# Greatest Symphonist



## Couchie

Found an old thread where people nominated their top symphonists, but it looks like no final tabulation was done, hence I made this poll using what appeared to be the top choices of both that thread and the 150 greatest symphonists.

*PICK UP TO THREE (3) OF YOUR TOP CHOICES.* Votes are public. If you pick more than three (3), we will know, and you will be chastised endlessly! 

_[edit] For clarification, you can also pick just 1, or 2, or none if you hate all of them._


----------



## Wicked_one

Mahler, Beethoven aaaaaaand I'll say...


----------



## Air

Three, only three????!!!!!! 

OK, I voted. But it cost me a foot and a leg.


----------



## Couchie

Air said:


> Three, only three????!!!!!!
> 
> If you extend the number of votes, it may be easier for me to participate... but three is just way too hard.


 I was originally going to make it only one!


----------



## itywltmt

Air said:


> Three, only three????!!!!!!
> 
> OK, I voted. But it cost me a foot and a leg.


Hard to pick, and even after I picked, I second-guessed myself.

Beethoven and Mozart are "automatics". I pick Tchaikovsky, but could have equally gone for Haydn, Mahler or Sibelius...


----------



## Art Rock

Mahler and Brahms were clear choices for 1 and 2 - after hesitating between 5-6 others, I gave the 3d vote to Shostakovich.


----------



## mmsbls

Beethoven was automatic. After that I had to work. I chose Mozart and Brahms but was very unhappy to leave Mahler off the list.


----------



## Vesteralen

Beethoven, Brahms and other (Carl Nielsen)


----------



## Polednice

I think Beethoven ought to be automatic for all of us (my first vote). Mozart stood out, but while a fair number of his symphonies are masterworks, the number of mediocre (or at least unsparkling!) ones causes me not to consider him the greatest Symphonist; more just someone who wrote some of the greatest symphonies.

Naturally, given my extreme bias, Brahms was an immediate second choice. No explanation required.

Then I was unsure about what to pick next, so I just went with Bruckner because I've been getting into his symphonies lately. It doesn't really count though because this third vote is just subject to whim.


----------



## Bix

Tchaikovsky, Beethoven and Shostakovich for me


----------



## Guest

Beethoven, Mahler, Tchaikovsky.


----------



## tdc

I went Beethoven, Mahler, Sibelius. But that 3rd choice was a hard decision... I find Sibelius consistently good in his symphonic works so he got my vote.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Beethoven, Bruckner, and Shostakovich because of how they expanded symphonic form.


----------



## Sid James

*Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert*. They were not only the biggest innovators in this area, but their music kind of speaks to many people 200 or so years after their time, which is no small feat. All three redefined the symphony in big ways - it was no longer a "sinfonia" or overture to open an opera, nor was it just a kind of fun diversion (although some still kind of stereotype Haydn in this way, which is not entirely accurate imo - to these people, ever heard more "serious" things like his _Symphony No. 49 "La Passione?"_;" but I equally love the lightness & joy of his better known symphonies).

But to be a bit more specific -

*Haydn *- He isn't called "the father of the symphony" (& of the string quartet) for nothing!

*Beethoven* - Starting with his _Symphony No. 3 "Eroica,"_ he did many things like expand the length of a symphony, the size of the orchestra & also made it a kind of personal commentary on current political events.

*Schubert *- With his symphonies in general, he kind of fused his nack with writing flowing song-like melodies with the rigours of symphonic form. Regarding the 8th ("Unfinished"), 9th ("Great C-major") & also the unfinished 10th (which has, though, been completed by scholars like Brian Newbould, & it kind of takes up where the 9th left off), he took the baton from Beethoven's 9th & expanded the symphony in terms of complexity & length, but in a purely instrumental way. Indeed, his 9th was a source of ridicule for the Vienna Philharmonic when they were practising it during his time & they didn't play it, saying it was kind of unplayable - the first performance would happen decades later in Leipzig under Mendelssohn after Schumann's discovery of the original manuscript hidden away in an archive...

P.S. - *Mozart* I would have chosen as well for similar reasons (his innovation, talking to the complexity of things like his final three symphonies - Nos. 39-41), but we only get 3 bites at the cherry in this poll, alas...


----------



## Llyranor

Dvorak, Sibelius, and Tchaikovsky.

I'm still fairly new to symphonies, though, and still have a lot more to listen to.


----------



## Weston

Beethoven - Automatic. (Sorry for those of you who are sick of him.)

Then Bruckner.

For 3rd I really wanted almost all the rest, but I went with Other for Rautavaara -- or maybe Tournemire, or Gliere. Heck, just browse through the top 150 Symphonies thread.


----------



## Kieran

Can't ignore Beethoven and Mozart, went for Schubert as my third...but wish I could add Haydn too...


----------



## Xaltotun

Beethoven, Bruckner and Mahler. VERY unhappy to leave off Brahms and Sibelius. But the others, while some of them are VERY good, can't touch these five in my book.


----------



## Webernite

What do people here think of Mozart's Symphony No. 38? It's probably my favorite Mozart symphony, but for some reason his last three symphonies always get grouped together as the best, rather than his last four. I don't really see what the reason for that is.


----------



## Aramis

Webernite said:


> What do people here think of Mozart's Symphony No. 38? It's probably my favorite Mozart symphony, but for some reason his last three symphonies always get grouped together as the best, rather than his last four. I don't really see what the reason for that is.


Same, I put it next to 41st as equal. There is part in last movement when a phrase wanders through the strings from the high pitched to the lower ones and I always think of this part as "more beethovenian than Beethoven himself". And that beautiful slow introdutction in first movement (after the chords with timpani).


----------



## Kieran

Webernite said:


> What do people here think of Mozart's Symphony No. 38? It's probably my favorite Mozart symphony, but for some reason his last three symphonies always get grouped together as the best, rather than his last four. I don't really see what the reason for that is.


In his excellent book, Mozart and his Operas, David Cairns suggests that this - the Prague Symphony - was a signifier that Mozart was ready to compose _Don Giovanni_. He hears the music of _Don Giovanni _throughout this symphony, and when you listen to the grand, moody opening, it's easy to see why...


----------



## kv466

I like Mahler and Beethoven...oh, I have a third?...hmmmm, I'll say Mozart off-hand


----------



## SuperTonic

I guess it was a given that Beethoven would run away with 1st place in this poll, but I am happy to see Mahler pulling away from the pack in second place. 
I'm suprised at so little love for Haydn though. I'd put him ahead of Mozart on the weight of the London Symphonies alone. After Beethoven I don't know if there is another composer that is more important in the development of the form than Haydn.


----------



## Curiosity

Beethoven. His 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th are likely the greatest works in the genre. With every new symphony he brought something completely new and original to the table. Schubert, Haydn, Mahler, Mozart, Tchaikovsky etc all wrote good tunes and all, they just didn't bring the same level of consistency or invention.


----------



## tdc

Webernite said:


> What do people here think of Mozart's Symphony No. 38?


Its my favorite Mozart symphony.


----------



## itywltmt

SuperTonic said:


> I guess it was a given that Beethoven would run away with 1st place in this poll, but I am happy to see Mahler pulling away from the pack in second place.
> I'm suprised at so little love for Haydn though. I'd put him ahead of Mozart on the weight of the London Symphonies alone. After Beethoven I don't know if there is another composer that is more important in the development of the form than Haydn.


I agree that Haydn, for all intents and purposes, "invented" the classical symphony, and as such he should have gotten more love in this poll.

Having said that, when you write 104 symphonies, there have to be a few that were "mailed in" in the lot. In their way, the Paris and London sets of symphonies represent a great achievement, and Haydn's fingerprints are all over Mozart and early Beethoven and Schubert symphonies,

But the rules are the rules, and we could only choose three...


----------



## waldvogel

Webernite said:


> What do people here think of Mozart's Symphony No. 38? It's probably my favorite Mozart symphony, but for some reason his last three symphonies always get grouped together as the best, rather than his last four. I don't really see what the reason for that is.


I absolutely love this symphony. The syncopated entry of the strings in the first theme in the first movement is absolutely thrilling, and the entry of the winds that answer it is, well, perfect.

Another reader remarked that this symphony had elements of Don Giovanni in it. I've always associated it with The Marriage of Figaro - kind of a love letter from Mozart to Prague for the great reception of Figaro. The first movement has sections that are very reminiscent of the overture to Figaro, while the second movement is very much like Porgi Amor, which begins Act II of the opera.


----------



## Sid James

SuperTonic said:


> ...I'm suprised at so little love for Haydn though.


I'm not surprised that much, because I think that music that came after 1800 seems more popular for members of this forum than music that came before it. I don't know, that's just my general impression, but I know there are some members here that like the older stuff equally as well (I see myself as like that in a way).



> ...After Beethoven I don't know if there is another composer that is more important in the development of the form than Haydn.


I can agree that Beethoven really "lifted" the genre of the symphony (& made it into other things as well - eg. making it into a political statement {the 3rd "Eroica"}, to fit a program, like tone poems {the 6th "Pastoral"}, adding a vocal/choral element for the first time in his 9th). But I'd still place him as second to Haydn in terms of innovation - Haydn pioneered most things that Beethoven "fleshed out" later. It can well be said that Beethoven did this kind of in more depth, but Haydn was truly the first one off the mark (& Mozart kind of came in between the two). Eg. I hear strong parallels between the "tick-tock" movement in Haydn's _Symphony #101 "The Clock" _& Beethoven's _Symphony #8 _which kind of references & makes fun of the "new fangled" metronome. That's just one example, doubtless there are heaps of others.

A related issue is that Beethoven later claimed that he learned nothing from Haydn, but even a cursory comparison between their symphonies (& other works, probably esp. chamber) gives the lie to this, imo. It must be said that, from what I've read, despite their diverging styles the two men still respected eachother as artists & as men greatly. There was also an obvious tendency to "sex up" Beethoven's life & therefore claim the complete originality of his music after his death, diminishing the importance of composers like Haydn who greatly added to his development as a composer.



