# The Ten Greatest Symphonists



## LvB

In the hopes of starting an interesting discussion, I'm asking for two things here. The first is a list of the ten composers who you believe have made the greatest contribution to the Symphony (not symphonic music _per se_, but works specifically called 'symphonies'). This is *not[/I] meant to be simply a list of your favorite symphonists, but rather of those you believe to be the most important, whatever your personal feelings about their music. The second is an explanation of your choices; why these ten? It is this which should generate some conversation about what it means to be a great symphonist; we'll see.

My list:

The first three are easy; I cannot imagine them being omitted from any serious list without an extensive argument for doing so:
1) Haydn 
2) Mozart
3) Beethoven
Haydn because of his enormous range and depth of invention, as well as his importance in establishing the form; Mozart because of the sheer perfection of his best symphonies, the balance of formal rigor and emotional profundity; Beethoven because, well, because there is no single body of work in the symphonic literature that covers more ground more powerfully or extensively.

The next three are slightly less easy, but strike me as viable choices:
4) Brahms
5) Bruckner
6) Mahler
7) Shostakovich
Each of these composers falls short of the first three in some manner, yet each reaches peaks rarely attained by other symphonists. Brahms for the variety of achievement in structure and development in his four; Bruckner for the epic scope of his vision, as well as the astonishing contrapuntal genius with which he varies his themes and, sometimes, blends the themes themselves; Mahler for the complexity of his orchestrations and the sheer scope of his ambitions, ambitions surprisingly often fulfilled; Shostakovich for the intensity of his best work and the brilliance with which he uses the resources of the orchestra.

After this, the choices grow harder. Many contenders present themselves: Schubert, Berlioz, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Rubinstein, Tchaikovsky, Elgar, Brian, Nielsen, Rautavaara, Pettersson, Aho, Schuman, and many others have each done significant work in the symphonic form. But what allows me to pick one over the others? After some thought I arrive at:

8) Tchaikovsky
9) Nielsen
10) Aho
Not only is the symphonic work of each of these composers widely varied, their best symphonies are very tightly constructed. That is, they use the whole palette of musical resources (tonal movement, orchestral color, rhythm, harmony, melody, etc.), with each element contributing to the whole piece forcefully and effectively, and there comparatively little extraneous material. Their work is, I would argue, less even than those I have listed above them, but the extent of their achievements at their best reaches beyond others whose names I have not selected. Mendelssohn, for example, is virtually perfect as to structure, but he rarely strives for more than that, whereas Tchaikovsky, for all his imperfections, not only strives for profound expression, he often attains it. Further, each has left a significant body of major symphonies, whereas Schubert, say, really left two important (albeit very important) symphonies.

But there is certainly room for disagreement and discussion, and I look forward to seeing the remarks of others....*


----------



## Tapkaara

I hope we can ALL remember that no one in this thread is striving to create the be all and end all list of the 10 greatest symphonists. That would be patently impossible. These are all subjective lists which will include everyone's PERSONAL favorites.

Although LvB said this is NOT a list of your favorites, I do not see how that could not be a factor. I think LvB beats himself at his own game by including Aho, who will probably not appear on the lsits of others. As far as I know, in musical scholarship, a composer such as this is not usually mentioned in a discusion of the all-time great symphonists, so, obviously, LvB's own opinions on a composer he likes are playing a part in his addition to his list. I think we need to be honest that trying to have "neutral" entries to your list is not likely to be possible.

Having said all of that, I reject your list, LvB, for not including Sibelius, yet you list Aho and Nielsen. I think those latter two are nowhere in the same league, as say, a Beethoven or a Mahler, which you have included. Or even Sibelius. Nielsen could be close, though.

I would have quite a bit of difficulty coming up with my personal top 10...I'd really have to think about it. But maybe I could get started:

Beethoven
Sibelius
Mahler
Shostakovich
(maybe) Tchaikovsky

While I am not a fan of either Haydn or Mozart, I would include them anyway, because thier influence as symphonists cannot be denied.

The rest I'd really have to ponder.

But, I just cannot imagine a list WITHOUT Sibelius, whom I consider to be the greatest symphonist of the entire 20th century.


----------



## handlebar

The lists noted so far are wonderful and echo mine with the exception being Aho.
If i could add a few more to the list they would be Vaughn Williams, Dvorak and Mendelssohn.

Thanks for the topic.

Jim


----------



## Guest

LvB said:


> should generate some conversation about what it means to be a great symphonist


Whatever else this thread does, for good or for ill, this is not one of the things that will happen. And that's partly because of the kind of thing a symphony is and how people have contributed to the genre. As a young genre, it developed fairly quickly up until Beethoven, who pushed it into new and unprecedented regions. Who could top what he did? But almost immediately Berlioz came along and pushed it even farther along the lines Beethoven had mapped out. And then it settled down rather, and even regressed, so that the nineteenth century is largely the time of composers writing great pieces that were symphonies but not taking the genre anywhere beyond what Beethoven and Berlioz had done.

And what to do about the twentieth century? The century in which the genre fizzled out, rather, qua genre, but also the century that produced more fine pieces that were symphonies than even the nineteenth.

So the situation does not lend itself to answering the question "what does it mean to be a great symphonist?" There are, perhaps, great composers. There is, perhaps, great music. And some great pieces are symphonies.

Here are the people who pushed the genre into new regions, and since I've not listened to every symphony, I should probably have said "Here are the people I know who have pushed the symphony into new regions."

Beethoven
Berlioz
Sibelius
Nielsen
Goldmann
Ustvolskaya
Dhomont
Nørgård
Terterian
Glass

These are not, just by the way, my favorites. Nor are they all by any means great symphonists. They just did as I said, pushed the genre into new regions. AND there are doubtless more I could have mentioned. Webern, perhaps, with only one "symphony." Searles and Sessions maybe, who made vast twelve-tone creations.


----------



## David C Coleman

LvB said:


> In the hopes of starting an interesting discussion, I'm asking for two things here. The first is a list of the ten composers who you believe have made the greatest contribution to the Symphony (not symphonic music _per se_, but works specifically called 'symphonies'). This is *not[/I] meant to be simply a list of your favorite symphonists, but rather of those you believe to be the most important, whatever your personal feelings about their music. The second is an explanation of your choices; why these ten? It is this which should generate some conversation about what it means to be a great symphonist; we'll see.
> 
> My list:
> 
> The first three are easy; I cannot imagine them being omitted from any serious list without an extensive argument for doing so:
> 1) Haydn
> 2) Mozart
> 3) Beethoven
> Haydn because of his enormous range and depth of invention, as well as his importance in establishing the form; Mozart because of the sheer perfection of his best symphonies, the balance of formal rigor and emotional profundity; Beethoven because, well, because there is no single body of work in the symphonic literature that covers more ground more powerfully or extensively.
> 
> The next three are slightly less easy, but strike me as viable choices:
> 4) Brahms
> 5) Bruckner
> 6) Mahler
> 7) Shostakovich
> Each of these composers falls short of the first three in some manner, yet each reaches peaks rarely attained by other symphonists. Brahms for the variety of achievement in structure and development in his four; Bruckner for the epic scope of his vision, as well as the astonishing contrapuntal genius with which he varies his themes and, sometimes, blends the themes themselves; Mahler for the complexity of his orchestrations and the sheer scope of his ambitions, ambitions surprisingly often fulfilled; Shostakovich for the intensity of his best work and the brilliance with which he uses the resources of the orchestra.
> 
> After this, the choices grow harder. Many contenders present themselves: Schubert, Berlioz, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Rubinstein, Tchaikovsky, Elgar, Brian, Nielsen, Rautavaara, Pettersson, Aho, Schuman, and many others have each done significant work in the symphonic form. But what allows me to pick one over the others? After some thought I arrive at:
> 
> 8) Tchaikovsky
> 9) Nielsen
> 10) Aho
> Not only is the symphonic work of each of these composers widely varied, their best symphonies are very tightly constructed. That is, they use the whole palette of musical resources (tonal movement, orchestral color, rhythm, harmony, melody, etc.), with each element contributing to the whole piece forcefully and effectively, and there comparatively little extraneous material. Their work is, I would argue, less even than those I have listed above them, but the extent of their achievements at their best reaches beyond others whose names I have not selected. Mendelssohn, for example, is virtually perfect as to structure, but he rarely strives for more than that, whereas Tchaikovsky, for all his imperfections, not only strives for profound expression, he often attains it. Further, each has left a significant body of major symphonies, whereas Schubert, say, really left two important (albeit very important) symphonies.
> 
> But there is certainly room for disagreement and discussion, and I look forward to seeing the remarks of others....*


*

I would copy this almost word for word! except I'm not aquainted with Aho..I would put Sibelius in there somehwere, but for maybe the wrong reasons.. He diminished the symphonic structure rather that developed it, but still he was important enough for this thread.
Also Dvorak could be there somwhere!...*


----------



## Gorm Less

some guy said:


> ... So the situation does not lend itself to answering the question "what does it mean to be a great symphonist?" There are, perhaps, great composers. There is, perhaps, great music. And some great pieces are symphonies.
> 
> ... Here are the people who pushed the genre into new regions, and since I've not listened to every symphony, I should probably have said "Here are the people I know who have pushed the symphony into new regions."
> 
> Beethoven
> Berlioz
> Sibelius
> Nielsen
> Goldmann
> Ustvolskaya
> Dhomont
> Nørgård
> Terterian
> Glass
> 
> These are not, just by the way, my favorites. Nor are they all by any means great symphonists. They just did as I said, pushed the genre into new regions.


Rather like you, I have trouble with this notion of "influence" (or, as you say, the feat of having "pushed the genre into new regions") as a factor in determining the greatness of a composer. If composer X made an important technical innovation in symphonic writing but did not manage to produce any symphonies of lasting appeal, what greatness rating should he receive? Similarly if composer Y made no technical innovations in symphonic writing but wrote a lot of gorgeous symphonies based on existing traditional styles, and these symphonies are still popular today, how far should his rating be reduced on account of the so-called "defect" of being non-innovative?

I am of the opinion that influence is basically irrelevant to determining greatness among composers. The greatest symphonists are, very simply, the ones whose output is valued the most by present day society. Such values take no account of whatever influence these people may have had on their contemporaries or later generations of composers. I might note here that at least six composers on your list would not appear as "great" on this criterion.

Thus, I believe that greatness has nothing to do with personal opinion, but everything to do with modern collective opinion on the quality/quantity of what they actually wrote. There is a serious measurement problem here as there is no single index of value that society places on the works of individual composers. All we can do is hazard a few guesses based on factors like CD sales, concert performances, number of alternative versions available, radio scheduling etc.

I agree that there is plenty of scope for debate on how to juggle the numbers but would be surprised if the outturn of such deliberations did not produce the majority of the following in a list of the greatest 10 symphonists (in rough date order): Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Bruckner, Mahler, Sibelius, Shostakovich.


----------



## Tapkaara

I think it will be very interesting to see who "averages" on most lists. This should be a very fascinating thread.


----------



## World Violist

My list, in no particular order so far, would look something like this:

Beethoven
Mozart
Haydn
Mahler
Sibelius
Vaughan Williams
Shostakovich
Nielsen
Tchaikovsky
... dare I say Brahms???


----------



## Tapkaara

I have a feeling just about everyone is gonna say Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven...it's everything else that will probably stir controversy!


----------



## Rondo

In _somewhat_ of an order:

*Beethoven* (duh!)
*Mahler*
*M. Arnold* (_very_ interesting set!)
*Shostakovich*
*Brahms* (small, but very well-rounded set)
*Sibelius*
*Tchaikovsky* (4,5,6 defining them all)
*Bruckner*
*Nielsen* (much to the chagrin of *some guy*, I would originally mention this set sans the 6th, but I'll include it for now )
*Glazunov* (personal pleasure, if anything)

BTW...I'll take any requests for symphonists whose style some may compare to Arnold's.


----------



## Tapkaara

I have two symphonies by Arnold: 7 and 8. Both really are smashing works. I intend to explore all of his symphonies at some point.


----------



## Rondo

Tapkaara said:


> I have two symphonies by Arnold: 7 and 8. Both really are smashing works. I intend to explore all of his symphonies at some point.


Now that you have heard those, try 5 and 6 next. I can bet that you will not be disappointed!


----------



## JTech82

Since music is subjective, I will give my favorite symphonists:

In no particular order-

1. Bax
2. Vaughan Williams
3. Mendelssohn
4. Sibelius
5. Mahler
6. Bruckner
7. Nielsen
8. Stravinsky
9. Shostakovich
10. Rachmaninov

Other choices: Brahms, Scriabin, Tchaikovsky, Borodin, Dvorak, Stanford, and a few others.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Gorm Less said:


> I agree that there is plenty of scope for debate on how to juggle the numbers but would be surprised if the outturn of such deliberations did not produce the majority of the following in a list of the greatest 10 symphonists (in rough date order): Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Bruckner, Mahler, Sibelius, Shostakovich.


Add Dvořák to this list and we get a nice, round dozen. I'm conflicted about the absence of Mendelssohn, though I understand (and probably agree) that his name wouldn't figure as significantly. To cite Mendelssohn as well would give me (us?) a baker's-dozen... and winnowing three names off of that list would be VERY difficult for me to do, without involving my personal taste.


----------



## Tapkaara

I'm personally surprised that Dvorak has not popped up a little more in here. I am not a big fan of Dvorak, though I enjoy his 6th symphony quite a bit, and "The New World." I think I am less enthusiastic about the rest of his output, but anyway, he is one of the more universally popular composers and his symphonies are well respected. I was honestly expecting to see more enthusiamsm for him so far.

I think just about everyone has mentioned Mahler. This does not surprise me.


----------



## JTech82

Chi_town/Philly said:


> Add Dvořák to this list and we get a nice, round dozen. I'm conflicted about the absence of Mendelssohn, though I understand (and probably agree) that his name wouldn't figure as significantly. To cite Mendelssohn as well would give me (us?) a baker's-dozen... and winnowing three names off of that list would be VERY difficult for me to do, without involving my personal taste.


Music always comes down to personal tastes. I can be objective and include composers like Beethoven and Mozart on the list, because they did a lot for classical music, but for me, music is a such a personal thing that, while I acknowledge Haydn, Beethoven, and Mozart, I don't personally care much about their music. It just doesn't do anything for me.

The composers I mentioned have inspired me and put me into a deep thought. They are, in other words, thought-provoking. But of course, the emotional impact of the music is what keeps me coming back.


----------



## Bach

1. Beethoven
2. Haydn
3. Mozart
4. Brahms
5. Mendelssohn
6. Tchaikovsky
7. Schubert
8. Berlioz
9. Mahler
10. Sibelius 

You just missed the list if your name is:

+1. Shostakovich
+2. Bruckner
+3. Saint-Saens
+4. Hindemith
+5. Prokofiev
+6. Schumann
+7. Rachmaninov
+8. Nielsen
+9. Scriabin
+10. Stravinsky


----------



## Herzeleide

Shostakovich sucks. Second-rate Mahler with a good dose of Soviet kitsch.

Some of the best symphonies written in the past fifty years include Knussen's second and third, and those of Elliott Carter and Julian Anderson.

People also might like to try those of Henze.


----------



## JTech82

World Violist said:


> My list, in no particular order so far, would look something like this:
> 
> Beethoven
> Mozart
> Haydn
> Mahler
> Sibelius
> Vaughan Williams
> Shostakovich
> Nielsen
> Tchaikovsky
> ... dare I say Brahms???


You shouldn't have to dare to say Brahms. He was a fine symphonist. His symphonies were just so beautiful in scope and overall emotion.


----------



## JTech82

Herzeleide said:


> Shostakovich sucks. Second-rate Mahler with a good dose of Soviet kitsch.
> 
> Some of the best symphonies written in the past fifty years include Knussen's second and third, and those of Elliott Carter and Julian Anderson.
> 
> People also might like to try those of Henze.


 Whatever Herzeleide. You're entitled to your opinion, but saying somebody "sucks" clearly shows that you can't come up with a better argument.

Actually, it would be interesting to see who you assembled as the greatest symphonists.


----------



## Herzeleide

JTech82 said:


> Whatever Herzeleide. You're entitled to your opinion, but saying somebody "sucks" clearly shows that you can't come up with a better argument.


Well, in a lecture we were told how the ending of the fifth symphony is oh-so clever because Shostakovich was using a old Soviet tune or something Stalin liked to make it triumphant when in fact Shostakovich thought the opposite (as would most people). Now, without this information the ending just sounds hollow, banal and bombastic. There's the problem. I just think many educated people get duped into liking Shostakovich a) because they don't know Mahler well enough and b) because the obvious historical situation gives them something to cling to, as opposed to some anonymous symphony of Haydn. It is indeed true that there's much of Shostakovich that's feeble, tiresome and colourless (though if there is colour, it's of a very icy, listless kind). I agree it's very sad that Shostakovich's creativity had to express itself within the strictures of a totalitarian regime. Unfortunately however, I believe this essentially occluded his compositional personality from ever fully blooming, and no amount of emotional blackmail about his circumstances will persuade my ears that his music is worth listening to.

