven

[eyeresist]

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. 

You must have big issues with Berlioz, then.

Damn that Berlioz!

[The Emperor]

Shostakovich, Pettersson, Mahler

[sound67]

Vaughan Williams

Shostakovich

Nielsen

[techniquest]

Mahler

Shostakovich

Vaughan Williams

[MN Dave]

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.

[Greta]

Tchaikovsky

Sibelius

Mahler

[Harry]

Good, I see that Tchaikovsky is with some members No. 1.

[MN Dave]

Good, I see that Tchaikovsky is with some members No. 1.

And with some, he is number two. 

[Harry]

And with some, he is number two. 

Hehe......

[sound67]

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. 

[vandermolen]

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. 

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"

[DavidRoss]

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. 

You're forgetting Sibelius, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, and Mahler?

[Christo]

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. 

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  . 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.'

[greg]

`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.......... 

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Please, no.......... 

You're obviously distressed, GGGGRRREEG.  But who is your candidate for the title of 'symphonist of the century'?

[greg]

You're obviously distressed, GGGGRRREEG. But who is your candidate for the title of 'symphonist of the century'?

1. Schoenberg
2. Bach
3. Reich

ok, i'm just kidding.......

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....

[MN Dave]

Shostakovich....

I knew he'd say that. Or Prokofieff.

[eyeresist]

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.

[BachQ]

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.