> I'd put him [Haydn] ahead of Mozart on the weight of the London Symphonies alone.





Webernite said:


> What do people here think of Mozart's Symphony No. 38? It's probably my favorite Mozart symphony, but for some reason his last three symphonies always get grouped together as the best, rather than his last four. I don't really see what the reason for that is.


Re Mozart's significance, I'm mainly familiar with his last three symphonies (Nos. 39-41, esp. the last two). & maybe the diminished significance of his 38th that you refer to has something to do with it's relative lack of exposure compared to the following three? I'm referring to non-Mozartians like myself, people who listen to his & many others' music, but mainly know the more popular works to any reasonable depth...


----------



## Stasou

Where is Nielsen? If he was on the poll, Beethoven wouldn't have been my only vote.


----------



## Couchie

Stasou said:


> Where is Nielsen? If he was on the poll, Beethoven wouldn't have been my only vote.


He was on the list originally, sadly I had to chop it down to 14, it was between him and Vaughan Williams to go. Somebody in the other thread said unequivocally they thought Vaughan Williams was the best ever while Nielsen was lower on people's lists, so I unfortunately neglected him to the 'other' category.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

By Symphonist, I'm guessing best composer of symphonies is implied. Chose Brahms, Dvorak, and Shostakovich for me then. User of symphony orchestra, that would be different for me maybe.


----------



## Vesteralen

Couchie said:


> He was on the list originally, sadly I had to chop it down to 14, it was between him and Vaughan Williams to go. Somebody in the other thread said unequivocally they thought Vaughan Williams was the best ever while Nielsen was lower on people's lists, so I unfortunately neglected him to the 'other' category.


That's okay. I forgive you. 

No matter how polls are constructed, they have a tendency to end up as popularity contests. It is kind of heartening, at least, to see Beethoven far ahead. I think that a lot of people on this thread have at least tried to be objective enough to give one vote to "the greatest" before getting to their personal favorites. I would imagine that I am like others here - I would never list Beethoven as my favorite, but there is no denying his greatness when it came to his impact on the symphony as a form, so I gave him my vote anyway. Later, I voted for Nielsen (aka "Other").


----------



## tannhaeuser

Beethoven, Mahler, Shostakovich


----------



## Guest

Hmmm. No Berlioz. Interesting. No other mention of Berlioz on this thread. Even more interesting.

Or did I mean disheartening? Hmmm.


----------



## Kopachris

I'm disappointed by the lack of votes for Tchaikovsky. I vote: Tchaikovsky, Sibelius, Mahler (in that order)


----------



## Webernite

OK, who voted for Dvorak? Hands up, so that the people who voted for proper composers like Beethoven, Mahler, Brahms, etc. can throw eggs at you. :devil:


----------



## Trout

Hehehe, a thread were Wagner doesn't qualify...


I factored in quality more so than quantity and while composers such as Shostakovich and Bruckner have symphonies equal to if not better than let's say Beethoven, they also composed some ones I just didn't really care for. As a result, I chose Beethoven, Mahler, and Brahms, though it bothers me that I couldn't also cram in Sibelius, Schubert, or Tchaikovsky.


----------



## Klavierspieler

Webernite said:


> OK, who voted for Dvorak? Hands up, so that the people who voted for proper composers like Beethoven, Mahler, Brahms, etc. can throw eggs at you. :devil:


I voted Beethoven, Dvorak, Schumann.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

I haven't chosen Ludwig...I listened too much his symphonies when I was a kid. I couldn't choose Myaskovsky, the great one who composed 27 symphonies, he wasn't listed...










Martin


----------



## DavidMahler

Mahler, Brahms & Beethoven, in that order. Sucked not being able to vote for Sibelius and Bruckner


----------



## DavidMahler

PS Mendelssohn and Vaughan Williams should have been replaced with Berlioz and Schumann....both would have votes if they were there.


----------



## DavidMahler

and also, anyone who voted for Haydn, is just being politically correct


----------



## opus55

Beethoven and Mahler were easy. I gave Jean Sibelius my third vote this time - since that's the last symphony I listened to last.


----------



## Manok

I need more choices :|. The only one I don't know that well is Bruckner. If you could say make it 5. I'd be happy.


----------



## Tapkaara

I only chose two: Beethoven and Sibelius. If I could go back I may have picked Haydn.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

Couchie said:


> *Greatest symphonist*
> ... you can also pick just 1, or 2, or none if you hate all of them.[/I]


This gets to the heart of a problem some poeple have with these polls. We need you to define your terms.

If you mean a composer is "great" because I like his or her music, and not great if I "hate" them, that's fine - but it is a definition of the term which is not widely used. But it is also a definition which makes discussion far less interesting, to the point of impossible. After all, if I pick Sibelius as a great symphonist because I like his symphonies a lot (1 aside), that is just my opinion - it's unarguable, the only interesting thing you can say is "why?" and I can attempt to articualte the reasons.

If we define "great" in an objective way, and drop the self-centredness of defining it as "I like a lot", then we can have an interesting conversation about whether, say, Haydn is greater than Sibelius, and people can make their points in favour of different composers in the context of the composer's abilities, not the writers' personal preferences.


----------



## Tapkaara

Jeremy Marchant said:


> This gets to the heart of a problem some poeple have with these polls. We need you to define your terms.
> 
> If you mean a composer is "great" because I like his or her music, and not great if I "hate" them, that's fine - but it is a definition of the term which is not widely used. But it is also a definition which makes discussion far less interesting, to the point of impossible. After all, if I pick Sibelius as a great symphonist because I like his symphonies a lot (1 aside), that is just my opinion - it's unarguable, the only interesting thing you can say is "why?" and I can attempt to articualte the reasons.
> 
> If we define "great" in an objective way, and drop the self-centredness of defining it as "I like a lot", then we can have an interesting conversation about whether, say, Haydn is greater than Sibelius, and people can make their points in favour of different composers in the context of the composer's abilities, not the writers' personal preferences.


I think the key here is not to take a poll like this seriously. It's not fair to expect much from a poll that is not scientific, lays basically no voting criteria and has what might as well be a completely arbitrary list of composers.

I voted for the sake of voting. Why not? Maybe participating in this thread will lead to an interesting insight or exchange. But because this poll is "just for fun," I am not terribly invested in it.

This poll is ultimately useless but perhaps it functions something as an ice breaker. And its a question that has been asked many times before, so it's not very original, either. The key is not to get too riled by something that is obviously of such miniscule consequence and importance.


----------



## TrazomGangflow

Haydn and Mozart are musts for me. I chose Brahms as a third because I like a few of his symphonies. (I would have chose Beethoven as a close forth but someone only let us choose 3)


----------



## Andres

Interesting, I voted Beethoven, Mahler and Shostakovich, and they're currently in the lead!


----------



## starthrower

Tapkaara said:


> I think the key here is not to take a poll like this seriously. It's not fair to expect much from a poll that is not scientific, lays basically no voting criteria and has what might as well be a completely arbitrary list of composers.


Exactly! How can I participate in a poll that leaves out some of my personal favorites?


----------



## AlainB

I personally voted for, in no particular order here, Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert.

Schubert is pretty much my most favourite one, with Mozart as a close second. Schubert's pieces pretty much make me feel I live in an entire different world, one that I love dearly. It's great.

Oh how I could listen to it for ages each day.


----------



## mleghorn

Lol! I voted Beethoven, Mahler, and Shostakovich -- and found out I'm not the only one who voted that way. At last, I've found a forum where I actually fit in


----------



## maxshrek

Beethoven, Mozart, Mahler, Bruckner.


----------



## NightHawk

Beethoven/Brahms were easy for me but I had three composers vying for the 3rd spot - Mahler, Sibelius and Shostakovich - I finally went with Sibelius because I like ALL of his symphonies and of the Shostakovich I am only really sure about Nos. 5 and 10, and re Mahler I'm not sold on the last several movements of the 3rd. 6 and 7 are also not (yet) well known to me enough to say I think them equal to 1,2,4,5,8 and 9.



Art Rock said:


> Mahler and Brahms were clear choices for 1 and 2 - after hesitating between 5-6 others, I gave the 3d vote to Shostakovich.


----------



## Sequentia

Haydn is the easy choice, but then it becomes a hard struggle between Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner, Mahler, Mozart, Nielsen (where is he?) and Sibelius. I went for Beethoven and Bruckner, but felt stupid (and would have felt stupid in every other case as well).


----------



## flylooper

Wow! Why isn't R. Strauss in this thing.

1. Mahler
2. Bruckner
3. R. Strauss


----------



## myaskovsky2002

David Wright wrote once a wonderful article about this that was removed. I ignore the real reason...Maybe it was too good...he had some enemies....Whatever. If you find it, please post it here.


----------



## Eviticus

My vote was for Beethoven, Brahms and Mahler. I'm actually not that much of a fan of Brahms and Mahler in general but i cannot deny their symphonic prowess. It's the one field i like by Brahms (i just don't understand people loving his piano concerto's).

I'm surprised that some people voted Schubert. I mean do 1 and a half good symphonies out of 8 and a half make a great symphonist? Those maths don't stack it for me.


----------



## MrCello

Dvorak, Beethoven, and Mahler!


----------



## flylooper

How do you describe a "symphonist?" Beethoven was certainly a symphonist, but what he wrote was generally for an orchestra of limited size all the way through his repertoire until he did the 9th. Mozart, too. 

If one chooses to define symphonist as someone who uses the entire palette of orchestral color available to him (or her) you'd just have to almost limit yourself to the late Romantics (Bruckner, Mahler, Brahms, Strauss, Berlioz, etc.) Among them, Mahler - at least - stands out as someone who used every available instrument, including such things as cowbells, mandolins, guitars, post horns, celeste, even switches (!), in his symphonies - not to mention solo (2nd, 3rd, 7th, Das Lied von der Erde) and choral voices (his 8th).