My list of the best symphonists would not be overly dissimilar to anyone else's here.


----------



## JTech82

Herzeleide said:


> Well, in a lecture we were told how the ending of the fifth symphony is oh-so clever because Shostakovich was using a old Soviet tune or something Stalin liked to make it triumphant when in fact Shostakovich thought the opposite (as would most people). Now, without this information the ending just sounds hollow, banal and bombastic. There's the problem. I just think many educated people get duped into liking Shostakovich a) because they don't know Mahler well enough and b) because the obvious historical situation gives them something to cling to, as opposed to some anonymous symphony of Haydn. It is indeed true that there's much of Shostakovich that's feeble, tiresome and colourless (though if there is colour, it's of a very icy, listless kind). I agree it's very sad that Shostakovich's creativity had to express itself within the strictures of a totalitarian regime. Unfortunately however, I believe this essentially occluded his compositional personality from ever fully blooming, and no amount of emotional blackmail about his circumstances will persuade my ears that his music is worth listening to.
> 
> My list of the best symphonists would not be overly dissimilar to anyone else's here.


Who cares about Stalin and all the crap you just talked about? Dismissing someone, because of the circumstances in which they wrote their music is shameful and disgraceful, but if that's how you judge everybody's music by it's history and not whether you liked it or not is your own problem.

By the way, I have yet to see an actual list from you.


----------



## Herzeleide

JTech82 said:


> Who cares about Stalin and all the crap you just talked about? Dismissing someone, because of the circumstances in which they wrote their music is shameful and disgraceful, but if that's how you judge everybody's music by it's history and not whether you liked it or not is your own problem.


You've missed the point. Shostakovich did not have full creative freedom over his music, because of the 'Socialist Realism' fiat implemented in the Soviet Union, which did not permit 'decadent bourgeois' music which they labelled as 'formalist'. In other words, anything with an ounce of modernity about it.

Fact is, Shostakovich's music is more bound up within its political and historical situation than most other composers in the repertoire.


----------



## JTech82

Herzeleide said:


> You've missed the point. Shostakovich did not have full creative freedom over his music, because of the 'Socialist Realism' fiat implemented in the Soviet Union, which did not permit 'decadent bourgeois' music which they labelled as 'formalist'. In other words, anything with an ounce of modernity about it.
> 
> Fact is, Shostakovich's music is more bound up within its political and historical situation than most other composers in the repertoire.


I think you missed my point, which is that you're dismissing somebody based on historical information that has nothing to do with whether you like his music or not.

So to end this once and for all, you don't like his music. Let's just leave it at that.


----------



## World Violist

JTech82 said:


> You shouldn't have to dare to say Brahms. He was a fine symphonist. His symphonies were just so beautiful in scope and overall emotion.


It brings up a question of what a great symphonist truly is... is it just a person who writes great symphonic music (Brahms) or one who makes it all entirely his own (Mahler, Sibelius, Haydn, Beethoven, Mozart)?

If the latter, I daren't really say Brahms, although his is some of the most majestic and grand symphonic literature in history...


----------



## Herzeleide

JTech82 said:


> I think you missed my point, which is that you're dismissing somebody based on historical information that has nothing to do with whether you like his music or not.
> 
> So to end this once and for all, you don't like his music. Let's just leave it at that.


I'm pointing out the detrimental effect the Soviet Union had on his music (which he himself acknowledged, having clashed with the authorities a few times).


----------



## JTech82

Herzeleide said:


> I'm pointing out the detrimental effect the Soviet Union had on his music (which he himself acknowledged, having clashed with the authorities a few times).


Again, you're putting history ahead of whether you actually like something or not. You don't like his music, so why don't you just leave it at that?

It is clear that you base whether you like something or not on it's historical relevance and not on your own personal preferences.

What does the Soviet Union and Stalin have to do whether you enjoy his music or not? Sounds like you dismissed him on what you read instead of what you feel, which is pretty sad.

Again, I have yet to see your list of great symphonists.


----------



## handlebar

The social and political realm has it's effects on every composer whether they think it soes or not. Maybe it is subliminal.
I find Shostakovitch composed some fine music and also some real duds. Mahler did the same although very few duds IMHO.

If one likes the music, fine. If not, fine. Tell us why though. Get into the meat and potatoes of the reasons: I don't care for too much brass, I cannot stand vibrato, etc,etc.

A debate needs the arguments to be cohesive. So far I see nothing in that manner.

Jim


----------



## JTech82

handlebar said:


> The social and political realm has it's effects on every composer whether they think it soes or not. Maybe it is subliminal.
> I find Shostakovitch composed some fine music and also some real duds. Mahler did the same although very few duds IMHO.
> 
> If one likes the music, fine. If not, fine. Tell us why though. Get into the meat and potatoes of the reasons: I don't care for too much brass, I cannot stand vibrato, etc,etc.
> 
> A debate needs the arguments to be cohesive. So far I see nothing in that manner.
> 
> Jim


I agree, Jim. Shostakovich composed some fine music, but as with all composers, he did compose some real stinkers too. I find his symphonies and concertos to be where he truly shined.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Herzeleide said:


> Shostakovich sucks. Second-rate Mahler with a good dose of Soviet kitsch.


Hmmmm...

At the risk of going off on what will hopefully be a temporary tangent-- are you familiar with the message-board work of the well-travelled personality known here as the Egregious Professor?


----------



## Artemis

Chi_town/Philly said:


> Hmmmm...
> 
> At the risk of going off on what will hopefully be a temporary tangent-- are you familiar with the message-board work of the well-travelled personality known here as the Egregious Professor?


If Chi can pull up "threads from the grave" I guess so can I. The following seem to be relevant to some of the issues being discussed here:

GREAT SYMPHONISTS

FAVOURITE 10 SYMPHONIES

SHOSTAKOVICH LAST GREAT SYMPHONIST

I only mention them partly to remind folk that the search facility is sometimes useful to dig up possibly relevant old threads, and partly to show that there "is nothing new under the sun" as this Board has been going long enough to have attracted discussion on most issues. There is some quite interesting comment and debate in these earlier threads.


----------



## Herzeleide

JTech82 said:


> Again, you're putting history ahead of whether you actually like something or not. You don't like his music, so why don't you just leave it at that?
> 
> It is clear that you base whether you like something or not on it's historical relevance and not on your own personal preferences.
> 
> What does the Soviet Union and Stalin have to do whether you enjoy his music or not? Sounds like you dismissed him on what you read instead of what you feel, which is pretty sad.
> 
> Again, I have yet to see your list of great symphonists.


Again, it would be otiose of me posting my list of the great symphonists, since as I have already said it would not be dissimilar enough from other lists here to warrant its appearance.

I'm not putting history ahead of anything. I dislike Shostakovich's music in general, and my point was that the cause for the general low standard of his music is likely to have been the aesthetic strictures of the Soviet Union (specifically Stalinism).

Me _listening_ to the music preceded any real knowledge of the circumstances within which he composed.


----------



## Herzeleide

Chi_town/Philly said:


> Hmmmm...
> 
> At the risk of going off on what will hopefully be a temporary tangent-- are you familiar with the message-board work of the well-travelled personality known here as the Egregious Professor?


I am indeed.


----------



## Bach

Shostakovich's 8th string quartet might be more to your liking, Herzeleide.


----------



## JTech82

Herzeleide said:


> Again, it would be otiose of me posting my list of the great symphonists, since as I have already said it would not be dissimilar enough from other lists here to warrant its appearance.
> 
> I'm not putting history ahead of anything. I dislike Shostakovich's music in general, and my point was that the cause for the general low standard of his music is likely to have been the aesthetic strictures of the Soviet Union (specifically Stalinism).
> 
> Me _listening_ to the music preceded any real knowledge of the circumstances within which he composed.


You're still intermingling history and Shostakovich, which shows that you're still putting history ahead of his music. You're not listing specifics as to why you dislike his music. You're giving reasons that have nothing to do with the actual music itself. What do you not like about his music and not the history regarding the music, just the music itself and don't say he's a second-rate Mahler again, because that's a lame statement that doesn't hold up to any kind of actual argument.

You don't want to post a list like this thread is supposed to be about, but you felt like just coming in here tearing down Shostakovich's music? That's pretty messed up man.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Beethoven
Brahms
Haydn
Mahler
Shostakovich
Tchaikovsky
Elgar
Vaughan-Williams
Schubert
Nielsen


----------



## Herzeleide

JTech82 said:


> You're still intermingling history and Shostakovich,


That's because they're indisputably inseparable.



JTech82 said:


> which shows that you're still putting history ahead of his music.


Your ability to comprehend my posts appears to be woefully inadequate. In my second post I described my negative reaction to the bombastic triumphalism of the fifth symphony (before discovering the possible reason behind this). In a subsequent post I mention that my listening to much of Shostakovich _preceded_ my specific historical knowledge.



JTech82 said:


> You're not listing specifics as to why you dislike his music. You're giving reasons that have nothing to do with the actual music itself.


Go back and read my second post (reply 22). Perhaps I'm not specific as you may like - I don't say, for example 'the chord in bar 276 is infelicitous' - but I point out general weaknesses in Shostakovich's music.


----------



## JTech82

Herzeleide said:


> That's because they're indisputably inseparable.
> 
> Your ability to comprehend my posts appears to be woefully inadequate. In my second post I described my negative reaction to the bombastic triumphalism of the fifth symphony (before discovering the possible reason behind this). In a subsequent post I mention that my listening to much of Shostakovich _preceded_ my specific historical knowledge.
> 
> Go back and read my second post (reply 22). Perhaps I'm not specific as you may like - I don't say, for example 'the chord in bar 276 is infelicitous' - but I point out general weaknesses in Shostakovich's music.


Herzeleide, I could care less if you like Shostakovich or not that is your prerogative, but what I do not like is your attitude when you said "Shostakovich sucks. He's a second-rate Mahler." That's a pretty ignorant statement that can't really be rectified or taken back.

Don't sit there and make excuses for yourself. You already said how you really feel about him, so why in the world would you think I care about what you say now?

Shostakovich is one of my favorite composers, despite what kind of pressure he had to write under, I do not care. I like his music and that's all I care about.

I'm done talking with you about this.


----------



## Herzeleide

JTech82 said:


> Herzeleide, I could care less if you like Shostakovich or not


Glad to hear that.


----------



## LvB

Well, the first page of this was quite interesting, before it wandered off, as is so often the case, into other matters.....

There's one claim. made or evidently accepted by several posters, that strikes me as odd, though, this being the idea that 'music is subjective,' and therefore there is no such thing as genuine greatness or indeed quality of any sort. I'd like to see someone defending, as opposed to simply asserting, this idea. If it is true, then it follows that there is absolutely no reason for any sort of musical training, for example, since whatever anyone hears and 'likes' is just as good as whatever they would have written had they been trained (and therefore there is no difference between Andre Watts and a child doodling on a kazoo). It follows that Beethoven's first symphony is every bit as good as his ninth, and that no one can improve the quality of their writing (since 'improvement' presumes some kind of viable external measurement), though they might come to 'like' it more than their earlier pieces (or, if they are going senile, they might come to 'like' their last sad droolings more). In fact, it follows that one need not even have heard a decent performance of the piece on which one is pontificating, since every performance would be just as 'good' as any other. This strikes me as improbable; I'd like to hear some good reasons for believing such an assertion to be the case.

So, back to specifics: I did not list Aho because, as I was accused of doing, he is one of my favorites (in fact, my list leaves out several of my personal favorites and adds several who are not among my favorites), but because I believe that his contribution to the symphonic literature covers a greater range, and explores its emotional and intellectual territory more profoundly, than other composers. I do not, of course, claim to have listened to, or even just have heard, every important symphony, and therefore I certainly make my list provisionally, but there are reasons for my choices, reasons grounded in what I take to be the nature of the symphony at its best. What is that nature? I would argue that the symphony, for various cultural reasons, has become the repository of the most complex and wide-ranging explorations of the manifold resources of music in the orchestral repertoire. When a composer entitles a work 'symphony' they are, very often (though not always), making a statement about what they think they have achieved and how they want it to be judged. It is that judgment (not merely a matter of personal taste) which underlies my original question.


----------



## Tapkaara

To respond to LvB's disagreement that "all music is subjective"...

Well, ultimately, it is. Now, that's not to say there are conventions in music that will appeal to the tastes of more people than others. Indeed there are. But if it is agreed on that Beethoven is great by many people, it's not because 100 people are in on some FACT about the man, it's because 100 people happen to share the same opinion that his music is great. What is remarkable here that Beethoven wrote music that illicits the same OPINION from so many. Obviously, there is some underlying quality in the music that appeals to the in-born tastes of our 100 people, and that is quite amazing.

But when someone says that Aho, or Rautavaara or anyone else belongs on a list of the 10 greatest symphonists, this is, of course going to be subjective. Even if you base your selections on any type of fact. LvB mentions that his inclusion of Aho, for example, is not based on favoritism but on the actual quality of his symphonies. While I am not an Aho expert, I have heard him, and I will have to disagree with LvB on his assesement of this composer's music. At least I disagree that he belongs on a list of the 10 greatest symphonists. I don't see how this could be anything but a subjective choice. If this is a fact, than which one of us is dead wrong? I'd like to see where it is a fact etched in stone somewhere. This, by the way, goes for anyone's list.

And finally, threads like this exist because they are interested in people's various OPINIONS. If this were not a subjective thread and based purely on some sort of fact, then everyone would produce the same list of 10 over and over and we'd be in agreement that we have the ultimate be all and end all list. That of course is not the point here. So, while there may be composers who turn up again and again on these lists, we should definitely take a moment to acknowledge that they possess a universal popularity that is a great thing in and of itself. But, everyone's list in here is different, even if slightly, for a very good reason: because no one is truly right and everyone has, I'm afraid, different opinions on this subject.

LvB asks something along the lines of "what about musical training?" when standing up for the non-subjective nature of music. In other words, he argues that there has to be SOME basis for quality in music that goes beyond subjective opinion. I agree with with to some extent. I am probably in the same boat with you, LvB, that there are certainly qualities in music that seperate it and elevate it from what is just noise. I think a string quartet by Haydn is indeed musch more musical than 4 string instruments in 4 helicopters playing screechy and ungly noises (sorry Stockhausen!). A Haydn string quartet is music because it follows certain rules and conventions; the Stockhausen work to which I made reference is a silly stunt which is no more musical than, well, listening to for people abuse string instruments in helicopters.

But, there are those out there, and indeed in this forum, who would and will defend the likes of a Stockhausen for creating glorious, life-affirming art in works like the Helicopter Quartet. People will stick up for John Cage's 4'33 as thought-provoking, legit music when all I hear is silence and the old woman farting behind me. Am I right for dismissing this type of nonesense as not REAL music or am I wrong because I fail, somehow, to see the art in this? We can argue with back and forth either way, and we have in other forums. It gets nowhere. Because no one, is, I suppose, truly right. I mean, I'd like to think I am, but of someone says to me that 4'33 IS music, no matter how much I try to convince them to the contrary, they willnot budge. So, as long as it is music to someone, I guess, in a weird way, it is music.

Yup, it all boils down to subjectivity, if you ask me.


----------



## LvB

Thank you for the thoughtful response. It will no doubt be unsurprising that I disagree (  ), but I'm not actually sure your arguments support your apparent central claim. As you suggest toward teh end of your post, we may not be that far apart after all.


Tapkaara said:


> What is remarkable here that Beethoven wrote music that illicits the same OPINION from so many. Obviously, there is some underlying quality in the music that appeals to the in-born tastes of our 100 people, and that is quite amazing.


In a certain sense, this is precisely the point. There is some quality, or set of qualities, about Beethoven's music which elicits cterain surprisingly similar responses among a wide range of people (in fact, if their tastes are indeed "in-born," then this is ultimately a matter of objective measurement pure and simple). The relevant question, then, is the nature of that/those element(s). I have argued that it's the extent to which Beethoven makes use of the range of musical options available to him, the way he balances rhythm, harmony, melody, and so on in the service of the overall picture.

If what I am saying is anything like the truth, that woudl answer your next objection:


> But when someone says that Aho, or Rautavaara or anyone else belongs on a list of the 10 greatest symphonists, this is, of course going to be subjective. Even if you base your selections on any type of fact. LvB mentions that his inclusion of Aho, for example, is not based on favoritism but on the actual quality of his symphonies. While I am not an Aho expert, I have heard him, and I will have to disagree with LvB on his assesement of this composer's music. At least I disagree that he belongs on a list of the 10 greatest symphonists. I don't see how this could be anything but a subjective choice. If this is a fact, than which one of us is dead wrong? I'd like to see where it is a fact etched in stone somewhere. This, by the way, goes for anyone's list.


