# Favorite Symphony Cycles Finale



## neoshredder

Pick up to 5. We'll see who the winner is. I know it will be a tough call here.


----------



## Novelette

A very easy choice of me this time. 

And I didn't have to break any rules by voting truthfully!


----------



## clavichorder

I might have substituted Prokofiev for Dvorak if I had actually heard Prokofiev's 4th, 7th, and 1st symphonies. I had to make a hard choice between Haydn and Mozart, ultimately favoring Haydn. Tchaikovsky, Brahms, and Beethoven were uncontested.


----------



## tdc

I'm debating whether I will participate this time out of disgust that Charles Ives did not make the final round.


----------



## clavichorder

tdc said:


> I'm debating whether I will participate this time out of disgust that Charles Ives did not make the final round.


I don't share the sentiment about Ives, but if Tchaikovsky somehow did not make this list, I would not vote.


----------



## neoshredder

Ives and Vaughan Williams were victims of the only 15 can be selected. But are worthy of being listened to. And yes Tchaikovsky made it easily. Schumann just couldn't be left out imo.


----------



## Art Rock

Brahms, Bruckner, Dvorak, Mahler, Shostakovich. Easy choice for me.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Difficult...Beethoven, Bruckner, Mahler, Mendelssohn (only if all 17 of his symphonies are included), Shostakovich.


----------



## AClockworkOrange

Ver, very difficult.

At present I have chosen Beethoven, Bruckner, Mahler, Schubert and Tchaikovsky.


----------



## violadude

Why does Sibelius always get so little votes 

Well anyway, I voted Brahms, Sibelius, Mahler, Bruckner and Nielsen. There were other contenders for me such as Prokofiev, but consistency in quality (quality in terms of favorite, not "greatness" necessarily) is the what helped me pick some over others.


----------



## Mahlerian

Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner, Mahler, and Sibelius.


----------



## Tristan

Yay Mahler  

Shostakovich has always been a close second for me.


----------



## realdealblues

This is one of the few lists I've seen where I have not only actually listened to every single symphony from each of these composers, but I actually like all of the composers as well.

Beethoven, Mozart & Mahler are my core listening group. I listen to their works more than probably any other composer other than maybe Chopin, so those 3 got votes from me.

I really could have voted for any of the others, but today Brahms and Schumann got my other 2 votes. Why? Just because I've been listening to a bunch of different recordings of their symphonies lately. Two or Three weeks ago and it would have been Schubert and Sibelius.


----------



## Arsakes

Sorry Beethoven, Schumann and Brahms. I had to vote for Dvorak, Haydn, Bruckner, Mahler and Sibelius.


----------



## davinci

My choice; Beethoven and Bruckner...closest to a perfect cycle; then in order Mahler, Schubert, Tchaikovsky.


----------



## Novelette

I've finally been able to listen to Sibelius. If I could, I would undo my vote to include his symphonies, even though it would mean breaking the requested 5 maximum, which is almost a custom of mine.


----------



## maestro267

Easy. Beethoven's 9, Mahler's 11, Shostakovich's 15 and Tchaikovsky's 7.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

maestro267 said:


> Easy. Beethoven's 9, Mahler's 11, Shostakovich's 15 and *Tchaikovsky's 7*. (emphasis mine)


Yeah... since _Manfred_ has not so much _fans_ as *devotees*, I knew it was only a matter of time before someone brought this up.

This would be "extremely difficult" for me, too... *IF* we excluded Beethoven, Bruckner and Mahler. However, those three cycles have broken away from the pack, at least in the "ant/centaur/dragon world" of my personal taste.


----------



## Vaneyes

Finally, an easy vote. My eyes resisted darting. My stomach refused to be knotted. My sphincter refrained from pulsating.

*LvB*, *Brahms*, *Bruckner*, *Mahler*, *Tchaikovsky*.

View attachment 11731


----------



## neoshredder

I ended up voting Beethoven, Dvorak, Haydn, Mozart, and Sibelius. Still can't get into Mahler and Bruckner. Maybe someday...


----------



## Vaneyes

neoshredder said:


> I ended up voting Beethoven, Dvorak, Haydn, Mozart, and Sibelius. Still can't get into Mahler and Bruckner. Maybe someday...


Not quite as easy as I thought. I'm feeling some remourse for Schumann's omission. How will I get through the day....


----------



## elgar's ghost

Without hesitation I opted for Mahler, Bruckner, Shostakovich and Beethoven. I didn't use a fifth vote as that would have meant deciding between Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Sibelius, Prokofiev and Schubert which I would have found too difficult.


