# Hi - need help rounding out a symphonic journey



## hawgdriver

Hello.

*[note...the final ordered list and selection of symphonies is shown as of 7/31/22 at the bottom of this post]*

I'm mainly into solo piano since I like to play such stuff. I really like Chopin, Schubert, and Bach. Lately I'm revisiting symphonies, possibly including symphonic look-alikes (e.g., Also Sprach Zarathustra, Carnival of Animals, etc.).

So to make it more fun I'm going 1 per week for the next year in reverse order (I get two weeks 'vacation' as it were). Here is what I have slated. I've heard many of them but I'm not a 'symphony guy' in general, so even the most listened-to symphony on this list (I'd guess that honor might belong to Brucker 8, but not sure) still has TONS of play left. I'm going to really chew on them and listen several times without distraction.

Yeah, so I would really like some help with the last 10 or so entries. Or even "nah, get that Borodin off the list, doesn't add anything." I'd prefer a new composer that's not on the list, but if not, then I'd prefer a composer that has fewer entries (there's already a bunch of Mahler and Beethoven even if the list needs moar Mahler and moar Beethoven). But there's no real rules, heck, if Mahler 6 is what the list needs, so be it. Symphony lookalikes are ok. But I'd like to have folks champion stuff that makes sense in the context of this list and my goal--to really connect with the symphony as a form. 1-2 symphonic works from a composer is ideal (unless your name is Beethoven, Mahler, Sibelius, Bruckner, Brahms, etc.)

Highest 'ranked' means I will listen to it last, like a music top XX countdown.

1. Beethoven #3
2. Beethoven #9
3. Mozart #41
4. Mahler #9
5. Mahler #2
6. Brahms #4
7. Berlioz SF
8. Schubert #9
9. Brahms #1
10. Tchaikovsky #6
11. Mahler #3
12. Shostakovich #5
13. Mozart #40
14. Dvorak #9
15. Bruckner #8
16. Sibelius #7
17. Beethoven #7
18. Beethoven #5
19. Schubert #8
20. Beethoven #6
21. Sibelius #5
22. Brahms #2
23. Bruckner #7
24. Sibelius #2
25. Rachmaninoff #2
26. Bruckner #9
27. Shostakovich #10
28. Gorecki #3
29. Nielsen #5
30. Strauss "Also sprach Zarathustra"
31. Nielsen #4
32. Vaughan Williams #2
33. Haydn #39
34. Mahler #5
35. Mendelssohn #4
36. Copland #3
37. Borodin #2
38. Mozart #25
39. Tchaikovsky #5
40. Gliere #3
41. Tchaikovsky #4
42. Franck Symphony in Dm
43. Bruckner #4

Ok, I guess there's only 7 until 50, but I'll happily kick off some of these towards the bottom to make room.

Thanks so much!!

*******edit below--final list & summary


https://open.spotify.com/playlist/1waqPDD1qd7OFAsNNiTP3q?si=2e1ee271ebe241c2


^playlist based on Saturday symphony thread recommendations in terms of favored recordings

Haydn #104
Beethoven #9
Suk Azrael
Brahms #1
Mozart #25
Mahler #2
Dvorak #7
Mozart #40
Messaien Turanglila
Sibelius #2
Gorecki #3
Dvorak #9
Schumann #3
Beethoven #5
Hindemith Mathis der Maler
Beethoven #7
Nielsen #4
Shostakovich #5
Vaughan Williams #2
Schubert #8
Rachmaninoff #2
Hanson #2
Mahler #6
Walton #1
Saint-Saen #3
Copland #3
Prokofiev #7
Mahler #3
Prokofiev #1
Bruckner #7
Gliere #3
Beethoven #6
Brahms #3
Shostakovich #10
Mendelssohn #4
Ives #4
Prokofiev #5
Haydn #39
Borodin #2
Mahler #4
Shostakovich #11
Dvorak #8
Bruckner #9
Sibelius #7
Schubert #9
Tchaikovsky #5
Franck Symphony in Dm
Martinu #6
Mozart #41
Sibelius #5
Nielsen #5
Bruckner #8
Tchaikovsky #6
Brahms #4
Mahler #9
Berlioz SF
Beethoven #3

*By composer:*
Beethoven - 3, 5, 6, 7, 9
Mahler - 2, 3, 4, 6, 9
Brahms - 1, 3, 4
Sibelius - 2, 5, 7
Bruckner - 7, 8, 9
Dvorak - 7, 8, 9
Shostakovich - 5, 10, 11
Mozart - 25, 40, 41
Haydn - 39, 104
Tchaikovsky - 5, 6
Nielsen - 4, 5
Schubert - 8, 9
Prokofiev - 1, 5, 7
Suk Azrael
Messaien Turanglila
Gorecki #3
Schumann #3
Hindemith Mathis der Maler
Vaughan Williams #2
Rachmaninoff #2
Walton #1
Saint-Saen #3
Copland #3
Gliere #3
Mendelssohn #4
Borodin #2
Franck Symphony in Dm
Martinu #6
Berlioz SF
Ives #4
Hanson #2


----------



## Art Rock

You have 8 more to go, as Strauss "Also sprach Zarathustra" is not a symphony.

I'll make just one suggestion that should be up your alley given the rest: Suk's Asrael symphony.


----------



## Forster

[edited]

Primary recommendation - Turanglila by Messiaen

Haydn...101 'Clock', 94 'Surprise', 104 'London' or no 99 (I don't know the 39, so I'll not suggest it be replaced)

Sibelius 4 rather than 2.


----------



## Kreisler jr

You have no Schumann at all, I find Haydn's #39 a very odd choice, replace by two better ones, e.g. #44 and #102 or #104.
Similarly with RWV #2 which I find about the most boring Victorian/Edwardian prententious fluff there is, he has a few better ones. Consider taking one of Elgar's instead, if you think you need Victorian composers of regional importance...

Also Stravinsky in C or in 3 movements, one of Prokofiev's, Chausson or Saint Saens, Rimsky's 2nd Symphony "Antar" for one of the Tchaikovsky choices.
Hindemith in E flat or Mathis der Maler


----------



## Art Rock

Forster said:


> Sibelius 4 rather than 2.


Although the 4th is my favourite of Sibelius (who is also one of my favourite symphonists), for people who start to explore him I'd recommend the 2nd or 5th.


----------



## Art Rock

Brahms 1 is a good introduction, but if you can have only two in your list, I'd have picked the 4th rather than the 2nd.


----------



## Forster

Kreisler jr said:


> Similarly with RWV #2 which I find about the most boring Victorian/Edwardian prententious fluff there is, *he has a few better ones. *


#3 or #5 or #6?

I'd missed the absence of Prokofiev, so #5?


----------



## Forster

Art Rock said:


> Although the 4th is my favourite of Sibelius (who is also one of my favourite symphonists), for people who start to explore him I'd recommend the 2nd or 5th.


Well, yes, it's his least typical...but anyone who is going to wade through any Bruckner or so much Tchaikovsky might find Sibelius #4 blessed relief :devil:


----------



## Kreisler jr

As I said, I'd probably take any of Elgar's as more pioneering in the "resurgence" of British music over RWV. I don't much like the pastoral 3 or 5 either, so if any RWV rather 4 or 6.
I'd rather recommend Hartmann's 2 or 6 as a later 20th century symphony.

3x Sibelius is also too much but I think #2 and #7 are not bad representatives, roughly the most conventional and the least conventional. But he is also way overrated these days.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Stick with VW 2nd, and maybe add in No.6 for some "Victorian pretentious" violence, to get you away from all that fluff. Fluff, really??. Vaughan Williams is neither Victorian - No.2 was written a couple of years before WWI began - nor pretentious, which is a pretty insulting description of England's finest. You might prefer Elgar, personally I really do not.
More Dvorak, No.7 or 8?
Definitely more Haydn
Prokofiev 5,6 or 7?
Martinu really ought to be here
Janáček Sinfonietta ( if it qualifies)
Others have mentioned your insanely daft absence of Schumann....!


----------



## Forster

hawgdriver said:


> *rounding out a symphonic journey...*
> 
> Yeah, so I would really like some help with the last 10 or so entries. Or even "nah, get that Borodin off the list, doesn't add anything." I'd prefer a new composer that's not on the list, but if not, then I'd prefer a composer that has fewer entries (there's already a bunch of Mahler and Beethoven even if the list needs moar Mahler and moar Beethoven). But *there's no real rules*, heck, if Mahler 6 is what the list needs, so be it. Symphony lookalikes are ok. *But I'd like to have folks champion stuff that makes sense in the context of this list and my goal--to really connect with the symphony as a form*.


OK, 'there's no rules', but you want to connect with the symphony as a form, and 'in the context of this list'. There's two rules to start with, open to interpretation.

I've already made a few suggestions, but it occurs to me, reading what others have said, that I suspect you're not really looking for a journey round others' personal preferences, but a journey round others' recommendations; that these should take in the traditional and the non-traditional variations on the form; and those that are generally regarded as the pinnacle (no matter that Art Rock hates Beethoven's 9th, I'm sure he would recognise that it probably ought to be on such a list).

'Such a list' is an assumption based on your first 43 choices - broadly conventional, almost entirely by the now long deceased.

As for 'symphonic like', all kinds of arguments could be made for various pieces: what about _Rite of Spring_? If you're thinking of suites like _Carnival of the Animals_, then you may as well consider _The Planets_.


----------



## Merl

Glaring omissions... Dvorak 7/8, Schumann 2/4 and Mahler 1.


----------



## hawgdriver

Haha, thanks for the suggestions. I was almost positive that I'd be told to get Herr Schumann on the train before it leaves.

So Schumann 2/4 and not 3? I love Schumann's PC, but I avoid most of his solo piano works. I assume that is the shape of my taste at this moment. Otoh, I spent a lot of time at the keyboard learning his Op 76/2 march (because Richter).

How about 2/3 or 3/4? Or just 3?

I was hoping someone would say Martinu. 
I'll add Dvorak 7/8 as well--at least 1 of them.
I need to think about adding Mahler 1.
Prokofiev 5 too I suppose
Maybe the Janacek Sinfonietta, probably that one

I notice that blurring the symphonic/orchestral line can cascade into major issues for the list, because then maybe I need to add Carnival of the Animals, Rite of Spring, and so on--where does it end?

So I should remove the Also Sprach Z and draw the line at the Janacek Sinfonietta?

I grabbed the Haydn 39 from this list. https://manyworldstheory.com/2016/09/01/the-top-100-symphonies-ever-written/

I used many lists in the making of my own, not just that one. I tried to use all the lists.

I have no problem adding another Haydn to the list. In fact, I'll go with 44/104 instead of 39. 39 sounds like it might be someone's pet favorite.

Turanglila by Messiaen --> I remember liking this one from before, thank you

*So to summarize:

Remove: Sibelius 5, Also Sprach Z, Tchaikovsky 4

Add: Suk Azrael, Messiaen Turanglila, Dvorak 7, Schumann 3, Prokofiev 5, Martinu 6, Hindemith Mathis der Maler, Haydn 104*

This brings me to 48. I'm going to edit the OP.

I need two more, here's what I'm thinking

Might remove: Bruckner 4, Brahms 2

Might add: Elgar 1, Schumann 2 or 4, RVW 3, Chausson Bb, another Haydn (94, 101, 102?). Thoughts?

1. Beethoven #3
2. Beethoven #9
3. Mozart #41
4. Mahler #9
5. Mahler #2
6. Brahms #4
7. Berlioz SF
8. Schubert #9
9. Brahms #1
10. Tchaikovsky #6
11. Mahler #3
12. Shostakovich #5
13. Mozart #40
14. Dvorak #9
15. Bruckner #8
16. Sibelius #7
17. Beethoven #7
18. Beethoven #5
19. Schubert #8
20. Beethoven #6
21. Schumann #3
22. Brahms #2
23. Bruckner #7
24. Sibelius #2
25. Rachmaninoff #2
26. Bruckner #9
27. Shostakovich #10
28. Gorecki #3
29. Nielsen #5
30. Messaien Turanglila
31. Nielsen #4
32. Vaughan Williams #2
33. Haydn #39
34. Mahler #5
35. Mendelssohn #4
36. Copland #3
37. Borodin #2
38. Mozart #25
39. Tchaikovsky #5
40. Gliere #3
41. Hindemith Mathis der Maler
42. Franck Symphony in Dm
43. Bruckner #4
44. Suk Azrael
45. Dvorak #7
46. Prokofiev #5
47. Martinu #6
48. Haydn #104
49. ?
50. ?

(might rearrange slightly for a better 'countdown' experience)

Again, thank you SO SO much! 
:tiphat:
:tiphat:
:tiphat:


----------



## Coach G

Of composers not on your list are the many great American composers of symphonies:

Ned Rorem #3
William Schuman #9
Alan Hovhaness #19 "Vishnu"
Philip Glass #11
Florence Price #1 
Charles Ives #4
Roy Harris #3
Walter Piston #8
Roger Sessions #5
Lou Harrison #2 

I'm sure you can find most of these on YouTube


----------



## Merl

OMG, I just realised.... THERE'S NO BEETHOVEN 8TH!!!! :scold:


----------



## CnC Bartok

^^^^ No David Diamond recommendation???

Beethoven 7th is at no.17, Merl!


----------



## hawgdriver

Merl said:


> OMG, I just realised.... THERE'S NO BEETHOVEN 8TH!!!! :scold:




:lol:

As much as Beethoven's 8th and Mahler's 1st absolutely deserve to be near the top of lists, I'm eschewing excellence in favor of diversity--to a point. To some nebulous, ill-defined point.

But...

I'll consider it. A Beethoven symphony to begin the journey would be an excellent point of departure. As would Mahler #1.


----------



## hawgdriver

Ok, this is the journey...one a week, multiple listens. Aiming for 2-7 times each. Ending up adding another Brahms...oops. 

50 - Haydn #104
49 - Dvorak #7
48 - Bruckner #4
47 - Tchaikovsky #5
46 - Prokofiev #5
45 - Mozart #25
44 - Suk Azrael
43 - Saint-Saen #3
42 - Franck Symphony in Dm
41 - Brahms #3
40 - Hindemith Mathis der Maler
39 - Gliere #3
38 - Nielsen #4
37 - Martinu #6
36 - Borodin #2
35 - Copland #3
34 - Mendelssohn #4
33 - Mahler #6
32 - Haydn #39
31 - Vaughan Williams #2
30 - Messaien Turanglila
29 - Nielsen #5
28 - Gorecki #3
27 - Shostakovich #10
26 - Bruckner #9
25 - Rachmaninoff #2
24 - Sibelius #2
23 - Bruckner #7
22 - Brahms #2
21 - Schumann #3
20 - Beethoven #6
19 - Schubert #8
18 - Beethoven #5
17 - Beethoven #7
16 - Sibelius #7
15 - Bruckner #8
14 - Dvorak #9
13 - Mozart #40
12 - Shostakovich #5
11 - Mahler #3
10 - Tchaikovsky #6
9 - Brahms #1
8 - Schubert #9
7 - Berlioz SF
6 - Brahms #4
5 - Mahler #2
4 - Mahler #9
3 - Mozart #41
2 - Beethoven #9
1 - Beethoven #3


----------



## Forster

You're in for a treat, I'm sure, but all that Mahler will just make yourself sick.