Certainly one may disagree regarding the quality of a particular composer's music, especially a contemporary composer whose works we have not heard in a wide range of performances. But this particular disagreement does not change the general grounds of the discussion; if anything, it rests even more solidly upon them. To say that Aho does not deserve to be ranked as one of the greatest symphonists requires that you assess the qualities of his music in comparison with someone else you think does deserve to be on the list. This brings us back to the criteria above (or such criteria as you may choose to apply). If you developed that argument more closely, I might even agree with you; I might say, oh, yes, I see now that the same qualities I have hailed in Aho are even more strongly present in [insert name], and therefore, on my own grounds, I should add [insert name] and remove Aho (at least on a list arbitrarily restricted to 10).

From this it should be clear that I am not disagreeing with your following claim, so much as revising it:


> And finally, threads like this exist because they are interested in people's various OPINIONS. If this were not a subjective thread and based purely on some sort of fact, then everyone would produce the same list of 10 over and over and we'd be in agreement that we have the ultimate be all and end all list. That of course is not the point here. So, while there may be composers who turn up again and again on these lists, we should definitely take a moment to acknowledge that they possess a universal popularity that is a great thing in and of itself. But, everyone's list in here is different, even if slightly, for a very good reason: because no one is truly right and everyone has, I'm afraid, different opinions on this subject.


Naturally there are many different opinions-- but the interesting question regards the grounds upon which they are based. After all, if I told you that I preferred Beethoven's music to Stockhausen's solely because of what I'd read in the _National Enquirer_ about their personal lives, you wouldn't think my opinion was worth much _even though you agreed with it_. There are always places for informed disagreement, but the emphasis is on the 'informed' part; that's why a simple list of 'favorites' is not very interesting, since it offers no room for discussion or expanding our understanding.


> LvB asks something along the lines of "what about musical training?" when standing up for the non-subjective nature of music. In other words, he argues that there has to be SOME basis for quality in music that goes beyond subjective opinion. I agree with with to some extent. I am probably in the same boat with you, LvB, that there are certainly qualities in music that seperate it and elevate it from what is just noise. I think a string quartet by Haydn is indeed musch more musical than 4 string instruments in 4 helicopters playing screechy and ungly noises (sorry Stockhausen!). A Haydn string quartet is music because it follows certain rules and conventions; the Stockhausen work to which I made reference is a silly stunt which is no more musical than, well, listening to for people abuse string instruments in helicopters.
> 
> But, there are those out there, and indeed in this forum, who would and will defend the likes of a Stockhausen for creating glorious, life-affirming art in works like the Helicopter Quartet. People will stick up for John Cage's 4'33 as thought-provoking, legit music when all I hear is silence and the old woman farting behind me. Am I right for dismissing this type of nonesense as not REAL music or am I wrong because I fail, somehow, to see the art in this? We can argue with back and forth either way, and we have in other forums. It gets nowhere. Because no one, is, I suppose, truly right. I mean, I'd like to think I am, but of someone says to me that 4'33 IS music, no matter how much I try to convince them to the contrary, they will not budge. So, as long as it is music to someone, I guess, in a weird way, it is music.


Of course it is music-- but is it _good_ music? There are really two possible types of answers here: the one you started and ended with, that being that there is no basis for judgment and anyone's opinion is as good as anyone else's, and the one most of your argument in fact includes: that there are grounds for developing our understanding more deeply, and that one can defend one's beliefs using them. I'm far more interested in the latter, as it's the only one which encourages me to expand my horizons in any meaningful manner.


----------



## Tapkaara

Without prolonging the digression here, I will just say this:

I am completely with you LvB, that there are rules and standards within music that make music music. I am not a fan of stuntmen like Cage, Stockhausen and the like because they, I believe, create noise outside of my ideals of what true music is.

So, yes, there are certain standards which must apply, in my opinion, when judging who a great symphonist is. It comes down to their use of (or should I say mastery of) symphonic form, melody, harmony, etc. Our symphonists should indeed be judged by these "mechanical" criteria. 

But it doesn't matter if we agree on what constitutes a great symphonist. There are many composers that have written any number of symphonies that display a mastery of the afore mentioned aspects. So, when choosing who the 10 greatest are, some amount of personal preference will leak in...that is how we choose 10 instead of 15, or instead of 20.

For example, I think in terms of skill, Dvorak and Tchaikovsky are about the same to me. I don't think one or the other in inherently a "better" master of the symphony, but I would put Tchaikovsky on my list and not Dvorak because I think Tchaikovsky's personal spin on the symphony is more interesting than Dvorak. Thus, to me, Tchaikovsky has that "litle something extra" that, in the end, makes him a beter symphonist FOR ME. 

Long story short...again: yes, a technical assesement based on musical standards will (and should) play into this, but I just cannot see how personal taste cannot.


----------



## Sid James

I agree that these lists can be very subjective, especially with regard to compositions of the last 100 years or so.

We must not forget that there are many composers who wrote very fine symphonies as a one-off that can stand amongst the ranks of those who were more prolific in this genre. Some of these composers are:

*Bliss* (_A Colour Symphony_)
*Elgar* (2 completed symphonies, a 3rd incomplete but since completed by someone else)
*Gorecki's* _Symphony No.3 'Symphony of Sorrowful Songs'_ is the most popular contemporary symphony
*Grieg* (one symphony)
*Kodaly* (one symphony)
*Walton* (2 symphonies, the 1st an outstanding piece by any standard)

& to an extent *Rachmaninov*, who doesn't feature on any of the above lists, but made a good contribution to the genre with his 3 symphonies (only the 2nd is relatively well known).

& there were also composers of earlier eras than Haydn who wrote shorter symphonies, like William *Boyce*. His 8 symphonies are worth listening to, as they are examples of what symphonies were like before the coming of the classical era.


----------



## JTech82

Andre said:


> I agree that these lists can be very subjective, especially with regard to compositions of the last 100 years or so.
> 
> We must not forget that there are many composers who wrote very fine symphonies as a one-off that can stand amongst the ranks of those who were more prolific in this genre. Some of these composers are:
> 
> *Bliss* (_A Colour Symphony_)
> *Elgar* (2 completed symphonies, a 3rd incomplete but since completed by someone else)
> *Gorecki's* _Symphony No.3 'Symphony of Sorrowful Songs'_ is the most popular contemporary symphony
> *Grieg* (one symphony)
> *Kodaly* (one symphony)
> *Walton* (2 symphonies, the 1st an outstanding piece by any standard)
> 
> & to an extent *Rachmaninov*, who doesn't feature on any of the above lists, but made a good contribution to the genre with his 3 symphonies (only the 2nd is relatively well known).
> 
> & there were also composers of earlier eras than Haydn who wrote shorter symphonies, like William *Boyce*. His 8 symphonies are worth listening to, as they are examples of what symphonies were like before the coming of the classical era.


Andre, you're my new best friend! I'm so HAPPY you mentioned Sir Arthur Bliss' "A Colour Symphony." That is such a beautiful piece of music. I have the Vernon Handley and the Ulster Orchestra version on Chandos and it's just great.

Thumbs up for you sir! Two big thumbs up!!! Kudos also for mentioning Kodaly Walton, and Grieg. I would add to that list Dukas, Scriabin, Moeran, Barber, Bruch, and Borodin. There are so many good ones. I would also add Berlioz.


----------



## Sid James

JTech82 said:


> Andre, you're my new best friend! I'm so HAPPY you mentioned Sir Arthur Bliss' "A Colour Symphony." That is such a beautiful piece of music. I have the Vernon Handley and the Ulster Orchestra version on Chandos and it's just great.
> 
> Thumbs up for you sir! Two big thumbs up!!! Kudos also for mentioning Kodaly Walton, and Grieg. I would add to that list Dukas, Scriabin, Moeran, Barber, Bruch, and Borodin. There are so many good ones. I would also add Berlioz.


Yes, I also think that *Bliss*' _Colour Symphony _is a great example of applying creativity to the genre. I only bought it because I was curious; I had not heard it before. He also wrote other fine pieces in other genres (ballet, chamber, film) which are outside the scope of this thread. I think he has a rather unusual, idiosyncratic and laconic style which is very rewarding and refreshing to listen to.

An interesting tangent, one that I've raised on the concertos thread, is how it would have been interesting if the above composers would have produced more than one (or a handful) of symphonies. I suppose it was a case that, by the C2Oth, other genres had developed more fully than in the past (like tone poems and ballets) and new possibilities like film music, that composers focused on from that time on. Of course, there were composers who, similarly, wrote symphonic works but shied away from calling them symphonies because they wanted to break from the German tradition. This can be said of *Bartok*, whose _Concerto for Orchestra_ or _Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta_ would be among the greatest symphonies of the period, if he had called them that. The same could be said of *Holst*'s _The Plane_ts or even *Janacek*'s _Taras Bulba_. I would particularly liked to have heard a symphony or concerto from Edgard *Varese*, but he, like other composers of the C20th, he chose looser modes of expression when composing and titling works.


----------



## JTech82

Andre said:


> Yes, I also think that *Bliss*' _Colour Symphony _is a great example of applying creativity to the genre. I only bought it because I was curious; I had not heard it before. He also wrote other fine pieces in other genres (ballet, chamber, film) which are outside the scope of this thread. I think he has a rather unusual, idiosyncratic and laconic style which is very rewarding and refreshing to listen to.
> 
> An interesting tangent, one that I've raised on the concertos thread, is how it would have been interesting if the above composers would have produced more than one (or a handful) of symphonies. I suppose it was a case that, by the C2Oth, other genres had developed more fully than in the past (like tone poems and ballets) and new possibilities like film music, that composers focused on from that time on. Of course, there were composers who, similarly, wrote symphonic works but shied away from calling them symphonies because they wanted to break from the German tradition. This can be said of *Bartok*, whose _Concerto for Orchestra_ or _Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta_ would be among the greatest symphonies of the period, if he had called them that. The same could be said of *Holst*'s _The Plane_ts or even *Janacek*'s _Taras Bulba_. I would particularly liked to have heard a symphony or concerto from Edgard *Varese*, but he, like other composers of the C20th, he chose looser modes of expression when composing and titling works.


I agree with the comments you made about Bliss, though I don't find him that unusual. I do feel, however, that he was a very fine composer whose work needs to be recorded more, but to my knowledge there are only two versions of the "A Colour Symphony." One by Handley and the other by David Lloyd-Jones. I haven't heard the Jones, but I doubt it reaches the majestic heights that Handley's version does. Another one of my favorites from around the same time that nobody talks much about is John Ireland wrote some beautiful, lyrical pieces.

Good to see you mention Bartok. He's one of my favorites. I pretty much like all his orchestral work "Concerto For Orchestra," "Hungarian Sketches," "Divertimento," "Two Pictures," and "The Wooden Prince" being some personal favorites of mine, but I also loved his piano concertos.

Janacek is also a personal favorite, though, his work is mostly in opera, I enjoy this small output of orchestral works like "Sinfonietta," "Taras Bulba," etc.


----------



## Artemis

LvB said:


> There's one claim. made or evidently accepted by several posters, that strikes me as odd, though, this being the idea that 'music is subjective,' and therefore there is no such thing as genuine greatness or indeed quality of any sort. I'd like to see someone defending, as opposed to simply asserting, this idea.


If you believe that "genuine greatness" exists among composers in an objective sense, and is not simply or even partly a matter of personal opinion, why are you asking members of this Board to list their personal opinions on who are the top 10 greatest symphonists? Surely, once you concede that personal opinion comes into the assessment of the greatest symphonists you contradict the starting premise of your own argument that is not a matter of personal opinion but can be determined by objective, measurable crieria alone.

To be internally consistent, your argument ought to be that: "_This is the list of the 10 greatest symphonists as determined by relevant, objective criteria. If anyone disagrees, it must be because they have a different set of objective criteria or are using a different set of weights. However, ignore your criteria or weights as only mine are valid_".

Is this what you believe?


----------



## LvB

Artemis said:


> If you believe that "genuine greatness" exists among composers in an objective sense, and is not simply or even partly a matter of personal opinion, why are you asking members of this Board to list their personal opinions on who are the top 10 greatest symphonists? Surely, once you concede that personal opinion comes into the assessment of the greatest symphonists you contradict the starting premise of your own argument that is not a matter of personal opinion but can be determined by objective, measurable crieria alone.
> 
> To be internally consistent, your argument ought to be that: "_This is the list of the 10 greatest symphonists as determined by relevant, objective criteria. If anyone disagrees, it must be because they have a different set of objective criteria or are using a different set of weights. However, ignore your criteria or weights as only mine are valid_".
> 
> Is this what you believe?


To answer your last question first: no, nor need I believe this to be consistent. I am not, nor have I have I ever been, claiming that personal experience, taste, etc. are not part of one's claims, but rather that, in order for those claims to be of any real value in a discussion, they need to be backed up by appeals to things outside of the particular person's life.

Nor am I claiming that only _my_ views are the right ones. For one thing, in order for such a claim to be true I would have to have experienced _all_ the symphonies ever written (even assuming that my comprehension of the elements of music was itself complete-- which I assure you it is not). In addition, as I have already indicated, the arbitrary drawing of a line ('Ten Greatest') necessarily leaves out many composers. The purpose is the discussion: I suggest these ten, and give reasons, albeit brief ones, for selecting them, and then I invite others to do the same thing; this allows for the possibility of examining and testing our beliefs and the reasons therefore. I might well modify my list based on someone else's contribution to the discussion; they might, for example, bring to my attention a symphonist previously unknown to me whose symphonies, upon being listened to, convince me that this person is a better symphonist than someone else on my list.

It's really a question of expanding one's understanding. Subjective experience plays a role, of course-- but there is more to the process than that. As one listens (not just hears) to more music, as one thinks about that music and compares it to other pieces, as one looks at scores or listens to different performances, as one reads or performs analyses, one's understanding deepens (a process which would quite literally be impossible if all that mattered was personal taste). This is what allows a person to say 'I don't like X but I recognize them as a great composer' (or vice versa).

In the pianist Harold Bauer's autobiography he tells of a Texan who asked him to comment on his (the Texan's) performance of Chopin. Just before playing for Bauer, the Texan pointed out that he hadn't put in the "expression" yet. He then played something very weird, something which sounded almost like Chopin but not really-- and Bauer realized that by 'expression' the man had meant the accidentals; he was playing Chopin with no flats or sharps at all. Was the man really playing Chopin? He thought so, and if the purely subjective view is correct he was. Bauer thought not. I think not. And I suspect that almost everyone here, even those who defend the subjective stance, would say that he was not. Was he closer to playing Chopin than a child randomly pounding the keyboard? I think so; and along similar lines I think that a list of 'great symphonists' developed through consideration of the works at hand is more likely to be worth consideration and discussion than a simple listing of favorites, even if it is totally different than another list similarly developed.

Aesthetics is not a science, nor should it be. But it is, and should be, something more than just a random list of personal likes and dislikes.


----------



## JTech82

LvB,

Music is subjective whether you agree or not. I can be objective and list symphonists who are considered by history books and critics to be the "greatest composers," but guess who write reviews and books? People do and people have tendency to favor who they like correct? Since this is the case, all music is subjective. The reason why Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are so popular is because they have been universally accepted amongst the masses as quintessential classical composers. Everybody knows who these three composers are and if they don't, then they live in cave.

The point I'm making here is simple: these composers are popular and are recognized because people who write the history are the people who are fans of these composers' music, so instead of looking at it objectively, which is almost impossible to do because of people's own personal subjectivity, I fail to see you make any valid points, because it is human nature to be subjective, which history would have you not to believe.


----------



## Herzeleide

Ooo subjectivism. A philosophical slippery-slope.

Here's the thing: philosophers have tried for thousands' of years to prove that the world exists, to try and prove various things to be either true or false. They question all the things we take for granted, because the things we take for granted, when scrutinised, actually appear to be questionable. Now, when questioning fundamental aspects of the world, almost all philosophers presuppose that _some kind_ of truth is available, whether it's only empirical or whether it's universal truth.

This extends to the realm of morals. No one can _prove_ in the same manner as a mathematical problem (though mathematics has also received the scrutiny of philosophers!) that various things are right or wrong. That doesn't mean that there isn't some kind of truth available for us, it's just that we can never be certain about it. The only philosophers who impugn the possibility of knowledge (radical antirealists like Derrida) essentially make this point:

'The truth does not exist.'

Which obviously, if true, proves itself wrong!