Edit: And by the way, Mahler caught holy hell from the critics for his "transgressions."


----------



## violadude

I thought we were defining the term symphonist as a composer who wrote a significant body of symphonies.


----------



## Eviticus

violadude said:


> I thought we were defining the term symphonist as a composer who wrote a significant body of symphonies.


I assumed Greatest Symphonists refers to those that compiled many notable 'master works' in genre of the symphony. That's why i chose the 3 i did. Beethoven, Mahler and Brahms produced the most 'master works' as a proportion of their symphonic output (i.e. Beethoven up to 7 master works out of 9 etc) or at least thats how i came to my conclusion.

I guess many, many other produced several symphonies considered master pieces. Say for example Mozarts great symphonies are; 25,29,31,35,36,38,39,40 and 41 but 9 out of the 41 symphonies attributed to him is not as proportionally impressive as say Beethovens 7 out of 9.


----------



## violadude

Eviticus said:


> I assumed Greatest Symphonists refers to those that compiled many notable 'master works' in genre of the symphony. That's why i chose the 3 i did. Beethoven, Mahler and Brahms produced the most 'master works' as a proportion of their symphonic output (i.e. Beethoven up to 7 master works out of 9 etc) or at least thats how i came to my conclusion.
> 
> I guess many, many other produced several symphonies considered master pieces. Say for example Mozarts great symphonies are; 25,29,31,35,36,38,39,40 and 41 but 9 out of the 41 symphonies attributed to him is not as proportionally impressive as say Beethovens 7 out of 9.


I would ask you how you are defining masterworks then.


----------



## Eviticus

violadude said:


> I would ask you how you are defining masterworks then.


Works that are universally recognised as masterpieces.


----------



## violadude

Eviticus said:


> Works that are universally recognised as masterpieces.


Well going by that logic (assuming you mean works that are recognized as masterpieces by people who study music) I think Webern beats all of them. He wrote 1/1 symphony masterpieces.


----------



## Eviticus

violadude said:


> Well going by that logic (assuming you mean works that are recognized as masterpieces by people who study music) I think Webern beats all of them. He wrote 1/1 symphony masterpieces.


Haha knew someone would spot the fatal flaw! 
<_thinks of a get out clause_> Well i don't really think Webern's symphony is considered one of the greatest symphonies although i'm sure it is great.


----------



## brianwalker

Eviticus said:


> I'm surprised that some people voted Schubert. I mean do 1 and a half good symphonies out of 8 and a half make a great symphonist? Those maths don't stack it for me.


Brahms only wrote four, while Haydn wrote more than a hundred.

I find Shostakovich's popularity much more disturbing. Most of his works are heavily if not fatally flawed, and his best pales in comparison with the best of Mozart, Schubert, Bruckner, and Brahms. I would rank him an equal if not slight inferior to Sibelius, whose last three symphonies are in their own way perfectly sublime.


----------



## violadude

brianwalker said:


> Brahms only wrote four, while Haydn wrote more than a hundred.
> 
> I find Shostakovich's popularity much more disturbing. Most of his works are heavily if not fatally flawed, and his best pales in comparison with the best of Mozart, Schubert, Bruckner, and Brahms. I would rank him an equal if not slight inferior to Sibelius, whose last three symphonies are in their own way perfectly sublime.


Does that imply that you think Sibelius' symphonies are fatally flawed as well?


----------



## brianwalker

violadude said:


> Does that imply that you think Sibelius' symphonies are fatally flawed as well?


No, most of his symphonies are without serious blemishes. He accomplished what he aimed for, but the "range" that his symphonies explore is narrower than those of Shostakovich, who gets points for attempting the same, lofty, ideal that Mahler shot for. Even Mahler's works have minor but noticeable blemishes.

http://mahler.universaledition.com/salonen-on-mahler/ Interview with Salonen:

" I think this is music that works on so many different levels, and it's also very uneven: the worst moments in Mahler's symphonies are truly terrible, I think, and the best moments are unbelievable. "

Shostakovich's mistakes are Mahler's writ large; there is no corresponding greatness to compensate for them.


----------



## Couchie

Jeremy Marchant said:


> This gets to the heart of a problem some poeple have with these polls. We need you to define your terms.
> 
> If you mean a composer is "great" because I like his or her music, and not great if I "hate" them, that's fine - but it is a definition of the term which is not widely used. But it is also a definition which makes discussion far less interesting, to the point of impossible. After all, if I pick Sibelius as a great symphonist because I like his symphonies a lot (1 aside), that is just my opinion - it's unarguable, the only interesting thing you can say is "why?" and I can attempt to articualte the reasons.
> 
> If we define "great" in an objective way, and drop the self-centredness of defining it as "I like a lot", then we can have an interesting conversation about whether, say, Haydn is greater than Sibelius, and people can make their points in favour of different composers in the context of the composer's abilities, not the writers' personal preferences.


Actually this poll is merely tabulating the preliminary nominating that was done in another thread, if you read my post. I do think that you and Tapkaara will find if you attempt to eliminate the subjectivity and distill music down to a series of objective criteria (and how should we even select which objective criteria to use objectively) you'll end up with something more useless than any "I like it a lot" poll.


----------



## Beethovenrox

I chose Beethoven (of course), Bruckner and Mahler because they made their symphonies sound epic!!


----------



## brianwalker

Poor Mendelssohn.  
If this poll is any indication, he must be the most underrated symphonist of all time. I'm listening to the finale of the Scottish, and it is absolutely thrilling.


----------



## jalex

Never mind Mendelssohn (Schumann's cycle is better than his anyway); Sibelius has got the rawest deal here, behind Mozart and barely in front of Tchaikovsky, Dvorak and Haydn. 

Actually, Berlioz has the rawest deal because he's not even in a poll he should be placing well in. Nielsen should probably be an option as well, certainly worthier than Prokofiev, Mendelssohn or Vaughan Williams.


----------



## peeyaj

Eviticus said:


> I'm surprised that some people voted Schubert. I mean do 1 and a half good symphonies out of 8 and a half make a great symphonist? Those maths don't stack it for me.


Here we go again.. Your anti-Schubert diatribe sickens me. 

If you can't accept that Schubert wrote masterpieces in symphonic repertoire that influenced a later generation of composers, I rest my case. Just tell that to Schumann, Dvorak, Bruckner and Mahler..

And please stop referring Schubert wrote ''1 and half good symphonies''. They were not ''good'', they were exceptional. And even though the 8 has only two movements, it is accepted as a ''complete'' symphony in the repertoire.

And though Schubert's greatness as a symphonist rest on his last two, his early six are very good too, especially the 4th and 5th. The Fifth is better than Haydn ever wrote in my opinion.

If you can't accept that some people prefer others, I think you have a problem there. Just resume your Tchaikovsly crusade then.


----------



## jalex

peeyaj said:


> Here we go again.. Your anti-Schubert diatribe sickens me.
> 
> If you can't accept that Schubert wrote masterpieces in symphonic repertoire that influenced a later generation of composers, I rest my case. Just tell that to Schumann, Dvorak, Bruckner and Mahler..
> 
> And please stop referring Schubert wrote ''1 and half good symphonies''. They were not ''good'', they were exceptional. And even though the 8 has only two movements, it is accepted as a ''complete'' symphony in the repertoire.
> 
> And though Schubert's greatness as a symphonist rest on his last two, his early six are very good too, especially the 4th and 5th. The Fifth is better than Haydn ever wrote in my opinion.
> 
> If you can't accept that some people prefer others, I think you have a problem there. Just resume your Tchaikovsly crusade then.


1) There were no anti-Schubert sentiments expressed in that post
2) There was no claim that the Unfinished and the Great are not masterpieces
3) The Unfinished *is *half a symphony
4) I can think of at least 8 Haydn symphonies I'd take over Schubert 5

If you can't accept that sometimes people challenge others' beliefs then YOU have the problem. I think Eviticus makes a fair point, as was discussed in your thread.


----------



## violadude

jalex said:


> Never mind Mendelssohn (Schumann's cycle is better than his anyway); Sibelius has got the rawest deal here, behind Mozart and barely in front of Tchaikovsky, Dvorak and Haydn.
> 
> Actually, Berlioz has the rawest deal because he's not even in a poll he should be placing well in. Nielsen should probably be an option as well, certainly worthier than Prokofiev, Mendelssohn or Vaughan Williams.


Ya I'm surprised Sibelius isn't doing better than he is as well.


----------



## brianwalker

jalex said:


> 1) There were no anti-Schubert sentiments expressed in that post
> 2) There was no claim that the Unfinished and the Great are not masterpieces
> 3) The Unfinished *is *half a symphony
> 4) I can think of at least 8 Haydn symphonies I'd take over Schubert 5
> 
> If you can't accept that sometimes people challenge others' beliefs then YOU have the problem. I think Eviticus makes a fair point, as was discussed in your thread.


_Some people_ (I'm not implying whether that criterion is good or not) might evaluate using quality, not quantity, and some people might think that Schubert's 8th is worth more than all 6 of Tchaikovsky's symphonies, putting him in the lead. And since it's _elitist and illogical_ to express surprise, and thus condescension, towards the _choice_ of others.

Just trying to promote peace and understanding, that's all.

Again, not egging on you, but explaining why peeyaj is reacting the way he is.


----------



## peeyaj

brianwalker said:


> _Some people_ (I'm not implying whether that criterion is good or not) might evaluate using quality, not quantity, and some people might think that Schubert's 8th is worth more than all 6 of Tchaikovsky's symphonies, putting him in the lead.


Yes, I agree very much.  But I admire Tchaikovsky 6th. It's one of my favorite work of Tchaikovsky and imo, one of the best Romantic symphony. I just prefer Schubert symphonies (8th and 9th) in general. 