On a more serious note, I'm sure there are opinions on whether a different order might give give a different effect. If we took at face value your attempt to go from 50th best to 1st best, would you hear a noticeable qualitative difference? Or would you just hear jumps back and forth in style/period? Would there be a better order, to smooth out the jarring changes?


----------



## AndorFoldes

I would add some more British music - Walton #1 and Elgar #2. Both large scale symphonies. Don't ask me what to remove though, it's all great music.


----------



## hawgdriver

AndorFoldes said:


> I would add some more British music - Walton #1 and Elgar #2. Both large scale symphonies. Don't ask me what to remove though, it's all great music.


Elgar #2 instead of #1? I might add the Walton and Ives (not British, I know). Thanks for the suggestion.


----------



## hawgdriver

Forster said:


> You're in for a treat, I'm sure, but all that Mahler will just make yourself sick.
> 
> On a more serious note, I'm sure there are opinions on whether a different order might give give a different effect. If we took at face value your attempt to go from 50th best to 1st best, would you hear a noticeable qualitative difference? Or would you just hear jumps back and forth in style/period? Would there be a better order, to smooth out the jarring changes?


Yeah, the whole 'best' and 'ranked' notions should never be taken as objective facts; consequently, I am *more* than ok with substitutions and a different order as I progress.

I might ask 'what next' to help me optimize the order--if 'optimal' even exists for this pursuit.

Could I jump into Messiaen after this Haydn 104? In a playlist, it might--or might not--be jarring. But from one week to the next? Idk.

I would like to leave some of the consensus top works toward the end, but this whole thing might actually work better if some of the 'biggies' were sprinkled around.

A narrative flow from one work to the next would be excellent, but that might be too much to ask.


----------



## hawgdriver

So, on the journey I've departed, but if anyone wants to hop aboard and join me for the travel or simply share their 2c at any stop, I'd love to hear it.

I'm about 5-6 listens into Haydn's #104 in D maj "London". 

My goal with this journey is, even above 'exploring the form', to find music that I will love--music that I'll be *addicted* to.

For me that might take a lot of exposure and dedication before I connect on that level to any given piece.

With the Haydn 104, I'm not there yet. The only Haydn I've really connected with is a certain piano sonata (and not one of the popular ones--Hob 16/44 in Gm).

On the first listen, during the 1st mvt, I was thinking 'meh' and 'yawn'. But by the 3d and 4th mvts I was engaged and pleasantly surprised. I'm not addicted to it yet, but I think it will happen.

What I mean by addicted--last time it happened was Brahms P. Con. 2, a work that I've listened to over the last ten or so years, but a few weeks ago I listened to it three times in a row... !! Addicted!!

One summer in my youth, the only thing I listened to for 3 weeks straight was Pink Floyd's The Wall. 

So, that's kind of the goal, to find stuff like that.

Anyways, for this Haydn #104, I'm listening to these versions (so far): Bruggen, Harnoncourt, Jochum.

I'm not quite ready to move on, but where should I stop next? Here are some ideas.

Dvorak #7
Mozart #25
Brahms #1
Messaien Turanglila
Mendelssohn #4
Mahler #6
Haydn #39
Rachmaninoff #2
Beethoven #5


----------



## AndorFoldes

hawgdriver said:


> Elgar #2 instead of #1? I might add the Walton and Ives (not British, I know). Thanks for the suggestion.


Elgar #2 would be my personal suggestion of the two. Good to know you are considering the Walton #1. Looking forward to following your journey and reading updates here!


----------



## hawgdriver

For the order, I'm going to interlace the list's top and bottom with more of the 'heavies' toward the end, but a good variety from week to week. No era receives extended time.

In fact, week 2 will be Beethoven's 9th. I figure I might as well get it out of the way up front (haha). It's also a decent yardstick so that subsequent symphonies can be viewed in light of one that is so widely considered as a benchmark symphony. I canvassed the threads here and on google regarding recordings of the 9th, and here is what I'm going to use:

Rattle ~2015
Abbado ~2000
Harnoncourt
Klemperer
Masur
Fricsay
Szell
Bohm
Leinsdorf
Karajan (the recording used in the DG cycle)

I've listened to the 9th all the way through maybe once or twice, so it should be a fun week.

It will also be a treat to compare it to the Haydn #104, which is an outstanding work.


----------



## hawgdriver

Here is the updated order if anyone is interested.

I also have a spotify playlist that I will update as I make my way along the path.

50 - Haydn #104
2 - Beethoven #9
44 - Suk Azrael
9 - Brahms #1
45 - Mozart #25
5 - Mahler #2
49 - Dvorak #7
13 - Mozart #40
30 - Messaien Turanglila
24 - Sibelius #2
28 - Gorecki #3
14 - Dvorak #9
21 - Schumann #3
18 - Beethoven #5
40 - Hindemith Mathis der Maler
17 - Beethoven #7
38 - Nielsen #4
12 - Shostakovich #5
31 - Vaughan Williams #2
19 - Schubert #8
25 - Rachmaninoff #2
33 - Mahler #6
22 - Brahms #2
43 - Saint-Saen #3
35 - Copland #3
11 - Mahler #3
46 - Prokofiev #5
23 - Bruckner #7
39 - Gliere #3
20 - Beethoven #6
41 - Brahms #3
27 - Shostakovich #10
34 - Mendelssohn #4
32 - Haydn #39
36 - Borodin #2
XX - Elgar or Ives or Walton? Chausson?
26 - Bruckner #9
16 - Sibelius #7
8 - Schubert #9
47 - Tchaikovsky #5
42 - Franck Symphony in Dm
37 - Martinu #6
3 - Mozart #41
29 - Nielsen #5
15 - Bruckner #8
10 - Tchaikovsky #6
6 - Brahms #4
4 - Mahler #9
7 - Berlioz SF
1 - Beethoven #3

https://open.spotify.com/playlist/1waqPDD1qd7OFAsNNiTP3q?si=bbe5d8ac0cbe4131


----------



## hawgdriver

I am really enjoying Haydn's 104th symphony. I've listened to Bruggen (omg) and Harnoncourt (very nice) and Jochum (nice). Anyone have a must-listen recording of Haydn's 104th? Bruggen really nails it imo.

I'd consider myself Haydn-Mozart neutral before this symphony. Sometimes thinking that to mention Haydn with Mozart was a faux-pas. Now? Whew. Haydn had some gears I didn't know about. The 2d movement of the 104th is some of the best music I've heard, and the rest of the work is exemplary.

It's kind of blowing my mind that this might be the 'worst' symphony on my list.


----------



## Forster

hawgdriver said:


> Anyone have a must-listen recording of Haydn's 104th? Bruggen really nails it imo.


Well I don't know about 'must' but the Davis/Amsterdam is the one I'm used to, and I've tried others that haven't appealed as much.

https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/7927393--haydn-london-symphonies


----------



## hawgdriver

I'm down to 'final cuts'. For whatever reason, I am deciding among 

Nielsen #4 (Nielsen #5 is already on list, I remember *really* liking Nielsen from brief exposure, but the 'tiers' list actually has #3 higher, and I could see omitting a Nielsen in favor of adding a new composer like Walton or Ives, maybe Elgar as a dark horse but I think I'm going to pass on Elgar for this journey and just enjoy his Cello concerto, separately, with my son instead)

Walton (idk, they say it's good)

Ives #4 (listened a bit, I could see this growing on me and it's *different* from the rest of this laundry list)

Prokofiev #1 (I have #5, and in general, I dislike Prokofiev's modernist works like Piano Concerto #5, but can't get enough of works like his Toccata Op. 11 and his #3 Piano Concerto, I also am a huge fan of his piano sonatas and visions fugitive--super intrigued by the idea of his take on Haydn/Mozart even if it's 'old hat').

I need two of these four, I'm leaning Walton/Proko1.

BTW I made command decision and put the Chausson on the list, a 5-10 minute listen and saw potential. Also like idea of championing a less-explored work (if worthy ofc).


----------



## Forster

Well Prokofiev #1 is a delight. I didn't recommend it earlier only because I was trying to recommend across composers rather than within.


----------



## hawgdriver

Sold.

Think I'm going to stick to two Nielsen symphonies, too. Sorry Brits!


----------



## AndorFoldes

I think you are well served by Bruggen's Haydn #104 if you like historically informed performance. I haven't found a completely satisfying traditional performance of that work.

Walton #1 is a masterpiece, but if you like the more classical type of work like Prokofiev #1, it may not be to your taste.


----------



## hawgdriver

AndorFoldes said:


> I think you are well served by Bruggen's Haydn #104 if you like historically informed performance. I haven't found a completely satisfying traditional performance of that work.
> 
> Walton #1 is a masterpiece, but if you like the more classical type of work like Prokofiev #1, it may not be to your taste.


I think I'm definitely keeping the Proko #1, I'm just too curious about it now. I have so much confidence in his ability, but his preferences don't always suit my ears. I'm trying to fit in all these gems and can't figure out what to omit! I want different takes on the symphony, it doesn't need to be too classical-centric.

So I'd like to add the Janacek Sinfonietta and the Walton #1, I'm not sure what to drop. It would have to be two from among these:

Nielsen #4 (I have Nielsen #5 already. This could also be Nielsen #3.)

a Brahms symphony (Brahms 1-4 are on list, I have never intentionally heard a Brahms symphony but expect great things given his outstanding piano and violin concertos).

a Bruckner symphony (I have Bruckner 7, 8, 9 on this list, recently trimmed #4 off the list)

RVW #2 (this is only RVW on list)

Mozart #25 (I have 40, 41, but wanted a Salzburg symphony for contrast and to see was a ~17 y/o could do in context of all these other symphonies)


----------



## AndorFoldes

hawgdriver said:


> I think I'm definitely keeping the Proko #1, I'm just too curious about it now. I have so much confidence in his ability, but his preferences don't always suit my ears. I'm trying to fit in all these gems and can't figure out what to omit! I want different takes on the symphony, it doesn't need to be too classical-centric.
> 
> So I'd like to add the Janacek Sinfonietta and the Walton #1, I'm not sure what to drop. It would have to be two from among these:
> 
> Nielsen #4 (I have Nielsen #5 already. This could also be Nielsen #3.)
> 
> a Brahms symphony (Brahms 1-4 are on list, I have never intentionally heard a Brahms symphony but expect great things given his outstanding piano and violin concertos).
> 
> a Bruckner symphony (I have Bruckner 7, 8, 9 on this list, recently trimmed #4 off the list)
> 
> RVW #2 (this is only RVW on list)
> 
> Mozart #25 (I have 40, 41, but wanted a Salzburg symphony for contrast and to see was a ~17 y/o could do in context of all these other symphonies)


See, that's the thing. Everything you mentioned is great music that could give you a lot of enjoyment.

Maybe keep Walton and Janacek as reserves and see how things turn out when you are further along.


----------



## hawgdriver

I have the feeling that all 4 of the Brahms are fairly even. Which is exciting for me!

I really want to keep the 1 and the 4. If I did trim a Brahms, which of 2 or 3 is less vital for this journey? I can always go back later.


----------



## Art Rock

hawgdriver said:


> I have the feeling that all 4 of the Brahms are fairly even. Which is exciting for me!
> 
> I really want to keep the 1 and the 4. If I did trim a Brahms, which of 2 or 3 is less vital for this journey? I can always go back later.


Personally I would rank them 4>3>2>1, but for general purposes it is probably best to save the 2nd for later.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Brahms 1 is maybe the most interesting in a historical tour d'horizon because of the Beethoven baggage, whereas Brahms' 3 is the most Brahmsian, I'd say. But with only 4 symphonies that are all great and standard rep, it's almost impossible to leave any out.

I love the Janacek Sinfonietta but would find it understandable to leave it out as it is only a borderline symphony. (If one really wanted to get into early 20th century symphonies and related pieces (not always called symphony) departing from huge Mahlerian scale there would be several others, e.g. Schönberg's 1st chamber symphony and it's maybe better to leave them for later.)

Bruckner 9 is a great piece but as a fragment it hardly adds anything in perspective of the composer and his place over #8.
Mozart #25 or #29 are the obvious and great choices for an earlier symphony and as they are less than half the length of a Bruckner, it's time well spent...


----------



## AndorFoldes

hawgdriver said:


> I have the feeling that all 4 of the Brahms are fairly even. Which is exciting for me!
> 
> I really want to keep the 1 and the 4. If I did trim a Brahms, which of 2 or 3 is less vital for this journey? I can always go back later.


If I had to choose, I would leave out Brahms #2 and keep Brahms #3.


----------



## hammeredklavier

hawgdriver said:


> Mozart #25 (I have 40, 41, but wanted a Salzburg symphony for contrast and to see was a ~17 y/o could do in context of all these other symphonies)


the harmonies starting at 1:50 are noteworthy


----------



## hawgdriver

Janacek's Overgrown Path is music I enjoy, so I listened to 1st mvt of Janacek's "Sinfonietta" and want to include it as variety. Super interesting! I'm the type that considers Schubert's Wanderer Fantasy a sonata and the Liszt Sonata a fantasy. Not really, but my point is that I'd rather not spend excessive time on labels unless necessary. So, "Sinfonietta" made it through the checkpoint, but the guards didn't check the passport photo all that closely.

I like the idea of more Mozart, too, but I'm going to abstain from adding anything beyond the 3 already on the list (41, 40, 25). Honestly, Mozart gets kind of samey for me, as good as the music itself is. To be clear, I love Mozart and am fascinated with K475+K457 right now, wish he did more of that.