----------



## clavichorder

I'm surprised at Prokofiev's low count. He was 6th or 7th(before or after Mozart), so I'm sorry he didn't get my vote.


----------



## Vaneyes

clavichorder said:


> I'm surprised at Prokofiev's low count. He was 6th or 7th(before or after Mozart), so I'm sorry he didn't get my vote.


Lots of different ideas in those works. The lesser known ones still provide some good listening off the beaten path.

P's symphonies received a large boost from RSNO/Jarvi recs. a couple of decades ago. Chandos didn't release a discount box soon enough, and enthusiasm for those recs. understandably died. FTI a box of can currently be had at Amazon for around $20.

There's been some interest in the Gergiev cycle, though I haven't heard enough of it to comment. I was never interested in Ozawa's. :tiphat:


----------



## violadude

Polls like these make me feel like I'm the only one in the world that doesn't care for Beethoven's cycle as a whole.


----------



## Art Rock

You're not alone.


----------



## tdc

violadude said:


> Polls like these make me feel like I'm the only one in the world that doesn't care for Beethoven's cycle as a whole.


There are many of us here, so you can feel good about yourself coming out of the closet lol. That said for myself I am more interested in the best works of a given cycle. I look for stand out works more than consistency. For example I would rather have the late symphonic masterpieces of Mozart, than 100 + very good symphonies of Haydn. If I'm looking at strength of a cycle as a whole as well as the inclusion of masterpieces I'll give the nod to Sibelius, though I still feel Mozart's late symphonies are probably the best of any works in this category. Needless to say I am not as much of a fan of the developments to the form brought on by Beethoven and the later Romantics in general. For me composers like Mahler and Bruckner have some truly outstanding moments, but most of their works lack the cohesion I admire in symphonies. Just my preference.

Finally my vote for Mendelssohn (in agreement with CoaG) was very influenced by his String Symphonies. Ives would have definitely gotten a vote from me.


----------



## Mahlerian

tdc said:


> Needless to say I am not as much of a fan of the developments to the form brought on by Beethoven and the later Romantics in general. For me composers like Mahler and Bruckner have some truly outstanding moments, but most of their works lack the cohesion I admire in symphonies. Just my preference.


Define cohesion. I doubt that our conceptions of the word are similar.


----------



## Manxfeeder

violadude said:


> Why does Sibelius always get so little votes


Give him time; he's moving up.


----------



## tdc

Mahlerian said:


> Define cohesion. I doubt that our conceptions of the word are similar.


I would roughly try to explain it as 'focused direction'. A more or less clear musical statement is perceivable. These works can be multifaceted, and express a variety of things, but there is always a sense of direction, of moving forward, with one section complimenting well the preceding and following sections.

Bruckner seems to often come across to me as just a stream of ideas that come to him as he composes, a bunch of grand musical statements not necessarily that well connected to each other. With Mahler its a similar problem, the first part of the first movement of the 3rd Symphony for example is one of the greatest musical moments for large orchestra I can think of, yet the middle section of that movement really does not fit well with the first part, or in my mind even conceptually with what the piece is supposed to be based on. Mahler's idea of fitting a world in a symphony for me often comes across as just biting off more than he can chew, and I would prefer to fast forward through large portions of many of his works.

Keep in mind though I said 'most' of their works, I think Bruckner's unfinished 9th is a masterpiece, and I think Mahler's Das Lied Von Der Erde is an absolute masterpiece. I like almost all of Mahler's 6th symphony too except aspects of the first movement where (like in a lot of his first movements) his later repetitions or slight variations of earlier themes, seem to be not well composed or 'fresh' sounding to my ears and drag already very long pieces on even longer. I also like Mahler's 8th, 2nd, 4th, 9th and 10th a lot and will say there are moments in every single one of his symphonies I really like. I could say the same for most Bruckner symphonies, and I realize a lot of this speaks to my preference in musical style more so than an objective measure of greatness. I consider both Mahler and Bruckner as great composers.


----------



## Mahlerian

tdc said:


> I would roughly try to explain it as 'focused direction'. A more or less clear musical statement is perceivable. These works can be multifaceted, and express a variety of things, but there is always a sense of direction, of moving forward, with one section complimenting well the preceding and following sections.


This I perceive in Bruckner/Mahler in spades, far more than many of their contemporaries. I have said here before that I would not cut a single bar out of Mahler's works, and I stand by that.



tdc said:


> Bruckner seems to often come across to me as just a stream of ideas that come to him as he composes, a bunch of grand musical statements not necessarily that well connected to each other.