> And since it's *elitist and illogical* to express surprise, and thus condescension, towards the choice of others. [/b]


I'm really puzzled about Eviticus post. Why express bewilderment about the choice of others about voting Schubert as a great symphonist? I've based my vote on the quality of Schubert's output not the number of it, though I admire the early symphonies. It's just being a snobbish and elitist attitude. I don't like it.



> Again, not egging on you, but explaining why peeyaj is reacting the way he is.


QFT. Thanks, brian.


----------



## jalex

I'm sorry, it is neither snobby nor elitist to question why you define someone as a great symphonist on the basis of one and a half great symphonies out of seven and a half (plus an indeterminate fraction of fragments). That sounds quite reasonable. To me the term 'great symphonist' implies some kind of consistency, or at least a few repeats of greatness. Otherwise, as Violadude said, why isn't Webern the greatest symphonist?


----------



## peeyaj

If anyone's interested, I've blogged, *The 10 Greatest Symphonies * months ago.

Here:



> http://www.talkclassical.com/blogs/peeyaj/18-top-10-greatest-symphonies.html





> http://www.talkclassical.com/blogs/peeyaj/19-top-10-greatest-symphonies.html


My ranking goes:

1. Beethoven's Ninth
2. Beethoven's 3rd
3. Dvorak's Ninth
4. Mozart's 41st
5. Brahms 4th
6. Beethoven's 5th
7. Schubert's Ninth
8. Tchaikovsky's Sixth
9. Mahler's 5th
10. Beethoven's 6th

Runnerups:

Schubert's 8th
Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique
Mahler's 2nd

My ranking is different now but I think these are some of the best symphonies.

I stand on my assessment and public/critical opinion (though jalex and Evictus objects), *Schubert is a great symphonist*.


----------



## jalex

You are of course welcome to your opinion, I'd just like to know your reasoning. You said quality > quantity, but I think the title of 'great symphonist' implies at least _some_ quantity as well as quality otherwise it gets a bit ridiculous.


----------



## peeyaj

jalex said:


> I'm sorry, it is neither snobby nor elitist to question why you define someone as a great symphonist on the basis of one and a half great symphonies out of seven and a half (plus an indeterminate fraction of fragments). That sounds quite reasonable. To me the term 'great symphonist' implies some kind of consistency, or at least a few repeats of greatness. Otherwise, as Violadude said, why isn't Webern the greatest symphonist?


You are confusing two things in two different threads.

A. My assertion that Schubert is a great symphonist.

B. My beef regarding Eviticus' post about people voting on Schubert as a great symphonist.

You might ignore Schubert's early symphonies because they were ''early'' works but it doesn't change the fact that I enjoyed them and Beecham/Böhm recorded all of them. The fact that Schubert wrote them in his teens (the 5th when he's 19) is amazing.

The quality of Schubert's last two symphonies are comparable to the best symphonies ever written. They written by a man of 25 (Unfinished) and 27th (Great).

The fact that Berlioz, Schumann, Dvorak, Bruckner and Mahler considered the 9th as an influence, and these composers admiring Schubert as a symphonist is a testament of Schubert's mastery of the symphony. You might parade all of your beliefs on this thread but it doesn't change the public and critical opinion.



> http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics/schubertsyms.html


 Sorry but, your attitude really strikes me as ''snobbish''.

And last,

I am not *aware* that Webern has written a symphony comparable to the best of Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms or Mahler.. Your argument is invalid.


----------



## peeyaj

@ jalex and Eviticus

I'm going to rest my case here on why Schubert is a great symphonist. Please read the links I've provided. I also quoted some passages.

Here:
5th Symphony



> http://symphonysalon.blogspot.com/2005/12/schubert-fifth-symphony.html


Unfinished Symphony



> http://symphonysalon.blogspot.com/2005/12/schubert-unfinished-eighth-symphony.html


Great C-major Symphony



> http://symphonysalon.blogspot.com/2005/12/schubert-tenth-symphony-great-c-major.html


*On the 5th symphony..*

''Only a very sophisticated pair of ears hearing it to the first time could *distinguish it from Mozart when he is most like Haydn..*it possesses an attractive physiognomy of own and its permeated with the buoyant, joyous spirit of this amazingly gifted spendthrift of spontaneous melody.''

On Unfinished

''...Schubert's spirit made such incredible progress toward maturity that with this Eight symphony, he may be said to have reached the pinnacle of his musical genius. It was with Unfinished that *Schubert's symphonic genius* seemed to burst all at once into flame.

Beethoven was more profound, more scholarly, undeniably a spirit of larger caliber and outlook, *but in none of his works have Beethoven surpassed the tremendous primitive vitality, the mighty dramatic surge and inescable appeal of the Unfinished symphony.''*

On Great C Major

''The salient characteristic of this entire stupendous creation is Breadth. *It is large in every respect - large in conception, in spirit, broad in proportions and structural plan.'' *

Brittanica Online Encyclopedia had a great article about *Symphony*. Franz Schubert had a section there.

Read it:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/578021/symphony

I'll spoil the surprise..
According to the *Encyclopediac article.*

*
''But it is the last two (Unfinished and Great) that raise Schubert to high rank among symphonists.''*

Schubert's two masterpieces on the symphonic repertoire made him a *''great'' symphonist*, two of your own opinions withstanding.


----------



## Artemis

Looking back through this thread so far, there appears to have been some uncertainty about the precise meaning of the term "greatest composer".

I'm simply going to avoid all that and go for a list the three composers whose symphonies I enjoy the most. They are:

Beethoven
Schubert
Schumann
If the choice allowed three more, they would be Mozart, Brahms, Tchaikovsky.

Beethoven probably wins overall because of the number and high quality of most of his nine symphonies. There's no need to elaborate further. I can't possibly add anything of the remotest significance.

I rate very highly Schubert's work. He wrote quite a lot of symphonic material in terms of hours/minutes. Both the "Great" and "Unfinished" are superb works. I also enjoy the Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth. Even the worked up version of the Tenth by Newbould is very enjoyable . The "Great" is up there alongside Beethoven's Ninth. Some suggestions I've seen that the "Great" is too long and runs out of ideas half way through don't stack up against the reality of a good performance of it. It's fascinating, vibrant, emotional, cleverly constructed, wonderful in all respects.

Schumann's symphonic work very strongly appeals to me. I love Schumann's work generally, first starting with admiration for his piano solo work, chamber music, song, and then various types of orchestral work. There's a kind of organic process of accumulated admiration with regard to Schumann. It's unlikely, in my estimation, that his symphonies would find huge numbers of fans immediately, especially if they're used to a diet of Beethoven and that popular stuff. I like Schumann's symphonies because they are not over-romantic, are very poetic, and embody a complexity and mystique lacking in some others' work.


----------



## jhar26

I voted for the three classical biggies...

Haydn because he's the great pioneer and popularizer of the genre. The guy who turned the symphony from a operatic overture and/or amusing little divertimento into a mature genre of it's own. Others may have been involved in that process, but he did it better and more successfully than anyone else. Ok, there's Mozart, but Haydn was already composing mature symphonies when wolfie was still a kid. It's also hard for me to ignore the sheer number of Haydn symphonies. Not all of them may be masterpieces, but enough of them are in the good-great range to make it a very impressive achievement. Mozart and Beethoven need no explanation I think.


----------



## violadude

I must be the only one who's not too fond of Beethoven's symphonies.


----------



## jalex

^Any particular reason? 

Can see why Beethoven's symphonies are so highly regarded, or is it that you don't think they are worthy of the admiration they get?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Easy. Shostakovich, Mahler and (because I am snobbish, arrogant and up myself) me.

Didn't have enough votes to include Mozart.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

violadude said:


> I must be the only one who's not too fond of Beethoven's symphonies.


Don't worry. I don't think his symphonies are that great. The seventh and ninth maybe, but my favourite is the fourth. Anyway, his symphonies are way too overplayed.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Easy. Shostakovich, Mahler and (because I am snobbish, arrogant and up myself) me.
> 
> Didn't have enough votes to include Mozart.


Actually, Mozart wrote some great symphonies, but he felt more at home in the opera world didn't he?


----------



## Eviticus

*WHOA THERE!!!*

I appear to be the subject of debate myself - so let me first just explain my post and reason.

*Peeyaj* - At the top of this thread it reads "Pick up to THREE (3) of your top choices for greatest symphonist" does it not? Therefore, i picked Beethoven (who basically revolutionized the symphony and has the greatest set IMO), Mahler (a very consistent set also) and then I was left with a third choice. I then reviewed the list and thought who best deserved this from having the most critically acclaimed set and chose Brahms.

Notice two important things: I did not choose my favourite composer despite his acclaimed last 3 (so much for the crusade). And i used the word 'set'. As there was no description of criteria of greatest symphonist so most people chose using their own logical reasons. I rightly or wrongly thought that people would judge from the set produced by any composer and so was surprised that so many had voted for Schubert because let's face it; symphonies 1 - 7 are generally not that highly regarded outside big Schubert fans. This is not anti - Schubert as i like Schubert and you clearly have not heard me mention how much i like his last "2". I would appreciate it if you did not jump to such hasty conclusions... which leads me on to Brian.

*Brianwalker* - Stop stirring it. I don't hold grudges and despite us disagreeing in the overrated thread, you will find i've even tried to help you out on the film thread and so i appreciate it if you did not try to assume the worst in people.

*Jalex* - Thanks for your support. Much appreciated.


----------



## trazom

violadude said:


> I must be the only one who's not too fond of Beethoven's symphonies.


No, I'm not either. Except for maybe the third and fourth symphonies, the rest become less interesting to me each time I hear them.