If I replace the Brahms #2 with the Janacek, and the Bruckner #9 with the Walton #1, two questionable substitutions that enhance the exploration aspect, the 'journey' is as so:

Haydn #104
Beethoven #9
Suk Azrael
Brahms #1
Mozart #25
Mahler #2
Dvorak #7
Messaien Turanglila
Mozart #40
Sibelius #2
Gorecki #3
Dvorak #9
Schumann #3
Beethoven #5
Hindemith Mathis der Maler
Shostakovich #5
Nielsen #4 or #3*
Beethoven #7
Vaughan Williams #2*
Schubert #8
Rachmaninoff #2
Mahler #6
Walton #1*
Saint-Saen #3
Prokofiev #1
Mahler #3
Prokofiev #5
Bruckner #7
Gliere #3
Tchaikovsky #5
Janacek Sinfonietta
Shostakovich #10
Beethoven #6
Haydn #39
Borodin #2*
Chausson
Schubert #9
Sibelius #7
Brahms #3
Franck Symphony in Dm
Mendelssohn #4
Martinu #6
Mozart #41
Nielsen #5
Bruckner #8
Tchaikovsky #6
Brahms #4
Mahler #9
Berlioz SF
Beethoven #3

(*keeping this concrete wet for now)


----------



## hawgdriver

I listened to Davis's version of Haydn #104 this morning (again). I lost count but think I'm around ten or twelve listens now. I'm not what I would call 'addicted' to it, but I enjoy it *very* much. Each movement is excellent.

As I go along, after each one I will offer a few thoughts on that symphony and an initial guess as to where it will end up in my own pantheon of favorites at the end of the journey. Not a rank, more like ranked boxes: favorite, excellent, good, ok, didn't connect with it. Imagine a bell curve and there might be 1-2 that are favorite or 1-2 that didn't connect, ~35 or so that are good (great, solid, wonderful, you get the idea), and maybe 5 or so each that are excellent or merely 'ok.'

At the end of the journey I will again sort them by personal preference using the same system. Certainly my initial guesses will become more accurate towards the end. It will be interesting to see where each lands...initially and finally.

Hope this is fun to follow!


----------



## hammeredklavier

hawgdriver said:


> I like the idea of more Mozart, too, but I'm going to abstain from adding anything beyond the 3 already on the list (41, 40, 25). Honestly, Mozart gets kind of samey for me, as good as the music itself is. To be clear, *I love Mozart and am fascinated with K475+K457 right now, wish he did more of that.*


----------



## hawgdriver

I am putting the Haydn #104 on the shelf for the moment and moving to the next symphony--Beethoven's 9th.

A few notes on the Haydn "London" Symphony. I gave it 15-20 listens, which means end to end, no interruption, and no distractions. Even then, it is easy for my mind to wander. Many listens are while I'm swimming laps in the pool. I find myself, from time to time, running away with other thoughts and not completely absorbed by the music. But I do my best.

I never got 'crackhead' addicted to this symphony. What that means, in case you are not a crackhead, is that you feel this powerful chemical compulsion to listen to it over and over. I will not pretend that I have undertaken this journey for altruistic purposes or for self-enlightenment. I simply want a hard music fix!! (BTW in case anyone is frightened for my benefit, I'm actually not into chemicals--I've seen what they do and that's not for me, but the metaphor is apt.)

If I happen to brush upon the sublime, well that's ok too. But I want music that makes my brain dance and feel exultant!

Ok, so the Haydn.

Those who love it, well, I love it too. I'd guess that it will be one of the 'great' symphonies, that is, middle of this lot, somewhere between #10 and #40 in terms of 'rank' or 'favoriteness'. Closer to #10 than #40 would be my guess. This symphony, Haydn's 104, especially the Bruggen recording, is just so strong. At first, I thought the 2d movement was the highlight, and that's just because of the great dynamic contrasts. For example, it would get quiet, and only the flutes (?) would speak out, almost like a Jethro Tull prog rock type 70's song about knights or dragons or something, and then the overwhelming orchestral rebuke/response.

But the more I listened, the more the 1st and 4th made an impression. This morning, in fact, I was humming the motif in the 1st, it's so fantastic! The 3d mvt is of similar quality. The thematic persistence within this work really stands out--there is such integrity to the theme.

My favorite thing was Bruggen's dynamic arrangement with the drums, timpani, whatever they are called (can you tell I'm a self-taught pianist with no organized musical experience?).

Which brings me to a question for the gallery...

Ok, here's some context for the question. I love bass. Like the kind of bass that rattles cars, bass from 25" subs. I love the visceral thrill of subterranean volcanic doom. So when I'm listening to the Bruggen rendition, there are moments when the drums punctuate the music just like this volcanic subwoofer. It's maybe a cousin of the dubstep bass drop...it's a certain rhythmic exclamation point that works well throughout Haydn's 104th.

My question is are others drawn to this dynamic gimmick as I am? And would some of these symphonies been well served by usage of that dubstep-type bass drop as a dynamic device? Well, perhaps not, but the sheer dynamics of the Bruggen interpretation were very satisfying for me.

So, Haydn's 104th goes on the shelf for now, to be taken down from time to time like a dish being stirred while cooking, as I turn my focus to Beethoven's 9th, the symphony on the menu for this week. Perhaps more than a week, given its importance to the genre.


----------



## hawgdriver

Ooof. I just read the Most Overrated and Underrated Symphonies thread and despair that every selection I made seems to be trite, shallow, and, well, overrated and overplayed. 

Not really...but it has me wondering about tweaking some selections--like Sibelius 4 instead of 7. Then again, one could go mad in search of a 'perfect' 50 to choose.


----------



## hammeredklavier

hawgdriver said:


> But the more I listened, the more the 1st and 4th made an impression. This morning, in fact, I was humming the motif in the 1st, it's so fantastic!


you can sing along with lyrics;


----------



## hawgdriver

oh that's delicious


----------



## hawgdriver

My reaction at the end of Beethoven's 9th for first time listening this intently the whole way with no distraction:










Maybe it will grow on me, but during all the operatic caca I was thinking 'put a cork in it'. I'm so glad no one sings like that any more, it grates on my nerves.

Ok, I had to vent. I'm not anti-opera. I look at it as an acquired taste--like eating grubs. Some cultures find them delicious.

But the soprano-range opera singing really wasn't working for me this morning. I was saying "please. stop."

But they kept on singing.

Half tempted to call it the worst and just move on. I'm sure many of you will think this is some kind of troll or hot take, but I'm just being honest with my reaction.

There was a bit of 'herky-jerky' as one poster described, but I'm ok with manic depressive mood shifts in music. They don't need to justify themselves to me. Although it does seem like the musical equivalent of deus ex machina as one would find in fiction.

The second movement was immediately addictive, very stirring. I have the feeling it might get old after so many listens, but for now it's the candy. First movement seemed to take a *long* time to wrap itself up. But I think in time I'll come to rather enjoy it. The third movement was too quiet for me to give a good listen--I'm going to have to amplify it using audacity so I can actually hear it well enough to critique. I sorta think I'm in love with it and that it's going to be my favorite thing about the symphony.

The choral parts will take some time to appreciate, but I signed myself up for this, and so we are doing this thing.










Hey, I ended up loving sushi and the Mars Volta, so you just never know.


----------



## hawgdriver

I'm really glad I didn't save this one for last. Even if I end up loving it, it's just...a bit of a curveball.


----------



## Art Rock

Do try a few more times, but don't be surprised if it does not click. It never did for me.


----------



## hawgdriver

Art Rock said:


> Do try a few more times, but don't be surprised if it does not click. It never did for me.


Thanks. I'm actually super curious if it will click.

Had another go at it while playing disc golf (solo--mainly this means I am walking). I heard the 3d mvt properly (the Karajan mp3 I listened to during my swim was not normalized, but it is now). The 3d mvt is terrific. In fact, all the non-choral parts are quite satisfying. I don't know that it will match its reputation, but the first 3 mvts are A-ok.

So I lost one of my discs and I was searching for it, kind of in a bad mood. Then the soprano singing and all that boisterous human screechy stuff. I may have yelled at the choir to pipe down, using words unfit for polite company.



There is one segment of the choral part that is exquisite, sounds like a mass, maybe? There's also some circus music towards the end, not a fan. I will say that it is interesting, but I am certainly not connecting with it in a way suggestive of best symphony of all time.


----------



## hawgdriver

I'm kinda crazy crackhead addicted to the 2d movement. Just saying. 

Omg. I hope you all experienced this same thing.


----------



## Forster

hawgdriver said:


> I'm kinda crazy crackhead addicted to the 2d movement. Just saying.
> 
> Omg. I hope you all experienced this same thing.


I did...and the 4th movement fell into line a little afterwards. I'm no fan of choral work - this symphony is the only one I can stand that contains it.


----------



## hammeredklavier

hawgdriver said:


> There is one segment of the choral part that is exquisite, sounds like a mass, maybe?


https://books.google.ca/books?id=rTQrDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA124
With recitatives it also sounds like an oratorio (Beethoven didn't mind his missa solemnis being called an oratorio), maybe it's a song; it blurs the line between all of them.
"In 1809 he wrote: "In the old church modes the devotion is divine, I exclaimed, and God let me express it someday." And in 1818, when he first thought of writing a choral symphony: "A pious song in a symphony, in the old modes, Lord God we praise Thee-alleluja.""



hawgdriver said:


> There's also some circus music towards the end


I think Beethoven was thinking in terms of the exuberant expressions of the incidental music, Die Ruinen von Athen, in that section.


----------



## hawgdriver

I'm giving this one two weeks. Listened again during swim this afternoon. The 2d mile (about 30 minutes a mile) seems interminable. It's challenging for me, but I'm not as negative about it as at first. 

To be clear, I don't like it after the 3d movement.

But I feel like if anyone can like something, I can find that same mind-state. But this may take a while. My intuition at this moment is that this composition is trying to do too much.


----------



## Merl

Honest comments are always welcome. You may never get the final movement but who knows. I'm also not a fan of choral sections or singers in many symphonies but I do love some (Mahler 4). When the caterwauling is tuneless and goes on for centuries I do get rather p*ssed off though. And yes, I think most of us fell in love with the 2nd movement immediately and it's still my favourite movement from the 9th. If you like that you'll love the 7th (all of it probably but definitely the 3rd and 4th movements). Listen and then tell me I was right later. It was brave to start with the 9th as it's Beethoven's most unorthodox symphony. Personally I'd have just stuck with all the LvB symphonies first and got to know them well before dipping my toe in elsewhere.


----------



## Bruckner Anton

I think your list looks great. For me, I would put a bit more classical style works on the list and kick off some modern ones. It depends on your interest, of course.

My list goes like this:
Must-have:
1. Haydn: 88, 92, add a few from 93-104 (such as 94,101,104)
2. Mozart: 25, 29, 33, 35-41
3. Beethoven: All 9
4. Brahms: All 4
5. Schubert: 4, 5, 8, 9
6. Schumann: 3, 4
7. Mendelssohn: 3, 4
8. Berlioz: Fantastique
9. Franck: d minor
10. Bruckner: 4 - 9
11. Mahler: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9
12. Saent-Saens: 3
13. Dvorak: 7 - 9
14. Tchaikovsky: 4 - 6
15. Sibelius: 2, 5, 7

Worth-mentioning less-known works that are not on your list:
1. Glazunov #4, highly tuneful and memorable themes from 1st movement which you might like (as you like Chopin and Schubert)
2. Kalinnikov #1, same as Glazunov 
3. Schmidt #4, if you like Bruckner
4. Scriabin #3
5. Berwald #3
6. Bizet C major
7. Reinecke #2


----------



## Heck148

Merl said:


> .......It was brave to start with the 9th as it's Beethoven's most unorthodox symphony. Personally I'd have just stuck with all the LvB symphonies first and got to know them well before dipping my toe in elsewhere.


Agreed. #9 is the most complex, most challenging. I remember surveying most of the other LvB symphonies so long ago, before I really delved into #9.


----------



## Heck148

hawgdriver said:


> I'm giving this one two weeks.


Finale of LvB #9 may take longer than that.



> To be clear, I don't like it after the 3d movement.
> But I feel like if anyone can like something, I can find that same mind-state. But this may take a while. My intuition at this moment is that this composition is trying to do too much.


it might help to keep in mind the structure, the dramatic flow of the #9/IV - the entire introduction, up to the baritone solo, is the setup for the "Ode to Joy" theme and its development...the opening dissonant fanfare, the section string bass soli [sets up the baritone solo later on], the rejection of earlier ideas from prior movements, the introduction of the "ode to joy" theme. Beethoven's presentation of the drama is extremely effective, and the orchestration challenging and thrilling. the 2nd setting of the ode tune is esp lovely [if played well], with the bassoon countermelody against the main theme...for me, Reiner/Chicago really gets it right, the full orchestral tutti of the ode theme is indeed one of the most thrilling passages in music...this leads to the repeat of the opening fanfare and the introduction of the voices [baritone solo]...the solo 4tet, and the full chorus are added as Beethoven develops his ideas throughout the movement..
Perhaps keeping this dramatic flow in mind will help lessen the appearance of a massive disorganized jumble of music. Beethoven knew exactly what he was doing, where he was going...good luck with your listening.


----------



## Xisten267

Heck148 said:


> Finale of LvB #9 may take longer than that.


It took me almost two decades to "get" this finale. When I was a child I detested it and would always skip it when it appeared in a Beethoven highlights' CD that my mother had. Now it's by far my favorite movement in any symphony.

Beethoven doesn't work if not well played. Karajan is a nice way to start in all his symphonies, but I suggest the OP to also hear Toscanini, particularly in the Ninth. The sound is not great but the performance is superb IMHO.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Henze 2-5
Lutoslawski - 3&4
Dutilleaux - Metaboles
Ligeti - Lontano & Atmosheres
Messiaen - Turangalia & Des Canyons
Boulez - Pli Salon Pli
Carter - Concerto for Orchestra & Symphony of Three Orchestras


----------



## Heck148

Xisten267 said:


> It took me almost two decades to "get" this finale. When I was a child I detested it and would always skip it when it appeared in a Beethoven highlights' CD that my mother had. Now it's by far my favorite movement in any symphony.
> Beethoven doesn't work if not well played. Karajan is a nice way to start in all his symphonies, but I suggest you to also hear Toscanini, particularly in the Ninth. The sound is not great but the performance is superb IMHO.


Yes, Toscanini/NBC is a great recording...one of my very favorites...


----------



## Kreisler jr

Heck148 said:


> it might help to keep in mind the structure, the dramatic flow of the #9/IV - the entire introduction, up to the baritone solo, is the setup for the "Ode to Joy" theme and its development...the opening dissonant fanfare, the section string bass soli [sets up the baritone solo later on], the rejection of earlier ideas from prior movements, the introduction of the "ode to joy" theme. Beethoven's presentation of the drama is extremely effective, and the orchestration challenging and thrilling. the 2nd setting of the ode tune is esp lovely [if played well], with the bassoon countermelody against the main theme...for me, Reiner/Chicago really gets it right, the full orchestral tutti of the ode theme is indeed one of the most thrilling passages in music...this leads to the repeat of the opening fanfare and the introduction of the voices [baritone solo]...the solo 4tet, and the full chorus are added as Beethoven develops his ideas throughout the movement..
> Perhaps keeping this dramatic flow in mind will help lessen the appearance of a massive disorganized jumble of music.