So, my point is that, despite not being able to prove that murder is wrong, or the music of J.S. Bach superior to the entire corpus of 'death metal', I nonetheless feel confident that this is the truth, in the same way that I am fairly convinced that the chair I'm sitting on is real.


----------



## Herzeleide

JTech82 said:


> The point I'm making here is simple: these composers are popular and are recognized because people who write the history are the people who are fans of these composers' music, so instead of looking at it objectively, which is almost impossible to do because of people's own personal subjectivity, I fail to see you make any valid points, because it is human nature to be subjective, which history would have you not to believe.


The people who have studied the history of this period are generally in a very good position to judge the quality on such matters.

I'm thoroughly convinced that someone who has studied music in great depth for a long period of time is better qualified to make judgements. I'll be damned if my professors' opinions are just a useless as a crack addict's.


----------



## Artemis

@LvB

Thanks for the clarification. I see that I over-simplified what I thought you were saying. At the risk of getting it not right again, I now believe what you are saying is that a classical music fan who has passed the novice stage will have:1. a list of personal favourite symphonists based purely on personal preferences (List A)

2. a personal list of greatest symphonists based on one's perception of the relevant objective criteria for establishing greatness (List B)

3. the idea that there is probably a more definitive list of "greatest symphonists" although you personally do not know what it is because it is kind of Platonic "Form" (List C)​It may or may not be the case that List A is close to List B. You would like to think that your List B is to close to List C but since you do not know the composition of List C you can't be sure. You are asking other members for their List B's (not List A's) in order to see whether by pooling all the List B results it might shed light on the elusive List C.

Does this do reasonable justice to what you are getting at?


----------



## Tapkaara

It's too bad that this thread is becoming yet another useless back-and-forth between members who are trying to convince one another of something they will never be convinced of.

It's so frustrating when threads are created which, by their very design, ask the members what their take on a certain subject is: Who are the 10 greatest symphonists, is silence music, is Schonberg a good composer, etc., and the thread creators then endeavor to tell you your wrong after they have invited your input on a topic.

There is nothing wrong with spirited discussion or even debate on an issue, but when another thread degenerates into this "I am right and you are wrong" type of tug-o-war, really, what is the point? We are not even talking about the 10 greatest symphonists anymore.

When will we realize that these forums exist to exchange opposing view points and not to rake others over the coals or tell someone that they are wrong? Since forums invite an exchange of opinions, we should start respecting others' viewpoint instead of telling them their viewpoint is wrong and then going into a 10 paragraph arguement that tries to sway them in your direction.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am getting rather tired of this forum.


----------



## JTech82

Herzeleide said:


> The people who have studied the history of this period are generally in a very good position to judge the quality on such matters.
> 
> I'm thoroughly convinced that someone who has studied music in great depth for a long period of time is better qualified to make judgements. I'll be damned if my professors' opinions are just a useless as a crack addict's.


I guess I'm qualified to judge music then since I minored in composition in school.


----------



## LvB

Artemis said:


> @LvB
> 
> Thanks for the clarification. I see that I over-simplified what I thought you were saying. At the risk of getting it not right again, I now believe what you are saying is that a classical music fan who has passed the novice stage will have:1. a list of personal favourite symphonists based purely on personal preferences (List A)
> 
> 2. a personal list of greatest symphonists based on one's perception of the relevant objective criteria for establishing greatness (List B)
> 
> 3. the idea that there is probably a more definitive list of "greatest symphonists" although you personally do not know what it is because it is kind of Platonic "Form" (List C)​It may or may not be the case that List A is close to List B. You would like to think that your List B is to close to List C but since you do not know the composition of List C you can't be sure. You are asking other members for their List B's (not List A's) in order to see whether by pooling all the List B results it might shed light on the elusive List C.
> 
> Does this do reasonable justice to what you are getting at?


Again starting with your last question (  ):Except for the final part, yes. There is no 'final' list, Platonic or otherwise because our understandings are themselves subject to change as a result of different interpretations, themselves based on changing understandings. In a sense, the greatest symphonies are those which can sustain the greatest number of coherent and effective interpretations, both musically (in the sense of performances) and intellectually (in the sense of aesthetic analysis). The greatest symphonists, therefore, are those composers who have created the bodies of work best able to sustain these multiple interpretations. The point of making lists such as this one is thus not so much to arrive at a particular shared Platonic understanding of 'the ten greatest symphonists' as a deeper understanding of what makes any given composer one of the great symphonists. So this discussion is not at all irrelevant, as it is getting at what allows the judgments to be made in the first place.

Nor is what's going on here a matter of simply declaring someone else's list to be "wrong." Rather, it is an attempt to open up further discussion of the reasons for any given person's selection. Am I claiming that my list is definitive? Of course not. Am I claiming that any list which omits Beethoven in favor of Ludwig Spohr will strike me as a peculiar one? Yes I am; Spohr's music, though often very pleasant, rarely if ever expands our understanding of what the symphonic form is capable of, whereas Beethoven's often does. Does this mean that there could not possibly be an argument to the contrary? It does not, though I've not seen one that struck me as convincing.

So, back to my own list. I proposed Kalevi Aho as one example because I have heard enough of his music frequently enough to believe that he has revivified the symphony in new, complex, and wide-ranging ways. I selected him over, say, Allan Pettersson (who, incidentally, is one of my very favorite composers) because Aho's symphonies strike me as collectively more even in quality than Pettersson's and because his best work seems to be at, or at least very near, that of Pettersson. Could listening more carefully to either or both composers change my mind? Quite possible. Understanding, even of one's own experiences, is a process.


----------



## JTech82

In regards to the discussion going on. I think I will be objective here and list the great symphonists in terms of influence and innovation:

1. Beethoven
2. Mozart
3. Haydn
4. Schubert
5. Brahms
6. Tchaikovsky
7. Mendelssohn
8. Bruckner
9. Mahler
10. Sibelius

This list is being purely objective. Given the stature of each of these composers, the influence on other composers, and the overall appeal of their symphonies.

My personal list, as you can view on the first page of this thread, is not like this list at all.


----------



## Herzeleide

JTech82 said:


> I guess I'm qualified to judge music then since I minored in composition in school.


Surely then, someone who 'majors' in composition would be higher in the hierarchy than you?


----------



## Tapkaara

With all due respect to those who major in composition, minor in composition, play in an orchestra, write books on music, conduct, or just listen to a whole boat load of music, at the end of the day, you are no more or less qualified to make a definitive statement about good music or bad music than anyone else.

You may have a better technical knowledge on how a piece works than say, just some casual listener, but the final judgement as to whether a piece is "good" or "bad" will ultimately be a decision of personal taste more than anything.

Let's not forget that composers like Cage, Stockhausen and the like were music "experts" in that they knew perfectly well how music theory works and how to compose. But look what they produced. A lot of it is silly, often ugly and unappealing sound. (To me, anyway.) But should we heap false applause on them because they seem to know what they are doing and talking about?

Mozart was techanical master. If anyone knew music, it was him. I find his work, however, uninteresting regardless. Sibelius was also a technical master, though many in this forum dismiss him. Again, it really does just boil down to personal taste.

All of this talking down to one another and this "let me school you" attitude in threads such as this really is annoying. When will we get over ourselves and just have a nice, if sometimes spirited CONVERSATION instead of a CONVERSION where everything is "come to my thinking or be damned!"?


----------



## JTech82

Herzeleide said:


> Surely then, someone who 'majors' in composition would be higher in the hierarchy than you?


That may be the case, Herzeleide, but before I even took any composition classes I've been composing music since I was 10 years old, so really all I needed was a good grounding in the discipline of composition.

But anyway, I'm qualified no question about it.


----------



## Bach

Tapkaara said:


> Mozart was techanical master. If anyone knew music, it was him. I find his work, however, uninteresting regardless.


You couldn't have heard much. Don Giovanni? Piano Concerti? Late symphonies? Marriage of Figaro? Requiem? Clarinet Concerto? Clarinet Quintet? Dissonance Quartet? Great Mass in C Minor? Magic Flute? Piano Sonatas? Violin Sonatas? Violin Concerti? String Quintets?

Do you even know who Mozart is? Wolfgang Amadeus, and he's musical perfection.


----------



## Bach

> With all due respect to those who major in composition, minor in composition, play in an orchestra, write books on music, conduct, or just listen to a whole boat load of music, at the end of the day, you are no more or less qualified to make a definitive statement about good music or bad music than anyone else.


That's poo.

The average middle aged office worker with a penchant for Jeffrey Archer novels wouldn't be able to read Milton's Paradise Lost - therefore his opinion is not important when discussing literature. Just as the average listener who can just about digest Carl Orff's Carmina Burana but finds Bach's Mass in B Minor frightfully boring is not important when discussing music.

It's all about understanding. The man who can read Milton's Paradise Lost and understand it in its entirety and with all its subtlety and levels of meaning has far more authority on discussing literature than the casual novel reader, just as a man who can recognise a quadruple fugue or the dominant tone row in retrograde within a piece of music has far more authority when discussing music. Ergo, his opinion is more important.


----------



## Tapkaara

Bach said:


> You couldn't have heard much. Don Giovanni? Piano Concerti? Late symphonies? Marriage of Figaro? Requiem? Clarinet Concerto? Clarinet Quintet? Dissonance Quartet? Great Mass in C Minor? Magic Flute? Piano Sonatas? Violin Sonatas? Violin Concerti? String Quintets?
> 
> Do you even know who Mozart is? Wolfgang Amadeus, and he's musical perfection.


Yup, we're talking about the same guy.


----------



## Tapkaara

Bach said:


> That's poo.
> 
> The average middle aged office worker with a penchant for Jeffrey Archer novels wouldn't be able to read Milton's Paradise Lost - therefore his opinion is not important when discussing literature. Just as the average listener who can just about digest Carl Orff's Carmina Burana but finds Bach's Mass in B Minor frightfully boring is not important when discussing music.
> 
> It's all about understanding. The man who can read Milton's Paradise Lost and understand it in its entirety and with all its subtlety and levels of meaning has far more authority on discussing literature than the casual novel reader, just as a man who can recognise a quadruple fugue or the dominant tone row in retrograde within a piece of music has far more authority when discussing music. Ergo, his opinion is more important.


You know what, you are always right.


----------



## Bach

Yes, that is correct.


----------



## JTech82

I don't like Mozart, but he did a lot for Classical music and inspired many other composers, so I think anyone who denies this influence is not being objective. We all can be subjective and I certainly was when I said I don't like Mozart, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't an important part of the development of this music and one of the key innovators.

You would be out of your mind to deny his influence.


----------



## Bach

But his music is achingly beautiful, I honestly believe there's something for everyone in Mozart's unparalleled output.

His music is always devilishly subtle and his emotion is always dictated by the music and not the interpreter. The more musical you become, the more you appreciate Mozart.


----------



## JTech82

Bach said:


> But his music is achingly beautiful, I honestly believe there's something for everyone in Mozart's unparalleled output.
> 
> His music is always devilishly subtle and his emotion is always dictated by the music and not the interpreter. The more musical you become, the more you appreciate Mozart.


I'm not denying his influence or anything and you made some great points, Bach. It just doesn't do anything for me. There's not enough mystery or drama, with the exception of his Requiem of course, that really burns deep in my soul.

I'm not dismissing him, I'm simply stating that his music, while innovative and influential, does not dig deep into my heart. It's simply not my cup of tea. That's all I can really say without resorting to a more detailed explanation, which I'm not going to do. It would take too long.


----------



## Tapkaara

This thread is about the 10 greatest symphonists, isn't it? 

I think the only 3 composers that any one person in this thread can OBJECTIVELY say are among the greats are Beethoven, Mozart and Hadyn. Everything else is just pure opinion at that point.


----------



## Bach

I think you can probably add Brahms to that..

If you're talking about influence then Johann Stamitz is one of the most influential symphonists. He was the first to write in the four movement form (Allegro, Adagio, Minuet+Trio, Presto) that was used until the minuet and trio was replaced by the scherzo. He was also one of the first composers to feature extended crescendo passages and dynamic effects.


----------



## Tapkaara

Bach said:


> I think you can probably add Brahms to that..
> 
> If you're talking about influence then Johann Stamitz is one of the most influential symphonists. He was the first to write in the four movement form (Allegro, Adagio, Minuet+Trio, Presto) that was used until the minuet and trio was replaced by the scherzo. He was also one of the first composers to feature extended crescendo passages and dynamic effects.


Well, if you add Brahms, then I add Sibelius, then someone adds Mahler, then someone else Schubert...where would it all end? I think Brahms is a solid argument at the most, but very agruable. That's where this becomes a SUBJECTIVE exercise.

Stamitz may have influenced symphonic form, but beyond that, what really merits him to be on a list where there are only 10 spots and three are already taken by Beethoven, Mozart and Haydn? Shoulkd Stamitz really be in the same company as a Brahms, Sibelius, Mahler or a Tchaikovsky? Or replace one of those? I would be inclined to say no. While his re-thinking of symphonic form was certainly breaking new ground, he is easily eclipsed by other composers who may have been borrowing his form, but doing so much more with it.


----------



## JTech82

Tapkaara said:


> Well, if you add Brahms, then I add Sibelius, then someone adds Mahler, then someone else Schubert...where would it all end? I think Brahms is a solid argument at the most, but very agruable. That's where this becomes a SUBJECTIVE exercise.
> 
> Stamitz may have influenced symphonic form, but beyond that, what really merits him to be on a list where there are only 10 spots and three are already taken by Beethoven, Mozart and Haydn? Shoulkd Stamitz really be in the same company as a Brahms, Sibelius, Mahler or a Tchaikovsky? Or replace one of those? I would be inclined to say no. While his re-thinking of symphonic form was certainly breaking new ground, he is easily eclipsed by other composers who may have been borrowing his form, but doing so much more with it.


I agree, Stamitz isn't in the same company as Brahms, Haydn, Mozart, or Beethoven.


----------



## Bach

I'd rather listen to Stamitz than Sibelius..


----------



## handlebar

Bach said:


> I'd rather listen to Stamitz than Sibelius..


Hence back to opinions. I agree with the Haydn,Mozart and Beethoven statement as three that are unquestionable.

Jim


----------



## Herzeleide

Tapkaara said:


> With all due respect to those who major in composition, minor in composition, play in an orchestra, write books on music, conduct, or just listen to a whole boat load of music, at the end of the day, you are no more or less qualified to make a definitive statement about good music or bad music than anyone else.


Ummm yes they are. Someone whose ears are conditioned to like pop music will react negatively to (for example) Beethoven. Their opinion is utterly worthless compared with someone who has listened to a *wide range* of music, and thus is devoid of prejudices, will undoubtably be able to appreciate and understand music better than those with prejudices who have barely spent five minutes of their lives thinking about music.

Anyone who has tried to write a sonnet will be able to appreciate those of great poets better than someone who hasn't.

Anyone who has made serious attempts at painting will be able to appreciate the great paintings better than someone who hasn't.

Someone who has ran, or at least tried to run the marathon will be able to understand and appreciate great runners of the marathon.

Anyone who has tried their hand at composition, e.g. by writing a fugue will be able to appreciate the fugues of J.S. Bach better than someone who hasn't.



Tapkaara said:


> You may have a better technical knowledge on how a piece works than say, just some casual listener, but the final judgement as to whether a piece is "good" or "bad" will ultimately be a decision of personal taste more than anything.


Indeed. Some 'personal tastes' are worthless, as are some opinions.



Tapkaara said:


> Let's not forget that composers like Cage, Stockhausen and the like were music "experts" in that they knew perfectly well how music theory works and how to compose. But look what they produced. A lot of it is silly, often ugly and unappealing sound. (To me, anyway.) But should we heap false applause on them because they seem to know what they are doing and talking about?


Ummm Schoenberg said Cage had no ear for harmony and was 'not a composer, but an inventor of genius'. The issue of judging Stockhausen is much more complex than your vulgar insults seem to suggest; clearly there is conflict of opinion amongst learned people. My argument has never been that one will achieve unerring judgement if one is highly learned; rather, that whatever opinion one will hold will be much more valuable.


----------



## Herzeleide

JTech82 said:


> That may be the case, Herzeleide, but before I even took any composition classes I've been composing music since I was 10 years old, so really all I needed was a good grounding in the discipline of composition.
> 
> But anyway, I'm qualified no question about it.


Well done! 

Still, no question compared with someone who is a professional composer.


----------



## Tapkaara

I respect your take on my comments, Herzeliede.


----------



## JTech82

Herzeleide said:


> Well done!
> 
> Still, no question compared with someone who is a professional composer.


I guess you would call someone like Langgaard's or Charles Ives' opinion not professional either since they lived in obscurity all their lives, then wouldn't you?

Since I compose when time permits, I may not be a "professional" composer, but I have a firm grounding in the theory and inner mechanics of composition itself, I chose not to partake in the music business for two reasons 1. pride and 2. avoid the politics of the music business. In my opinion, true music will find an audience no matter how greedy the record companies are.