----------



## peeyaj

Eviticus said:


> *WHOA THERE!!!*
> 
> I appear to be the subject of debate myself - so let me first just explain my post and reason.
> 
> *Peeyaj* - At the top of this thread it reads "Pick up to THREE (3) of your top choices for greatest symphonist" does it not? Therefore, i picked Beethoven (who basically revolutionized the symphony and has the greatest set IMO), Mahler (a very consistent set also) and then I was left with a third choice. I then reviewed the list and thought who best deserved this from having the most critically acclaimed set and chose Brahms.
> 
> Notice two important things: I did not choose my favourite composer despite his acclaimed last 3 (so much for the crusade). And i used the word 'set'. As there was no description of criteria of greatest symphonist so most people chose using their own logical reasons. I rightly or wrongly thought that people would judge from the set produced by any composer and so was surprised that so many had voted for Schubert because let's face it; symphonies 1 - 7 are generally not that highly regarded outside big Schubert fans. This is not anti - Schubert as i like Schubert and you clearly have not heard me mention how much i like his last "2". I would appreciate it if you did not jump to such hasty conclusions... which leads me on to Brian.


a. First, you were not the subject of the debate. Perhaps, I'm not clearer, but the issue I am debating is *Schubert is a great symphonist*. Jalex disagree with this.

b. Second, your post about questioning people why did voted for Schubert bothers me. There are 15 choices on this poll, and you have to choose three. Everyone has her own opinion and everyone can vote. Whether you vote for Haydn, Mozart, Mendelsshon etc, it ups to you.

Which leads to this confusion:

c. I've defended the people who choose Schubert in the poll, because you have a poblem it.

D. My assertion that Schubert is a great symphonist, not the *greatest* but a *great symphonist* nonetheless. I don't considered him as the *greatest symphonist*, that title belongs to Beethoven. Objectively. I've choosen Beethoven, Mahler and Mozart. I have my bias there.

F. Jalex has a problem with my statement that Schubert is a great symphonist. ( Remember, I never mentioned that he is the greatest). I have defended my position that Schubert, indeed is a great symphonist by presenting facts.

Conclusion:

Schubert is not in the three of greatest symphonist, nonetheless he is a *great symphonist*. DDD ranked him 9th on the 15 greatest symphonist list. The position that Schubert is not a great symphonist because he only created ''1 and a half symphonies'' is a warped one.


----------



## jalex

peeyaj said:


> ...the issue I am debating is *Schubert is a great symphonist*. Jalex disagree with this.


Although this happens to be true, it isn't the angle I was taking on it. I wanted you (or anyone else who voted for Schubert) to _explain_ your choice, not to _recant_ it. Like I said, you are welcome to your opinion. You duly gave your reasons; I can't say they satisfy me but I can't ask for more than that either


----------



## peeyaj

@jalex

But I haven't voted Schubert in this poll! I've voted for Beethoven, Mahler and Mozart..


----------



## Eviticus

peeyaj said:


> The position that Schubert is not a great symphonist because he only created ''1 and a half symphonies'' is a warped one.


You are obviously very touchy about this Peeyaj and i personally don't want to offend you but I'm sure you can appreciate many people may not be convinced of this. It could be argued 2 ways and both seem very plausible and logical.

The first is that perhaps composers should be judged on their last symphony (Beethoven, Mahler, Mozart, Haydn, Dvorak, Schubert being fine examples) after all most of the great composers got better at their craft with age. In this case Schubert was a great symphonist.

But it is not inplausable to say composers should be measured on their set and how many great symphonies they achieved from it. In this case Schubert only managed one completed great symphony and it could be argued no matter how great - that is not enough considering all his efforts.

Either way - i dont think it is an open and shut case and the arguments seem equally valid.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

If anyone is interested (or just completely bored out of their mind) , go to my blog and read about my symphonies.


----------



## jalex

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> If anyone is interested (or just completely bored out of their mind) , go to my blog and read about my symphonies.


Any chance you could record any performances of your work, or have you already done so? I'd be interested to hear it.

I enjoyed reading the self-deprecatory comments on the early efforts, by the way


----------



## peeyaj

The fact that the public and critical opinion, with the great composers such as Schumann and Dvorak, consider Schubert as a great symphonist invalidates some of your own statement.

Here is Brian Newbould's critical assessment of Schubert's symphonies. You can read excerpts there.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Schubert_and_the_symphony.html?id=36AZAQAAIAAJ

Here is how the Unfinished Symphony influenced the development of the Romantic symphony and why it was considered as innovative and the first ''true Romantic symphony''.

http://www.dorak.info/music/sform.html

Schubert completed 7 symphonies and composed two movements of Unfinished.

The first six are in the style of Haydn and Mozart. They were little gems, full of enchanting melodies that heralds Schubert's talent on composing for orchestra.

But the greatness of Schubert doesn't rest on those six. His last two symphonies, the Unfinished and Great, cement his status in the mastery of the form and influenced a later generation of composers.

I could go on and on, why Schubert is considered by many as a great symphonist, but it would be futile in your ears. I suggest perusing Amazon.com reviews of Schubert's symphonies, reading program notes on the web or read the writings of Dvorak and Schumann.. Whatever your own opinion is, it doesn't change the fact that *Schubert is a great symphonist *.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

jalex said:


> Any chance you could record any performances of your work, or have you already done so? I'd be interested to hear it.
> 
> I enjoyed ready the self-deprecatory comments on the early efforts, by the way


I'll see if I can sneak in a recording device during the performance of the third mvt of my sixth. Maybe I could even record some rehearsals.


----------



## violadude

jalex said:


> ^Any particular reason?
> 
> Can see why Beethoven's symphonies are so highly regarded, or is it that you don't think they are worthy of the admiration they get?


Honestly Jalex, I don't know what I don't like too much about Beethoven's symphonies. I love his string quartets and his piano sonatas and violin concerto to death and he is among my favorite composers based on those works, but his symphonies just don't do a whole lot for me. Maybe they are such in a transition period that, either consciously or subconsciously, I feel that they are neither here nor there. They're not as classical as I would like, but not as romantic yet either. That's just kind of a gut feeling though.


----------



## Art Rock

violadude said:


> I must be the only one who's not too fond of Beethoven's symphonies.


Well, I also do not revere them as some do. The sixth is a masterpiece (top 10 for me), the fifth excellent, beyond that honourable mention for 3 and 7, but I can list dozens of symphonies that I already prefer over these two, let alone the rest.


----------



## jalex

peeyaj said:


> @jalex
> 
> But I haven't voted Schubert in this poll! I've voted for Beethoven, Mahler and Mozart..


You haven't voted for Mahler...


----------



## Artemis

violadude said:


> I must be the only one who's *not too fond of Beethoven's symphonies*.


 Even though I like all of Beethoven's symphonies, if possibly a little tired of listening to them for the umpteeth time, it doesn't bother me to hear a dissenting view occasionally from someone who isn't too fond of them.

In fact, one of the most memorable and amusing characters I ever encountered on a classical music forum was a "_paulb_" who used to be prolific poster several years ago on a couple of the other big forums. He had a well-known disliking of Beethoven. From that era, he was instead an ardent admirer of Mozart, but his chief interests were Ravel and Debussy. He didn't have much time for Sibelius either, but that's a different story.

Because he stood out from the herd, he was often quized by his peers as why he didn't like Beethoven. Some people gave him a very bad time in pursuing this matter. As fas as I recall, his main answer was that he considered that Beethoven had far too dominating an influence on subsequent 19th C music. He reckoned that it generated too many Beethoven look-alikes, thus stultifying musical development for too long, until basically the likes of Debussy (and later Ravel) broke the mould once and for all.

Pressed beyond this matter an over-dominant influence on later composers, he was not impressed with Beethoven's style of music per se. He was critical of Beethoven's orchestral sound with its relentless pressing forward dynamic style. He far preferred more expansive and melifluous Mozart. He was also scathing of the ever-so-common feature in Beethoven's chamber music where you get violin calling "_here I am_" and piano replying "_yes I hear you"_, type of thing going on all the time. He found all that sickening.

I'm not sure what happened to "paulb". I haven't seen him around for a few years but he was good value.


----------



## Artemis

Eviticus said:


> You are obviously very touchy about this Peeyaj and i personally don't want to offend you but I'm sure you can appreciate many people may not be convinced of this. It could be argued 2 ways and both seem very plausible and logical.
> 
> The first is that perhaps composers should be judged on their last symphony (Beethoven, Mahler, Mozart, Haydn, Dvorak, Schubert being fine examples) after all most of the great composers got better at their craft with age. In this case Schubert was a great symphonist.
> 
> *But it is not inplausable to say composers should be measured on their set and how many great symphonies they achieved from it.* In this case Schubert only managed one completed great symphony and it could be argued no matter how great - that is not enough considering all his efforts.
> 
> Either way - i dont think it is an open and shut case and the arguments seem equally valid.


I would like to seek clarification on the meaning of the sentence I have enboldened from your recent post above.

Why do think that the number of great symphonies a composer wrote is the most important determinant of one's assessment of the "greatest symphonist"?

Are you suggesting that an individual is not able give a relative weighting among the various symphonies he/she considers to be "great"?

If a weighting is allowed, and I can't see why not, your assertion that number alone is all that matters falls to pieces, does it not?


----------



## jalex

I think four high quality symphonies is the minimum I'd want before describing a composer as a great symphonist. At a pinch, three truly exceptional ones (not that I can think of a case where this has happened).


----------



## Artemis

jalex said:


> I think four high quality symphonies is the minimum I'd want before describing a composer as a great symphonist. At a pinch, three truly exceptional ones (not that I can think of a case where this has happened).


 What exactly do you mean by "high quality" and "truly exceptional"?

Are you thinking in terms of any objective criteria, if so what are they?


----------



## Eviticus

Artemis said:


> I would like to seek clarification on the meaning of the sentence I have enboldened from your recent post above.
> 
> Why do think that the number of great symphonies a composer wrote is the most important determinant of one's assessment of the "greatest symphonist"?
> 
> Are you suggesting that an individual is not able give a relative weighting among the various symphonies he/she considers to be "great"?
> 
> If a weighting is allowed, and I can't see why not, your assertion that number alone is all that matters falls to pieces, does it not?