I never had any problems with the piece (except a bit of patience as a teenager where I was stunned how much more there was than the "ode of joy" tune I had known before). The structure of which you sketch the beginning is actually fairly clear for the most part. The beginning of the vocal part is organized by the stanzas of the poem with the third leading to the culmination of "und der Cherub steht vor Gott". Then follows the next stanza with the "turkish march" in B flat and the tenor solo. 
After this comes an instrumental fugato as a kind of development but leading back to D and a "recap" of the first stanza with the choir. 
Then follow the first completely contrasting section with a slower tempo and the next stanza "Seid umschlungen"
then the double choral fugue about Freude.../Seid umschlungen which serves as a kind or recap as we are again in D major. 
After this coda with the strings playing a kind of diminuition of the ode to joy theme and the soloists starting with "Freude, Tochter aus Elysium".
There are probably more detailed structure sketches on the web, even with references to minutes:seconds of recordings for people not able to use a score.


----------



## Xisten267

Xisten267 said:


> Beethoven doesn't work if not well played. Karajan is a nice way to start in all his symphonies, but I suggest *you* to also hear Toscanini, particularly in the Ninth. The sound is not great but the performance is superb IMHO.





Heck148 said:


> Yes, Toscanini/NBC is a great recording...one of my very favorites...


Yes, yes, and I also enjoy Reiner/CSO, the _you_ in my answer was for the OP (that is looking for suggestions) but now looking back at it perhaps the way I wrote may have seemed not only mean but also an indirect attack on Reiner. But in fact it wasn't.


----------



## Heck148

Xisten267 said:


> Yes, yes, and I also enjoy Reiner/CSO, the _you_ in my answer was for the OP (that is looking for suggestions) but now looking back at it perhaps the way I wrote may have seemed not only mean but also an indirect attack on Reiner. But in fact it wasn't.


No problem, i didn't take that as your meaning at all...The Toscanini is a great performance, definitely worth hearing..


----------



## hawgdriver

I appreciate the guidance on Beethoven's 9th. I just returned from a weekend backpacking deep in the Rockies with my son. Hiking back down the mountain, I itched to listen again. I might indulge in some intellectual exposition on this one despite my desire to let the music, alone, be the entire universe of my exploration. I like Robert Greenberg's work, I wonder if he has a lecture.

It's heartening to know that others have needed more time to find a home in the symphony. I have listened to the Haydn 104 a few times after it was in the spotlight, and it felt much more familiar. Time can do the 'work' and I plan to let all of these simmer a bit over the course of the year.

I also greatly appreciate the new suggestions. Like backpacking in the wilderness, sometimes the best parts are the pockets of nature you didn't have on the itinerary.


----------



## hawgdriver

A focused listen this evening. Felt like the choral movement opened up a little bit. I was not waiting for it to end like before. 

Most important, beside a general confidence and faith in Beethoven's chops, has been the commentary from this forum.

But something this evening within myself made a big difference in my receptiveness to the final movement. I decided that the human singing wasn't people, but instruments. Maybe that sounds weird, but instead of being attuned to the human identities that are implied by human voices, I told myself to pretend it's just another instrument playing notes on the score.

It helped me from being distracted by people interfering with my music. 

I hope this makes sense.


----------



## Forster

I found that once I got over the expectation that the Ode climax should be the end, I found the continuation, musing on what there is in the Beyond more acceptable.


----------



## Kreisler jr

It is a rather wide gap from Haydn's #104 to Beethoven's 9th. I am not sure what else you listened to but it would have been easier to go to Beethoven's 2nd next (indebted to Haydn 104 and also late Mozart, #38), then the Eroica that has a finale that is a smaller version without choir but rather similar to the 9th's finale, namely extended and very diverse variations on a popular theme with a somewhat strange introduction. Then maybe even Beethoven's 5th and/or 6th before tackling the 9th.


----------



## hawgdriver

I've listened to about 8 different recordings at this point and wanted to share that I am super impressed by the 1988 Leinsdorf BSO performance.

I still need to listen to the Toscanini, but I've had a chance to listen to many of the other favorites among posters of this forum (Klemperer, Karajan, Rattle, Abbado, Harnoncourt, Masur, Fricsay, Szell, Bohm).


----------



## bharbeke

It took me some time to warm up to the final movement of Beethoven's 9th, too. Here are some of the conductors that have clicked for me: Vanska, Blomstedt, Barenboim, Gardiner, Skrowaczewski, Norrington, Tennstedt, Gielen, and Tilson Thomas. I made a specific note that the singers in the finale were great on the Abbado/Berlin performance.


----------



## hawgdriver

Kreisler jr said:


> It is a rather wide gap from Haydn's #104 to Beethoven's 9th.


Agreed!



> I am not sure what else you listened to


(Personal listening context)

I made an effort about 10-12 years ago to explore the symphonic genre using the TC top XXX list. I made a playlist that was about 5 days long or something like that. I didn't get as deep as I am getting now, but have an idea of the range of works included under the umbrella of 'symphony'.

I've spent a good bit of time listening to piano concertos, but most of my time listening to 'classical' is listening to solo piano. Not a huge fan of modernist/atonal, but every now and then I'll listen to Ligeti's etudes. I love Prokofiev's sonatas. I actually really enjoy listening to the scores of horror movies for some reason, too.

I generally split my listening these days between classical and everything else. As a kid growing up in the 80's, my early loves were the Beatles, Beastie Boys, Bauhaus, and Siouxsie and the Banshees. Punk, metal, rap, pop, etc. Some of my favorite bands were obscure bands like NoMeansNo, Dead Can Dance, and Skinny Puppy.

edit: I tried to wrap the above in spoiler tags, but was unsuccessful--any hints are welcome.



> but it would have been easier to go to Beethoven's 2nd next (indebted to Haydn 104 and also late Mozart, #38), then the Eroica that has a finale that is a smaller version without choir but rather similar to the 9th's finale, namely extended and very diverse variations on a popular theme with a somewhat strange introduction. Then maybe even Beethoven's 5th and/or 6th before tackling the 9th.


I would bet that you are right, but it's too late now!! 

Honestly, the only thing that is throwing me is the unexpected choral gimmick. Which I can appreciate without that certain feeling of adoration.

Even outside of that, though, there is a lot to parse in the 4th movement. One person said that it's a bit like the car on the highway that abruptly switches lanes over and over. There's something to that. On the other hand, if one approaches the work with the warning 'hold on to your hats', it can be a fun ride.

I'm going to see if I can find a quality lecture on the 9th, I feel some context for the 4th movement might help me parse what strikes me as an extremely...ambitious...undertaking.

Or maybe I just need some training wheels!!


----------



## hawgdriver

Ok, I should get a copy of Greenberg's DVD series on Beethoven's symphonies in a day or two. 

As I think about how this Greenberg lecture will go, how he will frame the 9th in context of Beethoven's other symphonic works, I guess I'm doing this ***-backwards by starting with the 9th. Hey, I never claimed to be smart!

At least this approach will offer some "reverse-context" for works prior to the 9th, and some context for those that came after. And of course it might be something of a yardstick.

I'm making it up as I go. It's kind of fun.


----------



## hawgdriver

Bruckner Anton said:


> Worth-mentioning less-known works that are not on your list:
> 1. Glazunov #4, highly tuneful and memorable themes from 1st movement which you might like (as you like Chopin and Schubert)


Absolutely. Thank you for this recommendation in particular. This was one that I had taken a liking too, I think, and I would love to spend more time with it during this walkabout.

Isn't there another Russian composer with a name that starts with T, like Tanzanev? I'll look it up. I think I loved one of his symphonies as well. There are really too many outstanding compositions to narrow it down to 50. But this discipline is a boon for such an endeavor, so it must be this way.

Taneyev!

I have a wildly disproportionate affection for Mussorgsky's Pictures, and that lead me to him.

I don't want to get too far afield, but I do like to listen to what I like.


----------



## Kreisler jr

That's why I mentioned the Eroica finale. It's quite similar in general but less than half the length and without the choir, of course. As you will have seen from all kinds of commentary, the choral gimmick is the main feature that makes the symphony notorious, legendary, controversial. Interpretations differ wildly from some people suggesting programs based on the text of Schiller's poem to others claiming that the text was amost completely irrelevant, the point mainly that human voices join the instruments.

There is of course also the choral fantasy op.80, a piece hailed by some as "study" for the 9th, ridiculed as ill-conceived curiosity by others. In any case it again shares the feature of variations on a popular theme that are eventually joined by a choir. If you listened to a lot of Beethoven's piano concertos you have probably heard this one as well.


----------



## hawgdriver

Greenberg's lectures are really dang good. I love that dude.


----------



## hawgdriver

Greenberg draws out the plain fact that the 2d movement is irresistibly dance-able. 

I have a theory that great music, no matter how slow or cerebral or depressive or whatever, touches upon the physically moving. I do believe music invites dance, as an axiom.

The 2d movement is a great musical gift from Beethoven.

I've been embarrassingly effusive with my exhortations to friends to delve into the 2d movement.

It is so metal. It's metal af. Especially the Leinsdorf. The timpani is a headbanger's timpani. As my friend said, Beethoven's instruction to the timpanist was "beat the **** out of that thing if it looks like the audience's attention is drifting."


----------



## Josquin13

In my opinion, it would be a mistake to remove the Sibelius 5th from your list, along with his 2nd & 7th They are major symphonic works.

--Sibelius 5, live from the Barbican, Paavo Berglund conducting the London Philharmonic:














By the way, the Sibelius 7 from Berglund's live Barbican series is one of the best recordings of a Sibelius symphony I've heard--Berglund's conducting blows me away each & every time I listen to this performance (although Segerstam is also great in his two studio recordings of the 7th, as well--see links below). Here's a link to Berglund's 4th movement: 



.

Sibelius 7, Leif Segerstam, Danish National S.O.: 



Sibelius 7, Leif Segerstam, Helsinki Philharmonic: 




While I'm at it, here are some recommendable performances of the Sibelius 2:

--Sibelius 2nd, Berglund, Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra: 



--Sibelius 2nd, Barbirolli, Royal Philharmonic Orchestra:



--Sibelius 2nd, Kamu, Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra: 




Sibelius 1-7: 









You've put together an impressive and well thought out list. But I'd suggest that you consider adding some of the following symphonies,

--Definitely add some of Haydn's London Symphonies 93-104, especially among Nos. 100-104, & possibly subtract #39. If you want to have one of Haydn's earlier symphonies on your list from his "Sturm und Drang" period, a better choice might be his No. 44 "Mourning" or No. 49 "La Passione". (Haydn's 6 "Paris" Symphonies are also essential listening, at some point, as are 6, 7, & 8, etc., etc.)

--Sir Colin Davis, Concertgebouw Orchestra: 



--Frans Bruggen, Orchestra of the 18th Century, period instruments: 



--Sigiswald Kuijken, La Petite Band, period instruments: 



--Christopher Hogwood, Academy of Ancient Music, no. 104 (& 100), period instruments: 



--Hogwood, AAM, this disc won a Rosette from the old Penquin Guide & deserved it: 



--Leonard Bernstein, NYP, Symphony No. 104 (Bernstein made superb recordings of these symphonies in New York, for Columbia): 



--Adam Fischer, Austro-Hungarian Haydn Orchestra (from Fischer's complete Haydn cycle): 



--Gunther Herbig, Dresdner Philharmonia: 




#49: 
--Sir Neville Marriner, Academy of St. Martin in the Fields: 



--John Lubbock, Orchestra of St. John's, Smith Square, London: 



--Christopher Hogwood, AAM, period instruments (Trevor Pinnock's recording is good, too): 




#44: 
--Sir Neville Marriner, ASMF: 



--Ton Koopman, Amsterdam Baroque Soloists, period instruments: 



--Bruno Weil, Tafelmusik, period instruments: 



--Gary Cooper, Arion Orchestre Baroque, period instruments, 1st movement: 



--Trevor Pinnock, The English Concert, period instruments, 1st movement: 




(Btw, Pinnock has recorded all of the "Sturm und Drang" Symphonies in a box set. Here's another good collection of Haydn's "Sturm und Drang" symphonies, played on modern instruments: 



)

--Definitely add Mozart's Symphonies 31 "Paris" and 38 "Prague"; as well as possibly his Nos. 35 "Haffner", & 39:

--Hogwood, Academy of Ancient Music, period instruments, No. 31 "Paris": 



--Hogwood, AAM, period instruments, No. 38 "Prague": 



--Bruggen, Orchestra of the 18th Century, period instruments, No. 31 "Paris", first movement: 



--Bruggen, Orchestra of the 18th Century, period instruments, No. 35 "Haffner": 



--Pinnock, The English Concert, period instruments, No. 38 "Prague": 



ETC.
--Otmar Suitner, Staatskapelle Dresden, No. 39 (although Sir Colin Davis & Herbert Blomstedt are also excellent in their recordings with the Staatskapelle Dresdem, and they're digitally recorded, unlike Suitner): 




Btw, here are two great Mozart orchestras, who play on modern instruments:

--Camerata Academica des Mozarteums Salzburg, Sandor Vegh (or under Hans Graf): 



--Staatskapelle Dresden, Herbert Blomstedt (or under Sir Colin Davis, or Otmar Suitner): 



https://www.amazon.com/Symphonies-3...omstedt+dresden&qid=1631216702&s=music&sr=1-1

--Consider adding Beethoven's 1st, 2nd, & 4th. By the way, Beethoven considered his more classical 8th to be a better symphony than his 7th. I don't agree, but the 8th is well worth considering. Yet, IMO, it's best to (at some point) listen to Beethoven's 9 Symphonies in the order in which they were composed, since they map out an autobiographical & spiritual journey on the composer's part (much like his Early, Middle, & Late String Quartets). Therefore, it may be best to listen to Beethoven's symphonies as a separate project.