I can imagine that such a thing would seem incohesive. But that's not what I hear. I hear Bruckner as following symphonic form, with themes, transitions, development, and so forth. Sometimes the contrast between the themes is great, but the development unifies them.



tdc said:


> With Mahler its a similar problem, the first part of the first movement of the 3rd Symphony for example is one of the greatest musical moments for large orchestra I can think of, yet the middle section of that movement really does not fit well with the first part, or in my mind even conceptually with what the piece is supposed to be based on.


Which part? The development? The march section (theme 2)? It's not my favorite Mahler movement, so I can sympathize a little (I wonder why he needs a pseudo-exposition to precede the full exposition), but I honestly don't know what you're talking about.



tdc said:


> Mahler's idea of fitting a world in a symphony for me often comes across as just biting off more than he can chew, and I would prefer to fast forward through large portions of many of his works.


This idea is very poorly understood. Mahler's works may be world-embracing, but they are, first and foremost, symphonies, and they are to be understood as symphonic in the tradition of Bruckner, but also of Beethoven and Mozart, taking opposites/opposing elements and bringing them together.



tdc said:


> I like almost all of Mahler's 6th symphony too except aspects of the first movement where (like in a lot of his first movements) his later repetitions or slight variations of earlier themes, seem to be not well composed or 'fresh' sounding to my ears and drag already very long pieces on even longer.


Where? I find the first movement of the 6th (heck, the entire 6th) one of Mahler's tersest statements. It's perfectly balanced, but doesn't feel the least bit calculated. Trust me, if you took out any single bit of it, it would crumble and fall apart.



tdc said:


> I also like Mahler's 8th, 2nd, 4th, 9th and 10th a lot and will say there are moments in every single one of his symphonies I really like. I could say the same for most Bruckner symphonies, and I realize a lot of this speaks to my preference in musical style more so than an objective measure of greatness. I consider both Mahler and Bruckner as great composers.


I can truthfully say I think every one of Mahler's symphonies is great. Yes, I like some more than others, but each is magnificent in its own way. I truthfully do not understand what people mean when they criticize his sense of form, which has always seemed near ideal to me. He is always moving forward and never repeats himself, but manages to keep everything together regardless.


----------



## Machiavel

Brahms, Dvorak, Mahler, Sibelius, Tchaikovsky. I would have vote for Berlioz but once again he is left out. There is such a disdain for french composers on this site in general. They are so much underrated and underappreciated. Whatever the subject is or the poll you can be sure french composers will be left out and discarded swiftly. So sad and pathetic in a way.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Machiavel said:


> Brahms, Dvorak, Mahler, Sibelius, Tchaikovsky. I would have vote for Berlioz but once again he is left out. There is such a disdain for french composers on this site in general. They are so much underrated and underappreciated. Whatever the subject is or the poll you can be sure french composers will be left out and discarded swiftly. So sad and pathetic in a way.


I have extolled the virtues of Berlioz, Magnard, Poulenc, Ravel, Saint-Saens and other French composers at various times on this site, but never as a rearguard action. It has never occurred to me that French composers are under-represented in general. I like Berlioz's symphonic output but even I would have to admit to being surprised had it made this final list.


----------



## tdc

Mahlerian said:


> Where? I find the first movement of the 6th (heck, the entire 6th) one of Mahler's tersest statements. It's perfectly balanced, but doesn't feel the least bit calculated. Trust me, if you took out any single bit of it, it would crumble and fall apart.


I really like Mahler's 6th a lot too, despite my perceived imperfections about the work I would feel comfortable calling it a masterpiece, and I put only DLVDE above it. But I still do feel that Mahler's use of recapitulation in the 1st movement of it (he does it in the 1st movements of the 2nd and 3rd as well) seem to me a little redundant and somewhat predictable and unnecessary somehow. I would prefer those sections altered myself. I think a return to the general mood of the piece while making the material more varied and less the same as climactic events earlier in the movement would be more effective, and I certainly don't feel the work would crumble under this difference. But as the whole style of the late Romantic era isn't my favorite in general, I can admit that my views are largely biased by this and I respect your views on the work.


----------



## Mahlerian

tdc said:


> I really like Mahler's 6th a lot too, despite my perceived imperfections about the work I would feel comfortable calling it a masterpiece, and I put only DLVDE above it. But I still do feel that Mahler's use of recapitulation in the 1st movement of it (he does it in the 1st movements of the 2nd and 3rd as well) seem to me a little redundant and somewhat predictable and unnecessary somehow. I would prefer those sections altered myself. I think a return to the general mood of the piece while making the material more varied and less the same as climactic events earlier in the movement would be more effective, and I certainly don't feel the work would crumble under this difference. But as the whole style of the late Romantic era isn't my favorite in general, I can admit that my views are largely biased by this and I respect your views on the work.


