# Top 10 Symphonists of the 20th Century - Ranked



## Ulfilas

Only rule is that each composer must have written at least 3 symphonies after 1900.

Here's my list:

1. Sibelius
2. Mahler
3. Shostakovich
4. Vaughan Williams
5. Nielsen
6. Roussel
7. Prokofiev
8. Martinů
9. Honegger
10. William Schuman


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Ulfilas said:


> Only rule is that each composer must have written at least 3 symphonies after 1900.
> 
> Here's my list:
> 
> 1. Sibelius
> 2. Mahler
> 3. Shostakovich
> 4. Vaughan Williams
> 5. Nielsen
> 6. Roussel
> 7. Prokofiev
> 8. Martinů
> 9. Honegger
> 10. William Schuman


I started to type my list until I realized that it would be essentially the same as yours! However, I would substitute Elgar at No. 6 and a toss-up between Bax and Myaskovsky at No. 10.


----------



## Ulfilas

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I started to type my list until I realized that it would be essentially the same as yours! However, I would substitute Elgar at No. 6 and a toss-up between Bax and Myaskovsky at No. 10.


Interesting! Elgar is only eligible if you count his third symphony...

I'll be interested to see what other names come up. Tubin is another interesting name, he might be my no. 11.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Ulfilas said:


> Only rule is that each composer must have written at least 3 symphonies after 1900.
> 
> Here's my list:
> 
> 1. Sibelius
> 2. Mahler
> 3. Shostakovich
> 4. Vaughan Williams
> 5. Nielsen
> 6. Roussel
> 7. Prokofiev
> 8. Martinů
> 9. Honegger
> 10. William Schuman


I need to listen more to Roussel and W. Schuman. I would put Nielsen in 4th place but your top 3 are my top 3 in the same order. Maybe Shostakovich before Mahler? Maybe.
What would you suggest is a good place to start with those two?


----------



## Ulfilas

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I need to listen more to Roussel and W. Schuman. I would put Nielsen in 4th place but your top 3 are my top 3 in the same order.
> What would you suggest is a good place to start with those two?


I'd recommend starting with each composer's 3rd symphony:









Schuman's 3rd was written around the same time as Copland's, and to my mind surpasses it (Copland was the greater composer, but to my mind Schuman was the more natural symphonist).

For Roussel's 3rd, Bernstein on DG is a classic:









There's also a great Roussel series on Naxos, and this 3rd is equally good:


----------



## starthrower

Ulfilas said:


> Only rule is that each composer must have written at least 3 symphonies after 1900.
> 
> Here's my list:
> 
> 1. Sibelius
> 2. Mahler
> 3. Shostakovich
> 4. Vaughan Williams
> 5. Nielsen
> 6. Roussel
> 7. Prokofiev
> 8. Martinů
> 9. Honegger
> 10. William Schuman


That's about right for me but I'll replace VW with Bax, and Roussel with Lutoslawski. Others I wouldn't be without are Gerhard, Schnittke, Lajtha, Dutilleux, Penderecki, Bernstein, and Szymanowski.


----------



## Heck148

For Roussel #3 - two great ones:
Bernstein/NYPO/Sony
Munch/CSO/'67 - Archival set "CSO in 20th Century"

For Schuman Sym #3 - major piece, really heavy duty!! Two classics:
Bernstein/NYPO I - first one for CBS/Sony from 60s
Slatkin/CSO/ '86 - "Archival set "CSO in 20th Century
These are all wonderful recordings, real classics.
The competition in the Schuman(tough piece!!) Is fierce, Seattle is good, but not on the level of CSO. NYPO at their best.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Very good list, and arguing with ranking would be a pretty pointless exercise. However.....

I'd swap Mahler and Sibelius, and put Vaughan Williams equal with Shostakovich. Then Martinů, level with Nielsen.

Others I would try and squeeze into a top ten would have to include Eduard Tubin, Leevi Madetoja and Franz Schmidt. Alberic Magnard would not make the list for only writing one post-1900 symphony (No.4, which is one of the truly great Symphonies, as is Schmidt's 4th). If forced to include an American, I would go for either Walter Piston or David Diamond before Schuman...

1. Mahler
2. Sibelius
3= Shostakovich
3= Vaughan Williams
5= Martinů
5= Nielsen
7. Tubin
8. Prokofiev
9. Madetoja
10. Schmidt


----------



## Prodromides

... and now for something different ...

1. Andre Jolivet
2. Benjamin Frankel
3. Richard Rodney Bennett
4. Roberto Gerhard
5. Humphrey Searle
6. Meyer Kupferman
7. Isang Yun
8. Fartein Valen
9. Carlos Chavez
10. Malcolm Arnold

Mid-century Brits tend to resonate with me the most, particularly between 1958 & 1970. Frankel's 1st ('58), Gerhard's 3rd ('60), Searle's last ('64), Bennett's 1st ('65), etc.
The 1960s truly 'speak' to me.
If more than 10 were requested, I could have included Josef Tal, Roger Sessions, Havergal Brian + many more.


----------



## CnC Bartok

^^^^ Glad someone mentions Ben Frankel, grotesquely under-rated!


----------



## MusicSybarite

1. Shostakovich
2. Nielsen
3. Vaughan Williams
4. Arnold
5. Tubin
6. Atterberg
7. Holmboe
8. Rubbra
9. Martinu
10. Langgaard


Honorable mentions: Sibelius, Myaskovsky, Prokofiev, Alwyn, Braga Santos


----------



## gvn

Most often played in our house (in approximate order of frequency):

1. Sibelius
2. Vaughan Williams
3. Mahler
4. Shostakovich
5. Langgaard
6. Penderecki
7. George Lloyd
8. Tubin
9. Pärt (though his only satisfactory symphony seems to me No. 3)
10. Rautavaara

It’s preposterous that I haven’t left room for Bax, Prokofiev, Martinů, and Myaskovsky. What a lot of first-rate symphonies have been composed in the last 100 years!

I assume that I can’t include Glazunov (3 symphonies post-1900, but the last is incomplete) or Stravinsky (who entitled 4 compositions “Symphony” and a fifth “Symphonies,” but the world has chosen to disagree with him).


----------



## KenOC

My list:

Shostakovich
Sibelius
Prokofiev

Sorry, there are no others.


----------



## Ulfilas

KenOC said:


> My list:
> 
> Shostakovich
> Sibelius
> Prokofiev
> 
> Sorry, there are no others.


Even if I were being über-picky, I'd have to include Nielsen, Roussel and Vaughan Williams as well.


----------



## Bulldog

1. Mahler
2. Shostakovich
3. Prokofiev
4. Weinberg
5. Pettersson
6. Bax
7. Myaskovsky
8. Martinu
9. Rautavaara
10. Vaughan Williams


----------



## mparta

Sorry for my own deficiency in terms of ranking, but i don't know how to do it, because I come back to works that are probably not of the first rank regularly, sometimes for attraction but as often to try to understand and hear what I might be missing.
Even when i don't love a work, the body of what Shostakovich did is dominant. The 8th symphony probably the greatest, that cor anglais solo...
Prokofiev may be the composer with the most "favorites", 1, 5, 6 and 7. How many times I try to come back to 2, 3 and 4, but they intrigue enough to generate relistening.
Mahler is a problem, too conservative for my taste but certainly has had innumberable hours of listening and performances, even if my appreciation has waned over the years.
Vaughn Williams I have tried and tried. Musical wall paper.
Rubbra, those wonderful Lyrita recordings! 2 through about 7 I think I have some sense of and I like this music.
I'm glad William Schuman made it, I think the Seattle performances serve him poorly, but Ormandy or Bernstein give the music its say.
Surprised that the craft of Walter Piston hasn't made it to any list.
There is French music that is apparently little known, but worth the dabble, Magnard (perhaps technically for this list mostly last decade of the 19th century but the last symphony 20th) and Ropartz ( who lived to 1955). I think the Ropartz 3rd is a great piece!
Finally, sleep-deprived, I'd add Rued Langgaard, multiple tries to hear this intriguing music, more to come.
That names 10, I think, although Vaughn Williams out on his ear for me.
Sibelius.


----------



## gvn

This really is a fascinating thread. It gives me the feeling that I'm not such a freak (or at least I'm part of a community of like-minded freaks).

Most of us are listening to Sibelius, Mahler, Shostakovich, and Prokofiev. Well, I would have expected that.

But I wouldn't have expected such strong support for non-mainstream composers: Tubin, Martinů, Roussel, Myaskovsky, Alwyn, etc. I'm particularly surprised to see the strength of the support for Bax. And I would have felt sure that no one but myself listens to Langgaard!