#1: Kurt Masur, Leipzig Gewanhaus Orchestra (& on period instruments, Hogwood is excellent): 



#2 (composed during the time of the Heiligenstadt testament, when Beethoven first learned that he was going deaf & would lose his hearing eventually: which caused him to contemplate suicide, yet he changed his mind, & all that is in this dark/light symphony, IMO): 
--Nikolaus Harnoncourt, Chamber Orchestra of Europe:



--Rafael Kubelik, Concertgebouw Orchestra: 



#4:
--Paul Kletzki, Czech Philharmonic: 



--Masur, Leipzig: 




By the way, for Beethoven's very difficult to conduct (well) "Eroica", with its massive 1st movement (where conductors have been known to lose their way in concert), I'd strongly recommend that you try to hear the Hermann Scherchen, Leonard Bernstein (on Columbia/Sony), and Paul van Kempen recordings, because they're simply better than most others, IMO:

Scherchen: 



Bernstein: 



Kempen: 




--Consider adding Mahler 1st, 4th, 5th, & 7th "Song of the Night" & unfinished 10th. Mahler's Das Lied von der Erde, or The Song of the Earth, is also essentially a symphony.














--Consider adding Schumann's 1st, 3rd "Rhenish", & 4th:














--Consider adding Bruckner's 5th & 6th, though you are right to begin with his 4, 7, 8 & 9.














--If you're going to include Strauss' tone poem, "Also Sprach Zarathustra", you might also consider Debussy's "La Mer" & perhaps "Trois Nocturnes", Ravel's "Daphnis et Chloe", Rimsky-Korsakov's "Schererazade", Stravinsky's "The Firebird" and "The Rite of Spring", & Sibelius' tone poem, "Tapiola"--which are all very important & rewarding orchestral works.

Debussy:

















Ravel:





Rimsky-Korsakov: 




Stravinsky:

















Sibelius:









Your following choices are good picks, but I'm not as keen on them as any of the above suggestions,

Gorecki #3
Copland #3
Franck Symphony
Gliere #3
Borodin #2
Rachmaninov #2
Tchaikovsky #4

Though I admit they do give your list more variety.

Here are some other picks to consider among the standard symphonic repertoire (at some point, if not presently):

--Prokofiev 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th:

























--Saint-Saëns, Symphony No. 3 "Organ Symphony": 









--Brahms 3rd: 



--Mendelssohn 3rd, 5th: 



--Martinu 5th, 6th "Fantaisies Symphoniques": 




More off the beaten path, & not suggested for your top 50, but well worth hearing at a later time, perhaps:

Important French (& Swiss) symphonists:

--Koechlin "The Seven Stars' Symphony": 



--Saint-Saens 1-5: 




--Magnard 1-4:




--Roussel 1-4: 








--Honegger 1-5: 



--Ropartz 1-5: 



--Messiaen:
Turangalila Symphonie: 



Des canyons aux etoiles: 



--Dutilleux, Symphonies 1 & 2: 




Important Scandinavian Symphonic composers:

--Holmboe 8th "Sinfonia borealis": 



--Kokkonen 1-4:








--Kaipainen #2: 



--Merikanto 1-3:




--Pettersson: 
Symphony No. 7: 



Symphony No. 4: 



--Valen 1-4:
















--Rautavaara 7 "Angel of Light", 8 "The Journey":








--Nørgård 1-6 (in progress cycle): 
Symphony No. 6 "At the End of the Day": 



Symphony No. 3: 



--Vuori 1, 2 (in progress cycle):









Other Scandinavian & Baltic region symphonists of note: Paavo Heininen, Einar Englund, Kurt Atterburg, Eduard Tubin, Erkki Melartin, Ib Nørholm, Leif Segerstam, Erkki-Sven Tüür, and Arvo Pärt. Magnus Lindberg should be on this list, but I don't think he's written a symphony to date. Neither has Anders Hillborg, or Esa-Pekka Salonen. There's also the symphonies of Rued Langgaard to consider; however, personally, I've not liked any of Langgaard's symphonies as much as his brilliant "Music of the Spheres": 



.

Some other important symphonic composers:

--Persichetti 9th "Janiculum": 



--Lutoslawski 1-4:




--Knussen 2nd, 3rd:









Lastly, at some point in the distant future, you also might consider exploring the symphonies by American composers, such as Walter Piston, William Schumann, George Rochberg, Roger Sessions, John Harbison, Charles Ives, Roy Harris, Howard Hanson, Samuel Barber, Christopher Rouse, Peter Mennin, Paul Creston, Aaron Copland, Ned Rorem, Vincent Persichetti (in addition to his 9th mentioned above), Tobias Picker, & Alan Hovhaness, etc.

Hope all that helps.

P.S. If you want any more recommendations for recordings of a specific symphony, just ask, & I'd be happy to make some further suggestions. Of course, my above post isn't meant to be explored all at once, but over time, at your leisure.


----------



## Merl

^ what Jos said. :lol:


----------



## hawgdriver

Josquin13 said:


> Hope all that helps.


Wow! Thank you! 










I have put a lot of thought into it, even if it looks arbitrary or devoid of pattern from the outside.

My current list has some changes that conform, on the whole, with your suggestions.

It is challenging to keep it to 50, but I want to take a deep, deep dive with each of these. In the past I've listened only a few times, but this time I want to listen (and relisten) to each one with deliberation until it fully reveals itself.

I think I have a really good metaphor for what I'm trying to accomplish here. But I'm going to need a whiteboard.









Imagine all the symphonies that exist--that's the universe that I want to explore. On the boundary of this set of compositions are those works that straddle the definition of 'symphony'.

Within this universe of the set of all symphonic compositions, let's partition each member of that set--each symphony--so that it belongs to one of three groups: 1) what I love (red); 2) stuff most people tend to like but I don't (green); 3) other symphonies.

It's an over-simplification.

My goal is to find all the red, especially the reddest red.

Each symphony I choose on this list of 50 has traits and attributes that are archetypal to the entire universe. So it's not just that I'm listening to one of approximately a million symphonies, but rather that I'm exploring all similar symphonies--all symphonies with comparable traits.

I'm not sure what those traits are, I know I'm getting awfully abstract, but I hope this helps. Some examples of traits might be composer, era, instruments used, thematic rigidity, nationality, popularity...

So the goal is truly exploration with these 50. It's like one of those video games with an unrevealed map (Civ, anyone?) that you need to scout.

I think I made a big mess of that metaphor.

To say it differently: I will always have time to go back and listen to Beethoven's 8th, but for now I want to discover the types of symphonic composition that are especially personally rewarding.


----------



## hawgdriver

Btw, based on my love of Beethoven's Op. 109 and even this conflicted two-week fling with his 9th Symphony, I feel almost certain that I will, in the long run, God willing, end up taking a deep dive into all 9 of his symphonies. Then again, I also need to full explore the quartets. And I am only 30% through his piano sonatas, which are probably my favorite of his compositional types.


----------



## hawgdriver

It has been two weeks with Beethoven's 9th, and I could easily spend another week or more with it. I still have a long ways to go with unpacking the 4th movement.

I considered taking another week with this one. But I'm going to rotate into the percolator. I am addicted to the 2d movement, but that's not saying much. It's easy to love.

I really enjoy the first and third movements. I am beginning to like the 4th movement on one level, but that level isn't altogether the same as liking to listen to it. There are parts of the 4th that I love: the dissonant arrival of a dominant subject and rejection of prior thematic 'answers', the instrumental development prior to the choral section, and the mass-like section (oratorio?). Other parts are also becoming more pleasing.

But it is time for Suk's Asrael.

I would expect that Beethoven's 9th will be one of the good/great symphonies from 10-40. I understand why some believe it to be the greatest or one of the greatest, I'm just not there yet. Maybe never, but for now I cannot say.


----------



## Merl

hawgdriver said:


> *But it is time for Suk's Asrael*.
> 
> I would expect that Beethoven's 9th will be one of the good/great symphonies from 10-40. I understand why some believe it to be the greatest or one of the greatest, I'm just not there yet. Maybe never, but for now I cannot say.


If you found Beethoven's 9th difficult I'm looking forward to your opinion of Asrael. :lol:


----------



## Xisten267

hawgdriver said:


> I would expect that Beethoven's 9th will be one of the good/great symphonies from 10-40. I understand why some believe it to be the greatest or one of the greatest, I'm just not there yet. Maybe never, but for now I cannot say.


In my opinion Beethoven's Ninth is the least accessible, although arguably the greatest, of his symphonies, particulary in it's _sui generis_ fourth movement. It's his last and most complex work in the genre, but I think that to begin in Beethoven it's better to hear first his third, fifth, sixth and seventh symphonies, that are much more approachable works that can be assimilated in much less time, and are all very rewarding to the listener nonetheless.

If you decide to move on with your project of listening to all Beethoven symphonies, I suggest you to hear the first eight before tackling the Choral again.


----------



## Kreisler jr

While I also recommended above to listen to a selection of earlier Beethoven symphonies first, I don't think the 9th is hard to approach. The first 3 symphonies I got to know were the 3rd, 6th and 9th. Obviously, the Pastoral was the easiest to get but I never had a problem with the 9th or the finale, except sheer length. Back then as a teenager I dubbed the LP on cassette tape and would sometimes listen only to one half of a symphony, no easy skipping like on digital media but one side only was easy. I still think that the Eroica first and slow movements can be a bit harder than the ones from the 9th. 
And the finale is long but I found it far easier to follow because of the famous melody and the choir than a 20+ min. finale by Bruckner or Mahler or Siegfried Idyll or longish Liszt or Strauss tone poem or whatever. (And all these other pieces also seem to work very well for many people on an "emotional", certainly not analytical approach.)

I even found most Beethoven's late string quartets easier than his early and middle quartets, with only a few movements (like op.133) being exceptions.


----------



## hawgdriver

It's hard to assimilate an entire 70 minute work of such creative density, period! For me anyways. I wanted to spend another week because the 4th movement was starting to grow on me--not that I thought I would necessarily fall in love with it--but it had a certain narrative flow that was beginning to seem rational.

Was it a mistake to place it so early instead of later? It's clearly a difficult work to parse for someone like me in such a short time. But I actually don't feel it was time misspent, because as I go back and relisten, I think it will have sunk in a bit more, and it will offer some benchmark qualities. What Beethoven did was complex and ambitious...a bit cerebral, but in an everyman sort of way. And the instrumental 75+% is simply gorgeous.

It gives me more time to 'get it'.

For now, I've been through Suk's Asrael three times and I am very glad it's on the list. It really works for me. 'Addiction', as it were, I'm not sure when and if that will happen, because there is a certain angularity that is slightly difficult. But it's not an obnoxious kind of angularity, it's quite seemly. It also has a kind of grand feel to it that appeals.

I want more hours in the day.


----------



## CnC Bartok

^^^ Asrael is one of my favourite pieces of all. Whose recording are you listening to?


----------



## hammeredklavier

-----------------------------------------------


----------



## hawgdriver

CnC Bartok said:


> ^^^ Asrael is one of my favourite pieces of all. Whose recording are you listening to?


Mackerras and Ashkenazy. Do you have some favorites? I need a few more.


----------



## Art Rock

hawgdriver said:


> Mackerras and Ashkenazy. Do you have some favorites? I need a few more.


Czech Philharmonic Orchestra under Vaclav Neumann on a Supraphon CD.


----------



## CnC Bartok

hawgdriver said:


> Mackerras and Ashkenazy. Do you have some favorites? I need a few more.


Mackerras is one of the very very best. If you can find them, Ancerl is wonderful, Talich is draining (in a good way! It's heart-wrenching!) But for me the best is probably Rafael Kubelik with the Bavarian Radio.

The latter is very hard to find these days, which is a real shame.

You could also try any one of the three recordings made by Jiří Bělohlávek, on Chandos, Supraphon and Decca, in that order. Swings and roundabouts as to the best one, but I have a slight preference for the middle one, coupled with Britten's Sinfonia da Requiem. Art Rock's Neumann recommendation is an excellent one as well. I haven't properly absorbed the two Czech newbies' recordings, Jakub Hrůša, and Tomáš Netopil, yet.

I'll be frank, and say I don't actually have a poor Asrael........even the least obvious candidates - Weller, Ashkenazy, Petrenko - are each recommendable in their own way. My least favourite is Libor Pešek, who tends to over-dramatise certain aspects....


----------



## hawgdriver

Feels like I should give an update.

I am trying really hard to fully appreciate Suk's Asrael. I've listened to it probably close to 20 times. Sometimes I can't focus on every movement in the way I know that I need to. I feel like I would really like all the moments that pass me by. There is so much about it I like. The violin and harp parts are exquisite. The grandeur. At times it feels like John Williams stole from it, it has the epic feel of intergalactic struggle.

But time marches on. Yet I am dedicated to this. So I go back and listen to Beethoven's 9th, and I also listen to Brahms 1st. And even Mozart's 25th to prep for next week.

This is difficult, but still extremely pleasant. It's a matter of making the listening to a symphonic work a singular priority. That is not always easy, even when it could be played to accompany normal tasks.

At this moment, if I had to rank them in terms of instant dopamine reward, I'd rank as so:

Haydn's 104th
Beethoven's 9th
Suk Asrael
Mozart's 25th
Brahms' 1st

If I had to rank in terms of food for a desert island, I'd rank:

Beethoven's 9th
Suk's Asrael
Brahms 1st
Mozart's 25th
Haydn 104th

What is odd is that I expect to find a certain addictive quality in music that I haven't found as I had hoped to this point. Only the Haydn and the 2d movement of the 9th have that earworm quality to it. Yes, I want to feel like I need to nod my head or dance a jig! I want rapture!

I also know that this feeling I describe, of finding obsession and rapture, can take effort on my part. I've done this, I understand that it can be unpacked from within complexity.

But that comes down to the concentration and priority and time.

I should also be working on my piano repertoire, I haven't yet mastered the Bach fugue I'm working on, even if I have the notes memorized.

So if I have a point, and I doubt that, it would be that I am taking this quite seriously but perhaps I need to take it more seriously. And this demands sacrifice that I thought would be easier.


----------



## AndorFoldes

So you listened to the Asrael symphony 20 times and still don't think you're taking it seriously? To me it sounds like you should move around more until you find the pieces you like. Classical music isn't supposed to be punishment, and you can always return to something later.


----------



## Xisten267

AndorFoldes said:


> So you listened to the Asrael symphony 20 times and still don't think you're taking it seriously? To me it sounds like you should move around more until you find the pieces you like. Classical music isn't supposed to be punishment, and you can always return to something later.


I agree.



hawgdriver said:


> What is odd is that I expect to find a certain addictive quality in music that I haven't found as I had hoped to this point. Only the Haydn and the 2d movement of the 9th have that earworm quality to it. Yes, I want to feel like I need to nod my head or dance a jig! I want rapture!


Listen to *this* and *this*. Thank me later.


----------



## AndorFoldes

Xisten267 said:


> Listen to *this* and *this*. Thank me later.