The recapitulation is significantly altered in all of the above, but especially in the 6th. (I hope you don't take this as an attack on you personally, but I really do feel strongly about this work in particular.)

Just to make sure we're on the same page, what I'm talking about here as the recapitulation begins precisely at 16:21 in this video, and goes to 19:58. Everything after that is the coda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hW-14aLgW6s#t=965s

- The introduction (which was five bars) is cut entirely.
- The opening octave drop theme is presented in an almost-A major, rather than the straightforward A minor of the opening.
- The coda of the first theme group is significantly shortened.
- The transition theme appears at twice the original speed, and segues into the second theme rather than abruptly shifting as before.
- The second theme group is in D major, rather than F major.
- It too is shortened to less than half its original length.
- All of this is presented in different, usually "heavier" orchestration. Literally no two bars between the two match.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

I wanna vote 6 composers. Please please please please?



I'm a moderator after all, shouldn't I get a perk? :devil:
Although I don't actually do that much...


----------



## neoshredder

Alright a Mod can vote more.


----------



## violadude

Nielsen only has two votes?


----------



## opus55

Brahms, Mahler, Beethoven, Sibelius and Shostakovich - this is the order in which they became my favorite symphony composers.


----------



## Hausmusik

The biggest surprise here is that Haydn has rec'd only 9 votes.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Beethoven and Mahler got an almost equal number of votes and that's great, and Bruckner got a fair amount of support too. I voted for those three, because I love them and have not heard most of the rest anyway.


----------



## Hausmusik

SiegendesLicht said:


> and have not heard most of the rest anyway.


An excellent reason not to vote for them.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

In a couple of years when the next favorite symphony poll happens, I will vote more intelligently, I promise


----------



## Truckload

This was a tough one. I had to ask myself the desert island question. You know, if you were stranded on a desert island and you would never, ever hear again anything other than the selected 5, which would they be?

The results are most interesting. When I attended music school in the early 1970's Mozart and Schubert would have been much higher, and hardly anyone was familiar with Mahler. I wonder how the list will change in 50 more years?


----------



## mgj15

For me there's Beethoven & Mahler, then everyone else. The top 3 of those are Sibelius, Shostakovich & Bruckner. No remorse, so far!


----------



## Roi N

Haydn and Mozart and Mozart and Haydn. And then Haydn some more


----------



## Cosmos

I'm kinda surprised at how low Shostakovich is on this :/


----------



## Bulldog

I voted for Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Mahler and Shostakovich.


----------



## violadude

Cosmos said:


> I'm kinda surprised at how low Shostakovich is on this :/


I'm surprised at how high he is. Above Sibelius? Brahms?


----------



## senza sordino

Hey, I picked the five top so far, without looking at the results before I voted.
Beethoven, Brahms, Sibelius, Mahler, Shostakovich


----------



## DaDirkNL

I picked:
Beethoven: For changing the understanding of a symphony.(Eroica, the 5th, 9th)
Mahler: For the excellence of every single one in the cycle.
Mozart: For the mature symphonies, and my favourite one: the Prague. Pure brilliance in that one.
Schubert: Mainly for the numbers 5,6,8 and 9. The 9th being my favourite symphony at the moment.
Sibelius: For the enormous development and the grandeur.


----------



## Winterreisender

If the question is which composer has the best symphony cycle (rather than who has the best individual symphonies), I am therefore looking for a composer who is very consistent and whose symphonies I like listening to in sequence. I love Haydn and Mozart but I tend to just dip into their enormous output rather than listening to it from start to finish. Personally, I would say Brahms, Schumann, Mahler and Sibelius work very well as cycles, i.e. consistent high standard throughout with no obviously weaker symphonies.


----------



## Guest

Ok so I totally misinterpreted this poll. I suppose finale refers to a series of polls that were done around this time? I voted based on which composer capped off their symphony cycle with the best "finale" symphony. Guess I should stay in that "Best Last Symphony" poll or go to bed


----------



## Itullian

Brahms and Schumann are my personal favorite symphony cycles.


----------



## AH music

Haydn, Dvorak, Nielsen and Beethoven came through clearly and then after some uncertainty, added Bruckner (eventually decisively winning through for me because of the consistency through the whole cycle). Mahler, Schubert and Shostakovich were my other contenders for 5th spot. Found it an interesting exercise to try and assess the meaningfulness of the complete cycles to me as a listener. My major concern is shocking lack of knowledge of Prokofiev's symphonies apart from the 1st, something I will have to address. Haydn's consistently high achievement through 100+ symphonies never ceases to amaze me.


----------