Just because you never heard of my music, doesn't mean I don't have the credentials it takes to judge and criticize music. What are your credentials, Herzeleide? What makes you "qualified" to judge music?


----------



## Herzeleide

JTech82 said:


> I guess you would call someone like Langgaard's or Charles Ives' opinion not professional either since they lived in obscurity all their lives, then wouldn't you?


Perhaps I shouldn't have said 'professional'. Ives studied music at Yale and Langgaard was a prodigy and worked as an organist. They were no dilettantes.


----------



## JTech82

Herzeleide said:


> Perhaps I shouldn't have said 'professional'. Ives studied music at Yale and Langgaard was a prodigy and worked as an organist. They were no dilettantes.


Again, I have yet to hear your credentials for evaluating music. Did you study composition? What are your primary and secondary instruments?

You seem to be avoiding this question, which shows a sign of insecurity or inferiority.


----------



## JTech82

Herzeleide said:


> Perhaps I shouldn't have said 'professional'. Ives studied music at Yale and Langgaard was a prodigy and worked as an organist.


By your own definition of who is qualified or isn't qualified to judge music, Ives and Langgaard wouldn't qualify to judge music, because they weren't "professionals."

People like you are exactly the reason I avoided the music business altogether. You think you have a right to judge a piece of art when you don't have the know-how to judge it in the first place.

I guess Alexander Borodin's opinion of a piece of music wouldn't matter much either since he worked as a chemist and composed on the side like Ives and Langgaard?

Seems like to me you open your mouth before you think.


----------



## Bach

I've studied with top composers including Robert Saxton, have two diplomas in piano and have a scholarship to Oxford which makes my opinion diamond encrusted. That's it, say my name. BACH BACH BACH BACH. "I wish I was you, man", "Are you the second coming of christ?" and "are those really your testicles!?" are just some of the comments made by the general public.


----------



## JTech82

Bach said:


> I've studied with top composers including Robert Saxton, have two diplomas in piano and have a scholarship to Oxford which makes my opinion diamond encrusted. That's it, say my name. BACH BACH BACH BACH. "I wish I was you, man", "Are you the second coming of christ?" and "are those really your testicles!?" are just some of the comments made by the general public.


Oh Bach you're too much.


----------



## Bach

*flamboyant bow*


----------



## handlebar

Didn't' Ives labor as an insurance salesman as well? Certainly not a professional composer. And that title "professional" in sports is defined as an athlete who does not get paid for his services. Does that apply to composers as well?

What about if it is post mortem? After they die, can they be considered a professional if their estate is paid for compositions? 

Jim


----------



## Tapkaara

Well, "professional composer" suggests to me that they are paid to compose. Perhaps it is their full-time job. But Jtech invokes names like Borodin and others, for whom composition was a sideline. Sure, somewhere down the line the may have received compensation for a work, but it's not like they were living on a government pension to compose all the time like Sibelius and I believe Richard Strauss.

Should Borodin, a great composer, then be downgraded because he was merely a chemist by day and composed "for fun?" Of course not. He is as viable a composer as anyone who has ever written a work of substantial quality.


----------



## JTech82

handlebar said:


> Didn't' Ives labor as an insurance salesman as well? Certainly not a professional composer. And that title "professional" in sports is defined as an athlete who does not get paid for his services. Does that apply to composers as well?
> 
> What about if it is post mortem? After they die, can they be considered a professional if their estate is paid for compositions?
> 
> Jim


Exactly, Jim. Ives owned a successful insurance company, but he composed music on the side and could never get a break. Borodin was a chemist, but he wrote music on the side. Langgaard was an organ virtuoso, but could not get a break either. The only "break" Langgaard got was when his Symphony No. 1 was premiered by the Berlin Philharmonic, but it didn't garner much attention from the public and he dwindled into obscurity for the remainder of his life.


----------



## handlebar

Tapkaara said:


> Well, "professional composer" suggests to me that they are paid to compose. Perhaps it is their full-time job. But Jtech invokes names like Borodin and others, for whom composition was a sideline. Sure, somewhere down the line the may have received compensation for a work, but it's not like they were living on a government pension to compose all the time like Sibelius and I believe Richard Strauss.
> 
> Should Borodin, a great composer, then be downgraded because he was merely a chemist by day and composed "for fun?" Of course not. He is as viable a composer as anyone who has ever written a work of substantial quality.


I agree. A composer is just that no matter what he does or whether everyone likes it. Just as a builder/contractor does that for a living, it does not mean he is necessarily good at it!
He is still a builder.

Jim


----------



## JTech82

handlebar said:


> I agree. A composer is just that no matter what he does or whether everyone likes it. Just as a builder/contractor does that for a living, it does not mean he is necessarily good at it!
> He is still a builder.
> 
> Jim


That is so true. A composer is a composer regardless of what he/she does for a living, which brings me to my next point, where's Herzeleide?

All of the points we each have made has seemed to keep him quiet. We must have, yet again, proven Herzeleide wrong.


----------



## Bach

To be honest with you, I don't think Herzeleide was trying to make a comment on professionalism - I think that was the wrong word to use.


----------



## Tapkaara

"Professional" may have been the wrong word, but I think everyone knows what he means.


----------



## Bach

I don't think you did.



> Should Borodin, a great composer, then be downgraded because he was merely a chemist by day and composed "for fun?" Of course not. He is as viable a composer as anyone who has ever written a work of substantial quality.


That's completely irrelevant.


----------



## Tapkaara

Only Herzelieder knows for sure, I guess.


----------



## Herzeleide

JTech82 said:


> You seem to be avoiding this question, which shows a sign of insecurity or inferiority.


On the contrary, it's the people who feel the need to boast about their credentials who are the insecure ones.


----------



## Bach

I'm still interested.


----------



## Herzeleide

JTech82 said:


> By your own definition of who is qualified or isn't qualified to judge music, Ives and Langgaard wouldn't qualify to judge music, because they weren't "professionals."


I've already revised that idea, pointing out that Ives 'majored' in music and Langgaard was a child prodigy, who studied music from an early age. Perhaps this might register with you. They were no amateurs or dilettantes.


----------



## handlebar

Herzeleide said:


> On the contrary, it's the people who feel the need to boast about their credentials who are the insecure ones.


Doesn't a person who has worked very hard to achieve a certain standard have the right to feel good about it and tell others? Is that boasting or purely recognition of ones achievements? Obama is now the President. Is he boasting when he says "I'm the President"
or does he not deserve the right to say that?

It is all in the eye of the listener is it not?

Jim


----------



## Herzeleide

JTech82 said:


> All of the points we each have made has seemed to keep him quiet. We must have, yet again, proven Herzeleide wrong.


Indeed: I was avoiding logging on here for fear of facing up to the fact that I had been proven wrong! 

Some of us have lives outside the internet.


----------



## Herzeleide

handlebar said:


> Doesn't a person who has worked very hard to achieve a certain standard have the right to feel good about it and tell others? Is that boasting or purely recognition of ones achievements? Obama is now the President. Is he boasting when he says "I'm the President"
> or does he not deserve the right to say that?
> 
> It is all in the eye of the listener is it not?
> 
> Jim


Personal details are ungermane to the discourse, and can only further the already likely proclivity of threads turning into ad hominem nightmares, where irrelevant personal issues are invoked, thus befogging whatever real points are trying to be argued.


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> I'm still interested.


You can be interested all you like. 

Beside which, I state quite clearly 'what I'm up to' in my profile.


----------



## Bach

Well, you say you're a student of music - So, I might ask: Conservatoire or University? Which conservatoire/university? What year are you in? What do you play? To what standard do you play it? 

Springs to mind.

All just interesting things to bear in mind when reading someone's arguments.


----------



## handlebar

Herzeleide said:


> Personal details are ungermane to the discourse, and can only further the already likely proclivity of threads turning into ad hominem nightmares, where irrelevant personal issues are invoked, thus befogging whatever real points are trying to be argued.


That made no sense at all. Music is personal to all of us here. Otherwise we would not be posting in such a forum.


----------



## JTech82

Herzeleide, I'm still waiting on your credentials by the way. What college or conservatory do you study at? What's your primary instrument and your secondary instrument? Who do you study composition under?

These are all valid questions that Bach and I would love to know as I'm sure many other people here.

You're only digging your hole deeper by avoiding the questions, which in turn, diminishes your credibility.


----------



## Herzeleide

handlebar said:


> That made no sense at all. Music is personal to all of us here. Otherwise we would not be posting in such a forum.


It makes all the sense in the world.

You asked whether Obama was boasting when he says 'I am the president'. Well no, but if he were debating and suddenly said 'I am the president', it would be irrelevant: he would only be flaunting his position in order to win brownie points if his actual argument was failing.


----------



## Herzeleide

JTech82 said:


> Herzeleide, I'm still waiting on your credentials by the way. What college or conservatory do you study at? What's your primary instrument and your secondary instrument? Who do you study composition under?
> 
> These are all valid questions that Bach and I would love to know as I'm sure many other people here.
> 
> You're only digging your hole deeper by avoiding the questions, which in turn, diminishes your credibility.


I'm not digging any hole.

If you look back on this thread, you'll see that my point was that music is not subjective because some people's opinions are worth more than others.

Rather than confuting this, you have merely digressed onto personal issues in order to provide yourself with ample opportunity to sate your seemingly avaricious appetite to indulge in contretemps, by launching a fusillade of taunts and abuse towards me regarding totally irrelevant personal issues.

I don't care if the likes of you think I'm losing credibility. I'm not some old man who got banned from a forum for misbehaving, and sends infantile abuse on people's profile, taunting them for their lack of 'friends' on this forum!

My posts speak for themselves. If you're willing to return to the topic of the subjectivity or lack thereof of music, and discontinue this puerile charade, I'll be more than welcome to make some constructive contribution to it. But if your importunity overcomes you regarding this digression, I'll have little choice but to respond with yet more defensive rhetoric.


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> All just interesting things to bear in mind when reading someone's arguments.


Hmm yes: i.e. prejudice.

One of the great things about the net is the anonymity.


----------



## Bach

Oh come on, humour me. I have a great deal of respect for your arguments - It's just interesting to hear about the person behind them..


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> Oh come on, humour me. I have a great deal of respect for your arguments - It's just interesting to hear about the person behind them..


I'm an Ethiopian homeless immigrant living in a dive, who steals cars to feed his incorrigible heroin habit.


----------



## Bach

How witty and creative


----------



## JTech82

Herzeleide said:


> I'm not digging any hole.
> 
> If you look back on this thread, you'll see that my point was that music is not subjective because some people's opinions are worth more than others.
> 
> Rather than confuting this, you have merely digressed onto personal issues in order to provide yourself with ample opportunity to sate your seemingly avaricious appetite to indulge in contretemps, by launching a fusillade of taunts and abuse towards me regarding totally irrelevant personal issues.
> 
> I don't care if the likes of you think I'm losing credibility. I'm not some old man who got banned from a forum for misbehaving, and sends infantile abuse on people's profile, taunting them for their lack of 'friends' on this forum!
> 
> My posts speak for themselves. If you're willing to return to the topic of the subjectivity or lack thereof of music, and discontinue this puerile charade, I'll be more than welcome to make some constructive contribution to it. But if your importunity overcomes you regarding this digression, I'll have little choice but to respond with yet more defensive rhetoric.


Still avoiding the questions. This is so great. The problem is you don't have the education, the know-how, or the any kind of instrumental training to back what you say up.

You're defense is much like an illusion. It's smoke and mirrors. Perhaps David Copperfield needs an assistant?


----------



## EarlyCuyler

Well in my opinion the 10 greatest symphonists are, in no particular order...

Hans Rott
Anton Bruckner
Gustav Mahler
Sergei Prokofiev
Dmitri Shostakovich 
Sir William Walton
Ludwig van Beethoven
Franz Josef Haydn
Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky
Camargo Guarnieri


Just my opinion...it will change, i'm honestly not sure I could limit this to 10. One thing I am sure about, is that W.A. Mozart will NEVER make my list.


----------



## Bach

Robert Simpson is a superb modern symphonist. Far better than Shostakovich.


----------



## jhar26

Herzeleide said:


> If you look back on this thread, you'll see that my point was that music is not subjective because some people's opinions are worth more than others.


It seems to me that we usually value the opinions of those who tend to be the most similar to our own the most. I don't think that education or 'musical credentials' have got a lot to do with it. Opinions about, say, Mozart, Messiaen, Schoenberg and many others among 'the educated' here are very different from one another, just as they tend to be among the mere mortals like myself. If the educated are so much better equipped to judge music their opinions would be more similar than those of others, but this is not the case.


----------



## Tapkaara

jhar26 said:


> It seems to me that we usually value the opinions of those who tend to be the most similar to our own the most. I don't think that education or 'musical credentials' have got a lot to do with it. Opinions about, say, Mozart, Messiaen, Schoenberg and many others among 'the educated' here are very different from one another, just as they tend to be among the mere mortals like myself. If the educated are so much better equipped to judge music their opinions would be more similar than those of others, but this is not the case.


Can I get an "amen?"


----------



## World Violist

Tapkaara said:


> Can I get an "amen?"


Amen.

Credentials rarely mean much of anything. I'm a teenager and don't have much of any credentials at all. Does that mean my opinion isn't worth anything? No, it quite obviously doesn't.

So now I so far like Haydn more than Mozart as a symphonist. I've heard Haydn's 88th and Mozart's 40th, and I like the Haydn better than the Mozart. That being said, I don't anticipate listening to more than 150 symphonies any time soon...


----------



## Tapkaara

I prefer Haydn to Mozart too, Violist. I like his 86th (!) symphony quite a bit.


----------



## Taneyev

My list, in no particular order:
Tchaikovsky
Kalinikov
Balakirev
Taneyev
Shostakovich
Rimsky Korsakoff
Saint-Saëns
Gliere
Lyapunov
Borodin


----------



## Tapkaara

Taneyev said:


> My list, in no particular order:
> Tchaikovsky
> Kalinikov
> Balakirev
> Taneyev
> Shostakovich
> Rimsky Korsakoff
> Saint-Saëns
> Gliere
> Lyapunov
> Borodin


I take it you like Russian composers??


----------



## Taneyev

Do you think so? But I've named Saint-Saëns!


----------



## Tapkaara

Taneyev said:


> Do you think so? But I've named Saint-Saëns!


Hahaha, yes, you did mention ONE French guy out of 9 Russians, didn't you?


----------



## World Violist

Tapkaara said:


> Hahaha, yes, you did mention ONE French guy out of 9 Russians, didn't you?


I dunno Tapkaara, that looks pretty threatening for his stance on the Russian side of things...


----------



## Tapkaara

World Violist said:


> I dunno Tapkaara, that looks pretty threatening for his stance on the Russian side of things...


The Russians are coming!


----------



## tahnak

In Chronological Order:
1. Franz Joseph Haydn
2. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
3. Ludwig Van Beethoven
4. Hector Berlioz (Symphonie Funebre et Triomphale, Harold en Italie, Romeo et Juliette and Symphonie Fantastique)
5. Franz Peter Schubert
6. Felix Bartholdy Mendelssohn
7. Anton Dvorak
8. Anton Bruckner
9. Jean Sibelius
10. Gustav Mahler


----------



## Herzeleide

jhar26 said:


> If the educated are so much better equipped to judge music their opinions would be more similar than those of others, but this is not the case.


I think it is the case. That is how repertoires and canons are created - because of general consent amongst the knowing about what is good and what is not.

Of course there still is dispute, because, as I described earlier, _certainty_ is beyond our reach regarding music, as it is regarding morality.


----------



## Herzeleide

JTech82 said:


> Still avoiding the questions. This is so great. The problem is you don't have the education, the know-how, or the any kind of instrumental training to back what you say up.
> 
> You're defense is much like an illusion. It's smoke and mirrors. Perhaps David Copperfield needs an assistant?


I feel thoroughly chastened by such devastating brickbats.


----------



## Bach

Well you should, you don't meet cunning linguists like Jtech everyday..


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> cunning linguists


It always amuses me when I see these two words together.


----------



## Bach

I don't think it's ever a coincidence.