In answer to your question, I suppose the number of great symphonies as proportion of their output was my original thought but as violadude correctly pointed out it has the fatal flaw with some composers only did one or two symphonies that were all considered great. Besides, it doesn't sit well with me to merit someone as the greatest symphonist but they only produced 2 great symphonies. I then thought perhaps it a better method to judge the composers on the set they produced. The latter is still a crude method but gives you a rough estimate to the answers.

I certainly wouldn't be opposed to using some sort of weighting system as you suggest with different things being assessed such as innovation, structure, aesthetics and so on but no doubt every poster would score each category differently. I'm sure Brian from DDD used that type of weighting method to rank everything on the DDD site.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Just a question for ye all: would Henze be considered a great symphonist?


----------



## violadude

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Just a question for ye all: would Henze be considered a great symphonist?


yes I think so.


----------



## violadude

I'm kinda surprised Sibelius isn't higher than he is.


----------



## brianwalker

violadude said:


> I'm kinda surprised Sibelius isn't higher than he is.


 He's ahead of Dvorak. Who else would you have him be in front of? Shostakovich and Mozart?


----------



## jalex

^Bruckner for one.


----------



## violadude

brianwalker said:


> He's ahead of Dvorak. Who else would you have him be in front of? Shostakovich and Mozart?


Ya I would actually have him in front of Shostakovich just because I feel his symphonies are more even in quality than Shostakovich's...which is understandable on Shostakovich's part.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

violadude said:


> I'm kinda surprised Sibelius isn't higher than he is.


I've never really thought much of Sibelius's symphonies. I have a couple of vinyl records of them but I don't really listen to them much.


----------



## violadude

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I've never really thought much of Sibelius's symphonies. I have a couple of vinyl records of them but I don't really listen to them much.


I'm sure member Tapkaara will get on you about that haha

but I would suggest you pay more attention to them. They are really great, but not always immediately accessible.


----------



## Artemis

Eviticus said:


> In answer to your question, I suppose the number of great symphonies as proportion of their output was my original thought but as violadude correctly pointed out it has the fatal flaw with some composers only did one or two symphonies that were all considered great. Besides, it doesn't sit well with me to merit someone as the greatest symphonist but they only produced 2 great symphonies. I then thought perhaps it a better method to judge the composers on the set they produced. The latter is still a crude method but gives you a rough estimate to the answers.
> 
> I certainly wouldn't be opposed to using some sort of weighting system as you suggest with different things being assessed such as innovation, structure, aesthetics and so on but no doubt every poster would score each category differently. *I'm sure Brian from DDD used that type of weighting method to rank everything on the DDD site*.


 Thanks for your further thoughts. You are moving roughly in the direction I was hinting at. But forget about the DDD rankings of various symphonies. What I had in mind specifically was a list far closer to home: The T-C 150 Most Recommended Symphonies, which sits right next to this one as a "sticky".

I'm surprised that no-one has referred to this list as a possible reference point on which to base their opinions, especially those whose who appear to strive for objectivity and want to base everything either on a number count or possibly factoring in different grades of "quality" among the symphonies produced by individual composers.

On reflection, perhaps I'm not that surprised that no one picked up on this T-C list, because it does perhaps throws up some rather awkward results (see below), and quite possibly this had been worked out. But no matter, plodding on ....

Assuming that all the symphonies in the T-C list may be considered "high quality" (if not why were they included?), and are ranked at least very roughly in order of merit, it's possible to make some quite interesting deductions. I'm not going to set out all the detailed results that I asked someone to do for me, because I haven't got the time to do so and I doubt that most people would bother reading them.

However, based on the number and ranking of individual symphonies on the T-C list, the key results are set out below in sets of 3:

 The top 3 composers are: Beethoven, Mahler, Mozart (with little separating each of them)
 The next 3 are Bruckner, Shostakovich, Sibelius
 The next 3 are Haydn, Schubert, Prokofiev
 The next 3 are: Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Dvorak
These results are slightly sensitive to the exact weighting method. Those in the top 3 set of composers sit quite tightly next to each other. In fact, depending on the exact weighting (whether arithmetic or geometric, or simply based on a number count) it's possible for either Mozart or Mahler to come in the top position, ahead of Beethoven. But the most plausible result is that Beethoven is narrowly first past the post.

Other interesting results are that Schubert does indeed get a look-in among the "great symphonists" on this reckoning. But there's something pretty "fishy" about Brahms' position. Shostakovich's high position rests partly on the highly dubious rank for his S5 (at position No 5).

I stress that personally I'm not recommending this kind of approach in assessing the "greatest symphonist". As I stated in my earlier post, I prefer a more direct one based on gut feeling alone. I have only gone to this greater trouble order in order to provide some food for thought for any "bean counters" on T-C who may prefer a more numerical type of approach, which is what they appear to want but don't always provide themselves. Apart from that, I'm in no doubt that all this effort, like most other stuff I write on T-C, is largely wasted effort, given the various types of negative reaction I seem to get sometimes. Maybe I'll clear off.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Im glad you referenced the list we compiled Artemis, but shortly after we finished voting on that list I had worked out my own derived list of greatest symphonists.

The list was as follows:

1. Mahler
2. Beethoven
3. Mozart
4. Bruckner
5. Sibelius
6. Shostakovich
7. Haydn
8. Prokofiev
9. Brahms
10. Schubert
11. Tchaikovsky
12. Dvorak
13. Nielsen
14. Vaughan Williams
15. Mendelssohn
16. Schumann
17. Berlioz
18. Stravinsky
19. Rachmaninov
20. Ives

The original post can be found here: http://www.talkclassical.com/11038-tc-150-top-recommended-85.html#post145683

I think the low placement of Brahms can be attributed to the fact that he only wrote 4 symphonies.


----------



## Artemis

emiellucifuge said:


> Im glad you referenced the list we compiled Artemis, but shortly after we finished voting on that list I had worked out my own derived list of greatest symphonists.


Thanks. I hadn't realised that you are back. It's nice to hear from you again. Nor did I appreciate that you had worked out a ranking of composers based on the results of your work.

Perhaps a bit of duplication is no bad thing if only as a check. On this occasion I asked my nephew yesterday to do the calculations for me. He came back at me with a plethora of results based on alternative weighting systems, each of which we all fully recognise is entirely arbitrary, but he assures me that he carried out some "sensitivity" analysis to test for robustness.

He tells me that the 3-set groupings I gave in the previous post are pretty robust, but within each set the ranks do vary according to the exact weighting method selected.

The main reason I went to this trouble was to answer the question I posed yesterday to which I did not receive a response, and nor did I really expect one. In the process of looking at the results, I noticed that, very interestingly, there are actaully 5 symphonies by Schubert in the T-C list of 150 top symphonies. This ought to bring a bit of festive joy to other "little mushroom" fans like me, albeit possible slight embarrasment to certain others who, in their earlier comments, may have adopted a very narrow, or in some cases a mean-spirited approach, ("_1.5 symphonies_" indeed! how insulting) to counting Schubert's achievements in this area.

Obviously, the results of this kind of excercise are only as good as the raw material data upon which they are based, and it's very easy for people who may find the results awkward to swallow to question the specific components. I vaguely expect something like this may follow soon. But such comment is next to pointless because all they would be doing is substituting their own personal preferences and attempting to pass this off as being somehow more objective than the list they are commenting upon, which itself was presumably arrived at by a democratic voting exercise of some kind.

I do hope that the next time anyone wishes to make an assertion about "objectivity" in their rankings of whatever type of work we are discussing, they might at least make the effort to provide some empirical support for their viewpoint, rather than merely rest their case on assertion and hope to pass this off as useful comment. This is especially so when such people attempt to make belittling comments, based on dubious notions of "objectivity", about certain composers who in their opinion are overrated in one or more genres.


----------



## Eviticus

Artemis said:


> Thanks for your further thoughts. You are moving roughly in the direction I was hinting at. But forget about the DDD rankings of various symphonies. *What I had in mind specifically was a list far closer to home: The T-C 150 Most Recommended Symphonies, which sits right next to this one as a "sticky". *
> 
> I'm surprised that no-one has referred to this list as a possible reference point on which to base their opinions, especially those whose who appear to strive for objectivity and want to base everything either on a number count or possibly factoring in different grades of "quality" among the symphonies produced by individual composers.
> 
> On reflection, perhaps I'm not that surprised that no one picked up on this T-C list, because it does perhaps throws up some rather awkward results (see below), and quite possibly this had been worked out. But no matter, plodding on ....
> 
> Assuming that all the symphonies in the T-C list may be considered "high quality" (if not why were they included?), and are ranked at least very roughly in order of merit, it's possible to make some quite interesting deductions. I'm not going to set out all the detailed results that I asked someone to do for me, because I haven't got the time to do so and I doubt that most people would bother reading them.
> 
> However, based on the number and ranking of individual symphonies on the T-C list, the key results are set out below in sets of 3:
> 
> The top 3 composers are: Beethoven, Mahler, Mozart (with little separating each of them)
> The next 3 are Bruckner, Shostakovich, Sibelius
> The next 3 are Haydn, Schubert, Prokofiev
> The next 3 are: Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Dvorak
> These results are slightly sensitive to the exact weighting method. Those in the top 3 set of composers sit quite tightly next to each other. In fact, depending on the exact weighting (whether arithmetic or geometric, or simply based on a number count) it's possible for either Mozart or Mahler to come in the top position, ahead of Beethoven. But the most plausible result is that Beethoven is narrowly first past the post.
> 
> Other interesting results are that Schubert does indeed get a look-in among the "great symphonists" on this reckoning. But there's something pretty "fishy" about Brahms' position. Shostakovich's high position rests partly on the highly dubious rank for his S5 (at position No 5).
> 
> I stress that personally I'm not recommending this kind of approach in assessing the "greatest symphonist". As I stated in my earlier post, I prefer a more direct one based on gut feeling alone. *I have only gone to this greater trouble order in order to provide some food for thought for any "bean counters" on T-C who may prefer a more numerical type of approach, which is what they appear to want but don't always provide themselves.* *Apart from that, I'm in no doubt that all this effort, like most other stuff I write on T-C, is largely wasted effort, given the various types of negative reaction I seem to get sometimes. Maybe I'll clear off.*




Thank you for referring me to the TC list - i had not noticed it before. I shall look at it after posting this. The conclusion (as well as that of emiellucifuge) concludes that although I was crudely trying to be objective as explained in my previous post based on the idea of a set - i wasn't far out with exception of Brahms which i did say was my third choice. _Not bad for a bean counter eh?_ :tiphat: And even you suspect Brahms place being suspicious.