Great suggestions. I'm going to make some too. The links are to movements, but you can always explore the rest of each work. Something similar to Haydn's Symphony No. 104, which you liked:

Karajan - Haydn - First movement from Symphony No. 82

You mentioned intergalactic struggle, and while this is not a symphony, I can't think of anything that would be more appropriate:

Dutoit - Holst - Mars from The Planets

As for that intoxicating feeling you're looking for, this is something to consider. First one is a Scherzo like the Beethoven:

Previn - Walton - Second movement from Symphony No. 1
Previn - Walton - First movement from Symphony No. 1

And here is another one:

Levine - Schumann - Third movement from Symphony No. 4


----------



## Kreisler jr

While it is admirable to spend so much time with a comparably tough work (that most people would put in tier 2-3), in 20 hours you could have listened to all of the other Beethoven (1-8) and a dozen of Haydn symphonies twice over.


----------



## hawgdriver

Kreisler jr said:


> While it is admirable to spend so much time with a comparably tough work (that most people would put in tier 2-3), in 20 hours you could have listened to all of the other Beethoven (1-8) and a dozen of Haydn symphonies twice over.


I regret nothing!


----------



## hawgdriver

AndorFoldes said:


> So you listened to the Asrael symphony 20 times and still don't think you're taking it seriously? To me it sounds like you should move around more until you find the pieces you like. Classical music isn't supposed to be punishment, and you can always return to something later.


I just feel like I'm about to really gel with Asrael, more and more of it opens up each time.

I am engaged in a bit of self-flagellation, there's no way around it. I feel like with a lot of music, even outside of classical, you have to sort of pay your dues before you find the treasure within.

But it's a healthy suggesting you offer. The more fun it is, the more it is self-sustaining. The less I have to 'apply discipline' as it were.



AndorFoldes said:


> Great suggestions. I'm going to make some too. The links are to movements, but you can always explore the rest of each work. Something similar to Haydn's Symphony No. 104, which you liked:
> 
> Karajan - Haydn - First movement from Symphony No. 82
> 
> You mentioned intergalactic struggle, and while this is not a symphony, I can't think of anything that would be more appropriate:
> 
> Dutoit - Holst - Mars from The Planets
> 
> As for that intoxicating feeling you're looking for, this is something to consider. First one is a Scherzo like the Beethoven:
> 
> Previn - Walton - Second movement from Symphony No. 1
> Previn - Walton - First movement from Symphony No. 1
> 
> And here is another one:
> 
> Levine - Schumann - Third movement from Symphony No. 4


Thanks for the suggestions! I am very curious about the Walton, it's been borderline on the list. And the Haydn...well, I wasn't expecting to love his stuff as much as I did, so I expect to dive deeply into his oeuvre in the coming years.


----------



## hawgdriver

^

Just realized I had included the Walton No. 1 at the 11th hour. The list is still wet concrete, btw. Oh wait, no, at 11:01 it appears I replaced it with Brahms #2. Hm. I might reverse that.

I've thought about expanding this journey into two-week marinations, it really takes me quite a bit longer than I expected to be able to 'come home' so to speak, with some of these works. The Mozart and Haydn can be digested more quickly, but the other three require more time.

I thought about expanding it to two weeks each, but I think I'd rather just keep it as is and hope that I'll have enough time over the year to revisit and form a more complete evaluation of each.

For convenience, this is the slate (the numbers are a guess/feeling about 'ranking')

50 - Haydn #104
2 - Beethoven #9
44 - Suk Azrael
9 - Brahms #1
45 - Mozart #25
5 - Mahler #2
49 - Dvorak #7
13 - Mozart #40
30 - Messaien Turanglila
24 - Sibelius #2
28 - Gorecki #3
14 - Dvorak #9
21 - Schumann #3
18 - Beethoven #5
40 - Hindemith Mathis der Maler
17 - Beethoven #7
38 - Nielsen #4
12 - Shostakovich #5
31 - Vaughan Williams #2
19 - Schubert #8
25 - Rachmaninoff #2
33 - Mahler #6
22 - Brahms #2 or Walton #1
43 - Saint-Saen #3
35 - Copland #3
11 - Mahler #3
46 - Prokofiev #5
23 - Bruckner #7
39 - Gliere #3
20 - Beethoven #6
41 - Brahms #3
27 - Shostakovich #10
34 - Mendelssohn #4
32 - Haydn #39
36 - Borodin #2
XX - Chausson
26 - Bruckner #9
16 - Sibelius #7
8 - Schubert #9
47 - Tchaikovsky #5
42 - Franck Symphony in Dm
37 - Martinu #6
3 - Mozart #41
29 - Nielsen #5
15 - Bruckner #8
10 - Tchaikovsky #6
6 - Brahms #4
4 - Mahler #9
7 - Berlioz SF
1 - Beethoven #3

Next up is Mahler #2, which I have heard several times when I was on a Mahler kick. That will help me a bit in terms of the time constraint. I'm looking forward to it.

The Mozart #25 is a terrific symphony, but I find myself spending more time with the Brahms #1. I am so curious about why he spent so long on it, why it was too much like Beethoven, and because it was from around the same time he composed his 2d piano concerto (iirc). Brahms, well, I'd just like to understand him better.

Here's a list of the works that might replace a given symphony depending on how it goes:

An additional work by any of the following composers:

Beethoven
Haydn (maybe sub in something instead of my odd choice of 39)
Mozart
Brahms 2 (if I go with the Walton)
Schumann
Sibelius
Shosty
Tchaikovsky
Bruckner
Elgar
Ives

Also these specific works:

Dvorak 8
Mendelssohn 3
Glazunov 4
Scriabin 3
Berwald 3
Bizet C maj
Reinecke 2

Thanks for all the help!


----------



## Forster

Just thought - can't remember if you've consulted this, to help with your ranking:

The 20 Greatest Symphonies of all time

https://www.classical-music.com/features/works/20-greatest-symphonies-all-time/


----------



## Kreisler jr

I though Haydn's 104 was a personal favorite of yours, what does #50 mean then?

From your list, I'd consider Gorecki, Gliere, Copland, Chausson, Walton, Martinu, Suk as comparably "exotic" but I'd stick with it because most replacements would not be obvious "improvements" although I'd personally include e.g. Bizet before any of these. But I don't think it is worth spending now any more effort on editing the list instead of just listening


----------



## Xisten267

There's always the TC 150 Most Recommended Symphonies list as a reference as well. Looking at it you'll notice that Mahler's #2, the next symphony in your project, is one of the best loved and more admired works in the genre around here.


----------



## hawgdriver

Forster said:


> Just thought - can't remember if you've consulted this, to help with your ranking:
> 
> The 20 Greatest Symphonies of all time
> 
> https://www.classical-music.com/features/works/20-greatest-symphonies-all-time/


It looks familiar, but I can't be sure... I looked at about 10 or so sources similar to this, but weighted the TC list highest. I am happy to see that all or nearly all of those 20 are on my list.


----------



## hawgdriver

Kreisler jr said:


> I though Haydn's 104 was a personal favorite of yours, what does #50 mean then?
> 
> From your list, I'd consider Gorecki, Gliere, Copland, Chausson, Walton, Martinu, Suk as comparably "exotic" but I'd stick with it because most replacements would not be obvious "improvements" although I'd personally include e.g. Bizet before any of these. But I don't think it is worth spending now any more effort on editing the list instead of just listening


The #50 was the internal 'objective' ranking based on several sources and my own expectation of what would rise to the top. It was a pleasant surprise to find I liked it as much as I did.


----------



## hawgdriver

Kreisler jr said:


> From your list, I'd consider Gorecki, Gliere, Copland, Chausson, Walton, Martinu, Suk as comparably "exotic" but I'd stick with it because most replacements would not be obvious "improvements" although I'd personally include e.g. Bizet before any of these. But I don't think it is worth spending now any more effort on editing the list instead of just listening


Yeah, it probably tilts too exotic, but I'm on a quest for pleasant surprises.

The Chausson in particular, and you could extend that to the rest just as well. But then, things speak for themselves, and ideas like a ranking are pretty silly in the end.

I'm very curious about the Bizet. I think my (highly unenlightened and superficial) reluctance towards the Bizet is because I don't like what Rimsky-Korsikov did with Mussorgsky's Pictures. Also not a fan of Ravel's piano concerto. I think Bizet was of that era.


----------



## hawgdriver

So I really like Mahler's #2. It goes on a bit, sometimes it's a scheduling issue, like I need to arrange my day around it, but it might be my favorite so far. I don't know that the final movement lives up to the promise of the first movement, but it's satisfying all the same. I'll be curious how it shakes out in the end, but I might end up feeling that Mahler>Beethoven in this medium.


----------



## hawgdriver

What are your favorite interpretations of the Mahler 2? I'm impressed with the '98 MTT and the '03 Kaplan.


----------



## CnC Bartok

hawgdriver said:


> What are your favorite interpretations of the Mahler 2? I'm impressed with the '98 MTT and the '03 Kaplan.


You might find this relatively recent thread makes an interesting read:

Mahler Symphony 2

Personally, I think the best ones out there are Klemperer on EMI, Solti in London, and Rattle's Birmingham recording. But I have to add Ivan Fischer to the mix, and also the Jurowski one that gets a lot of discussion on that thread. Zubin Mehta recorded a stunner too. As to Kaplan, I do like his first recording, but I reckon his second is not really worth it.


----------



## Heck148

hawgdriver said:


> What are your favorite interpretations of the Mahler 2?..


Solti/CSO
Walter/NYPO


----------



## hawgdriver

Heck148 said:


> Solti/CSO
> Walter/NYPO


I am still on this journey and I will share what I think might fascinate those who are considering such a journey, and those who look down on me with understanding.

It has taken longer because it seems that I only make the time to listen with focus, uninterrupted, when I'm swimming laps in the summertime. There is no good reason for me not to carve time out of my weekly calendar (e.g., "Saturday Symphony") for dedicated, intent listening...but the rhythm of my life militates otherwise. For now.

Summer has returned and for the last month or more I returned to this journey in earnest. This is where I am:

50 - Haydn #104
2 - Beethoven #9
44 - Suk Azrael
9 - Brahms #1
45 - Mozart #25
5 - Mahler #2
49 - Dvorak #7
13 - Mozart #40
30 - Messaien Turanglila
24 - Sibelius #2
28 - Gorecki #3
14 - Dvorak #9
21 - Schumann #3
18 - Beethoven #5

This is what remains:

40 - Hindemith Mathis der Maler
17 - Beethoven #7
38 - Nielsen #4
12 - Shostakovich #5
31 - Vaughan Williams #2
19 - Schubert #8
25 - Rachmaninoff #2
33 - Mahler #6
22 - Brahms #2 or Walton #1
43 - Saint-Saen #3
35 - Copland #3
11 - Mahler #3
46 - Prokofiev #5
23 - Bruckner #7
39 - Gliere #3
20 - Beethoven #6
41 - Brahms #3
27 - Shostakovich #10
34 - Mendelssohn #4
32 - Haydn #39
36 - Borodin #2
XX - Chausson
26 - Bruckner #9
16 - Sibelius #7
8 - Schubert #9
47 - Tchaikovsky #5
42 - Franck Symphony in Dm
37 - Martinu #6
3 - Mozart #41
29 - Nielsen #5
15 - Bruckner #8
10 - Tchaikovsky #6
6 - Brahms #4
4 - Mahler #9
7 - Berlioz SF
1 - Beethoven #3

I have become more liberal in my approach, that is, rather than listening to one work exclusively during a week, I have moved towards "focusing" on one work, but keeping nearby works in heavy rotation. For example, I'm on Beethoven's 5th right now, but I still have the Mahler 2 on heavy rotation, and I'm dipping my toes into the futuristic waters of Beethoven's 7th and Nielsen's 4th.

Discoveries!

I love Beethoven's symphonies. Hehe. I'm going to still need to revisit his 9th, figure out where I land on the final movement. I love the 9th, overall, but in the context of "best ever!" I don't know that I'm there. I have also listened to 5th and 7th enough to know that he will finish this journey as one of my absolute favorites. (For context, I've listened to many/most of his piano sonatas and concertos, have tried to digest some string quartets, and already had a very favorable opinion of the composer).

I think (the Solti/CSO recording of) Mahler's 2nd might be the most... *____* ... musical performance I've ever heard. {amazing? profound? moving? incredible?}. Sometimes I feel like I need a cigarette after it's over, and it has moved me to tears more than once.

These discoveries give me so much trust in the TC "rankings" that place Mahler and Beethoven towards the top, especially in terms of density. I've given Mahler's 3d a few 'advance' listens and love it as well.

I am very happy to have included works such as Suk's and Messiaen's. Fascinating mind candy. And they need, for me anyways, this kind of deliberate approach to consuming them. Way more engaging when one makes effort to remain rapt.

If I was to sort the ones I've thoroughly digested by now:

5 - Mahler #2


49 - Dvorak #7
14 - Dvorak #9
2 - Beethoven #9
18 - Beethoven #5
24 - Sibelius #2
9 - Brahms #1
50 - Haydn #104
44 - Suk Azrael
13 - Mozart #40
28 - Gorecki #3
30 - Messaien Turanglila
21 - Schumann #3
45 - Mozart #25

The number that precedes the work indicates a sort of arbitrary initial ranking based on consensus/expected preference (loosely).

In time, I could imagine the Gorecki climbing. I'm not sure if the Schumann will, but I need to give it more airplay. The Mozart is great, it's Mozart...but I find myself wishing he was a bit more brooding and a little less 'poppy'. Kind of. For example, the 2nd mvt of his #40 really connects with me. But I find the final two movements of the 40th to be almost a let down from the emotional promise of the 2nd movement. Still amazing, incredible, fantastic...I hope this makes sense.

I'd say at this point I'm definitely #TeamMahler. 

The only problem with that is that it forces me to do a lot of 2-3 miles swims!


----------



## pianozach

Well, this inspired me to take a look at the Symphonies on my *Beginner's Guide To Classical Music*, just for curiosity's sake. I'm almost up to 200 entries, and I think that a great many of them are Symphonies. Of course, there are a lot of symphonic _works_, but if I go strictly with pieces that are "_Symphonies_" . . . Let's see . . .