----------



## islandersbob

Chronological order

Haydn
Mozart

Beethoven
Schubert
Mendelssohn

Tchaikovsky
Dvorak

Mahler

Prokofiev

Shostakovich


----------



## audiophilia

Mozart
Beethoven
Brahms
Sibelius
Tchaikovsky
Bruckner
Mahler
Shostakovich
Haydn
Schubert


----------



## emiellucifuge

I think:

Haydn (for inventing the form)

Beethoven (for revolutionising the size and what could be permitted in the symphony, and music in general)

Shostakovich (he defines the form in the 20th century and also innovated it)

Dvorak (for his purely aesthetic appeal, and some could say his long-lasting contributions to american music (with the 9th), and his perfection with the 7th)

Mahler (for the extreme depth and substance he imbued the symphony with, it became the ultimate form of expression with him)


----------



## Lukecash12

1.*Scriabin*

2.*Sorabji*

3.*Mahler*

4.*Beethoven*

5.*Sibelius*

6.*Tchaikovsky*

7.*Brahms*

8.*Shostakovich*

9.*Haydn*

10.*Mozart*


----------



## nickgray

Haydn
Mozart
Beethoven

Brahms
Tchaikovsky
Dvorak

Sibelius
Bruckner
Mahler

Shostakovich


----------



## Il Seraglio

Sorry, I could only come up with eight.

1.) Beethoven
2.) Haydn
3.) Berlioz
4.) Mozart
5.) Scriabin
6.) Bruckner
7.) Brahms
8.) Messiaen


----------



## Lukecash12

Here's the *KING* of the symphony (in my humble opinion). It gives reference to everyone, has a massive index of rhythmic device, orchestration methods, brings out vastly rich harmonic structures comparable to Rachmaninoff's Ave Maria, and is so vast that it encompasses a large variety of different orchestral forms of pieces. It is aggressive, uses a plethora of different parts in the string sections. If there were anything closest to Scriabin's Vision for the Mysterium (or Gesamtkunstwerk), this would be it (at least from a musical standpoint).

Any guesses? It's *Sorabji's massive, 4 1/2 hour symphony, "JAMI"*:


----------



## Lukecash12

Il Seraglio said:


> Sorry, I could only come up with eight.
> 
> 1.) Beethoven
> 2.) Haydn
> 3.) Berlioz
> 4.) Mozart
> 5.) Scriabin
> 6.) Bruckner
> 7.) Brahms
> 8.) Messiaen


By the way, Scriabin, Brahms, Messiaen, and Haydn are awesome choices.


----------



## Tapkaara

Il Seraglio said:


> Sorry, I could only come up with eight.
> 
> 1.) Beethoven
> 2.) Haydn
> 3.) Berlioz
> 4.) Mozart
> 5.) Scriabin
> 6.) Bruckner
> 7.) Brahms
> 8.) Messiaen


I find the Scriabin and Messiaen additions intriguing. Could you please elaborate why they belong on the list? Neither are generally known for their symphonies, at least not in the same context as some of the other composers you listed.


----------



## Lukecash12

Have you heard Scriabin's 5 symphonies? They're amazing! Scriabin was prolific in basically every category...


----------



## Tapkaara

Lukecash12 said:


> Have you heard Scriabin's 5 symphonies? They're amazing! Scriabin was prolific in basically every category...


I have heard his first symphony.


----------



## Lukecash12

Than of course you wouldn't think he belongs on the list. He doesn't get an awful lot of credit for his piano concerto, symphonies, and other chamber works.


----------



## Tapkaara

Lukecash12 said:


> Than of course you wouldn't think he belongs on the list. He doesn't get an awful lot of credit for his piano concerto, symphonies, and other chamber works.


It's not that I don;t think he belongs on a list of the greatest symphonists, I was just curious as to why one would pick such an unorthodox choice. Again, the name Scriabin is not usually lumped into the same company as Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, etc...


----------



## Lukecash12

I see what you're getting at. But I just don't see why Scriabin is unorthodox. Than again, I can't see why King David's compositions are unorthodox either...


----------



## sunnyyuan

I have no sense about symphony until my best friend gave me a ticket and I entered the theatre last year. So exciting!


----------



## Dim7

How was Scriabin "prolific in basically every category"? He was really profilic only in solo piano music. He wrote one piano concerto, some early obscure orchestral work called "Reverie", three actual symphonies, two finishied symphonic poems and one unfinished orchestral work (I suppose it would be a symphonic poem too). Everything else is as far as I know, solo piano music, or perhaps music piano music for four hands or two pianos or whatever. That hardly counts as "profilic in basically every category." Or have I missed something?

When it comes to the actual symphonies, Scriabin hadn't yet found his own personal style. I have heard the third and feel kinda lukewarm about it, it's not yet that scriabinesque and the first two are probably to even less degree, and more conservative in style. So I too find it a bit weird to call him one of the greatest symphonists, though of course there's nothing wrong in that.


----------



## Tapkaara

Lukecash12 said:


> I see what you're getting at. But I just don't see why Scriabin is unorthodox. Than again, I can't see why King David's compositions are unorthodox either...


I'm not saying Scriabin's MUSIC is unorthodox (which it is in many ways, actually), I'm saying that his PLACEMENT on a list of the 10 greatest symphonists is unorthodox. In my experience, he is just not considered one of the greatest writers in this genre. So again, I am curious to know what about his symphonies makes you think that he should be one of the 10 greatest symphonists of all time?


----------



## Lukecash12

Let's see... He's an orchestrator comparable to Tchaikovsky, and in the little number of symphonies he wrote, he gives a great deal in form, and an exploration of different periods of music. He let's us see what was of the Romantic period, everything that was good in it, and he moves on to his 5th. Prometheus has have some of the best orchestration you could hear anywhere, it's so very meticulous, eclectic, and characteristic of people. Not to mention it's loaded with symbolism.


----------



## Cortision

This is my little attempt. I have decided rule out composers who have written only one or two symphonies. Sadly this rules out Franck, whose Symphony I love, but you can't really judge a composer as a great symphonist based on just one Symphony, can you?


Haydn
Mozart
Beethoven
Brahms
Dvorak
Sibelius
Brucker
Tchaikovsky
Mahler
Shostakovich


----------



## Guest

I'm new on here, but here is my first contribution.

1. Beethoven
2. Mahler
3. Bruckner
4. Dvorak
5. Berlioz
6. Schubert
7. Mozart
8. Haydn
9. Shostakovitch
10. Mendelssohn


----------



## Tapkaara

Seems like no one has mentioned Nielsen. He's often considered one of the greatest. I guess folks in here don't think so...


----------



## Aramis

Tapkaara said:


> Seems like no one has mentioned Nielsen.


Half of posts at 1st page includes Nielsen


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I'll go mostly with the obvious:

1. Beethoven
2. Haydn
3. Mahler
4. Brahms
5. Bruckner
6. Schubert
7. Dvorak
8. Tchaikovsky
9. Shostakovitch
10. Hovhaness... or maybe Rachmaninoff, Szymanowski, or Zemlinski... or even Henze.

Scriabin? Scriabin? Not flogging that dead horse again.


----------



## Tapkaara

Aramis said:


> Half of posts at 1st page includes Nielsen


Aha, I didn't recall that. And no, I did not bother sifting through all of the older posts to see if he had been mentioned. I was going from pure memory.

I've been listening to quite a bit of Nielsen the past week in an effort to become better acquainted with him. A great symphonist, I must say. I admire his sense of drama AND concision, which is important within a symphony. It's the sense of structural control that sets a symphony apart from being a more rhapsodic, free-form work, and in this regard Nielsen is superior to the likes of a Mahler.


----------



## Barger

*1:* Beethoven
*2:* Mahler 
*3:* Haydn
*4:* Tchaikovsky
*5:* Bruckner 
*6:* Ives
*7:* Brahms
*8:* Sibelius
*9:* Schubert
*10:* Hovhaness


----------



## Lukecash12

Who else is just as worth mentioning? Let's see:

Boccherini
Dittersdorf
Liszt (probably already had a few honorable mentions but I thought I'd toss his name out there again because of the Dante Symphony)
Alfredo Casella
Raviji Shankar (he wrote several sitar orchestra pieces and was one of the few to do it so very well)
Chandrakantha (one of Shankar's great contemporaries)
Luciano Berio
Johann Jakob Froberger
Stenhammar 
Heller
Louis Vierne (his work with the organ is more than worth mentioning)


That's all I could come up with for now.


----------



## Dim7

Lukecash12 said:


> Raviji Shankar (he wrote several sitar orchestra pieces and was one of the few to do it so very well)


Hmm it seems that you simply define symphony as an orchestral work? You have also said that Scriabin wrote 5 symphonies though usually only three of them are considered symphonies, and Poem of Ecstasy and Prometheus are counted as symphonic poems. I doubt Shankar made actual symphonies?


----------



## Lukecash12

Dim7 said:


> Hmm it seems that you simply define symphony as an orchestral work? You have also said that Scriabin wrote 5 symphonies though usually only three of them are considered symphonies, and Poem of Ecstasy and Prometheus are counted as symphonic poems. I doubt Shankar made actual symphonies?


I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough. He wrote several actual symphonies, but they were intended for the Shankara Orchestra, which means Sitar, Tabla, Vocals, Sarod, Sarangi, Tanpura, Santoor, Veena, Bansuri, Shenai, etc. But yes, they are indeed symphonies.


----------



## DavidMahler

Hello everyone, I'm new here.....

But I thought I'd make this my first post......

The 10 greatest symphonists for me are:

1. Mahler
2. Brahms
3. Beethoven
4. Sibelius
5. Tchaikovsky
6. Bruckner
7. Dvorak
8. Schubert
9. Haydn
10. Mozart

but I would imagine the general consensus would read something like

1. Beethoven
2. Brahms
3. Mahler
4. Mozart
5. Haydn
6. Tchaikovsky
7. Dvorak
8. Sibelius
9. Bruckner
10. Berlioz

something like that?


----------



## LatinClassics

Here is my list. Though this could change at any time:

1. Bruckner
2. Mahler
3. Sibelius
4. Brahms
5. Tchaikovsky
6. Dvorak
7. Rubbra
8. Vaughan Williams
9. Shostakovich
10. Myaskovsky


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

Hadyn
Mozart
Beethoven
Schubert
Brahms
Bruckner
Dvorak
Mahler
Tchaikovsky
Draeseke


----------



## World Violist

1. Mahler
2. Sibelius
3. Bruckner
4. Haydn
5. Beethoven
6. Rubbra
7. Holmboe
8. Brahms
9. Shostakovich
10. Ives


----------



## JAKE WYB

Tapkaara said:


> Aha, I didn't recall that. And no, I did not bother sifting through all of the older posts to see if he had been mentioned. I was going from pure memory.
> 
> I've been listening to quite a bit of Nielsen the past week in an effort to become better acquainted with him. A great symphonist, I must say. I admire his sense of drama AND concision, which is important within a symphony. It's the sense of structural control that sets a symphony apart from being a more rhapsodic, free-form work, and in this regard Nielsen is superior to the likes of a Mahler.


Though I wouldnt count Nielsen as one of the 10 greatest symphonists I would mention his 5th as one of the greatest of its kind and he would be a contender if all of his 6 were as staggering as this work - if he had gone further he may have develeoped like Dvorak into a greater symphonuist all round


----------



## Webernite

This is an interesting thread, so I'll revive it.

In my opinion, the only symphonists comparable to Beethoven are Brahms and Mahler. After them, maybe Haydn and Bruckner, and then Sibelius, Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, Berlioz, Mozart...


----------



## World Violist

I still think of Beethoven as a generally not-so-great symphonist. The ninth symphony becomes a structural wreck in the last movement, and I don't think using a choir for the first time in symphonic history justifies greatness. On the other hand, 2 and 3 are alright, 4 and 7 are marvelous, 5 is quite ingenious really, and the rest are for the most part so-so. Regardless, none of them are on a level with the piano sonatas in my humble opinion.

I can't really think about ranking symphonists right now, but I think I've changed my subconscious list a bit since a year ago. Mahler, Sibelius, Brahms, Bruckner, Aho, and Haydn would be in my list somewhere... can't think of many others.


----------



## Webernite

I think the remarkable thing about Beethoven's symphonies (and some but not all of his other music) is how intuitively and naturally the main idea is developed throughout each movement.

A quality often attributed to Mozart is that the notes almost seem to choose themselves - that somehow every note seems _right_. But I've begun to feel that this is a quality that would be better attributed to Beethoven. A sense of organic development, not to mention a control of tension, is stronger in the best symphonic movements of Beethoven than in almost any other music I can think of. I have in mind particularly the first and second movements of the _Eroica_, the first movement of the Fifth, the second movement of the Seventh, and the first movement of the Eighth, but to some extent it is present in every symphonic movement he wrote from the _Eroica_ onwards.


----------



## Webernite

To me, in a strange way, the piano sonatas seem more deliberately like pieces of music, whereas the symphonies seem almost to be _studies_ in what can be done with a given motif.


----------



## starry

I'll agree with those who put

1 Haydn
2 Mozart 
3 Beethoven


----------



## claroche

I think Mahler was the greatest symphonist, in a sense that he wrote (mostly) only symphonies, decided upon what a symphony was supposed to do (largely derived IMHO from Beethoven's 9th and 7th), and attempted to compose symphonies which maximized the particularities of the symphony insofar as the symphony is different from other forms of classical music.

This does not mean he composed the best symphonies, however -- only that his symphonies are, if you buy the argument above, the most symphonic.

Apart from this I agree with all who placed Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven at the top.


----------



## Art Rock

1. Mahler
2. Brahms
3. Bruckner
4. Shostakovich
5. Sibelius
6. Dvorak
7. Bax
8. Vaughan Williams
9. Beethoven
10. Haydn

Beetoven in spite of the 9th, Haydn for consistent quality in large numbers (even though I could not single out one that stands out). Mozart's symphonies do not appeal to me.

Honourable mention ofr Rautavaara, Nielsen, Sallinen and Schmidt.

Some composers not listed stand out for 1 or 2 symphonies, insufficient to rank them here (Schubert 8, Suk, Saint Saens 3, Gorecki 3, Mendelssohn 3/4, Berloiz SF, to name a few).


----------



## TWhite

Well, I'll go with some of the usual suspects:
Beethoven
Haydn
Brahms
Mahler
Sibelius
Dvorak

and add some of my own:
Rachmaninov--yes, you can make a very good symphony strictly out of good tunes (#2) or start out with a SLAMMER and fail miserably (#1) and have to wait until you're dead for everyone to see how damned GOOD it is!)
Kalinnakov--got cut off in his prime and we'll never know how good he COULD have been. But #1 gives us a hint, at least.
Borodin--if the first two Symphonies are any example, he should have spent less time in the laboratory and more time composing.
Balakirev: #1 is a KNOCKOUT! What happened after that? Inquiring minds want to know!
Copland: #3 sums it all up. He didn't need to write any more in the genre, he said it all.

Tom


----------



## afterpostjack

Haydn, Beethoven, Sibelius, Nielsen, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Bruckner, Schubert, Shostakovich, and some other guy (like Brahms or perhaps Liszt), in no particular order.


----------



## Guest

My favorites: Brahms, Dvorak, Mendelssohn, Sibelius, Prokofiev, Vaughan Williams, Shostakovich, Bax, Roussel, Rautavaara.


----------



## Petwhac

Very surprised not to see any Schubert mentioned.

Actually I just have! Must have missed a few earlier posts ooops.
Sorry, I'll just crawl back in my hole now.


----------



## unpocoscherzando

1. Beethoven
2. Mozart
3. Brahms
4. Sibelius
5. Mendelssohn
6. Borodin
7. Bizet
8. Honegger
9. Grieg
10. Wagner

An admittedly highly unusual and, needless to say, mostly subjective listing (although the first two places are not subject to change).


----------



## amfortas

unpocoscherzando said:


> 10. Wagner


As you say, highly unusual.


----------



## Klavierspieler

1. Beethoven
2. Schumann
3. Dvorak
4. Elgar
5. Vaughan-Williams
6. Mendelssohn
7. Schubert
8. Mozart
9. Haydn
10. Brahms


----------



## jalex

Beethoven
Mahler
Mozart
Haydn
Shostakovich
Dvorak
Schubert
Brahms
Sibelius
Mendelssohn?


----------



## TrazomGangflow

I'll just post a top three because I really don't feel like thinking right now. (headache)

1. Mozart
2. Brahms
3. Beethoven


----------



## Nix

1. Beethoven- for establishing the symphony as the pinnacle of orchestral expression 
2. Haydn- for doing most of the work up until Beethoven
3. Mahler- for taking the orchestra to extreme measures in orchestration 
4. Mozart- for quantity, and increased expressivity 
5. Sibelius- for his contribution to form
6. Brahms- for being the first to really fill Beethoven's shoes 
7. Dvorak- for popularizing Czech music
8. Vaughan Williams- for creating the first respectable English Symphony cycle
9. Shostakovich- for quality & quantity 
10. Bruckner- because I'd feel bad and biased for leaving him out 

If asked favorites, the order would be a little different.


----------



## doctorGwiz

Nix said:


> 6. Brahms- for being the first to really fill Beethoven's shoes


Many I think would have a problem with this explanation. (I do not). Is your avatar of Horowitz by the way? I was confused because it looks like he could be holding a violin or maybe thats just me. Just curious.