Bruckner and Mozart are understandably high but i guess when you try to be meticulously objective as you posters have been, the list does start to throw in some surprises lower down but I am glad you and emiellucifuge posted these (take that as a positive and don't clear off as so far from what i've read you speak a lot of sense).

As for Schubert - I still remain unconvinced by his 'set' despite my love for his last "2". 5 in the top 150 sounds suspicious to me. But i suppose after the first 80-100 it gets very hard to derive a list and it will probably consist of name plucking and padding and ignore lesser knowns like say Michael Haydn who probably deserve better placing than the weaker Schubert symphonies. In my opinion he shouldn't really have more than 2 in the top 100 - but phew - what a great 2.


----------



## Artemis

Eviticus said:


> [/B]
> 
> Thank you for referring me to the TC list - i had not noticed it before. I shall look at it after posting this. The conclusion (as well as that of emiellucifuge) concludes that although I was crudely trying to be objective as explained in my previous post based on the idea of a set - i wasn't far out with exception of Brahms which i did say was my third choice. _Not bad for a bean counter eh?_ :tiphat: And even you suspect Brahms place being suspicious.
> 
> Bruckner and Mozart are understandably high but i guess when you try to be meticulously objective as you posters have been, the list does start to throw in some surprises lower down but I am glad you and emiellucifuge posted these (take that as a positive and don't clear off as so far from what i've read you speak a lot of sense).
> 
> As for Schubert - I still remain unconvinced by his 'set' despite my love for his last "2". 5 in the top 150 sounds suspicious to me. But i suppose after the first 80-100 it gets very hard to derive a list and it will probably consist of name plucking and padding and ignore lesser knowns like say Michael Haydn who probably deserve better placing than the weaker Schubert symphonies. In my opinion he shouldn't really have more than 2 in the top 100 - but phew - what a great 2.


You are very welcome. I hope you find some useful information from this work.

I too am aware of the DDD listings for symphonies but they only go to position 120, against T-C's 150. You will note that two of the 5 Schubert symphonies listed by T-C are ranked below 120. However, given the high positions for the others Schubert still does pretty well, and is ahead of Brahms on virtually any sensible method of weighting one can select.

Whether or not you believe this relative position of Schubert/Brahms is up to you. Personally, I believe that both Schubert and Brahms are underrated on this listing of symphonies. I'm not criticising the work in any way, but my personal list would look somewhat different. It would differ mainly because there are so many on that list that I don't bother with at all, and my interest tapers off very rapidly after about 50 or so.

Very high up that list are several of the symphonies by Schubert (5, 8, 9). The "Great" to me is worth several of, for example, Haydn's best, even though I like much of Haydn's symphonic work a lot. So in this sense Schubert produced more than 3 very good symphonies, taking account of the relative value I place on each of them compared with many others.


----------



## jalex

emiellucifuge said:


> 8. Prokofiev
> 14. Vaughan Williams
> 15. Mendelssohn
> 16. Schumann
> 
> 17. Berlioz


Ach! What happened here? I know I have a thing for Berlioz, but rating him behind these four in particular is absolutely perverse, and behind several of the others is dubious to say the least.


----------



## brianwalker

jalex said:


> Ach! What happened here? I know I have a thing for Berlioz, but rating him behind these four in particular is absolutely perverse, and behind several of the others is dubious to say the least.


He only wrote one symphony?


----------



## Art Rock

Depending on how you define them, 2-4:

Symphonie fantastique (1830)
Harold en Italie (1834)
Roméo et Juliette (1839)
Grande symphonie funèbre et triomphale (1840)


----------



## jalex

Harold en Italie is much closer to a symphony than a concerto because of the way the viola part is treated. Berlioz described it as a 'symphony in four parts with viola obbligato'.

If Mahler 8 is a symphony then Romeo et Juliette is, and Berlioz always designated it as such despite never describing any of his other compositions for chorus and orchestra as symphonies.


----------



## TresPicos

Eviticus said:


> As for Schubert - I still remain unconvinced by his 'set' despite my love for his last "2". 5 in the top 150 sounds suspicious to me. But i suppose after the first 80-100 it gets very hard to derive a list and it will probably consist of name plucking and padding and ignore lesser knowns like say Michael Haydn who probably deserve better placing than the weaker Schubert symphonies. In my opinion he shouldn't really have more than 2 in the top 100 - but phew - what a great 2.


Pretty much like Beethoven, then. Sure, his 5th and 6th do belong in the top 100, but placing the weaker Beethoven symphonies there as well - and four in the top 10 - is probably an even stronger case of plucking, padding and ignoring...


----------



## jalex

TresPicos said:


> Pretty much like Beethoven, then. Sure, his 5th and 6th do belong in the top 100, but placing the weaker Beethoven symphonies there as well - and four in the top 10 - is probably an even stronger case of plucking, padding and ignoring...


I can't see #3 or any from #5-9 outside the top tier of symphonies. Four in top ten isn't ridiculous by any stretch of the imagination.

There are no truly weak symphonies in his output anyway, just ones which look weaker compared to his best. By the standards of Haydn and Mozart the first two, especially #2, are pretty strong. #4 isn't weak by any standards. Anyone who thinks #8 is weak needs their ears checked.


----------



## Eviticus

TresPicos said:


> Pretty much like Beethoven, then. Sure, his 5th and 6th do belong in the top 100, but placing the weaker Beethoven symphonies there as well - and four in the top 10 - is probably an even stronger case of plucking, padding and ignoring...


7 of Beethoven symphonies easily deserve a place in the top 100. I don't think i'm alone in thinking that all 7 (including the often lesser rated 4 and 8) should be above Schubert 5.

Sorry for being niaive but what are the virtues of Schubert No.5 (originality, influence, innovations, general appeal) that make it amongst the greatest symphonies again?

I'm not being sarcastic, i honestly don't know.


----------



## TrazomGangflow

I wish I would have looked at this poll before I bought that Mendelssohn greatest symphonies album.


----------



## brianwalker

I don't know if someone already said this but Mahler is number two by a very wide margin. Is he on the verge being overrated, if not already?

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v22/n16/alex-ross/the-biggest-rockets

Mahler, the most generous of megalomaniacs, often prophesied great things for his music, and, to judge from the programmes of recent seasons, his roll-over-Beethoven fantasy is coming true. The Mahler symphonies now occupy the dead centre of the repertory. This past season, in New York, Carnegie Hall put on the Ninth on a Sunday, the Third the following Thursday, and, about a week later, on successive evenings, Das Lied von der Erde and the First. One loud night in February, the Second and Fourth were done simultaneously, at Carnegie and at the Philharmonic. The Fifth, the Sixth, the Seventh, the Eighth, and part of the Tenth also showed up at various times. The First and the Ninth came back at season's end, while Thomas Hampson sang the complete Mahler songs. Each of the major works, then, was performed at least once, and it wasn't even an anniversary year. Beethoven's little things, by contrast, received, by my count, seven performances - by the Philharmonic and by all orchestras visiting from out of town.

Mahler's Sixth Symphony by one Hans Liebstöckl, critic of the Illustriertes Wiener Extrablatt. Liebstöckl has the virtue, first of all, of being funny: his opening quip, 'Krupp makes only cannons, Mahler only symphonies,' has the touch of Karl Kraus. He also gives an early, sceptical perspective on the Mahler legend as it was gestating among the young people of Vienna. After a predictable assault on the material of the Sixth, he meditates interestingly on the spirit behind the music:

_*The right mood isn't there, nor the tenderness, the happy introspection, the calm inherent in creation. All these things were alive and shining for the last time in Johannes Brahms . *_. . After [Brahms] comes the circus of the moderns. The colossal symphony, billboard music, the obtrusiveness of the means: the legacy of Liszt, Berlioz and Bruckner, the makers of great occasions . . . Mahler is a mystic, he loves bells of all kinds, celestas, sudden chorales. He is forever on a pilgrimage, has always got something to atone for and put right. He composes original sin. The pure fools have always made the loudest noise. . . . There is now such a thing as politics in music, and Herr Mahler too has a strong party, furiously applauding and religiously intolerant. Cults and fanatical priests are everywhere nowadays.
-------------------

I remember the member Bach said that the symphony ended with Brahms. Is there but a strange coincidence the same opinion was voiced more than a hundred years ago? Of course the same critics also criticized Wagner, and these composers were post-Wagnerian, but Bach loves Wagner. What gives?

It also leaves me wondering, if that Brahms' symphonies were his standard of music, the tenderness and calm introspection, what he thought of Beethoven's late quartets and the Hammerklavier.



TrazomGangflow said:


> I wish I would have looked at this poll before I bought that Mendelssohn greatest symphonies album.


NO! You made a good purchase. His symphonies rule.


----------



## DavidMahler

So far, based on the polling here is TC's top 10 symphonists in order

1. Beethoven
2. Mahler
3. Brahms
4. Shostakovich
5. Bruckner
6. Mozart
7. Sibelius
8a. Dvorak
8b. Tchaikovsky
10. Haydn

I think that's a very accurate ranking. Good job guys!