Sure, not all of us are listening to all of these. But they're indicative that we have a general kinship of musical outlook. Our minds are moving in similar directions.

I'm also reassured to see that I'm not the _only_ person in the world who listens to symphonies of the last 50 years (1970-2020). There _are_ other people out there listening to Penderecki and Rautavaara!

So this thread is sending me back to the shelves, to play old favourites again... but this time with the added pleasure that I know other people out there are enjoying them too.


----------



## brucknerian1874

1. Hindemith
2. Aho
3. Brian
4. Shostakovich
5. Roussel
6. Prokofiev
7. Bax
8. Schuman
9. Frankel
10. Myaskovsky


----------



## CnC Bartok

Jeez! I missed Holmboe off my list. He really deserves to be on any list of top symphonists.


----------



## MrMeatScience

1. Mahler
2. Shostakovich
3. Sibelius
4. Martinu
5. Schmidt
6. Lutoslawski
7. Nielsen
8. Prokofiev
9. Schnittke
10. Vaughan Williams

Hard to rank them as my preferences fluctuate wildly day by day, but this is an order that might be generally true for me. Hurt to leave off great composers like Roussel and Myaskovsky though! I haven't yet developed the great love for most of the midcentury anglophones that many in this thread seem to have, but I'm working on it.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

There is a clear top tier of

Sibelius
Mahler
Shostakovich

Anyone not including these three in their list has obviously not reached the high level of 20th century symphonic awareness necessary to appreciate them 

It's like not including Messi, Ronaldo and Pele in your top 10 soccer players. You might not like them but you gotta have them in the list.


----------



## Bulldog

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> There is a clear top tier of
> 
> Sibelius
> Mahler
> Shostakovich


I hope that I will someday appreciate Sibelius more than I do currently. My present feeling is that his music tends to lack forward momentum and drive.


----------



## CnC Bartok

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> There is a clear top tier of
> 
> Sibelius
> Mahler
> Shostakovich
> 
> Anyone not including these three in their list has obviously not reached the high level of 20th century symphonic awareness necessary to appreciate them
> 
> It's like not including Messi, Ronaldo and Pele in your top 10 soccer players. You might not like them but you gotta have them in the list.


You're missing out the greatest of the lot, Ferenc Puskás!


----------



## gvn

MrMeatScience said:


> I haven't yet developed the great love for most of the midcentury anglophones that many in this thread seem to have, but I'm working on it.


It's interesting that it's mainly the _midcentury_ US and UK composers who seem to generate such affection: Schuman, Piston, Arnold, Alwyn, etc. None of us has mentioned any _living_ English-language symphonist. We may buy the symphonies of David Matthews and Philip Glass and James MacMillan* (because... well, if even people like _us_ don't patronize living composers, what hope does a living composer have?!), but their names don't exactly spring to our lips when we're asked for our favorites.

*Afterthought: I think only 2 of MacMillan's symphonies were completed during the 20th century. But the basic point remains.


----------



## Heck148

For English composers of symphonies:
Walton and Tippett should be mentioned..


----------



## Joachim Raff

George Walter Selwyn Lloyd (28 June 1913 – 3 July 1998).... was there anything else?


----------



## Coach G

Greatest symphony cycles composed entirely within the 20th century:

1. Dmitry Shostakovich
2. Serge Prokofiev
3. Vaughan Williams
4. William Schuman
5. Roy Harris
6. Walter Piston
7. Alan Hovhaness
8. Roger Sessions
9. Einojuhani Rautavaara
10. Malcolm Arnold
11. Ned Rorem
12. Carlos Chavez


----------



## EdwardBast

KenOC said:


> My list:
> 
> Shostakovich
> Sibelius
> Prokofiev
> 
> Sorry, there are no others.


So I guess you don't much like Mahler and Rachmaninoff then? (Rachmaninoff's Second, Third, and The Bells were written after 1900).


----------



## Josquin13

My top ten,

Mahler
Sibelius
Vaughan Williams
Martinu
Shostakovich
Prokofiev
Nielsen
Holmboe
Kokkonen
Pettersson

Honorable mention: 13 other 20th century composers whose symphonies I listen to from time to time,

Persichetti
Valen
Englund
Piston
Ropartz
Tubin
Melartin
Roussel
Knussen (although Knussen's one movement 1st Symphony was later withdrawn, and revised as his Concerto for Orchestra, so he may not count?).
Norhølm
Rautavaara
Panufnik
Arnold

I listen to Magnard's 4 Symphonies, too, but he doesn't count, as CnCB pointed out, since Magnard only composed his Symphony no. 4 in the 20th century.

(I also occasionally listen to the symphonies of Honegger, Harris, Sessions, Henze, Lutoslawski, Atterberg, Bax, Schuman, Rubbra, Simpson, Rochberg, Heininen, Hanson, Rorem, Dutilleux, Vuori, Pärt, Penderecki, Maxwell Davies, Tippett, & Nørgård...)

Charles Koechlin would be on my list, as well, but his symphonies remain unrecorded, except for "The Seven Stars' Symphony", and a live BBC radio broadcast by Konstantin Silvestri of his war time Symphony no. 2: 




Langgaard's Symphonies are still on my list to explore, although I've heard & liked his "Music for the Spheres" (but have yet to connect to one of his symphonies--any suggestions?). I'd also like to hear the symphonies of Aarre Merikanto, Christopher Rouse, and maybe Poul Ruders & Phillip Glass...

I've not explored the symphonies of Alfred Schnittke, either.

Among present day composers, I'd like to see Magnus Lindberg and Anders Hillborg compose symphonies...


----------



## Ulfilas

Coach G said:


> Greatest symphony cycles composed entirely within the 20th century:
> 
> 1. Dmitry Shostakovich
> 2. Serge Prokofiev
> 3. Vaughan Williams
> 4. William Schuman
> 5. Roy Harris
> 6. Walter Piston
> 7. Alan Hovhaness
> 8. Roger Sessions
> 9. Einojuhani Rautavaara
> 10. Malcolm Arnold
> 11. Ned Rorem
> 12. Carlos Chavez


Interesting list!


----------



## Ulfilas

Bulldog said:


> I hope that I will someday appreciate Sibelius more than I do currently. My present feeling is that his music tends to lack forward momentum and drive.


Who have you listened to? For me he has more natural drive and momentum than any symphonist other than Beethoven.

However a lot of performers seem to me to get in the way of that. I'd suggest either Blomstedt, Vänskä or Neeme Järvi.


----------



## Heck148

Hanson deserves mention...he's certainly equal to, or greater than some of those already mentioned.


----------



## Torkelburger

My favorite 20th century symphonists are as follows, in particular order:

1.	Shostakovich
2.	Stravinsky
3.	Prokofiev
4.	Mahler
5.	Sibelius
6.	Vaughan Williams
7.	Martinu
8.	Honneger
9.	Bax
10.	Nielsen
11.	Henze
12.	Penderecki
13.	Walton
14.	Hindemith
15.	Rachmaninoff
16.	Bernstein
17.	W. Schuman
18.	Hanson
19.	Mennin
20.	R. Simpson
21.	Persichetti
22.	Copland
23. Diamond


----------



## brucknerian1874

It looks like nobody else rates Benjamin Frankel as a symphonist and it's true he is known more for this than anything else...








I'd like to recommend giving his symphonies a try.


----------



## CnC Bartok

^^^ See post 9, and 10 above. No Frankel didn't make my top ten, but it doesn't mean he's unrated. Some really great music in his Symphonies, and for me they have a greater sense of cohesion and "symphonic argument" than a lot of the more modern symphonists can manage.


----------



## brucknerian1874

CnC Bartok said:


> ^^^ See post 9, and 10 above. No Frankel didn't make my top ten, but it doesn't mean he's unrated. Some really great music in his Symphonies, and for me they have a greater sense of cohesion and "symphonic argument" than a lot of the more modern symphonists can manage.


Agreed. Missed those earlier posts. I'm particularly fond of the 1st and 5th.

Do you know of any other recordings of the symphonies besides the Albert set on CPO?


----------



## CnC Bartok

brucknerian1874 said:


> Agreed. Missed those earlier posts. I'm particularly fond of the 1st and 5th.
> 
> Do you know of any other recordings of the symphonies besides the Albert set on CPO?