*The Top 100*

2. Dvorak - Symphony No.9 in E minor “From the New World”, Op 95 [1893]
3. Beethoven - Symphony No. 3 in Eb Major, Op. 55 "Eroica" [1804]
8. WA Mozart – Symphony 41 in C “Jupiter”, K. 551. [1788]

16. Beethoven – Symphony No.5 in C minor, Op. 67. [1808]

32. Mozart – Symphony No.40 in G minor [1788]
34. Beethoven’s "Pastoral" Symphony No. 6 in F major, Op. 68 [1808]
39. Beethoven - "Choral" Symphony No. 9 in D minor, Op. 125 [1824]

42. Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 in A major, Op. 92 [1812]

54. Tchaikovsky – Sixth Symphony in B minor, Op. 74 “Pathetique” [1893]

63. Schubert - Symphony No. 8 “Unfinished” [1822]
68. Mozart - Symphony 35 [1782]

82. Mahler – Symphony No 2 “Resurrection” [1894]
83. Mozart – Symphony 36 in C major, K425 “Linz” [1783]

93. Haydn - Symphony No. 104 “London” [1795]
97. Berlioz - Symphonie Fantastique, Op. 14 [1830]

*101-200*

101. Brahms - Symphony No. 4 in E minor, Op. 98 (1885)
102. Mendelssohn - Symphony No. 3 in A minor, Op. 56 “Scottish” (1842)

106. Michael Haydn - Symphony 37 in G Major, Perger 16, Sherman 25, MH 334 (1783)
107. Schubert - Symphony No. 5 in Bb major (1816)

114. Britten - Cello Symphony (Symphony for Cello and Orchestra), Op. 68 (1963 /1964)
119. Mendelssohn - Symphony No 4 in A major, Op. 90 “Italian” (1833/1834)

124. Tchaikovsky - Symphony No. 4 in F minor, Op. 36 (1878)
127. Bruckner - Symphony No.4 in E-flat major (1874 / 1880 / 1881 / 1888)
129. Mozart - Symphony 38 in D Major (1787)

131. Brahms - Symphony No. 3 in F major, Op. 90 (1883)
138. Rachmaninoff - Symphony No. 2, Op. 27 (1907)
139. Mahler - Symphony No. 1 in D (1888)

141. Sibelius - Symphony No. 2 in D major, Op. 43 (1902/1903)
143. Mahler - Symphony No 4 in G Major (1900)
146. Sibelius - Symphony No. 5 in E-flat Major, Op. 82 (1915 / 1916 / 1919)

153. Shostakovich - Symphony No.5 (1937)
155. Mozart - Symphony No. 39 (1788)
158. Schumann - Symphony No. 4 (1841/ 1851)
160. Prokofiev - Symphony No. 1 "Classical" (1917)

189. Sibelius – Symphony No. 1 in E minor, Op. 39 (1899)


----------



## hammeredklavier

pianozach said:


> 106. Michael Haydn - Symphony 37 in G Major, Perger 16, Sherman 25, MH 334 (1783)


That isn't Haydn's 37th, but his 25th. It was once attributed to Mozart as his 37th cause he had written a slow intro for it. I consider it one of Haydn's less significant symphonies, compared to, for example, MH284, which has fluidity and spontaneity like the Figaro overture-


----------



## pianozach

hammeredklavier said:


> That isn't Haydn's 37th, but his 25th. It was once attributed to Mozart as his 37th cause he had written a slow intro for it. I consider it one of Haydn's less significant symphonies, compared to, for example, MH284, which has fluidity and spontaneity like the Figaro overture-


Than you for the correction. 

*M. Haydn* is sort of a blind spot for me, and I 'spect it is for a great many other folks as well. *Michael Haydn* is the true _*"Forgotten Composer"*_ . . . a composer of merit that was largely forgotten until rather recently.

LOL. I've probably just opened a real can of worms here . . . It's possible that a dozen folks will chime in with their better choice for *"Forgotten Composer"*


----------



## hawgdriver

I want to ditch the Chausson and add something actually good. I'd love a recommendation from among these below (and a recording rec is great, too!)

Sibelius 5 (currently have 2 and 7)
Mahler 5 (currently 2, 3, 6, 9--would also entertain 1, 4, or 8)
Brahms 2 (have 1, 3, 4)


----------



## Xisten267

hawgdriver said:


> I want to ditch the Chausson and add something actually good. I'd love a recommendation from among these below (and a recording rec is great, too!)
> 
> Sibelius 5 (currently have 2 and 7)
> Mahler 5 (currently 2, 3, 6, 9--would also entertain 1, 4, or 8)
> Brahms 2 (have 1, 3, 4)





hawgdriver said:


> I'd say at this point I'm definitely #TeamMahler.


Since you enjoyed Mahler so much, why not continue to listen to his music? His first four symphonies are a tetralogy based on a folk poetry collection called _The Boy's Magic Horn_, and since you already listened to #2 and #3, I recommend you to try at least #4 too for the conclusion of the cycle. This symphony (#4) is probably the most lyrical and the shortest of Mahler, but in my opinion all it's movements are gems and I think that overall it's a great work, and without longueurs. Today I certainly prefer it over #3 or #5, and maybe even over #2. If you go for #4, I suggest the Szell/Cleveland Orchestra from 1967 (it's on youtube): this is the performance that opened my eyes to this symphony.

I don't listen much to Mahler's #5 because it's not my cup of tea (at the moment I find it a bit sentimental, but I may still reconsider later), nevertheless it's slow movement is probably Mahler's most famous and I think you should check it anyway to form your own opinion about it. Bernstein should be a good starting point in any symphony by him in my humble opinion. You may also want to check this thread for recommendations of recordings of Mahler's music by other members.

Of the other two, I will recommend this Brahms #2, with Karajan/BPO (from 1963), and I won't say anything about the Sibelius because I have only a single complete set of his symphonies at the moment.


----------



## hawgdriver

^ I'm so excited to add #4 to the list (instead of Chausson). Mahler just _crushes_ this creative form.

I was able to listen to #1 when I was in law school--the music school was performing Mahler #1 and I was the sole member in the audience for the final rehearsal. It was incredible, goosebumps.

The idea that #4 will scratch a similar itch--and might excel!--is very exciting. 

Mahler #2 > Beethoven #9 >> Mozart anything (although 41 is fantastic)


----------



## hawgdriver

*Tangent/update: Best/favorite/great symphonic composers.*

Adding the Mahler 4 made me think about what I'm trying to do with this 'journey'. I think by the end of this journey I'd like to have a well-considered opinion on the finest composers in this medium. 

I'm considering re-shaping my remaining selections towards these 'heavyweights'. I can't escape the fact that I'm drawn to the style and substance of composers like Mahler, Beethoven, Dvorak. Brahms, too, (but I'm also secretly considering his piano concertos when I do that), I haven't fallen in love with his #1 symphony yet but can imagine doing so.

My gut feeling right now is that when this is all said and done, my own "top 5" list of symphonic composers will be from among Sibelius, Dvorak, Bruckner, Mahler, Beethoven, and Brahms. Maybe Shostakovich.

I've reviewed some of the threads on this topic









Which composers wrote the best Symphonies?


There's a great variaty here, so which do you like? I love Beethoven, Mendelssohn and Tchaikovsky the most, Beethoven is just basic, Mendelssohn and Tchaikovsky just feel the Romantic area vibe in the very positive way for me. Oh, and check these out (I have the CD):




www.talkclassical.com












Favorite Composer(s) of Symphonies


Mozart & Beethoven for me right now. Mahler isn't melodious enough for me and feels a bit long winded, but perhaps he'll grow on me.




www.talkclassical.com





This makes me want to shape the list so that I have (at least) four entries from each of these 'heavyweights' so as to have a deeper understanding of each. (edit -- can't swing a top 4, but can swing a "top 3")

This is my guess at a "consensus" recommendation of each composer's 'top 4'.

Mahler: 2, 3, 6, 9 
Beethoven: 3, 5, 7, 9
Dvorak: 6, 7, 8, 9
Brahms: 1, 2, 3, 4
Bruckner: 4, 7, 8, 9
Sibelius: 2, 4, 5, 7
Shostakovich: 5, 7, 10, 11

To do a 'top 3' I am missing three of these: Dvorak's 8th, Sibelius's 5th, and Shosti's 11th.

I could drop the Haydn 39, which was someone's darling. Something in the way they described it I just have to find out for myself. Something about this particular unknown symphony is a hill that I want to die upon. Plus, I love Haydn. The Borodin 2, which is on the outer edges of accepted excellence (but Borodin is super close to my Mussorgskian sweet spot). Nah, there's nothing besides the Chausson I can just drop.

So I'll have to add these three and embiggen the overall list.

Some quick research on recordings and it seems these will be quality renditions. Are there any other 'must-hear' recordings?

Dvorak 8: Kubelik / BPO
Sibelius 5: Karajan / Philharmonia
Shosti 11: Stokowski / Houston

*Revised Journey (53 Symphonies):*

50 - Haydn #104
2 - Beethoven #9
44 - Suk Azrael
9 - Brahms #1
45 - Mozart #25
5 - Mahler #2
49 - Dvorak #7
13 - Mozart #40
30 - Messaien Turanglila
24 - Sibelius #2
28 - Gorecki #3
14 - Dvorak #9
21 - Schumann #3
18 - Beethoven #5
40 - Hindemith Mathis der Maler
17 - Beethoven #7
38 - Nielsen #4
12 - Shostakovich #5
31 - Vaughan Williams #2
19 - Schubert #8
25 - Rachmaninoff #2
33 - Mahler #6
22 - Walton #1
43 - Saint-Saen #3
35 - Copland #3
11 - Mahler #3
46 - Prokofiev #1
23 - Bruckner #7
39 - Gliere #3
20 - Beethoven #6
41 - Brahms #3
27 - Shostakovich #10
34 - Mendelssohn #4
32 - Haydn #39
36 - Borodin #2
XX - Mahler #4
XX - Shostakovich #11
XX - Dvorak #8
26 - Bruckner #9
16 - Sibelius #7
8 - Schubert #9
47 - Tchaikovsky #5
42 - Franck Symphony in Dm
37 - Martinu #6
3 - Mozart #41
XX - Sibelius #5
29 - Nielsen #5
15 - Bruckner #8
10 - Tchaikovsky #6
6 - Brahms #4
4 - Mahler #9
7 - Berlioz SF
1 - Beethoven #3


----------



## hawgdriver

There's a case to be made that I should add a late Haydn symphony so that Haydn is "well-considered" in the evaluation of "finest composer in the medium." I already have 3 Mozart symphonies: 25, 40, 41.

I know 39 is not a consensus "best", and Mozart's 25 probably isn't either. That's ok, they allow a kind of interpolation of the composer's arc from early to mature.

I think I need to add Haydn 101 or 102--anyone have a recommended recording?


----------



## Kreisler jr

You have Haydn #104, so I'd rather take a late symphony not from the London set, e.g. 92 or 88 or 82. As for Haydn's #39 I don't think it is a bad representation of his late 1760s/early 1770s style but it is an uneven piece and not as good as e.g. 44, 45 or 46 and a few others.

I still don't quite understand the importance of procedure. If you like Haydn and Mahler why don't you listen to some more their music, instead of needing to cover Chausson or whatever? A Haydn symphony usually takes less than 30 min time, so go ahead!


----------



## hawgdriver

Kreisler jr said:


> I still don't quite understand the importance of procedure. If you like Haydn and Mahler why don't you listen to some more their music, instead of needing to cover Chausson or whatever? A Haydn symphony usually takes less than 30 min time, so go ahead!


It is contrived to be as deliberate as I am being, I know. The importance of procedure is in constraining the entire project so that it is finished. I cannot get much just listening to a symphony one time. I need to listen at least a dozen times before it begins to sink in on a level deep enough for me to really understand it. It might be easier for others to just dive into a symphonic work with a score and digest it...that is not me. I expect for many of these symphonies, it will be 10, 15, 20 listens by the end of the 'journey'. 15x53 is 765 listens. If each averages 45 minutes, that's about 35,000 minutes, or ~500 to 600 hours.

I just need to keep that number in check so that I can get to the proverbial 'bar' on time.


----------



## hawgdriver

The procedure is also useful in adding a sort of false formality that gets me pumped up about each new symphony. Trying to make each one a special, unique chocolate in a box of delicacies.


----------



## Xisten267

hawgdriver said:


> This is my guess at a "consensus" recommendation of each composer's 'top 4'.
> 
> Mahler: 2, 3, 6, 9
> Beethoven: 3, 5, 7, 9
> Dvorak: 6, 7, 8, 9
> Brahms: 1, 2, 3, 4
> Bruckner: 4, 7, 8, 9
> Sibelius: 2, 4, 5, 7
> Shostakovich: 5, 7, 10, 11


If I was forced to choose the "kernel" of the symphonic output of some composers who I consider to be great symphonists, I would select these per composer:

Beethoven: #3, #5, #6, #7, and #9;
Mahler: #2, #4, #6, #9, and _Das Lied von der Erde_;
Bruckner: #4, #6, #7, #8, and #9;
Shostakovich: #5, #7, #10, #11, and #14;
Tchaikovsky: #4, #5, #6, and _Manfred_;
Sibelius: #2, #4, #5, and #7;
Brahms: #1, #2, #3, and #4;
Dvorák: #6, #7, #8, and #9;
Haydn: #88, #94, #101, #103, and #104;
Prokofiev: #5, #6, #7, and _Symphony-Concerto_;
Mozart: #38, #39, #40, and #41;
Mendelssohn***: #2, #3, and #4;
Schubert: #5, #8, and #9;
Berlioz: _Fantastique_, _Romeo & Juliet_, and _Funèbre et Triomphale_.

I recommend all of these to you.

*: The numbering of the Mendelssohn symphonies is all over the place: chronologically, #1 is the first, but #5 is the second, #4 is the third, #2 is the fourth, and #3 is the fifth. So the three I selected are actually his last.