----------



## Artemis

DavidMahler said:


> So far, based on the polling here is TC's top 10 symphonists in order
> 
> 1. Beethoven
> 2. Mahler
> 3. Brahms
> 4. Shostakovich
> 5. Bruckner
> 6. Mozart
> 7. Sibelius
> 8a. Dvorak
> 8b. Tchaikovsky
> 10. Haydn
> 
> *I think that's a very accurate ranking. Good job guys!*


Maybe so, but this list has some rather large discrepancies compared with the ranks implied by the TC _150 Most Recommended Symphonies_ list (see earlier posts in this thread).

The positions for Mozart and Brahms seem to differ the most and quite substantially.

In this poll so far, Brahms is placed third yet in the list of symphonies poll his implied position was much lower at aound 10 or 11 depending on choice of weighting method.

Mozart did a lot better in the earlier poll than in this one, coming out in either first, second or third position depending on weighting method, compared with a much more lowly sixth position here. Prokofiev appeared to do much better in the previous results.

It could all be explained by different methods etc, but if the results of this poll are considered to be the more accurate I'd be tempted to have a close look at the detailed results of the previous poll to find out why they differ so much. I would suspect that the previous poll probably had too many Mozart fans compared and not enough Brahms fans, and it's as simple as that.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I'm feeling sorry for Mendelssohn actually.


----------



## BradPiano

Brahms, Tchaikovsky, and Dvorak. I'm disappointed that there aren't more votes for Dvorak.


----------



## violadude

BradPiano said:


> Brahms, Tchaikovsky, and Dvorak. I'm disappointed that there aren't more votes for Dvorak.


In my opinion, Dvorak's symphonies aren't as consistent in quality as many of the other composers on the list.


----------



## TresPicos

BradPiano said:


> Brahms, Tchaikovsky, and Dvorak. I'm disappointed that there aren't more votes for Dvorak.


Indeed! His 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th are fantastic.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

TresPicos said:


> Indeed! His 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th are fantastic.


What about the first five may I ask?


----------



## emiellucifuge

For me the last 4 are each masterpieces.

I also love number 4 and 5 tremendously, both mature and great works.
Ive heard critics and listeners praise the 3rd though its not a personal favourite.

Dvorak does deserve to be regarded as a top tier symphonist


----------



## JAKE WYB

I also chose dvorak becuase every 1 of his symphonies is individual and valuable and absolute endless pleasure to listen to from beginning to end and the first 5 do not deserve their role as immature predecessors to the last more famous 4.

Sibelius was also the easy choice - his approach to form and consistency and flow makes him the absolute master and every bar beautiful and integral - more than any other symphony wriiter


----------



## Kalervonpoika

Beethoven, Mahler and Sibelius. I left Brahms and Shostakovich out but they could have been in. Beethoven was never in doubt.


----------



## skalpel

It seems I am one of few who absolutely loves Vaughan Williams' symphonies. What I find strange is that, besides the big guns - which I rarely listen to anyway, symphonic works really don't interest me like chamber and solo music does; yet there is something that hugely appeals to me in Vaughan Williams' symphonies.


----------



## 4'33"

*Seriously?*

Is this favorite symphonist or greatest symphonist? I can understand Beethoven possibly not being on someone's favorite list (I mean, I can't REALLY understand it, but whatever. Everyone has their "tastes"), but B is without a doubt THE greatest symphonist, whether you like his music or not. Saying Mahler (or anyone else for that matter) is a greater symphonist would be like saying Hindemith was greater than Bach at writing fugues. Musically ignorant and patently stupid. I know some people have a knee-jerk reaction to B's universal popularity, but that is part of what makes him the best. His symphonies often have the most profound architecture, form and complexity yet still appeal to the broadest of audiences. The first movement of the Third alone bests any other attempt at this genre. The question should read "Who are the greatest symphonists AFTER Beethoven?". I would say:

#2. Brahms
#3. Mozart
#4. Haydn
#5. Schoenberg (Two chamber symphonies are insane!)
#6. Lutoslawski

Mahler's symphonies are a big bloated mess of disjointed ideas. Even when he has a really good section (opening of the 6th symphony is awesome!) he blows it with some stupid transition or secondary theme that just does not work. The only reason he is even remembered is because his works feed into the egomania of conductors.

Dvorak - one good symphony

Tchaikovsky - No depth

Schumann and Mendelssohn wrote some good ones. Bruckner #8 is all you need from him. Vaughan Williams? Sibelius? Total snoozefest.


----------



## Couchie

4'33" said:


> Is this favorite symphonist or greatest symphonist? I can understand Beethoven possibly not being on someone's favorite list (I mean, I can't REALLY understand it, but whatever. Everyone has their "tastes"), but B is without a doubt THE greatest symphonist, whether you like his music or not. Saying Mahler (or anyone else for that matter) is a greater symphonist would be like saying Hindemith was greater than Bach at writing fugues. Musically ignorant and patently stupid. I know some people have a knee-jerk reaction to B's universal popularity, but that is part of what makes him the best. His symphonies often have the most profound architecture, form and complexity yet still appeal to the broadest of audiences. The first movement of the Third alone bests any other attempt at this genre. The question should read "Who are the greatest symphonists AFTER Beethoven?". I would say:
> 
> #2. Brahms
> #3. Mozart
> #4. Haydn
> #5. Schoenberg (Two chamber symphonies are insane!)
> #6. Lutoslawski
> 
> Mahler's symphonies are a big bloated mess of disjointed ideas. Even when he has a really good section (opening of the 6th symphony is awesome!) he blows it with some stupid transition or secondary theme that just does not work. The only reason he is even remembered is because his works feed into the egomania of conductors.
> 
> Dvorak - one good symphony
> 
> Tchaikovsky - No depth
> 
> Schumann and Mendelssohn wrote some good ones. Bruckner #8 is all you need from him. Vaughan Williams? Sibelius? Total snoozefest.


If you also like Wagner I would suggest we get married immediately. For myself, Mahler is simply a big mess of pleasant sound noise totally devoid of anything of thematic or musical interest. Carry on.


----------



## Klavierspieler

Couchie said:


> If you also like Wagner I would suggest we get married immediately. For myself, Mahler is simply a big mess of pleasant sound noise totally devoid of anything of thematic or musical interest. Carry on.


It has just occurred to me that I have never heard of you listening to anything other than Wagner, ever. I don't suppose you ever consider branching out?


----------



## TresPicos

4'33" said:


> Is this favorite symphonist or greatest symphonist? I can understand Beethoven possibly not being on someone's favorite list (I mean, I can't REALLY understand it, but whatever. Everyone has their "tastes"), but B is without a doubt THE greatest symphonist, whether you like his music or not. Saying Mahler (or anyone else for that matter) is a greater symphonist would be like saying Hindemith was greater than Bach at writing fugues. Musically ignorant and patently stupid. I know some people have a knee-jerk reaction to B's universal popularity, but that is part of what makes him the best. His symphonies often have the most profound architecture, form and complexity yet still appeal to the broadest of audiences. The first movement of the Third alone bests any other attempt at this genre. The question should read "Who are the greatest symphonists AFTER Beethoven?"


:lol:

Quite amusing parody there. But sadly, it often sounds like that. Like Beethoven is in fact God, proven scientifically.

I especially like "The first movement of the Third alone bests any other attempt at this genre." Like he wasn't still just fumbling.


----------



## jalex

TresPicos said:


> I especially like "The first movement of the Third alone bests any other attempt at this genre."* Like he wasn't still just fumbling*


??

[filler]


----------



## Couchie

Klavierspieler said:


> It has just occurred to me that I have never heard of you listening to anything other than Wagner, ever. I don't suppose you ever consider branching out?


There is nothing else.


----------



## Couchie

Couchie said:


> There is nothing else.


Basically I split my free time between listening to Wagner, and posting flagrant one-sentence messages praising Wagner online. The latter is no doubt a bit annoying but is an inevitable eventuality of the former.

http://www.addictions.com/


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I am currently thinking that Leif Segerstam is the greatest symphonist on earth. I mean, have you _heard_ his symphony no. 212? No. 253 looks like its going to be good too when it's done!


----------



## starthrower

253 symphonies? That's insane! I didn't even know he composed. I thought he was strictly a conductor. Anyway, I've become more interested in Finnish composers lately. I just bought the Sallinen set on CPO, and I want to listen to some Aho, and Lindberg eventually.


----------



## Couchie

A gift for you all this fine Sunday:


----------



## violadude

starthrower said:


> 253 symphonies? That's insane! I didn't even know he composed. I thought he was strictly a conductor. Anyway, I've become more interested in Finnish composers lately. I just bought the Sallinen set on CPO, and I want to listen to some Aho, and Lindberg eventually.


Most of them are fairly short if that culls your amazement a bit.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

violadude said:


> Most of them are fairly short if that culls your amazement a bit.


I had a look at his website. Most of them are 24 minutes. I don't think there are many shorter than that.


----------



## 4'33"

*And your point is?*



TresPicos said:


> :lol:
> 
> Quite amusing parody there. But sadly, it often sounds like that. Like Beethoven is in fact God, proven scientifically.
> 
> I especially like "The first movement of the Third alone bests any other attempt at this genre." Like he wasn't still just fumbling.


Beethoven is god, and it is proven scientifically. But since you think he was "fumbling around" in the third symphony then there really isn't much I can do to help you


----------



## Arsakes

Haydn
Dvorak
Brahms

other are also great, but can't beat best of the best 3!


----------



## FrankieP

BEETHOVEN BEETHOVEN BEETHOVEN BEETHOVEN 
can't beat a bit of Ludwig


----------



## poconoron

I'll have to go with Beethoven, Haydn, Mozart in that order.


----------