The CPO set is it as far as I can see. As a company, they deserve huge credit for their cycles of "minor" (sic!) symphonies - I'd add their Sallinen, Panufnik (another couple who would make my top 20, not quite top ten!), and various Scandies as very worthy undertakings. None of the orchestras are really top notch, but none are exactly shoddy either, and so what if the conductors aren't exactly household names!

Discogs doesn't list any more than Albert's set. I would have thought Lyrita might have made a recording or two? Seems not.


----------



## Orfeo

*Top Ten (at least in term of importance)*


Myaskovsky
Shostakovich
Weinberg
Sibelius
Bax
Vaughan Williams
Frankel
Diamond
Harris, Roy
Nielsen, Carl
*Honorable mentions (many are very close and can go either way)
*

Skulte, Adolfs
Ivanovs, Janis
Eshpai
Tchaikovsky, Boris
Peiko, Nikolay
Roussel
Schnittke
Atterberg
Stenhammar
Madetoja
Melartin, Erkki
Klami
Tubin
Kapp, Artur
Pettersson
Prokofiev
Walton
Lloyd, George
Creston
Still
Hailstork
Piston
Schuman
Bernstein
Ives
Hanson
Moyzes
Martinu
Honegger
Milhaud
Braga-Santos
Villa-Lobos
Freitas Branco, Luis de
Bainton
Lilburn, Douglas
Wellesz
Arnold, Malcolm
Rubbra


----------



## starthrower

Speaking of CPO, I have the symphony cycles of Panufnik, Sallinen, Wellesz, Krenek, and Humphrey Searle. And I enjoy some of the Lyrita recordings as well. Particularly Alwyn, and Rubbra. I also enjoy the Malcolm Arnold symphonies on Naxos.


----------



## Simplicissimus

brucknerian1874 said:


> 1. Hindemith
> 2. Aho
> 3. Brian
> 4. Shostakovich
> 5. Roussel
> 6. Prokofiev
> 7. Bax
> 8. Schuman
> 9. Frankel
> 10. Myaskovsky


Interesting about Hindemith. I don't tend to think of him as a symphonist. But come to think of it, I have recordings of four works of his that are symphonies: Symphonie Mathis der Maler, Symphonische Metamorphosen, Symphony in E-flat, and Symphony in B-flat. Love all of them. What makes him a good symphonist? How do you rate his orchestration?


----------



## CnC Bartok

Simplicissimus said:


> Interesting about Hindemith. I don't tend to think of him as a symphonist. But come to think of it, I have recordings of four works of his that are symphonies: Symphonie Mathis der Maler, Symphonische Metamorphosen, Symphony in E-flat, and Symphony in B-flat. Love all of them. What makes him a good symphonist? How do you rate his orchestration?


There's a Harmonie der Welt symphony as well!

I don't think of Hindemith as a symphonist either, for similar intangible reasons as I don't Stravinsky. It might just come down to the fact they aren't numbered?! That said, he's a superb composer (without using the symphonist label....), and as good as his orchestration may be, it's his musical ideas that are great. Just listen to the closing fugue of Mathis der Maler, you'll get an idea of both. But as superb a work as that may be, the opera is even greater, and maybe this is "merely" an operatic suite???


----------



## jimsumner

Mahler
Shostakovich
Sibelius
Vaughan Williams
Prokofiev
Stravinsky
Ives
Nielsen


----------



## gvn

Josquin13 said:


> Langgaard's Symphonies are still on my list to explore, although I've heard & liked his "Music for the Spheres" (but have yet to connect to one of his symphonies--any suggestions?).


Langgaard's symphonies are more diverse than those of any other composer I can think of (and none of them is very like the "Music of the Spheres," either!). For the early phase (late Romantic to almost Modernist), I'd suggest trying either No. 4 (Leaf Fall) or No. 6 (The Heaven-Rending). For the middle phase (where he went back to Gade, Schumann, and Wagner, and tried to hew a completely new path from them, virtually uninfluenced by anyone more recent), I'd suggest No. 9 (From Queen Dagmar's City). And for the late, defiantly individualistic phase, I'd suggest No. 16 (Sun Deluge).

Langgaard derives ultimately from familiar late-19th-century Romanticism. Therefore, at first hearing one tends to impose on his music the values of some composer already known to one. ("Oh, this is half-baked Richard Strauss... or half-baked Sibelius... or regurgitated Schumann.") It may take repeated hearings to grasp that he's exploiting the vocabulary of his predecessors for fresh and unique, and sometimes quite challenging, purposes. (One obvious challenge: symphonies 11 and 12 are only about 6-7 minutes long each.)

I'm not saying that his music is "good" music. I'm merely saying that there's a danger of dismissing it before it has been heard often enough to be understood.

Of the two recorded complete cycles, Dausgaard (on Dacapo) is preferable to Stupel (on Danacord), which was recorded earlier and was forced to use incomplete texts of some symphonies. Having said which, Stupel's No. 7 is still valuable because it records a quite different (but legitimate) version of the work from Dausgaard. Stupel is available as individual discs, Dausgaard either as individual discs or as a boxed set (which can often be found at very reasonable prices).

There are also a few quite good non-series recordings of specific symphonies.


----------



## brucknerian1874

Simplicissimus said:


> Interesting about Hindemith. I don't tend to think of him as a symphonist. But come to think of it, I have recordings of four works of his that are symphonies: Symphonie Mathis der Maler, Symphonische Metamorphosen, Symphony in E-flat, and Symphony in B-flat. Love all of them. What makes him a good symphonist? How do you rate his orchestration?


Well, I believe he is a symphonist but then I also believe Richard Strauss is a symphonist. Not being a musical scholar I wouldn't presume to rate his orchestration. What I will say is that his symphonic music is brimming with invention and intelligence and that texturally, (to my ears at least) though complex at times, it is remarkably transparent; all the voices of the orchestra are allowed to tell their individual stories in a way that ensures that the some of the parts is indeed greater than the whole.

We are spoiled for choice in terms recordings, ranging from the composer's own interpretations to Abbado, Bernstein, Blomstedt, Boult, Karajan, Steinberg, Tortelier to name but a few. I'm pretty confident that these guys would not have bothered if there was anything sub-par about the music.


----------



## joen_cph

gvn said:


> *Langgaard's symphonies are more diverse than those of any other composer* I can think of (and none of them is very like the "Music of the Spheres," either!). For the early phase (late Romantic to almost Modernist), I'd suggest trying either No. 4 (Leaf Fall) or No. 6 (The Heaven-Rending). For the middle phase (where he went back to Gade, Schumann, and Wagner, and tried to hew a completely new path from them, virtually uninfluenced by anyone more recent), I'd suggest No. 9 (From Queen Dagmar's City). And for the late, defiantly individualistic phase, I'd suggest No. 16 (Sun Deluge).
> 
> Langgaard derives ultimately from familiar late-19th-century Romanticism. Therefore, at first hearing one tends to impose on his music the values of some composer already known to one. ("Oh, this is half-baked Richard Strauss... or half-baked Sibelius... or regurgitated Schumann.") It may take repeated hearings to grasp that he's exploiting the vocabulary of his predecessors for fresh and unique, and sometimes quite challenging, purposes. (One obvious challenge: symphonies 11 and 12 are only about 6-7 minutes long each.)
> 
> I'm not saying that his music is "good" music. I'm merely saying that there's a danger of dismissing it before it has been heard often enough to be understood.
> 
> *Of the two recorded complete cycles, Dausgaard (on Dacapo) is preferable to Stupel *(on Danacord), which was recorded earlier and was forced to use incomplete texts of some symphonies. Having said which, Stupel's No. 7 is still valuable because it records a quite different (but legitimate) version of the work from Dausgaard. Stupel is available as individual discs, Dausgaard either as individual discs or as a boxed set (which can often be found at very reasonable prices).
> 
> There are also a few quite good non-series recordings of specific symphonies.


IMO, Nørgård's for instance are stylistically more diverse, but there are only 8 by him. Nos 7+8 are from the 2000s. Hopes for a 9th Symphony are diminishing, given the composers age and his little current activity.

As regards Stupel versus Dausgaard, I prefer Stupel in at least nos.5 and 10, maybe in no.4 too. But no.4 is a crowded field, with a good, poetic one by Frandsen too, and a very fast one by N. Järvi.



Heck148 said:


> Hanson deserves mention...he's certainly equal to, or greater than some of those already mentioned.


I have an old classical music encyclopedia describing Hanson as of less relevance for the international repertoire, and I tend to agree.