EDIT: Wow, no thats samuel barber, my mistake.


----------



## Trout

I'm surprised that Tchaikovsky is absent on many people's lists.


"Greatest" list:
1. Beethoven
2. Mahler
3. Brahms
4. Haydn
5. Tchaikovsky
6. Mozart
7. Dvorak
8. Sibelius
9. Schubert
10. Bruckner
11. Shostakovich (yes, he had to be included)


Subjective list:
1. Beethoven
2. Mahler
...


----------



## Nix

doctorGwiz said:


> Many I think would have a problem with this explanation. (I do not).


I was initially going to say that Brahms revitalized the symphonic form, but I didn't think that was fair. There were lots of symphonies written by early romantics but I think they all intentionally strayed away from being as expressive and large scale as Beethoven's... until Brahms, who was expected to be like Beethoven in that respect. Bruckner could be the exception... I'm just not sure if the quality factor is enough (granted I haven't listened to THAT much Bruckner).

Welcome to the forum, by the way.


----------



## doctorGwiz

Nix said:


> Welcome to the forum, by the way.


Thanks. I haven't listened to that much Bruckner either, but I do like his earlier symphonies (Nos. 1, 2, 3). I still have to give his longer works a good listen. Back to Brahms, at least one of his contemporaries (Schumann) believed Brahms to be the successor to Beethoven, so I think that would be a pretty good defense of such a claim. In his own right I think Brahms was an innovator, but again, more of a successor if at least to a "germanic" symphonic form.


----------



## doctorGwiz

Trout said:


> I'm surprised that Tchaikovsky is absent on many people's lists.


I'm surprisingly not very familiar with Tchaikovsky as a symphonist aside from the Pathetique, which I like. Could you recommend recordings of his other symphonies?


----------



## Trout

doctorGwiz said:


> I'm surprisingly not very familiar with Tchaikovsky as a symphonist aside from the Pathetique, which I like. Could you recommend recordings of his other symphonies?


Many sets of Tchaikovsky's symphonies include just numbers 4, 5, and 6. I am currently happy with this set.










I have also heard Karajan's rendition of Tchaikovsky's 4, 5 and 6 which I would also recommend.

If you are looking for a full set, I would definitely look into this:









It's a bargain for only $27.67 on amazon for all of Tchaikovsky's symphonies (including Manfred), Romeo and Juliet, and Francesca da Rimini (another favorite of mine).

Manfred alone, however, I have only heard









which is also a great recording. 

You should probably ask for some other members' recommendations as I am not the most knowledgable in Tchaikovsky's symphonies.


----------



## Lukecash12

I think I tossed the Scriabin chip in earlier, but I'd like to see what the members who are currently active think of Scriabin's symphonies. The first one has orchestration pretty similar to Tchaikovsky, with considerable depth in role switching, well written instrument solos, expansive, rhapsodic, and open ended melodies, and tightly woven voice assignments (especially in the upper register strings and the notes that those instruments share).


----------



## DavidMahler

I've revised my list:

1. Mahler
2. Brahms
3. Sibelius
4. Bruckner
5. Beethoven
6. Haydn
7. Dvorak
8. Shostakovich
9. Mozart
10. Schumann
11. Tchaikovsky
12. Schubert


----------



## jdavid

Really nice to see a list that exalts Sibelius!!! - who, in my opinion, is one of the two great symphonists of the 20th century (the other being Mahler, with Das Lied von der Erde counting as a 10th). My list would also include along with those two: Mozart (From 'Prague' thru 'Jupiter', Haydn from 'Paris' thru 'London', Schumann, Mendelssohn (3 and 4), Bruckner (4, 8, 9), Tchaikovsky (4, 5, 6), Shostakovich (4,5,10), Prokofiev (4,5,6). Maurice Abravanel's complete recordings of the complete Sibelius cycle is being released by Amazon on Oct 11, 2011 and you can preorder now - an amazing conductor and it's inexpensive! Cheers!


----------



## jdavid

Same here, should have listed Schubert, Brahms and Dvorak!


----------



## jalex

jdavid said:


> Haydn from 'Paris' thru 'London',


Haydn has so much more to offer than this. The symphonies from his early _Sturm und Drang_ period on are all of high musical quality, I wouldn't say the later ones tower above these in any sense though the style is quite different.

Any reason for skipping Beethoven?


----------



## chalkpie

I'm new. Here I go:

(in no order)

Mahler
Ives
Shostakovich
Copland
Lutoslawski
Stravinsky
Vaughn Williams
Brahms
Schuman, William
Schnittke


----------



## Lukecash12

jalex said:


> Haydn has so much more to offer than this. The symphonies from his early _Sturm und Drang_ period on are all of high musical quality, I wouldn't say the later ones tower above these in any sense though the style is quite different.
> 
> Any reason for skipping Beethoven?


Just his taste, bro.


----------



## Lukecash12

chalkpie said:


> I'm new. Here I go:
> 
> (in no order)
> 
> Mahler
> Ives
> Shostakovich
> Copland
> Lutoslawski
> Stravinsky
> Vaughn Williams
> Brahms
> Schuman, William
> Schnittke


Sweet! Schnittke and Ives don't get mentioned all too often.


----------



## jdavid

Thanks for noting the omission! Beethoven is probably my favorite composer if I were painted into a corner. I have two essays of the Beethoven Symphonies - Von Karajan/Berlin 1972, and John Eliot Gardner's w Orchestre revolutionaries et romantique. The former is sumptuous but I prefer the latter - great colors AND intonation. I also have numerous individual recordings - Carlos Kleiber's 5th is really fine. Re Haydn, I own Dorati's complete Haydn Symphonies (Sinfonia Hungarica) and I agree about the symphonies of the 1760's and 70's - there are fine works throughout his symphonic writing, even in the earliest his great individuality and talent is evident.


----------



## Llyranor

jdavid said:


> Really nice to see a list that exalts Sibelius!!! - who, in my opinion, is one of the two great symphonists of the 20th century


I'd say Sibelius is probably my favorite symphonist.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Haydn? he composed so many...104!!! and of course...many of them are so similar.

You have forgotten Myaskovsky who composed 27 different symphonies, Egon Wellesz, who composed 9 quite different...and many others. IMHO It is difficult and kind of unpopular to create a thread like that...I don't agree with some composers you have mentioned...many people won't agree with my selection either...THE BEST DOES NOT EXIST. It's just a question of tastes.


Love and Peace!


:wave:

Martin


----------



## chalkpie

Lukecash12 said:


> Sweet! Schnittke and Ives don't get mentioned all too often.


That's because many folks are not interested in leaving their "comfort zones" and/or have their ears sewn shut. There is more to life than Beethovens 3rd or Dvoraks 9th (and I love those pieces BTW), but for some the familiarity of those combined with the effort it takes to absorb new and more modern works is just not worth the payoff. IMO Ives and especially Schnittke have created some of the most fascinating, original, and creative symphonic works, regardless of era.

But I'm glad you dig 'em man !


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Trout said:


> Many sets of Tchaikovsky's symphonies include just numbers 4, 5, and 6. I am currently happy with this set.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have also heard Karajan's rendition of Tchaikovsky's 4, 5 and 6 which I would also recommend.
> 
> If you are looking for a full set, I would definitely look into this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a bargain for only $27.67 on amazon for all of Tchaikovsky's symphonies (including Manfred), Romeo and Juliet, and Francesca da Rimini (another favorite of mine).
> 
> Manfred alone, however, I have only heard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which is also a great recording.
> 
> You should probably ask for some other members' recommendations as I am not the most knowledgable in Tchaikovsky's symphonies.


Not just me, but many musicologists agree to say that Pletnev is the best for Tchaikovsky. I got the 3 last symphonies by him, it makes a big difference!

Martin


----------



## jalex

jalex said:


> Beethoven
> Mahler
> Shostakovich
> Brahms
> Berlioz
> Mozart
> Sibelius
> Dvorak
> Haydn
> Schubert


I've finally woken up and thought of a worthy tenth: Berlioz. Also my ordering was pretty haphazard but I think it's roughly fixed now.


----------



## jdavid

My list of innovators re Symphony:

1. Haydn - established the standard, and penchant for monothematicism.
2. Beethoven - motivic construction, length and long-range planning ('Eroica') bridging of movments 4 & 5 in the 5th Sym., the 4th m. +5th m. = one finale movement in the ('Pastorale'), and of course the 9th, cyclic, and choral ending.
3. Schumann - revised 2nd symphony into 4th in D minor which is a one movement symphony with all elements of 4 movements contained within.
4. Berlioz - extended color palette and orchestration, size of orchestra, 5 movement 'Fantastique' + 'Idee Fixe', and use of vocal forces in other symphonies.
5. Liszt - 'Faust' Symphony of character portraits from the Goethe play with greatly extended harmonic material in the 3rd movement which pays out into the 20th century.
6.Brahms - an innovator by virtue of his conservatism in the face of change - a very high view of the Germanic Symphony - the extreme lyricism in large, elastic intervals of the 2nd themes.. (Thin ice here, I know).
7. Mahler - overall concept, length, design, vocal forces, montage/collage effects.
8. Sibelius - 2nd Symphony is deconstructed in opening and gradually assembles itself into the first theme of the Exposition and the highly organic, one-movement 7th.
9. Charles Ives - 4th Symphony - has all the usual 'quotes' we expect, plus a 3rd m. fugue, and a full-orchestra _tremelondo_ in the 2nd movement.
10. Alan Hohvaness (1911-2000) 67 symphonies! High degree of diverse elements and formal structures. Mystic and multi-cultural in content.


----------



## Vaneyes

Oh, okay, I'll bite.

Mahler, Beethoven, Bruckner, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Haydn, Mozart, Shostakovich, Schumann, Dvorak.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Shostakovich composed 15 symphonies, Brahms 4, Tchaikovsky 6-7, Myaskovsky 27...
Beethoven, Bruckner and Wellesz composed 9, Schubert 10 (?), Schumann 4
Haydn *pooped 104.*






!!!

Martin


----------



## mtmailey

beethoven symphony 7
schubert symphony 9
dvorak symphony 9
tchaikovsky symphony 5
mozart symphony 41
brahms symphony 1
elgar symphony 1
haydn symphony 94
schubert symphony 8
mendelssohn symphony 4


----------



## afterpostjack

My list, roughly in order.

Bruckner
Beethoven
Tchaikovsky
Haydn
Mahler
Shostakovich
Sibelius
Schubert
Nielsen
Brahms

Honorable mentions to Mozart, Dvorak and Rachmaninov.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Mahler
Schnittke
Bruckner
CPE Bach
Shostakovich
Beethoven
Haydn
Farrenc
Ives
Glass


----------



## Orkestra

Hmm. Mahler or Beethoven is much better than Haydn in my opinion simply because they employed much more varied styles and techniques. Haydn was good but stuck to status quo too much.


----------



## Bone

1. Beethoven (because it is true)
2. Haydn (variety and creativity)
3. Sibelius (takes some effort to warm up, but swings for the fences every time)
4. Brahms (if you only write 4, this is what you try to accomplish)
5. Tchaikovsky (I still don't understand why his first 3 aren't better appreciated)
6. Mahler (a bit too schizo overall, but no arguing the content)
7. Bruckner (I love his music.....if i'm in the right mood)
8. Mozart (probably should be higher, but I always get the impression his best stuff is elsewhere excepting the last few)
9. Nielsen (truly underrated)
10. Shostakovich (well, someone had to be #10 - and he is certainly a fine symphonist)


----------



## Hausmusik

I'll probably be thought of as a provocateur when I say that, while I love Beethoven, it is not his symphonies I primarily love him for. I know this sounds crazy when Beethoven has become pretty much identified with this genre. But while his symphonies rank high for me, he's not the first composer I think of when I think of great symphonists.

How I'd rank them, with some favorites as well

1. Mahler (1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9)
2. Brahms (2, 3, 4)
3. Haydn (too numerous to list, but Le Matin, Drumroll, 44-46, Oxford and The Bear are high up)
4. Beethoven (3, 4, 5, 7, 8)
5. Mozart (35, 40, 41)
6. Bruckner (4, 8, 9)
7. Sibelius (4, 5)
8. Dvorak (6, 7, 9)
9. Tchaikovsky (4, 6)
10. Shostakovich (5, 10, maybe 11)

Hon. mentions: Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn


----------



## Ramako

Haydn and Beethoven

then other people,

Mahler, Tchaikovsky and Mozart

then I suppose, Dvorak, Mendelssohn, Sibelius and either CPE Bach or Schubert.

The symphonic genre is essential to me. From the invention of the symphony these are my favourite general composers too.


----------



## Hausmusik

Orkestra said:


> Hmm. Mahler or Beethoven is much better than Haydn in my opinion simply because they employed much more varied styles and techniques. Haydn was good but stuck to status quo too much.


Haydn invented the "status quo."


----------



## starthrower

I suppose I don't listen to many of the "greatest" symphonists according to most lists.

I like:
Honegger
Aulis Sallinen
William Schuman
Karl Hartmann
Schnittke
Henze
Lutoslawski
Dutilleux


----------



## violadude

I don't like judging greatest because I'm always wrong, so I'm changing it to favorite instead. These are my favorite symphonists at the moment

Mahler
Brahms
Sibelius
Rubbra
Nielsen
Hartmann
Schnittke
Henze
Yoshimatsu
Yun


----------



## starthrower

I haven't listened to any Rubbra. I'll have to give him a try.


----------



## ProudSquire

At the moment

Mozart
Schubert
Tchaikovsky
Brahms
Sibelius
Haydn
Beethoven
Schumann
Mendelssohn
Czerny


----------



## Art Rock

starthrower said:


> I suppose I don't listen to many of the "greatest" symphonists according to most lists.
> 
> I like:
> Honegger
> Aulis Sallinen
> William Schuman
> Karl Hartmann
> Schnittke
> Henze
> Lutoslawski
> Dutilleux


I'm glad to see Sallinen mentioned. Love his works.


----------



## wellmab

In order:
1.Beethoven	
2.Mahler 
3.Bruckner	
4.Brahms	
5.Tchaikovsky	
6.Schubert	
7.Dvorák 
8.Sibelius	
9.Schumann	
10.Mendelssohn


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

My list at this point would be: J. Haydn, Mendelssohn, Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, M. Haydn, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Dvořák.

I recently discovered Mendelssohn's symphonies and am very glad I did.


----------



## AClockworkOrange

In no order ten of my _favourite_ symphonists would have to be:
1. Beethoven
2. Bruckner
3. Schubert
4. Mahler
5. Mendelssohn
6. Tchaikovsky
7. Shostakovich
8. Sibelius
9. Haydn
10. Vaughan Willams

Honourable mentions to Brahms, Mozart, Martinu, Schumann and Dvorak.


----------



## astronautnic

1.Brahms
2.Sibelius
3.Beethoven
4.Mahler
5.Haydn
6.Shostakovich
7.Dvorak
8.Bruckner
9.Nielsen
10. Mozart


----------



## Cheyenne

My favourites:

1. Mahler
2. Beethoven
3. Haydn
4. Brahms
5. Vaughan Williams
6. Mozart
7. Shostakovich
8. Bruckner
9. Ives
10. Prokofiev

I love Schnittke, and am glad he's mentioned so often, but he didn't make the list for me: his concertos I like better anyway.


----------



## Vaneyes

astronautnic said:


> 1.Brahms
> 2.Sibelius
> 3.Beethoven
> 4.Mahler
> 5.Haydn
> 6.Shostakovich
> 7.Dvorak
> 8.Bruckner
> 9.Nielsen
> 10. Mozart


On to the next poll, please.

View attachment 25001


----------



## violadude

Vaneyes said:


> On to the next poll, please.
> 
> View attachment 25001


lol This made me smile immensely.


----------



## quack

Hmmm willfully stealing inspiration from all the proceeding lists, I would probably say my favourites are:

Beethoven, Shostakovich, Schnittke, Sibelius, Schumann, Scriabin, Wellesz, Hartmann, Honegger, Vaughan Williams


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Vaneyes said:


> On to the next poll, please.
> 
> View attachment 25001


haha , good one Vaneyes.


----------



## Rhombic

Borodin
Beethoven
Haydn (not his fault to be born in that century)
Mahler
Wagner
Nielsen
...


----------



## Winterreisender

Rhombic said:


> Borodin
> Beethoven
> Haydn (not his fault to be born in that century)
> Mahler
> Wagner
> Nielsen
> ...


I always thought Wagner's youthful Symphony in C was a bit underwehlming, myself. It is just a shame that he never got round to returning to this genre.

And I'm not sure I can imagine a Haydn born in a later centurty. I like his symphonies just the way they are, a fine mix of classical balance and playfulness.