----------



## hawgdriver

If it is useful, here is a link to a Spotify playlist of the symphonies that comprise my "journey". I selected recordings based on reviews and acclaim found in the Saturday Symphony thread related to each work--care was taken in the selection of recordings. Some of the most highly acclaimed recordings are not on Spotify, so I went with the next best option as far as I could tell.



https://open.spotify.com/playlist/1waqPDD1qd7OFAsNNiTP3q?si=c2505f1b8d36401e


----------



## haziz

hawgdriver said:


> Hello.
> 
> I'm mainly into solo piano since I like to play such stuff. I really like Chopin, Schubert, and Bach. Lately I'm revisiting symphonies, possibly including symphonic look-alikes (e.g., Also Sprach Zarathustra, Carnival of Animals, etc.).
> 
> So to make it more fun I'm going 1 per week for the next year in reverse order (I get two weeks 'vacation' as it were). Here is what I have slated. I've heard many of them but I'm not a 'symphony guy' in general, so even the most listened-to symphony on this list (I'd guess that honor might belong to Brucker 8, but not sure) still has TONS of play left. I'm going to really chew on them and listen several times without distraction.
> 
> Yeah, so I would really like some help with the last 10 or so entries. Or even "nah, get that Borodin off the list, doesn't add anything." I'd prefer a new composer that's not on the list, but if not, then I'd prefer a composer that has fewer entries (there's already a bunch of Mahler and Beethoven even if the list needs moar Mahler and moar Beethoven). But there's no real rules, heck, if Mahler 6 is what the list needs, so be it. Symphony lookalikes are ok. But I'd like to have folks champion stuff that makes sense in the context of this list and my goal--to really connect with the symphony as a form. 1-2 symphonic works from a composer is ideal (unless your name is Beethoven, Mahler, Sibelius, Bruckner, Brahms, etc.)
> 
> Highest 'ranked' means I will listen to it last, like a music top XX countdown.
> 
> 1. Beethoven #3
> 2. Beethoven #9
> 3. Mozart #41
> 4. Mahler #9
> 5. Mahler #2
> 6. Brahms #4
> 7. Berlioz SF
> 8. Schubert #9
> 9. Brahms #1
> 10. Tchaikovsky #6
> 11. Mahler #3
> 12. Shostakovich #5
> 13. Mozart #40
> 14. Dvorak #9
> 15. Bruckner #8
> 16. Sibelius #7
> 17. Beethoven #7
> 18. Beethoven #5
> 19. Schubert #8
> 20. Beethoven #6
> 21. Sibelius #5
> 22. Brahms #2
> 23. Bruckner #7
> 24. Sibelius #2
> 25. Rachmaninoff #2
> 26. Bruckner #9
> 27. Shostakovich #10
> 28. Gorecki #3
> 29. Nielsen #5
> 30. Strauss "Also sprach Zarathustra"
> 31. Nielsen #4
> 32. Vaughan Williams #2
> 33. Haydn #39
> 34. Mahler #5
> 35. Mendelssohn #4
> 36. Copland #3
> 37. Borodin #2
> 38. Mozart #25
> 39. Tchaikovsky #5
> 40. Gliere #3
> 41. Tchaikovsky #4
> 42. Franck Symphony in Dm
> 43. Bruckner #4
> 
> Ok, I guess there's only 7 until 50, but I'll happily kick off some of these towards the bottom to make room.
> 
> Thanks so much!!



Kick off all of Bruckner and most of Mahler off the list, and add symphonic masterpieces by the likes of Tchaikovsky, Dvořák, Kalinnikov, Borodin and Sibelius.

Examples:

Tchaikovsky - all his numbered symphonies 1-6 ( I think you only included 4-6)
Dvořák - 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 (you only listed # 9 - He composed many other symphonic masterpieces)
Sibelius - 1, 2, 3, 5
Beethoven - Where are Nos. 4 & 8 (or for that matter 1 & 2)? All of his symphonies are masterpieces of the highest order
Kalinnikov - 1 & 2
Borodin - 1 & 3
Rimsky-Korsakov - 2 'Antar'


----------



## larold

Don't know where this stands today but the two best American symphonies are Hanson's *"Romantic" Symphony No. 2* and Copland's *Symphony No. 3*. Both are improvements over at least a dozen on the list. So would the* Symphony No. 2* of Walter Piston, another American, as well as the* "Israel" *and *E flat major symphonies* of Ernest Bloch.

Of more obtuse compositions you may want to make acquaintance with the *Symphony No. 4* of Anders Eliasson and the *Symphonies Nos. 2 and 3* or Aram Khachaturian. The *First Chamber Symphony* of Arnold Schoenberg would also be a worthwhile addition.

Others off the beaten path you may enjoy would include the *Symphony in D* of Vaclav Masek, Franz Krommer's *Symphony in D major *and the *"Camerata" Symphony No. 4 *of Miloslav Kabelac. If you like the Kabelac try his *Symphony No.5*, a symphony accompanied by a wordless singing soprano.


----------



## Kreisler jr

If only one American symphony, Ives' 4th.


----------



## haziz

larold said:


> Don't know where this stands today but the two best American symphonies are Hanson's *"Romantic" Symphony No. 2* and Copland's *Symphony No. 3*. Both are improvements over at least a dozen on the list. So would the* Symphony No. 2* of Walter Piston, another American, as well as the* "Israel" *and *E flat major symphonies* of Ernest Bloch.
> 
> Of more obtuse compositions you may want to make acquaintance with the *Symphony No. 4* of Anders Eliasson and the *Symphonies Nos. 2 and 3* or Aram Khachaturian. The *First Chamber Symphony* of Arnold Schoenberg would also be a worthwhile addition.
> 
> Others off the beaten path you may enjoy would include the *Symphony in D* of Vaclav Masek, Franz Krommer's *Symphony in D major *and the *"Camerata" Symphony No. 4 *of Miloslav Kabelac. If you like the Kabelac try his *Symphony No.5*, a symphony accompanied by a wordless singing soprano.



Another vote for Hanson's Symphony No. 2 'Romantic'.


----------



## hawgdriver

Kreisler jr said:


> If only one American symphony, Ives' 4th.


I appreciate the suggestion. I'm curious why it deserves to be the sole American symphony over the Copland.

I have the Copland 3 on the list for now. It ended up a few spots higher on the TC list than the Ives...but I have no doubt they are both fantastic offerings. I really enjoy Ives' sonata 2. I'll stick with the Copland since I've already turned the MTT/San Fran recording into an mp3 for use in swimming.


----------



## hawgdriver

haziz said:


> Kick off all of Bruckner and most of Mahler off the list, and add symphonic masterpieces ...
> 
> Borodin - 1 & 3


🤔


----------



## hawgdriver

haziz said:


> Another vote for Hanson's Symphony No. 2 'Romantic'.


I'm really curious to hear this one. I'm going to add it and the Ives to a list of symphonies for _after_ I complete this journey. Is the Schwarz/Seattle recording a great place to start?


----------



## haziz

hawgdriver said:


> I'm really curious to hear this one. I'm going to add it and the Ives to a list of symphonies for _after_ I complete this journey. Is the Schwarz/Seattle recording a great place to start?



The Seattle/Schwarz recording is a fine place to start. I prefer it to the recording conducted by the composer.


----------



## pianozach

Xisten267 said:


> If I was forced to choose the "kernel" of the symphonic output of some composers who I consider to be great symphonists, I would select these per composer:
> 
> Beethoven: #3, #5, #6, #7, and #9;


Yep, those are the ones. Outstanding, legendary symphonies.

It's a shame about the others though (#1, #2, #4, & #8), they're also quite excellent, just not top-of-the-top-tier like 3, 5, 6, 7, & 9 are.


----------



## Kreisler jr

hawgdriver said:


> I appreciate the suggestion. I'm curious why it deserves to be the sole American symphony over the Copland.


Ives 4th was far more innovative at its time, it's a bit like Beethoven vs. a later romantic, a "founding" original work vs. "classicist" piece. It's also truly strange and ambitious (like Beethoven's 9th).
Admittedly, I don't remember the Copland 3rd right now (I think he is an inconsistent composer with some very good and other lame populist pieces (like Appalachian spring))


----------



## pianozach

Kreisler jr said:


> Ives 4th was far more innovative at its time, it's a bit like Beethoven vs. a later romantic, a "founding" original work vs. "classicist" piece. It's also truly strange and ambitious (like Beethoven's 9th).
> Admittedly, I don't remember the Copland 3rd right now (I think he is an inconsistent composer with some very good and other lame populist pieces (like Appalachian spring))


Garak: _"Copland is always brilliant."_

Julian: _"Even his lame populist pieces (like Appalachian Spring)?"_

Garak: _"ESPECIALLY his lame populist pieces (like Appalachian Spring)?"_


----------



## hawgdriver

I'm focusing more on Beethoven's 7th this week, but I have some notes for many of the adjacent entries, and regarding the symphonies I've heard so far.

I wish Mozart was a bit more introspective with the symphonic form. I wish he was a bit more like Shostakovich at times--or at least more like K475. If he were this way, he would be my favorite by far. I'm not sure if that's an artifact of his era and the boundaries of the medium, or what. He is soooo good, in a music for the masses kind of way. But not especially for me.

Haydn, otoh, really seems to work for me. I wouldn't go so far as to say Haydn > Mozart, that seems like such a waste of time (we could be enjoying the music!). But I _so_ understand those who love Haydn as much as they do.

Nothing needs to be said about Beethoven. Every symphonic journey every should be anchored by this man's contribution to the form. I should have started with his 5th instead of the 9th if I could do it over again...although then again...the 9th gives a lot of context to some of the later symphonic output. In a non-chronological order playlist like this, perhaps starting with the 9th is correct.

Dvorak is ... better? When the dust settles, I bet I'll have far more Dvorak, Shosti, Mahler, and Sibelius, etc., in the rotation compared to Beethoven. It's stunning how good Dvorak's 7th is.

I am still trying really hard to love Schumann's 3d. It's pretty good. I think I might end up liking it very much. It's just not what I expected. It's kinda...thoughtful (?). It feels like I'll be rewarded in time, but it doesn't pop like some others.

I liked Sibelius's 2nd at first listen, then didn't like it after about the third listen, because it felt kinda 'safe' or 'classical' although neither description is all that apt, I'm just trying to explain why I began to think 'meh'...but yesterday I was in love with it!

I have only listened through Messiaen's work once. I'm intimidated by it. I sorta love it, but it's like the high dive. It demanded more from me than most of these. I think I need to prioritize finding a home in this work.

Idk if the Hindemith work belongs on this list. It does? Or no.

I love this!!!


----------



## hammeredklavier

hawgdriver said:


> I wish he was more like K475.


although not titled "symphonies",












K.345, 477, 546


----------



## hawgdriver

Wow.

Thank you, *hammeredklavier.*


----------



## hawgdriver

Kreisler jr said:


> Bruckner 9 is a great piece but as a fragment it hardly adds anything in perspective of the composer and his place over #8.
> Mozart #25 or #29 are the obvious and great choices for an earlier symphony and as they are less than half the length of a Bruckner, it's time well spent...


I'm thinking about this.


----------



## hawgdriver

I heard Prokofiev's 5th at the Colo Music Festival (along with Gabriela Montero performing the Tchaikovsky 1PC). It needs to be on this journey. I love Prokofiev's so called "war sonatas." There is something about his wit that is massively appealing, and this symphony was a sort of friendly version of that ascerbic wit. It will be an important addition.

Also, the Ives #4. I need more American stuff. I wonder if there's a mainland snobbishness that needs to be debunked...and if I'm adding Proko 5, I have the Copland for a same-era contrast...so I'll also need the Ives to round out my perspective.


----------



## Xisten267

hawgdriver said:


> I heard Prokofiev's 5th at the Colo Music Festival (along with Gabriela Montero performing the Tchaikovsky 1PC). It needs to be on this journey. I love Prokofiev's so called "war sonatas." There is something about his wit that is massively appealing, and this symphony was a sort of friendly version of that ascerbic wit. It will be an important addition.
> 
> Also, the Ives #4. I need more American stuff. I wonder if there's a mainland snobbishness that needs to be debunked...and if I'm adding Proko 5, I have the Copland for a same-era contrast...so I'll also need the Ives to round out my perspective.


Prokofiev's symphony #7 is his last major work, and in my opinion it's one of his most expressive and emotive works, at least from what I know from him. I suggest it to you if you enjoy his style.

An american symphony that should be in your list IMHO is Howard Hanson's 2nd. It was used in the first _Alien_ movie, and I like to believe that there's a sci-fi vibe associated to it.


----------



## hawgdriver

Xisten267 said:


> Prokofiev's symphony #7 is his last major work, and in my opinion it's one of his most expressive and emotive works, at least from what I know from him. I suggest it to you if you enjoy his style.
> 
> An american symphony that should be in your list IMHO is* Howard Hanson's 2nd. It was used in the first Alien movie*, and I like to believe that there's a sci-fi vibe associated to it.


Say no more. I have an unusual fetish of collecting horror movie soundtracks on vinyl. It's a style of music that really works for me. :shrugs:

Related/unrelated...the other night the symphony program opened with Mussorgsky's Bare Mountain [sic]. I reviewed the SS thread on it and someone recommended this version of it--so good!!






I have concluded that I have no use for Hindemith's Mathis der Maler and I will spend no more effort becoming further acquinted with that work. As an exercise in 'recasting the classical symphony into Hindemith-ian harmony' it's vaguely interesting...but I did not connect with it.


----------



## hawgdriver

I gave the Hanson 2 and the Proko 7 a 'tryout'. The Hanson is a slam dunk. Right up my alley, I knew it after 4 minutes. The tidy length helps, too.

The Proko 7 gives pause. I'm listening now, and I love it. There's no question this fits on my journey. 

Something about Prokofiev really meshes with my personality, but I'm just not ever in love with his stuff. But it always asks me questions that I like to be asked. Especially that 8th piano sonata. So I think for personal reasons I need to put it on here. It's really a continuance of my relationship with his other works. It also gives me 3 Proko symphonies, so if I wanted to measure him against the 'great symphonists' (let's say that's Beethoven, Mahler, Brahms and a couple few others like Shosti, Dvorak, Bruckner, Sibelius, Mozart, Haydn) I now have the same threesome that I used to evaluate those others.

So I'm adding both, and looking at myself scornfully for not abiding boundaries...


----------



## hawgdriver

I wish I had some Glazunov and Taneyev on this list though...this is why I set boundaries. There's just too much great art, and if you don't impose a fence line, the whole teeming mass waddles in.


----------



## hawgdriver

Xisten267 said:


> Prokofiev's symphony #7 is his last major work,


Sorry, last post.  

Can I do much better than the Ozawa BPO?


----------



## Xisten267

hawgdriver said:


> Can I do much better than the Ozawa BPO?


Now you got me. I have few performances of the #7, and I don't know this Ozawa yet - I've been so satisfied with my Gergiev/LSO (I love his Prokofiev symphonies cycle) so far that I've not looked for more recordings of it. Maybe other members can help you.


----------



## hawgdriver

Xisten267 said:


> Now you got me. I have few performances of the #7, and I don't know this Ozawa yet - I've been so satisfied with my Gergiev/LSO (I love his Prokofiev symphonies cycle) so far that I've not looked for more recordings of it. Maybe other members can help you.


The Ozawa seems pretty good. The Saturday Symphony thread mentioned the Ozawa, the Gergiev, and also an Ashkenazy/Cleveland--but I couldn't find that one on Spotify.


----------



## Xisten267

Nerdy fact: Prokofiev's symphony "No. 7" is actually his ninth (and last), because he has two symphonies numbered as "4", and one unnumbered symphony (the symphony-concerto, his eighth chronologically).


----------