----------



## HerbertNorman

Although I still have a lot of music to explore tbh , my top 5 are

Shostakovich
Sibelius
Prokofiev
Nielsen
Stravinsky


----------



## flamencosketches

Bulldog said:


> I hope that I will someday appreciate Sibelius more than I do currently. My present feeling is that his music tends to lack forward momentum and drive.


That's funny; for me, Sibelius is nothing but forward momentum and drive, most obviously in the 5th and 7th symphonies (less so in the 4th).

I don't think I could name 10, but some of the big names for me in the 20th century symphony are Mahler, Sibelius & Shostakovich (of course) plus Malcolm Arnold. I have yet to get into any of the big American symphonists like Schuman, Copland, Creston etc.


----------



## Heck148

HerbertNorman said:


> Although I still have a lot of music to explore tbh , my top 5 are
> 
> Shostakovich
> Sibelius
> Prokofiev
> Nielsen
> Stravinsky


That's a pretty substantial and valid list!!


----------



## Torkelburger

Yes, Hindemith and Stravinsky are both valid symphonists. Just because the pieces in question are not numbered in a particular order does not mean their symphonies are not proper symphonies. The four symphonies of Stravinsky, in fact, were all written in his neo-classical period and style and therefore satisfy the symphonic model in both content and form. He even went as far as to have the first movements of the Symphony in C and the Symphony in E flat in sonata form, a scherzo movement in Sym in Eb as well as the rondo form for its final movement.

And even on this very website, we listened to Hindemith’s Symphony in E flat as part of the Saturday Symphony series in February of 2018. Hindemith’s symphonies are without question some of the finest ever written.


----------



## Torkelburger

Heck148 said:


> For English composers of symphonies:
> Walton and Tippett should be mentioned..


Yes, I'm glad you singled out Walton. It's an interesting case because he only wrote 2 symphonies total, so why rate him so highly? I think one reason is because we should value quality over quantity. The other reason is because the second symphony's reputation is so grossly underrated, it needs to be recognized for the masterpiece that it is. Everyone recognizes the first symphony as a masterpiece in the genre and the second symphony is simply forgotten. But IMO the second is just as good as the first. It is quite remarkable. I don't see too many people singing its praises on this forum (except me) but I don't think too many people have been exposed to it.


----------



## Torkelburger

Simplicissimus said:


> Interesting about Hindemith. I don't tend to think of him as a symphonist. But come to think of it, I have recordings of four works of his that are symphonies: Symphonie Mathis der Maler, Symphonische Metamorphosen, Symphony in E-flat, and Symphony in B-flat. Love all of them. *What makes him a good symphonist?* How do you rate his orchestration?


It's interesting. I believe Bernstein did a lecture (Young People's Concert?) on "What Makes Music Symphonic?" where he analyzed the first movement of Brahms' Fourth Symphony. He argued the case that it is not the instrumentation (writing for a symphony orchestra) that makes it "symphonic" but rather that the composer develops the music in ever-changing ways so as to preserve its nature but also continue to introduce novelty at the same time, and to sort of have different things going on at the same time, etc.

Well, he also did a lecture on Hindemith I watched many years ago where he kind of did the same thing with the Mathis der Maler Symphony (the whole lecture wasn't about that, though) and he showed how the musical elements were developed and altered in new musical ways--in a modern context, but it's the same idea as the Brahms' analysis. So one could say Hindemith is a good symphonist in the same ways that Brahms is a good symphonist, at least in that one respect.


----------



## joen_cph

_Harmonie der Welt_ has an openly sublime, very dramatic character, perhaps differing it a bit from Hindemith's reputation for writing at times in a somewhat dry, neoclassical style (in reality, there are however other works that are sprawling, humorous, or dark too).

The Mravinsky recording captures this very well.


----------



## Heck148

joen_cph said:


> I have an old classical music encyclopedia describing Hanson as of less relevance for the international repertoire, and I tend to agree.


I don't agree. Hanson composed some very fine symphonies - #s 1 and 3, for sure.


----------



## Torkelburger

Heck148 said:


> I don't agree. Hanson composed some very fine symphonies - #s 1 and 3, for sure.


They are staples of the Neo-Romantic style and often referred to as prime examples of it.


----------



## tdc

There are many that I like, but my favorites in this category by a good margin are Ives and Prokofiev.


----------



## gvn

joen_cph said:


> IMO, Nørgård's for instance are stylistically more diverse, but there are only 8 by him. Nos 7+8 are from the 2000s. Hopes for a 9th Symphony are diminishing, given the composers age and his little current activity.
> 
> As regards Stupel versus Dausgaard, I prefer Stupel in at least nos.5 and 10, maybe in no.4 too. But no.4 is a crowded field, with a good, poetic one by Frandsen too, and a very fast one by N. Järvi.


Agreed. On reflection, actually a lot of composers' symphonies are more stylistically diverse than Langgaard's (Stravinsky is a particularly glaring example!). And the Langgaard Problem is a bit like the Bruckner Problem. The conductor who has the better text (Dausgaard) doesn't always give the better performance, and the best performances of all sometimes aren't in complete sets.


----------



## MusicSybarite

Torkelburger said:


> Yes, I'm glad you singled out Walton. It's an interesting case because he only wrote 2 symphonies total, so why rate him so highly? I think one reason is because we should value quality over quantity. The other reason is because the second symphony's reputation is so grossly underrated, it needs to be recognized for the masterpiece that it is. Everyone recognizes the first symphony as a masterpiece in the genre and the second symphony is simply forgotten. But IMO the second is just as good as the first. It is quite remarkable. I don't see too many people singing its praises on this forum (except me) but I don't think too many people have been exposed to it.


Another fan of Walton here, and I agree with you about the greatness of the 2nd Symphony. A very exciting work with a splendid orchestration. Some days I prefer the 2nd over the 1st, but I love both with no reservations.


----------



## MusicSybarite

Now I think I should have added William Schuman to my list and perhaps leave Langgaard out (I love many of his symphonies, though). In terms of importance and originality Schuman was a very striking composer. Just listened again his 10th Symphony and oh my goodness, this is superb stuff. Schuman gets to conjure up some intriguing atmospheres mixed with distinctive rhythms, often stemming from American music.


----------



## Coach G

Has anyone mentioned Nikolai Myaskovsky who composed 27 symphonies, all within the the 20th century? Quite revered by Shostakovich, Prokofiev, and Mstislav Rostropovich: Myaskovsky's have not been much recorded by American conductors and orchestras; and I don't even know if anyone anywhere has recorded Myaskovsky's complete symphonic cycle. I haven't listened to enough Myaskovsky to make an informed assessment.

What say you?


----------



## brucknerian1874

Coach G said:


> Has anyone mentioned Nikolai Myaskovsky who composed 27 symphonies, all within the the 20th century? Quite revered by Shostakovich, Prokofiev, and Mstislav Rostropovich: Myaskovsky's have not been much recorded by American conductors and orchestras; and I don't even know if anyone anywhere has recorded Myaskovsky's complete symphonic cycle. I haven't listened to enough Myaskovsky to make an informed assessment.
> 
> What say you?


See Post #18. He made it under the wire as my number 10. Evgeny Svetlanov has recorded a complete cycle.







My personal favourites at the moment are are 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 26, 27. That's just based on my first impressions. I really need to give them all another listen.


----------



## brucknerian1874

Torkelburger said:


> Yes, Hindemith and Stravinsky are both valid symphonists. Just because the pieces in question are not numbered in a particular order does not mean their symphonies are not proper symphonies. The four symphonies of Stravinsky, in fact, were all written in his neo-classical period and style and therefore satisfy the symphonic model in both content and form. He even went as far as to have the first movements of the Symphony in C and the Symphony in E flat in sonata form, a scherzo movement in Sym in Eb as well as the rondo form for its final movement.
> 
> And even on this very website, we listened to Hindemith's Symphony in E flat as part of the Saturday Symphony series in February of 2018. Hindemith's symphonies are without question some of the finest ever written.


Can you suggest some recordings to try for a Stravinsky initiate?


----------



## CnC Bartok

brucknerian1874 said:


> Can you suggest some recordings to try for a Stravinsky initiate?


You won't go far wrong with this set. And apparently the composer and the conductor knew each other quite well......









I find the recording quality a bit on the dry side, but it's not poor, and plenty of detail, which is important with Stravinsky's music.


----------



## Dimace

Mahler
Vaughan-Williams
Sibelius
Kalomiris
Wallace (although he hasn't composed a single symphony but only symphonic poems, most of them unfinished. His structure and harmony are perfect and the message of his music very loud to my ears. His Prelude to The Eumenides is a great example of symphonic perfection.)