----------



## Rhombic

Winterreisender said:


> I always thought Wagner's youthful Symphony in C was a bit underwehlming, myself. It is just a shame that he never got round to returning to this genre.
> 
> And I'm not sure I can imagine a Haydn born in a later centurty. I like his symphonies just the way they are, a fine mix of classical balance and playfulness.


Oh wait! Not Wagner, I hadn't read Symphonists, but rather orchestrators... so I'll add Bruckner instead of Wagner. And uhh maybe Shostakovich.


----------



## Lord Lance

1. Beethoven [No surprises here]
2. Mahler [Stupendous, complex and masterful]
3. Haydn [Father of symphony and a vast output]
4. Mozart [Early works are light but his later works are fantastic!]
5. Bruckner [Acquired taste. I am not in complete love with all of his symphonies but there are some which I like. Enormous works with huge ambition. Its easy to see why he is called half-god, half-simpleton by Mahler.]
6. Tchaikovsky
7. Brahms
8. Shostakovich
9. Dvorak
10. Rachmaninov


----------



## Blake

1. Beethoven
2. Bruckner
3. Dvorak
4. Schubert
5. Sibelius
6. Mozart
7. Tchaikovsky
8. Brahms
9. Mahler (Still trying to crack this safe, but I know there is immense talent)
10. Mendelssohn


----------



## KetchupOnIce

My favorite symphonists:
1. Mozart
2. Haydn
3. Beethoven
4. Schubert
5. C.P.E. Bach 
6. Dittersdorf
7. Mendelssohn
8. Vanhal
9. J.C. Bach
10. Abel
Sorry, not a fan of Late Romantic or 20th century composers


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Sibelius, Beethoven, Shostakovich.....errr, that's it.


----------



## Stirling

In order
Haydn
Mozart
Beethoven
Berlioz
Mendelssohn
Schumann
Brahms
Bruckner
Dvorak
Mahler
Sibelius
Stravinsky
Prokofiev
Hindemith
DSCH
Rubbra
Copeland
Adams
Newberry


----------



## jim prideaux

Sibelius 
Glazunov
Nielsen 
Schumann 
Beethoven
Schubert 
Mozart
Dvorak
Myaskovsky
Tubin

today and based only on my own listening.....probably already done this with different selections....cannot recall!


----------



## Haydn man

This is my current top 10
Haydn
Beethoven
Mozart
Mahler
Sibelius
Schubert
Dvorak
Tchaikovsky
Vaughan Williams
Mendlessohn 

Likely to change again in the future when I remember who I have forgotten


----------



## Haydn man

Oh no forgot Brahms!
Right, well he is definitely top 10 so I shall now have to rethink the list


----------



## jim prideaux

Haydn man said:


> Oh no forgot Brahms!
> Right, well he is definitely top 10 so I shall now have to rethink the list


I also forgot Brahms!

(and am now wondering who else!)


----------



## EDaddy

Not necessarily in order:

Mozart
Haydn
Beethoven
Schubert
Nielsen
Tchaikovsky
Dvorak
Bruckner
Brahms
Sibelius

...and one to grow on:

Schumann


----------



## Bayreuth

Alphabetical order

Beethoven
Brahms
Bruckner
Dvorak
Mahler
Mozart
Prokofiev
Rachmaninov
Schubert
Shostakovich


----------



## corndogshuffle

I'll go alphabetical (mostly) because there are composers I don't love listening to who still deserve to be on this list. 

1a. Mahler
1b. Beethoven
now a break before I go alphabetical

Brahms
Bruckner
Dvorak
Haydn
Mozart
Shostakovich
Sibelius
Tchaikovsky

Not exactly a revolutionary list, but there's probably a reason that most of these names are present on a consistent basis.


----------



## KenOC

In order:

Beethoven
Haydn
Shostakovich
Mozart
Prokofiev
Brahms
Sibelius
Schubert
Dvorak
Mendelssohn


----------



## hapiper

Not in order of their importance to the evolution of the form so much as just my preference at any given moment.

1. Beethoven
2. Brahms
3. Dvorak
4. Tchaikovsky
5. Shubert
6. Mozart
7. Mahler
8. Sibelius
9. Bruckner
10. Haydn

That was harder than I thought it would be.<g>


----------



## Chronochromie

In alphabetical order:

Beethoven
Berlioz
Bruckner
Haydn
Henze
Lutoslawski
Mahler
Nielsen
Prokofiev
Sibelius


----------



## Aries

1. Beethoven

Was THE symphonic point of reference for about 100 years. Many composers even made the same number of symphonys afterwards. 


2. Haydn

Father of the concept.

3. Bruckner

Has produced the most complete works of this concept. Everything before is like a buildup, everything afterwards like a decomposition.

4. Tchaikovski
5. Mozart
6. Mahler
7. Shostakovich


----------



## Classical Music Fan

1. Beethoven
2. Mozart 
3. Haydn
4. Mahler
5. Brahms
6. Bruckner
7. Tchaikovsky
8. Shostakovich
9. Schubert
10. Sibelius 
Honorable Mentions
R. Schumann, Mendelssohn, Dvorak, Nielsen, Prokofiev, Rachmaninov


----------



## Xaltotun

I'll make a quickie on impulse.

1. Beethoven
2. Bruckner
3. Haydn
4. Sibelius
5. Mahler
6. Mozart
7. Liszt (yes, you read right)
8. Schubert
9. Mendelssohn
10. Dvorak


----------



## Mal

Giving 10 points to first choice, down to 1 point for last choice, these are the 15 greatest symphonists according to the first eighteen people to provide a coherent list:

Beethoven
Mahler
Brahms
Haydn
Sibelius
Tchaikovsky
Bruckner
Mozart
Shostakovich
Dvorak
Schubert
Vaughan Williams
Nielsen
Berlioz
Mendelssohn


----------



## Orfeo

I won't contest the aforementioned selections. I'll say (of the shockingly unmentioned):

Sir Arnold Bax (grossly overlooked ostensibly).
Parry (an essential composer of the British Renaissance before Elgar).
Janis Ivanovs (obscured Latvian, but a major symphonist no doubt).
Adolfs Skulte (another obscured Latvian, and an excellent symphonist).
Darius Milhaud (how is he ever overlooked?).
Nikolay Myaskovsky!!!
David Diamond (worth considering).
Paul Creston (worth thinking about)
Walter Piston.
Joly Braga Santos (Symphonies II-IV alone challenge Sibelius' compellingly).
George Lloyd (worth considering).
Andrei Eshpai (also worth considering).


----------



## Doulton

I am going to stick my toe in here: my top ten symphonists that I turn to most frequently in my own private listening are the following. I will not attempt to argue greatness or influence. I'm just talking personal preference:

Beethoven
Mahler
Sibelius
Tchaikovsky
Dvorak
Schubert
Brahms
Vaughan Williams
Borodin
Howard Hanson

Special honors to:
Cesar Franck
Elgar
Korngold


----------



## hpowders

In no particular order:

Shostakovich, Schuman, Mennin, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Brahms, Sibelius, Beethoven, Haydn, Mozart.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

hpowders said:


> In no particular order:
> 
> Shostakovich, Schuman, Mennin, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Brahms, Sibelius, Beethoven, Haydn, Mozart.


I'd put Dvorak in there too.


----------



## hpowders

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> I'd put Dvorak in there too.


NOT if your name is hpowders!


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

hpowders said:


> NOT if your name is hpowders!


I've recently become a very big fan of Korsakov's Symphony No. 2 (or Symphonic Suite) - 'Antar' - a wonderful, epic tale in symphonic garb. Highly recommended .


----------



## hpowders

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> I've recently become a very big fan of Korsakov's Symphony No. 2 (or Symphonic Suite) - 'Antar' - a wonderful, epic tale in symphonic garb. Highly recommended .


Haven't heard it but heard of it. So many things to listen to. Where do I get the time, if they insist I stay here 24/7?


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

How about some Schnittke and Maxwell Davies? I think Davies no. 10 is a classic already  How many years or performances does it take for a composer to end up on this holy list?
...ok alternative
1. Haydn, Mozart
2. Schubert, Beethoven
3. Bruckner, Brahms 
4. Tchaikovsky, Dvorak
5. Mahler, Nielsen
6. Sibelius, Vaughan Williams
7. Myaskovsky, Szymanowsky
8. Villa-Lobos, Prokofiev
9. Sæverud, Shostakovich
10. hard to choose


----------



## hpowders

hpowders said:


> In no particular order:
> 
> Shostakovich, Schuman, Mennin, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Brahms, Sibelius, Beethoven, Haydn, Mozart.


Okay! Okay! My phone is ringing off the hook!! I will put them in order of importance from best to "least best".

1. Shostakovich

2. Haydn

3. Beethoven

4. Tchaikovsky

5. Sibelius

6. Brahms

7. Mozart

8. Schuman

9. Mahler

10. Mennin


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

hpowders said:


> Haven't heard it but heard of it. So many things to listen to. Where do I get the time, if they insist I stay here 24/7?


You can't go around the great Eastern Warrior Antar - he awaits you!!!


----------



## hpowders

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> You can't go around the great Eastern Warrior Antar - he awaits you!!!


Antar? Sounds like Mobile Strike-from "de Opp Store" as Arnold Schwarzenegger would say!!


----------



## KenOC

I believe Antar® is a trademarked insect poison. Why R-K would write a symphony about that escapes me.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

KenOC said:


> I believe Antar® is a trademarked insect poison. Why R-K would write a symphony about that escapes me.


Well, it is a very good symphony imo, just saying. I especially like the beginning - some of the most 'mysterious' and 'atmospheric' music I've heard.


----------



## KenOC

Yo, just kidding! I like Antar, along with Borodin's 2nd and Kalinnikov's 1st. I kind of lump them together for some reason.


----------



## hpowders

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> Well, it is a very good symphony imo, just saying. I especially like the beginning - some of the most 'mysterious' and 'atmospheric' music I've heard.


If you like it, that's all that matters.

I have to hear it.


----------



## tdc

Lately these have been my favorite symphonists - *Brahms, Ives, Mozart and Prokofiev*.

Honorable mentions to Sibelius and Mahler. I like a lot of Nielsen's music, but I'm just not quite there yet with his symphonies. Beethoven and Haydn obviously were two of the greatest but not my cup of tea.

I like Schumann 2 and 4, still don't get the fuss about 3.

Bruckner 9 is amazing and the other 8 are also pretty good.


----------



## poconoron

In no particular order:

Haydn
Beethoven
Mozart
Brahms
Dvorak
Schubert
Tchaikovsky
Shostakovich

and then??????


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

KenOC said:


> Yo, just kidding! I like Antar, along with Borodin's 2nd and Kalinnikov's 1st. I kind of lump them together for some reason.


Borodin's 3rd is excellent too, too bad he didn't finish it. It's filled with brilliant melodies.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

hpowders said:


> If you like it, that's all that matters.
> 
> I have to hear it.


I plan to eventually upload Scherchen's rendition onto Youtube, he does a really good job with it imo.


----------



## dzc4627

1. Mahler
2. Brahms
3. Beethoven
4. Shostakovich
5. Schnittke
6. Haydn
7. Dvorak
8. Tchaikovsky
9. Mozart
10. Ives


(These are the only symphonists I have listened to somewhat extensively)


----------



## Barbebleu

I have a fondness for the symphonies of Alan Hovhaness. Sweeping, elegiac, complex, and melodic. Everything a symphony needs really. 

Along with, of course, the usual suspects - Beethoven Mozart, Mahler, Brahms, Shostakovich, Dvorak, Sibelius, Nielsen, et al.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

My 10 are in no order:

Dvořák
Haydn
Beethoven
Brahms
Shostakovich
Bruckner
Vaughan Williams
Sibelius
Mahler
Mozart


----------



## davidsannderson

10 greatest symphonists...
I don't know about the others (except Beethoven and Mahler of course), but Schubert should be on the list. His 'unfinished' and Great C Major Symphonies are incredible achievements, perhaps his pinnacle with his late string quartets and string quintet, and, for me at least, anticipate much of the High Romantic in feel, especially Wagner and his followers, as well as Sibelius.
I would definitely say Berlioz too- if his works count as symphonies. But I suppose if Mahler's do, so does the Symphony Fantastique!
But definitely make room for Schubert!
(Gee, is 10 gonna be enough?)


----------



## Pugg

davidsannderson said:


> 10 greatest symphonists...
> I don't know about the others (except Beethoven and Mahler of course), but Schubert should be on the list. His 'unfinished' and Great C Major Symphonies are incredible achievements, perhaps his pinnacle with his late string quartets and string quintet, and, for me at least, anticipate much of the High Romantic in feel, especially Wagner and his followers, as well as Sibelius.
> I would definitely say Berlioz too- if his works count as symphonies. But I suppose if Mahler's do, so does the Symphony Fantastique!
> But definitely make room for Schubert!
> (Gee, is 10 gonna be enough?)


No, never, it will always change .


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Barbebleu said:


> I have a fondness for the symphonies of Alan Hovhaness. Sweeping, elegiac, complex, and melodic. Everything a symphony needs really.


I wish someone would complete a cycle of symphonies of his. I know he wrote a lot and it might take them a few years.


----------



## Tallisman

1. Mahler
2. Beethoven
3. Bruckner
4. Tchaikovsky
5. Brahms
6. Shostakovich
8. Haydn
9. Vaughan Williams
10. Raff


567. Mozart (hate, hate, hate his symphonies)


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Beethoven
Brahms
Mahler
Sibelius
Mozart
Haydn
Bruckner
Shostakovich
Tchaikovsky
Schubert/Dvorak


----------



## Art Rock

1. Mahler

2. Brahms
3. Sibelius
4. Bruckner
5. Shostakovich
6. Dvorak
7. Haydn
8. Beethoven
9. Bax
10. Tchaikovsky

Of the less well known names I recommend Alfven, Alwyn, Huber, Glass [L], Raff, Rautavaara, Schmidt, and many others.....


----------



## Bettina

My ten favorite symphonists: (yes, I know that it's wrong to omit Mahler, but I just don't like him very much...)

1. Beethoven
2. Mozart
3. Brahms
4. Haydn
5. Tchaikovsky
6. Dvořák
7. Schubert
8. Mendelssohn
9. Schumann
10. Saint-Saëns (mainly because of the organ symphony)


----------



## jegreenwood

Beethoven
Schubert
Brahms
Haydn
Mahler
Sibelius
Schumann
Mozart
Dvorak
Shostakovich


----------



## hpowders

Schuman (NOT Schumann!)
Mennin
Brahms
Shostakovich
Haydn
Mahler
Tchaikovsky

I can list only seven.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Haydn
Brahms
Sibelius
Tchaikovsky
Schubert
Beethoven
Mahler
Vaughan Williams
Dvorak
Bruckner


----------



## Merl

Beethoven
Schubert 
Dvorak
Tchaikovsky
Bruckner
Mahler
Brahms
Mozart
Schumann
Mendelssohn

This is only what I'm currently listening to. It will change (except for the Beethoven). í ½í¸


----------



## Merl

Oops, double post. Damn phone.


----------



## Bertali

1. Beethoven
2. Mahler
3. Mozart
4. Schumann
5. Mendelssohn
6. Schubert
7. Sibelius
8. Brahms
9. Bruckner
10. Haydn


----------



## Strange Magic

The following composers each wrote a minimum of four symphonies I really, really like:

Beethoven
Brahms
Mozart
Sibelius
Prokofiev
Schumann
Haydn

Honorable Mention: Rachmaninoff, because I like all of his three symphonies


----------



## Pat Fairlea

My ten symphonists would have to be a mix of genuine personal favourites (Beethoven, Borodin, Sibelius, Shostakovich, Vaughn Williams, Rachmaninov) and others whom I acknowledge made a big contribution to the development of the symphony but who would not be my first choice for listening (Haydn, Brahms, Mahler, Bruckner). Is that ten? Then Alwyn just misses the cut.


----------



## Larkenfield

This is not so much about lists. My criteria for a great symphonist is measured by what the composer is somehow saying universally about the human condition, or I doubt if those ambitious works would have such global appeal. He (or She) is covering the ground that includes a wide range of feelings, emotions and experiences somehow associated with love, pain, loss, the search for meaning in life, joy, discovery, the enjoyment of pure sound, so on and so forth, ad infinitum, for as long as the person lives. I believe this is what the great symphonists are doing through sound, and it probably takes a combination of all their individual symphonies to say everything they want to convey universally through their works. So I'm reluctant to name composers, but it would certainly include many of the great ones already mentioned. 
:tiphat:


----------



## Tchaikov6

1. Mahler
2. Tchaikovsky
3. Beethoven
4. Brahms
5. Sibelius
6. Schubert
7. Mozart
8. Schumann
9. Prokofiev
10. Shostakovich or Vaughan Williams


----------

