# Should one approach symphonies chronologically?



## Sol Invictus (Sep 17, 2016)

Does it matter to someone who hasn't listened to composers symphonic cycles? I wonder if "progressing" with a composer creatively is a factor.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

First, you would need to establish what the chronology really was. Quite a few numbered symphonies are not quite in order (and this complication is exacerbated when a composer goes back and makes revisions).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Chronological listening is always enlightening, though not always the best approach to unfamiliar music. I enjoy it because I'm compulsively systematic.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

JAS said:


> First, you would need to establish what the chronology really was. Quite a few numbered symphonies are not quite in order (and this complication is exacerbated when a composer goes back and makes revisions).


Agreed- for instance, Schumann's fourth symphony is actually is first.

And for a long time, the numbering of the Dvorak symphonies were quite different.

But I actually I prefer listening to the symphonies in reverse chronological order- that's what I did with Beethoven, Sibelius, and Tchaikovsky- I find the later symphonies of composers are usual better (as they have more experience)- of course there are always exceptions- Sibelius 2, Beethoven 3, Tchaikovsky 2, Brahms 1...

But really, it doesn't matter that much to me what order I listen to them in.


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

As long as you eventually listen to the whole group if you want, I see no real benefit to going chronologically.


----------



## Sol Invictus (Sep 17, 2016)

I has just occurred to me that Bruckner has this revision issue with his symphonies. I'm pretty sure a thread exists explaining this dilemma, right?


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I tend to like to listen to Beethoven's symphonies chronologically, that is if I am listening to the whole cycle. Same with Mendelssohn which is more complicated as they are not numbered in the correct order. With Mahler, I never felt the urge to listen chronologically, or even to the whole cycle at one time perhaps because of its length. 

With Mendelssohn I order them 1, 5, 4, 3 and 2, but sometimes don't even include #2 because is is not exactly a symphony and so can be kept in a different category. That also simplifies the chronology because #2 as I recall spans two or three of the other symphonies in duration of its composition, but I put it last since it was finished last.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Sol Invictus said:


> Does it matter to someone who hasn't listened to composers symphonic cycles? I wonder if "progressing" with a composer creatively is a factor.


For me it does, but then again, not everyone is the same.


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

When I get a new boxset, I usually start with the works I'm most familiar with. Often times this means the later symphonies. This allows me to orient myself better with the conductor's style. I'll then work backwards from there. This strategy works for me.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Depends on how OCD you are.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

OP: I've tried it. Doesn't work with me for Beethoven's String Quartets and Symphonies. I usually skip the Early Quartets and Symphonies 1 & 2.


----------



## Jacred (Jan 14, 2017)

Klassik said:


> When I get a new boxset, I usually start with the works I'm most familiar with. Often times this means the later symphonies. This allows me to orient myself better with the conductor's style. I'll then work backwards from there. This strategy works for me.


Agreed.

I usually gauge how much I like a new boxset based off of the symphonies that I'm more familiar with. When I'm satisfied, then I give myself the green light, let my OCD kick in, and scour the thing from first to last. :lol:

But if the first few interpretations are subpar for whatever reason, then I do the working backwards part where I pick the next most familiar symphony to me; rinse and repeat as needed.


----------



## Judith (Nov 11, 2015)

No! I go for the ones I know first, then the recommended ones, and then the others!


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

I play the symphonies from first to last, but the movements from last to first.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I'm in the process of listening to Leif Segerstam's 309 or so symphonies in chronological order. I expect that my pace will pick up after the first one has been recorded.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Assuming I'm unfamiliar with the music, I start at the beginning. I want to hear how the composer has developed as time moves forward.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Bulldog said:


> I want to hear how the composer has developed as time moves forward.


You're not interested in how he regressed as time moves backward?


----------



## Robert Gamble (Dec 18, 2016)

What's amusing to me is how, if I'm dabbling in a composer I tend to go for the symphony I think I'll like most and don't care where it is chronologically. But as soon as I have all the symphonies of a composer my OCD kicks in and I almost have to go in chronological order.


----------



## Totenfeier (Mar 11, 2016)

amfortas said:


> You're not interested in how he regressed as time moves backward?


Funny! But actually, yes, I am. Once you know a composer's symphonic oeuvre (and I'm talking about the big boys here, not someone such as Haydn who, like the Cavalier poets, could compose a symphony while "falling off a horse"), you then have different color lenses - the later works - with which to view the earlier works. How does a Mahler view life and death? #1-3 give one answer; DLvDE-#10 give a very different one; so you can then go back and see what the younger version foresaw and what he had no idea about yet.

Interesting to me, anyway.


----------