----------



## Torkelburger

brucknerian1874 said:


> Can you suggest some recordings to try for a Stravinsky initiate?


My favorite is Solti and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra on Decca from 1999. It has all symphonies except the E flat. It has exceptional sound and interpretation imo. Cncbartoks recommendation is also good I just prefer newer recordings.


----------



## brucknerian1874

In an attempt to expand my horizons I listened to this today and was quite literally blown away.







Is Antheil rated at all? Recommendations from those in the know?


----------



## Heck148

brucknerian1874 said:


> In an attempt to expand my horizons I listened to this today and was quite literally blown away.
> View attachment 145209
> 
> Is Antheil rated at all? Recommendations from those in the know?


Antheil is very good...I think his #4 is his best....axwar tolime blockbuster, reminiscent of Shostakovich (that's good!!) But 3,5 and 6 are interesting as well...."Capital of the world" is a good ballet...
Kuchar is ok, but for #4, Stokowski/NBC and Goosens/LSO are better, tho Kuchar enjoys the best sound.


----------



## sstucky

Shostakovich
RVW
Holmboe
Prokofiev 
Hindemith 
Piston 
Walton 
William Schuman 
Stravinsky
Mennin


----------



## tdc

Inspired by this thread I've been revisiting Stravinsky's symphonies, and yes they are excellent works. I'm starting to enjoy Stravinsky more lately, for some reason.


----------



## brucknerian1874

tdc said:


> Inspired by this thread I've been revisiting Stravinsky's symphonies, and yes they are excellent works. I'm starting to enjoy Stravinsky more lately, for some reason.


Me too. Listened to this today. Rattle was always good with 20th Century repertoire when at the CBSO so I was interested to hear these performances.







Not being a Stravinsky expert, I'm loath to say any more than I enjoyed them.


----------



## Ulfilas

This is another good choice, from another Berlin orchestra.


----------



## Ulfilas

sstucky said:


> Shostakovich
> RVW
> Holmboe
> Prokofiev
> Hindemith
> Piston
> Walton
> William Schuman
> Stravinsky
> Mennin


Love this list. If you like Holmboe, I would definitely check out the Roussel and Honegger symphonies.


----------



## Andante Largo

1. Sibelius, Jean (1865 - 1957) [Finland]
2. Melartin, Erkki (1875 - 1937) [Finland]
3. Berg, Natanael (1879 - 1957) [Sweden]
4. Wetz, Richard (1875 - 1935) [Germany]
5. Peterson-Berger, Wilhelm (1867 - 1942) [Sweden]
6. Stenhammar, Wilhelm (1871 - 1927) [Sweden]
7. Gretchaninov, Alexander (1864 - 1956) [Russia]
8. Röntgen, Julius (1855 - 1932) [Germany/Netherlands]
9. none
10. none


----------



## ORigel

Am I familiar with ten 20th century symphonists? Let's see:

1. Mahler
2. Sibelius
3. Shostakovich (I know symphonies 1, 4, 5, 7,10, 13, and 15)
4. Rorem
5. Stravinsky
6. Schnittke (I know 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8)
7. Ives (I know Symphony 4 and the Universe Symphony so far)
8. Prokofiev (I know 1, 2, and 5)
9. Still
10. Copland (I know 1 and 3)


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

1) Sibelius
2) Vaughan Williams
3) Mahler
4) Prokofiev


----------



## Malx

CnC Bartok said:


> Jeez! I missed Holmboe off my list. He really deserves to be on any list of top symphonists.


Consider that a yellow card offence - one more and you'll be sent off :lol:


----------



## eric1

I think Mahler, Shostakovich, Sibelius, and Vaughan Williams are pretty clearly the top 4.


----------



## CnC Bartok

eric1 said:


> I think Mahler, Shostakovich, Sibelius, and Vaughan Williams are pretty clearly the top 4.


Indeed, pretty much what I said earlier on. Seems the love for RVW is a bit too patchy here for it to be clear though!


----------



## leonsm

Alphabetical order:

Atterberg
Bax
Bloch
Hanson
Mahler
Pärt
Pettersson
Prokofiev
Shostakovich
Sibelius
Villa-Lobos
Walton
Yoshimatsu


----------



## flamencosketches

Sad to admit that I don't really get/enjoy RVW's symphonies for the most part, though I do love the Pastoral 3rd and occasionally admire the 8th. The other 7 really don't do much for me, though I continually return to them to see if my opinions have changed any.


----------



## kyjo

Favorite, not "greatest":

Arnold
Atterberg
Braga Santos
Hanson
Lloyd
Nielsen
Prokofiev
Sibelius
Tubin
Vaughan Williams


I've had kind of an on-and-off relationship with Mahler and Shostakovich recently. Not really sure why; I guess it has to do with the consistently emotionally intense and often dark nature of their music, which can be overbearing for me if I'm not in the right mood. Would've loved to include Elgar and Walton, but in the end, producing only two works each in the genre counted against them.


----------



## Roger Knox

kyjo said:


> Favorite, not "greatest":
> I've had kind of an on-and-off relationship with Mahler and Shostakovich recently. Not really sure why; I guess it has to do with the consistently emotionally intense and often dark nature of their music, which can be overbearing for me if I'm not in the right mood.


I find this too. There is the strong satirical bite that both of them have at times, not all of the time fortunately. I don't find Berg's music satirical but it can be too much also, on account of its emotional intensity and darkness.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Roger Knox said:


> I find this too. There is the strong satirical bite that both of them have at times, not all of the time fortunately. I don't find Berg's music satirical but it can be too much also, on account of its emotional intensity and darkness.


I have also gradually drifted away from Mahler and Shostakovich somewhat. I wonder if it's about age. As I am now pushing 60 I haven't so much time for angst, and head more towards Haydn and Mendelssohn - cheerier souls.

On the 20th century symphonists, big fan of RVW, but Sibelius is top dog by a country mile in my list of favourites.


----------



## gvn

CnC Bartok said:


> Originally Posted by *eric1*
> I think Mahler, Shostakovich, Sibelius, and Vaughan Williams are pretty clearly the top 4.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, pretty much what I said earlier on. Seems the love for RVW is a bit too patchy here for it to be clear though!
Click to expand...

I suspect that Sibelius, Mahler, and Shostakovich would feature prominently in lists from most parts of the world, whereas the fourth slot would be rather more culture-dependent.

If this were a Swiss forum, I'm pretty sure Fritz Brun would be in 4th place, or near it. If this were an Estonian forum, I'm _absolutely_ sure Tubin would be in 4th place... indeed, he might well dislodge Shostakovich from 3rd.

VW and Brun and Tubin all wrote solidly-crafted symphonies that were original without being "difficult." I wouldn't dare to say that any of them is "better" than any of the others, and I don't understand why each of them hasn't become better known internationally. And then there's Roussel in France, Schmidt in Germany, Hanson & Schuman in the USA, Nielsen & Langgaard in Denmark....

The 20th century does seem to have been a wonderfully rich time for the symphony!


----------



## D Smith

10 20th Century Favourites (alphabetical)

Bax
Copland
Hanson
Ives
Mahler
Miaskovsky
Prokofiev
Roussel
Shostakovich
Sibelius


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

eric1 said:


> I think Mahler, Shostakovich, Sibelius, and Vaughan Williams are pretty clearly the top 4.


Mahler, Shostakovich and Sibelius are the clear top tier. VW is not in their league.


----------



## gvn

Out of curiosity I tallied up all the lists so far. The top 10 places are as follows (there's a 5-way tie for 10th):

20 votes: Shostakovich
19 votes: Sibelius
18 votes: Prokofiev
16 votes: Vaughan Williams
15 votes: Mahler

11 votes: Nielsen

08 votes: Martinů
07 votes: Bax
05 votes: Stravinsky
04 votes each: Arnold, Holmboe, Myaskovsky, Schuman, Tubin

Observations:

1. There _is_ a distinct top tier... and it consists of _five_ names tightly bunched together. (Moreover, one list was confined to symphonists who worked _entirely_ in the 20th century. If that list had been constructed on the same principle as the others, Sibelius & Mahler might well have received an extra vote each, bunching the top of the list even more tightly.)

2. Then there's a distinct gap to the others, with only Nielsen (as might perhaps be expected) floating between.

3. If we'd been asked to make this list 20-30 years ago, I suspect Mahler would have placed much higher, and I'm pretty sure Bax wouldn't have been visible in the top 10 at all. Is Mahler decreasing a little in popularity? Is Bax increasing?

4. As might be expected, no one more recent than Shostakovich appears in the top 10 as yet. The closest are Lloyd and Rautavaara (3 votes each). I have a distinct impression, on other grounds, that both of those composers have been quietly gaining currency during the past 20 years or so. If I ran a record company, I'd look carefully at the possibility of recording a new Lloyd or Rautavaara cycle--I suspect there would be a definite niche in the market for it. (We know that Lloyd himself wasn't entirely happy with his Albany recordings.)

5. To me, the real interest in these lists is pointing out symphonies that I don't play often enough. I really ought to play Martinů more often--my wife was saying that to me just a few weeks ago. He did _tremendously_ good work. Ditto Myaskovsky.


----------



## HenryPenfold

DSCH
Mahler
Sibelius
RVW
Rubbra
Simpson
Bax
Max
Schnittke
Ives

50% English, I'm a bit biased 

So ......

DSCH
Mahler
Sibelius
RVW
Bax
Penderecki
Lutoslowski
Ives
Simpson
Schnittke


----------



## Skakner

The top class

*Mahler - Shostakovich*
Sibelius


----------



## Prodromides

gvn said:


> 04 votes each: Arnold, Holmboe, Myaskovsky, Schuman, Tubin
> Observations:
> 4. As might be expected, no one more recent than Shostakovich appears in the top 10 as yet. The closest are Lloyd and Rautavaara (3 votes each). I have a distinct impression, on other grounds, that both of those composers have been quietly gaining currency during the past 20 years or so. If I ran a record company, I'd look carefully at the possibility of recording a new Lloyd or Rautavaara cycle--I suspect there would be a definite niche in the market for it. (We know that Lloyd himself wasn't entirely happy with his Albany recordings.)


Why wouldn't Malcolm Arnold, Holmboe or Tubin be considered more recent than Shostakovich?
Is this based upon year of composer's death ... or the year of final symphony?


----------



## kyjo

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Mahler, Shostakovich and Sibelius are the clear top tier. VW is not in their league.


That's your opinion, not a fact!


----------



## Prodromides

15+ posts reiterating the same 'top' names yields tedious reading, though, plus no further penetrating glimmers into the more unique perspectives/tastes from amongst TC's membership. If only one person opines on the scarcity of Havergal Brian, then this would intrigue readership more than 20 people spouting Shostakovich.

Accepting that the Top 5 constitutes Mahler, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Sibelius & Vaughan Williams, then lists offering 10 names _excluding_ those Top 5 should reveal more composers who tend to get marginalized by the standard-issue reinforcements of the major stars.

My top 10 list already omits the usual suspects so I was able to cite more underdogs.

I'm interested, also, about why folks aren't championing Segerstam, Brian, Villa-Lobos, Henry Cowell, Roger Sessions, Andrzej Panufnik, Irwin Bazelon, Gloria Coates, Wellesz, Sallinen, Jean Rivier, Frankel, etc.

Has anybody heard of Tauno Marttinen?


----------



## gvn

Prodromides said:


> Why wouldn't Malcolm Arnold, Holmboe or Tubin be considered more recent than Shostakovich?
> Is this based upon year of composer's death ... or the year of final symphony?


A very good question!! I was really basing my comment on personal acquaintance with their music.

Tubin's symphonies were all completed within Shostakovich's lifetime. Arnold and Holmboe continued to compose later, but I (and I think many of my generation) were well aware of them as early as the late 1950s, so that when we talked of "living composers of symphonies," the names "Shostakovich," "Holmboe," "Arnold," (and others,) repeatedly came up side by side. We always _thought_ of them as contemporaries.

Lloyd and Rautavaara were different. I (and I think most of my generation) never even _heard_ of them while Shostakovich was alive. Consequently we never spoke of them as contemporaries of Shostakovich. We first took note of their names around 1980, when Downes made the first Lyrita recordings of Lloyd and _Cantus arcticus_ started to conquer the West.

Moreover, to a greater extent than Arnold and Holmboe, they made very substantial additions to their symphony list in the late 1980s and 1990s... in the opinion of some (probably many) listeners, their biggest achievements in this field (Lloyd's 11th and Symphonic Mass, Rautavaara's 6th-8th). Consequently the "center of gravity" of their work tends to feel later than the death of Shostakovich, whereas the center of gravity of Arnold's and Tubin's and Holmboe's work indubitably lies within S's lifetime.

But all this is fairly subjective and arbitrary, given that people's lives overlap so untidily!


----------



## gvn

Prodromides said:


> Accepting that the Top 5 constitutes Mahler, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Sibelius & Vaughan Williams, then lists offering 10 names _excluding_ those Top 5 should reveal more composers who tend to get marginalized by the standard-issue reinforcements of the major stars.


A fair comment. Here are those who have received less than 4 votes so far (incorporating HenryPenfold's revised list):

03 Atterberg
03 Frankel
03 Hanson
03 Honegger
03 Ives
03 Lloyd
03 Pettersson
03 Rautavaara
03 Roussel
03 Schnittke
02 Copland
02 Harris
02 Hindemith 
02 Langgaard
02 Lutoslawski
02 Pärt
02 Penderecki
02 Piston 
02 Schmidt
02 Weinberg
01 Aho
01 Bennett
01 Berg, Natanael
01 Bloch
01 Braga Santos
01 Brian
01 Chavez
01 Diamond
01 Gerhard
01 Gretchaninov
01 Hovhaness
01 Jolivet
01 Kalomiris
01 Kokkonen
01 Kupferman
01 Madetoja
01 Melartin
01 Mennin
01 Peterson-Berger
01 Röntgen
01 Rorem
01 Rubbra
01 Searle
01 Sessions
01 Simpson
01 Stenhammar
01 Still
01 Valen
01 Villa-Lobos
01 Wetz
01 Yoshimatsu
01 Yun

Apart from Lloyd and Rautavaara, relatively recent symphonic composers with more than one recommendation include Schnittke (now with 3 votes), Pärt, and Penderecki.

Still, I suspect some readers may find it helpful to have _some_ familiar names in a "10 best" list. If a reader sees that someone likes (e.g.) VW but not Mahler, or Mahler but not VW, it may help the reader to decide whether they might find it worthwhile to explore the _un_known names on the list. Whereas, if a list consisted _totally_ of unfamiliar names, it would be hard for most readers to know what kind(s) of music were being recommended. (Your own list didn't have any such problem, by the way, at least for this reader.)


----------



## gvn

Prodromides said:


> I'm interested, also, about why folks aren't championing Segerstam


I'm interested in this too. A quarter of a century ago, the name of Segerstam the composer used to crop up fairly regularly, and the tiny proportion of his work that I heard seemed to me quite promising. What is the current majority view of him (if any exists!)?


----------



## gvn

I see that Presto Classical in the UK is currently holding a sale of contemporary music (until January 11). Whether the prices are indeed bargains would probably depend on where you live, but it's worth noting that the sale includes good sets of nearly all the post-Shostakovich (or overlapping Shostakovich) symphonists who have received multiple recommendations in this thread, e.g. (in alphabetical order):

Arnold, The Complete Symphonies cond. Hickox (Chandos, 4 CDs)

Holmboe, The Complete Symphonies cond. Hughes (BIS, 6 CDs)

Lloyd, Symphonies 4, 5, and 8 cond. Downes (Lyrita, 3 CDs)
[There is also a separate Lyrita CD of 6 & 7 cond. Downes, not on sale but at a fairly cheap price. For the Symphonic Mass, the sole option is the excellent full-price CD cond. composer on Albany.]

Penderecki, The Symphonies and Other Orchestral Works cond. Wit (Naxos, 5 CDs)
[Doesn't include 6, and has a preliminary version of 8, but is still a notable bargain, partly because of the attractive selection of "other" works. I expect Naxos will issue a separate low-price CD of 6 sooner or later.]

Rautavaara, The 8 Symphonies cond. various (Ondine, 4 CDs)

Schnittke, The 10 Symphonies cond. various (BIS, 6 CDs)

[Pärt's symphonies can be found collected on one full-price CD cond. Kaljuste on ECM.]

In my view, the above would provide a fairly well balanced selection of symphonic work in Europe during the immediate post-Shostakovich period, for anyone who wanted to go beyond the Famous Five. Since all of them have received multiple recommendations from apparently sane and knowledgeable forum members (present company excepted, of course), none of them is an eccentric choice and all of them are reasonably accessible music (among them, Lloyd would be the least "difficult" and Schnittke, overall, the most "difficult"-this being a description of style, not quality, in both cases!).

Post-Shostakovich American symphonists haven't been mentioned much on this thread so far. Indeed, as far as I can see, about the only one to receive any vote at all has been Wuorinen, and there has never been any collected edition of his symphonies on CD, although a recommendable single disc is in the Presto sale:

Wuorinen, Eighth Symphony and Fourth Piano Concerto cond. Levine (Bridge, 1 CD)

Rorem's symphonies are, I think, very early works, dating from the 1950s, and throughout this thread Philip Glass has been extremely conspicuous by his absence.


----------



## Heck148

This needs more Americans - 

Schuman
Copland
Hanson
Mennin
Diamond

These guys wrote some great symphonies....

more recently - 
Corigliano


----------



## eric1

1. Mahler
2. Shostakovich
3. Sibelius
4. Vaughan Williams


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Eclectic Al said:


> I have also gradually drifted away from Mahler and Shostakovich somewhat. I wonder if it's about age. As I am now pushing 60 I haven't so much time for angst, and head more towards Haydn and Mendelssohn - cheerier souls.
> 
> On the 20th century symphonists, big fan of RVW, but Sibelius is top dog by a country mile in my list of favourites.


I am about 99% in agreement with everything you are saying here. The only difference between us is that I am moving closer to age 80. :cheers:


----------



## pianozach

Prodromides said:


> . . . . .
> Has anybody heard of Tauno Marttinen?


You mean THIS guy?


----------



## pianozach

Heck148 said:


> This needs more Americans -
> 
> Schuman
> Copland
> Hanson
> Mennin
> Diamond
> 
> These guys wrote some great symphonies....
> 
> more recently -
> Corigliano


I had just noticed how low *Copland* was on the vote count list.


----------



## KenOC

From another forum, 20th century symphonists:

1 - Shostakovich
2 - Sibelius
3 - Prokofiev
4 - Nielsen
5 - Mahler
6 - Vaughan Williams
7 - Martinù
8 - Honegger

Mahler may have suffered here since some didn't consider him a true "20th-century" composer.


----------



## Agamenon

1. Mahler
2. Shostakovich
3. Prokofiev.
4. Sibelius.
5. Vaughan Williams
6. Bax
7. Martinu
8. Nielsen
9. Schuman
10. Penderecki

A great century for this genre. Superior to the 19th century...?


----------



## pianozach

Agamenon said:


> 1. Mahler
> 2. Shostakovich
> 3. Prokofiev.
> 4. Sibelius.
> 5. Vaughan Williams
> 6. Bax
> 7. Martinu
> 8. Nielsen
> 9. Schuman
> 10. Penderecki
> 
> A great century for this genre. Superior to the 19th century...?


No, not "superior". Merely "different".


----------



## Broos

1. Mahler
2. Sibelius
3. Tubin
4. Shostakovich
5. Tishchenko
6. Nielsen
7. Vaughan Williams
8. Bax
9. Ives
10.Schmidt


----------



## Kilgore Trout

1. Karl Amadeus Hartmann
2. Charles Ives
3. Karol Szymanowski (although he only wrote two symphonies that could be considered of his mature style - the same thing could be said of Ives)
4. Hans Werner Henze
5. Peter Maxwell Davies
6. Witold Lutoslawski
7. Avet Terteryan
8. Carl Nielsen
9. Albert Roussel
10. Per Norgard


----------



## Bulldog

Prodromides said:


> Accepting that the Top 5 constitutes Mahler, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Sibelius & Vaughan Williams, then lists offering 10 names _excluding_ those Top 5 should reveal more composers who tend to get marginalized by the standard-issue reinforcements of the major stars.


The OP asked our opinions of the top ten symphonists, and I assume that's what most members responded with. If asked for a top ten "underdog" list, the responses would be very different.


----------



## SanAntone

Frankel
Krenek
Wellesz
Shostakovich
Weinberg
Myaskovsky
Langgaard
Ives
Lutoslawski
Rautavaara


----------



## SanAntone

SanAntone said:


> Frankel
> Krenek
> Wellesz
> Shostakovich
> Weinberg
> Myaskovsky
> Langgaard
> Ives
> Lutoslawski
> Rautavaara


I think I'd prefer to substitute *Bernstein* for Rautavaara - but I did not rank them.

*Frankel
Krenek
Wellesz
Shostakovich
Weinberg
Myaskovsky
Langgaard
Ives
Lutoslawski
Bernstein*


----------



## Bxnwebster

1. Villa-Lobos
2. Weinberg
3. Atterberg
4. Roussel
5. Vaughan Williams
6. Szymanowski
7. Santoro
8. Still
9. Ives
10. Chávez


----------



## brucknerian1874

Prodromides said:


> I'm interested, also, about why folks aren't championing Segerstam, Brian, Villa-Lobos, Henry Cowell, Roger Sessions, Andrzej Panufnik, Irwin Bazelon, Gloria Coates, Wellesz, Sallinen, Jean Rivier, Frankel, etc.
> 
> Has anybody heard of Tauno Marttinen?


Good call. I think I did place Havergal Brian and Benjamin Frankel. From your list, I hadn't heard any of V-L's symphonies and now that I have I would have to include him in any future list.

Another one I'd like some opinions on is Witold Lutoslawski. Having now heard a few versions of his symphonies, I'd have to say I rate him quite highly, especially the 3rd and 4th (my favourite).


----------



## mparta

HenryPenfold said:


> DSCH
> Mahler
> Sibelius
> RVW
> Rubbra
> Simpson
> Bax
> Max
> Schnittke
> Ives
> 
> 50% English, I'm a bit biased
> 
> So ......
> 
> DSCH
> Mahler
> Sibelius
> RVW
> Bax
> Penderecki
> Lutoslowski
> Ives
> Simpson
> Schnittke


Ok, biased, I only had a maybe for Rubbra but I think Simpson is a rarity on these lists. I have several of the symphonies and have never managed to listen. Is he really so little known or is there a substantial musical barrier to his popularity? I have his book on Bruckner (and haven't read it, too many confessions here).


----------



## gvn

mparta said:


> I think Simpson is a rarity on these lists. I have several of the symphonies and have never managed to listen. Is he really so little known or is there a substantial musical barrier to his popularity?


I've pondered this question a number of times since it was posted.

I don't think Simpson can be doing too badly, because _two_ of the highly informed listeners who have responded to this thread actually rank him as one of the "Top 10 Symphonists of the 20th Century"--which is a pretty high position, when you think about it. The only British symphonists nominated more often have been (predictably) Vaughan Williams, Bax, Arnold, and Lloyd.*

Still, my personal impression is that, whereas Vaughan Williams, Bax, and Lloyd have all been gaining quietly in esteem during the past 40 years (at least in the English-speaking world), and Arnold has comfortably maintained his ground (at the very least), Simpson has slipped back somewhat. Note that _all_ the symphonies of the others have been continuously available on CD for the last 30 years, whereas Simpson's have been gradually deleted and not reissued.

Why? I don't know, but I have the impression that Simpson's relative emotional reticence may have counted against him, perhaps unjustly. (Vaughan Williams, Bax, Arnold, and Lloyd are all much more emotionally vibrant by comparison!) This may lead to accusations that his symphonies are "academic," "stodgy," "professionally crafted but not deeply felt," "all head and no heart," etc.

I'm afraid, too, that once the recordings are deleted, it becomes very difficult for a composer's music to rise in esteem. Unavailability of performances (on record or in the concert hall) is an almost insuperable barrier to popularity!

*(The OP shrewdly limited the field to composers who completed 3 or more symphonies. Thus Elgar and Walton aren't in contention here.)


----------



## mparta

gvn said:


> I've pondered this question a number of times since it was posted.
> 
> I don't think Simpson can be doing too badly, because _two_ of the highly informed listeners who have responded to this thread actually rank him as one of the "Top 10 Symphonists of the 20th Century"--which is a pretty high position, when you think about it. The only British symphonists nominated more often have been (predictably) Vaughan Williams, Bax, Arnold, and Lloyd.*
> 
> There are a lot of British posters on here, which I think may influence this list substantially (being nice, I'm absolutely certain it does). I'd answer my own question if I had the good sense (and time) to listen. I have no time for Vaughn-Williams and that's on the basis of years of trying. One of the reasons i see some flaws in the current argument is that I hear nothing but high-calorie comfort food in RVW, which would seem to fit the (to my ear) stodgy and "professionally crafted but not deeply felt" category. ) To a t, at that.
> 
> I love the Lyrita recordings of the Rubbra symphonies, don't find the Chandos/Hickox as attractive but i like these works. I have quite a few of the Malcolm Arnold works in a Naxos series (I think) and they deserve more work. Lloyd-- I know nothing.
> 
> So I have some Simpson, I'll listen and give it a real try. Hyperion productions work against a lot of music because they're ALL SO BLOODY EXPENSIVE.


----------



## HenryPenfold

gvn said:


> I've pondered this question a number of times since it was posted.
> 
> I don't think Simpson can be doing too badly, because _two_ of the highly informed listeners who have responded to this thread actually rank him as one of the "Top 10 Symphonists of the 20th Century"--which is a pretty high position, when you think about it. The only British symphonists nominated more often have been (predictably) Vaughan Williams, Bax, Arnold, and Lloyd.*
> 
> Still, my personal impression is that, whereas Vaughan Williams, Bax, and Lloyd have all been gaining quietly in esteem during the past 40 years (at least in the English-speaking world), and Arnold has comfortably maintained his ground (at the very least), Simpson has slipped back somewhat. Note that _all_ the symphonies of the others have been continuously available on CD for the last 30 years, whereas Simpson's have been gradually deleted and not reissued.
> 
> Why? I don't know, but I have the impression that Simpson's relative emotional reticence may have counted against him, perhaps unjustly. (Vaughan Williams, Bax, Arnold, and Lloyd are all much more emotionally vibrant by comparison!) This may lead to accusations that his symphonies are "academic," "stodgy," "professionally crafted but not deeply felt," "all head and no heart," etc.
> 
> I'm afraid, too, that once the recordings are deleted, it becomes very difficult for a composer's music to rise in esteem. Unavailability of performances (on record or in the concert hall) is an almost insuperable barrier to popularity!
> 
> *(The OP shrewdly limited the field to composers who completed 3 or more symphonies. Thus Elgar and Walton aren't in contention here.)


There are no easy answers to your questions. A number of factors have conspired to keep Simpson's music pretty much out of the way. Often mentioned is the BBC's company policy of not promoting the work of its employees (an honourable but ultimately self-defeating protocol). Simpson was employed by the BBC for nearly thirty years from 1951 as a programme producer and musicologist. Thus we did not really get to hear Simpson's music on the radio or at the Proms.

Aslo, William Glock held the post of 'BBC Controller OF Music' from 1959-1972. He was an avowed enemy of tonal music and platformed the music and career of Pierre Boulez whilst expunging the music of the likes of Rubbra, Bliss, Alwyn, Rawsthorne, Arnell and other British tonal composers, having a deleterious effect on their careers.

There is an interesting anecdote where Glock berates the esteemed British conductor Vernon 'Tod' Handley for his proclivity to programme the music of Bax, Moeran, Delius et al. Handley replied "hum me a tune you don't like". Handley was not asked to conduct a Prom until after Glock had retired.

It's hard to know what else may have caused the severest neglect of the work of a composer of 11 symphonies, 15 string quartets, concertos for violin, piano, cello and flute, brass band music and much other chamber music for clarinet, horn, violin, piano etc.

As you suggest, perhaps it's got something to do with Simpson's world being overwhelmingly Apollonian, without even a glance in the other direction. Off the top of my head I can only recall one almost-tune from all eleven symphonies!

What I am sure about, is that many people are missing out on some of the very finest classical music written in the 20th century.

P.S. A huge amount of Simpson's music, everything that I've mentioned here, plus solo piano music, is available as downloads from Hyperion Records.


----------



## HenryPenfold

mparta said:


> Ok, biased, I only had a maybe for Rubbra but I think Simpson is a rarity on these lists. I have several of the symphonies and have never managed to listen. Is he really so little known or is there a substantial musical barrier to his popularity? I have his book on Bruckner (and haven't read it, too many confessions here).


My reply #114 to gvn sheds a little light. What's more worrying is how come people buy his music and buy his books, but don't listen to them or read them!!!!!


----------



## mparta

HenryPenfold said:


> My reply #114 to gvn sheds a little light. What's more worrying is how come people buy his music and buy his books, but don't listen to them or read them!!!!!


really? I assure you, the list is long of better things to worry about than that.


----------



## HenryPenfold

mparta said:


> really? I assure you, the list is long of better things to worry about than that.


I was being light hearted. No need to respond like that ....


----------



## mparta

HenryPenfold said:


> There are no easy answers to your questions. A number of factors have conspired to keep Simpson's music pretty much out of the way. Often mentioned is the BBC's company policy of not promoting the work of its employees (an honourable but ultimately self-defeating protocol). Simpson was employed by the BBC for nearly thirty years from 1951 as a programme producer and musicologist. Thus we did not really get to hear Simpson's music on the radio or at the Proms.
> 
> Aslo, William Glock held the post of 'BBC Controller OF Music' from 1959-1972. He was an avowed enemy of tonal music and platformed the music and career of Pierre Boulez whilst expunging the music of the likes of Rubbra, Bliss, Alwyn, Rawsthorne, Arnell and other British tonal composers, having a deleterious affect on their careers.
> 
> There is an interesting anecdote where Glock berates the esteemed British conductor Vernon 'Tod' Handley for his proclivity to programme the music of Bax, Moeran, Delius et al. Handley replied "hum me a tune you don't like". Handley was not asked to conduct a Prom until after Glock had retired.
> 
> It's hard to know what else may have caused the severest neglect of the work of a composer of 11 symphonies, 15 string quartets, concertos for violin, piano, cello and flute, brass band music and much other chamber music for clarinet, horn, violin, piano etc.
> 
> As you suggest, perhaps it's got something to do with Simpson's world being overwhelmingly Apollonian, without even a glance in the other direction. Off the top of my head I can only recall one almost-tune from all eleven symphonies!
> 
> What I am sure about, is that many people are missing out on some of the very finest classical music written in the 20th century.
> 
> P.S. A huge amount of Simpson's music, everything that I've mentioned here, plus solo piano music, is available as downloads from Hyperion Records.


This is a really interesting and informative post, but not being a Brit, it's hard to fathom for those of us who don't have a national music service like the BBC that could be governed in this way. The market takes many things in the oddest directions, but this story of internal control beyond the reach of listeners is certainly a place where the market might have stepped in. And replaced Boulez by Yanni. Whoops. Careful what you wish for.

Alright, I made my start with the Simpson 3rd (Horenstein) and clarinet quintet. Time will tell.

Actually, when I think about the BBC and the control suggested above, I think about the US marketing machine that meant the US diet of Toscanini/Horowitz/Rubenstein, repeat ad nauseam. It's not they weren't great musicians, but the marketing machine kept us from experiencing a real perspective governed by alternate players and alternative literature, and we weren't exactly awash in some of our really good music from William Schuman, Walter Piston and the like. So maybe a version of the "Glock" (everyone does know that's the name of a gun, right?).

I now feel the responsibility of findings a tune, then 2! in the Simpson symphonies. Then I will be of the cognoscenti and can retire from the field undefeated.

Hyperion product-- still overpriced.


----------



## mparta

HenryPenfold said:


> I was being light hearted. No need to respond like that ....


Likewise.
I tried to write a funny reply and somehow the thread ate it.
I suggest a long look at Bernie Sanders memes related to the Inauguration for all those who need a lighter moment this day.
The Vice-president's problem from his debate:








And the Sanders meme version


----------



## mparta

This is the image on Amazon for the Simpson 9th symphony. It may explain some reticence on the part of the purchaser.


----------



## gvn

HenryPenfold said:


> 50% English, I'm a bit biased


Curiously, a 50% English list is more likely to come from the USA than from the UK! I've noticed the same thing in other TC threads too.

In this thread, Vaughan Williams appears on the great majority of the lists submitted from the USA (8 of 11) but only a minority of those from Britain (3 of 7). He also appears on lists from New Zealand and Germany.

With some other British composers, the difference is even more pronounced. Bax appears on 4 American lists, but only 1 British one.

I wonder if this results from the influence of the Glock era in Britain, which you discussed above. I have good friends on both sides of the Atlantic, and that's the impression I get from them. In Britain someone like Bax has a 60-year reputation of being antediluvian, prehistoric, dead & buried. In America, by contrast, his name means nothing at all, so those who come across his music tend to respond to it simply on the basis of what they hear, without any expectations of any kind.

Afterthought: One of the things that has struck me most, in the time that I've been on TC, has been the remarkable _absence_ of national bias here. One sees people who live virtually next door to each other disagreeing; one sees people who live on opposite sides of the globe absolutely of one mind. A very healthy sign, I feel.


----------

