# Symphony 5=Quality Asssurance



## Chi_townPhilly

Ever since Beethoven penned his most famous symphony, it seems that composers have shown a tendency to give of some of their best when they write for a piece that bears the heading "Symphony #5." As examples, I'd cite-
Schubert
Bruckner
Tchaikovsky
Mahler
Sibelius
Shostakovich
Prokofiev
Every one of these, I'd argue, is a clear masterwork (though I recognize that some might have reservations about my inclusion of Bruckner. Additionally, I'm slightly conflicted about placing Schubert 5 in this company).

Mention also should go out to Nielsen, as well as Vaughan-Williams. Hey, there are even those who believe that Mendelssohn's _Reformation_ symphony rates more attention that it has typically received. Anyone else find this interesting?


----------



## opus67

Unlike the classical period, Beethoven and later composers limited themselves to a 'few' symphonies due to various reasons, so it is possible the some of them wrote good ones in the middle. Some might even argue the same for some other number.


----------



## ChamberNut

Chi_town/Philly said:


> *Hey, there are even those who believe that Mendelssohn's Reformation symphony rates more attention that it has typically received*


Yes, I agree. Although this was not technically his 5th symphony, but his 2nd. Mendelssohn's "Reformation" Symphony No. 5 is neck and neck as my favorite along with his 4th "Italian".

You're right though, it seems to be alot of many great #5's out there.

Another interesting take would be........Beethoven 5th's? How many great 5th's did he write? Consider Symphony No. 5, Piano Trio # 5 "Ghost", Violin Sonata No. 5 "Spring", Piano Concerto No. 5 "Emperor"! Not too shabby


----------



## johnbull

I have no problem whatsoever with you including Bruckner's 5th among those great masterpieces.

It is in it's rightful place there, as are virtually all the Bruckner symphonies.

Some people acuse him of being repetitive. For the sake of not starting a veritable argument about who I think is repetitive, I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## Frasier

Can't agree with a few of your list but you did say "arguably" so I'll argue for

Shostakovich - Symphony 10
Prokofiev - Symphony 7
Sibelius - 4 or 6. His 5th is a joyous pop chord thing but not his best, surely. One fatigues easily to it. 
Tchaikowsky - 6. The 5 is nice, the andante being one of the most beautiful things I've heard but all in all for many reasons, the 6th is the bizniss.

For that matter, I'm none too sure about the Beethoven - yes, the most popular symphony though the close of the last movement is pretty appalling but I'd go for the 9th. Others might choose 3 as his first push forward into a true Beethovenian world.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Frasier said:


> Sibelius - 4 or 6. His 5th is a joyous pop chord thing but not his best, surely. One fatigues easily to it.


   
Dude...

... well, you're entitled to your opinion, I guess.

Chi_Town, nice idea here, something that has also occured to me. From your list, I would question only the inclusion of Schubert and Bruckner, for these reasons:

Is the work know as his 5th really his 5th? There is much confusion with the numbering of his later symphonies, I don't know how accurate the numbering of his earlier ones are. Any scholars care to comment?
I believe the piece we know as the 5th is hugely overshadowed by the Unfinished and the Great C Major, at least in terms of popularity.
Lastly, Bruckner's 5th is certainly a great piece, but again, overshadowed in popularity by number 4 for Newbies, number 7 for Initiates, and number 8 for Fanatics. Said differently, is anyones favourite Bruckner Symphony Number 5?

_______________________________________
EDIT
_______________________________________

_Re-reading your first post, I realize that you are not saying that the 5th is each composer's *best*, but simply that they are quality works. So over all, I agree with your list in its entirety. Ignore my **** rebuttal if you wish._


----------



## ChamberNut

Kurkikohtaus said:


> [*]Lastly, Bruckner's 5th is certainly a great piece, but again, overshadowed in popularity by number 4 for Newbies, number 7 for Initiates, and number 8 for Fanatics. *Said differently, is anyones favourite Bruckner Symphony Number 5*?[/LIST]
> 
> _______________________________________
> EDIT
> _______________________________________
> 
> _Re-reading your first post, I realize that you are not saying that the 5th is each composer's *best*, but simply that they are quality works. So over all, I agree with your list in its entirety. Ignore my **** rebuttal if you wish._


See "Bruckner Symphonies - What am I missing thread."


----------



## opus67

Kurkikohtaus said:


> [*]Lastly, Bruckner's 5th is certainly a great piece, but again, overshadowed in popularity by number 4 for Newbies, number 7 for Initiates, and number 8 for Fanatics. Said differently, is anyones favourite Bruckner Symphony Number 5?[/LIST]


What is the difference between newbies and initiates?


----------



## Rondo

I have to say, Bruckner's Fifth isnt my favorite either. However, I have noticed this pattern in various composers' symphonies. As it may not ring true as "the best" to everyone's liking, it is still somewhat striking. I would also add Arnold's 5th- definitely! Too bad Brahms didnt have a Fifth Symphony. (But the fifth Hungarian Dance is the most popular of them all.)


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

opus67 said:


> What is the difference between newbies and initiates?


To clarify my nomenclature, a Newbie would be someone who is totally new to Bruckner, while an Initiate is someone who has been "initiated" into the Bruckner world and has heard a few of the symphonies several times.

I know, shaky ground.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Eric683 said:


> Too bad Brahms didnt have a Fifth Symphony.


I remember reading Chicago Symphony Orchestra program annotator Phillip Huscher say that, due to fastidious housekeeping on the part of the Brahms household, we are without a fragmentary Brahms 5th to place alongside Bruckner's 9th and Schubert's 8th. Apparently, there's evidence to suggest that some ideas from Brahms' attempt were conscripted for other works (c.f.: Schubert _Rosamunde_) and the remainder was discarded.

I was wondering if our esteemed Assistant Administrator and "go-to" guy on Brahms, Daniel, had ever heard anything in support of this assertion.

If true, it's another interesting "what-if" of music history. Maybe I'd have _another_ entry on my list.


----------



## ChamberNut

Chi_town/Philly said:


> I remember reading Chicago Symphony Orchestra program annotator Phillip Huscher say that, due to fastidious housekeeping on the part of the Brahms household, we are without a fragmentary Brahms 5th to place alongside Bruckner's 9th and Schubert's 8th. Apparently, there's evidence to suggest that some ideas from Brahms' attempt were conscripted for other works (c.f.: Schubert _Rosamunde_) and the remainder was discarded.
> 
> I was wondering if our esteemed Assistant Administrator and "go-to" guy on Brahms, Daniel, had ever heard anything in support of this assertion.
> 
> If true, it's another interesting "what-if" of music history. Maybe I'd have _another_ entry on my list.


I think why Brahms' output isn't nearly as large as say Schubert, Mozart, or even Beethoven is because he re-worked and re-tooled and scrapped works frequently. That's evident with the amount of work and effort to come up with his first symphony and first string quartet.

I personally would love to find out that Brahms has a long lost score for a Clarinet Concerto, since the clarinet had rejuvated his composing juices late in this life.


----------



## Daniel

Hello and sorry, Chi_town/Philly,

actually I haven't seen this question until now.

Well, I haven't heard of any plan to a 5th symphony by Brahms in particulary, but that he might have done some sketches, is indeed possible. It is somehow very demanding to get closer information on fragments or little ideas or sketch-books Brahms did during his whole life, because they have often been destroyed, and we own just a rare field of authentic sources. That is caused by Brahms' "preventing" methods and a high self-critic.
Brahms composed the 4th symphony in 1884/1885. If he had done some works for a 5th, he might have worked on them maybe earlier (very hypothetic) or later... Since we can notice a presentiment of the end of this his life in the early 90s, and since Brahms began to put his works into a final order, and to separate works, which he wanted to be published and which not. He set up a testament. And in the action of this long time of organising, there was enough time to destroy so many sketches and "unpublishable" works again. So it is a hard job for any musicologist to get a clear view of Brahms' plans in his last years. But we should realise: If Brahms knew this his own end coming, he might not have started such a huge work like a symphony in this his very last days. And I have no information, if he might have used some sketches for other well-known works, because we don't have many sketches at all.

But in thinking how I am acting as a composer, how many ideas, motifs and sketches are done inside, on papers and books, I think there is a high possibility, that Brahms worked out plans for a symphonic work, even if he wasn't sure himself, for what specific work they could be worth. 12 years are a long period. But let us imagine, that the formal and harmonical way and solution of a new symphony would have been another challenging duty for Brahms, who walked a very difficult and dangerous line in his very last works (choral works, or even piano works: What is that? Is that a "new" way? Leading to where? A limited way? After Liszt, Wagner, to Mahler, to the French?).

But, maybe once we will know more. Sorry for being unable to access any further information concerning this matter right now.

Greetings,
Daniel


----------



## Guest

So here's my vote for Bruckner's fifth. It is my favorite. It and the ninth are very close in my book, and so tomorrow I might vote for the ninth. But the fifth is the one I listen to most frequently. It's just a lovely, lovely piece--the loveliest in an oeuvre that's pretty consistently lovely.

Of course, Bruckner's fifth is actually his seventh symphony. (Making my least favorite third his real fifth. I take that back. His first, the f minor study symphony is my least favorite. The 00, as it were. You see how bewildering this whole "fifth" thing is?)


----------



## Handel

opus67 said:


> Unlike the classical period, Beethoven and later composers limited themselves to a 'few' symphonies due to various reasons, so it is possible the some of them wrote good ones in the middle. Some might even argue the same for some other number.


I wonder what Haydn could have produce if he had lived during Beethoven's era: 104 symphonies to 10, 15?


----------



## ChamberNut

Handel said:


> I wonder what Haydn could have produce if he had lived during Beethoven's era: 104 symphonies to 10, 15?


Dear Josef,

Sorry for the last minute request, but can you quickly create a symphony for me, before you leave today? I need it by 3PM, ASAP!

Thanks


----------



## opus67

Handel said:


> I wonder what Haydn could have produce if he had lived during Beethoven's era: 104 symphonies to 10, 15?


Who would've been the young Ludwig's mentor, then, with Haydn as a contemporary?  And the poor Esterházys...they would've been bored without their composing jukebox.  Without the patronage of the Royal family, Haydn may have been a bit more critical on what he published.


----------



## Gustav

Schubert's 5th shouldn't be included. Because when he wrote it, he was very young, and had not reached his maturity. His 5th is not comparable to the others. Although, it is an interesting work.


----------



## Tristan

While I agree for the most part--Tchaikovsky's 5th is often considered to be weak and overshadowed by the 4th and 6th.


----------



## Guest

Handel said:


> I wonder what Haydn could have produce if he had lived during Beethoven's era: 104 symphonies to 10, 15?


Don't forget the sinfonia concertante in B-flat major, Symphony A and Symphony B. [The former being not only a symphony but also a concerto.]


----------



## PetrB

opus67 said:


> What is the difference between newbies and initiates?


n00bs are wet with placenta not yet wiped off.
Initiates have had several bathings and a christening, as it were


----------



## PetrB

Nielsen's Fifth symphony, surely, goes on your list.


----------



## ahammel

Gustav said:


> Schubert's 5th shouldn't be included. Because when he wrote it, he was very young, and had not reached his maturity. His 5th is not comparable to the others. Although, it is an interesting work.


I wouldn't put it on par with Bruckner's or Beethoven's, but it's certainly the high point of the early Schubert symphonies.


----------



## Guest

The list contains some good works, but I don't know if I would classify them all as masterworks.

But your original premise seems fairly self-evident. The longer one has been working at one's craft, the better we would expect the output to be. And given that these are composers that are well recognized for being very good at their craft, is it any wonder that, by their 5th symphony - particularly in the period from Beethoven onward when symphonic output was much lower than previously - they would have been producing some very good works? For me, though, I think the better number to focus on is not a common one at which many seem to truly hit their stride (lowest common denominator of greatness?), rather looking at how soon these composers produced what could be considered a masterwork. 

For example, Beethoven's first 2 symphonies are very good, but not really masterworks. But the 3rd was that, so we could say Beethoven hit that level by his 3rd. Where would it be for others? Of course, then there is also the issue of how long it took them to begin writing symphonies. Brahms' 1st is very good, but he put off for quite some time writing one.


----------



## Bone

DrMike said:


> The list contains some good works, but I don't know if I would classify them all as masterworks.
> 
> But your original premise seems fairly self-evident. The longer one has been working at one's craft, the better we would expect the output to be. And given that these are composers that are well recognized for being very good at their craft, is it any wonder that, by their 5th symphony - particularly in the period from Beethoven onward when symphonic output was much lower than previously - they would have been producing some very good works? For me, though, I think the better number to focus on is not a common one at which many seem to truly hit their stride (lowest common denominator of greatness?), rather looking at how soon these composers produced what could be considered a masterwork.
> 
> For example, Beethoven's first 2 symphonies are very good, but not really masterworks. But the 3rd was that, so we could say Beethoven hit that level by his 3rd. Where would it be for others? Of course, then there is also the issue of how long it took them to begin writing symphonies. Brahms' 1st is very good, but he put off for quite some time writing one.


Beethoven's 1st is my favorite Classical symphony by a large margin. As for Brahms' 5th, I am one of the aficionados of Schoenberg's treatment of the G minor quartet scores for symphony orchestra - close enough for me to count as at least #4.5


----------



## Guest

some guy said:


> So here's my vote for Bruckner's fifth. It is my favorite. It and the ninth are very close in my book, and so tomorrow I might vote for the ninth. But the fifth is the one I listen to most frequently. It's just a lovely, lovely piece--the loveliest in an oeuvre that's pretty consistently lovely.
> 
> Of course, Bruckner's fifth is actually his seventh symphony. (Making my least favorite third his real fifth. I take that back. His first, the f minor study symphony is my least favorite. The 00, as it were. You see how bewildering this whole "fifth" thing is?)


Well, I do take your point, Some Guy. But let's not sweat it. As to Bruckner's 5th (the one commonly recognized as being in B-flat), it also gets my 'thumbs up'.


----------



## elgar's ghost

A couple of my favourite 5ths not mentioned yet - those by Prokofiev and Simpson.

EDIT: a mistake - Prokofiev mentioned at bottom of OP list.


----------



## Guest

elgars ghost said:


> A couple of my favourite 5ths not mentioned yet - those by Prokofiev and *Simpson* [...]


I know that Simpson was a big fan of Bruckner. Never heard any Simpson. Connections? Some? None?
Off on a tangent, I heard on the radio today some piano music by *Nietzsche*. It was too brief, so I cannot offer any meaningful comment.


----------



## TresPicos

In the forum threads of the type "one favorite symphony per number" or "one favorite symphony per number but with no composer mentioned twice", the #5 spot was both really easy to fill (due to the number of candidates) and really difficult to fill (due to the number of candidates). In the end, my #5 spot went to Vaughan Williams just ahead of Schubert and Beethoven.


----------



## mtmailey

opus67 said:


> Unlike the classical period, Beethoven and later composers limited themselves to a 'few' symphonies due to various reasons, so it is possible the some of them wrote good ones in the middle. Some might even argue the same for some other number.


Well to me how the music sounds is more important than how many there is.


----------



## Arsakes

It is correct for Bruckner, Dvorak and Mahler in comparing to their 4th. IMHO.


----------



## KenOC

Frasier said:


> For that matter, I'm none too sure about the Beethoven - yes, the most popular symphony though the close of the last movement is pretty appalling...


The only thing wrong with the close of the last movement of Beethoven's 5th is that it's FAR too short!


----------



## Xaltotun

I agree with the OP, symphony #5 indeed seems to be a quality assurance. It may not be the best of a composer, but it's strikingly often among the finest. Maybe it's because of the number of digits on our hands... there seems to be a mystical significiance to this number, maybe that is why composers have treated #5 with a reverence and stepped up their game. Or maybe it's just a coincidence, but a funny one nonetheless. Or maybe it's because it's the second synthesis in the series, if it goes like this: 1st - thesis, 2nd - antithesis, 3rd - synthesis and a new thesis, 4 - second antithesis, 5 - second (and final?) synthesis. There is indeed a feeling of "assurance" in a second synthesis; now you are really certain of something.

My opinion on some of the 5ths: Beethoven - among the best. Schubert - among the best. Tchaikovsky - my personal favourite. Bruckner - the best. Mahler - among the best. Sibelius - among the best if not the best. Mendelssohn - the best. Shostakovich - among the best.


----------



## Selby

ahammel said:


> I wouldn't put it on par with Bruckner's or Beethoven's, but it's certainly the high point of the early Schubert symphonies.


I agree. I have distinct memory of sitting in my living room writing, music was playing, I wasn't paying attention. Then something grabbed me. 'What is this?' Seeing how it was music from my collection it was odd that I couldn't pinpoint the piece. 'What is this?!? It is lovely!' Of course it was Schubert's 5th; the recording paired it with the 8th, which was probably why I had it, but had never paid attention to the 5th. Perhaps his unsung masterpiece.


----------



## starry

Tristan said:


> While I agree for the most part--Tchaikovsky's 5th is often considered to be weak and overshadowed by the 4th and 6th.


And is often considered very good as well. Very fine slow movement and a great finale for example. And the first movement I find quite satisfying, maybe more even than the start of the 6th or 4th.


----------



## julianoq

Xaltotun said:


> I agree with the OP, symphony #5 indeed seems to be a quality assurance. It may not be the best of a composer, but it's strikingly often among the finest. Maybe it's because of the number of digits on our hands... there seems to be a mystical significiance to this number, maybe that is why composers have treated #5 with a reverence and stepped up their game. Or maybe it's just a coincidence, but a funny one nonetheless. Or maybe it's because it's the second synthesis in the series, if it goes like this: 1st - thesis, 2nd - antithesis, 3rd - synthesis and a new thesis, 4 - second antithesis, 5 - second (and final?) synthesis.


Well, if we are trying to guess the reason, my guess is that assuming that most composers in the list created around 10 symphonies, the fifth are in general when they reached maturity. The first ones they are developing, and the later ones they can be trying to make something different/progressive. The 5th is in the middle, so it is almost guaranteed that it will sound good to must people.

Of course I am generalizing _a damn lot _ there, many people don't fit this profile at all (like Schubert who was very young on the 5th). It is just a thought


----------



## starry

Maybe after Beethoven the 5th took on something of a reputation for listeners and even composers. But it could also mean that earlier things or later could be undervalued sometimes as a result by this focus.


----------



## mtmailey

Well to me the later composers music do not sound great.Much of it is to fast & lack textures i like call & response.Also they go so fast you can barely hear the themes.


----------



## joen_cph

Tubin´s 5th is probably his most immediately attractive symphony 



, and Myaskovsky´s is really lovely too


----------



## Avey

Tchaikovsky's Fifth is outstanding. That andante is, to my ears, a perfect piece of music.

Just to note: Mendelssohn's Fifth symphony was not actually his "fifth" symphony. The "Scottish" Symphony was the last one he wrote, so take it for what's it worth. I believe the Third to be he greatest, so it would fit in this _mold_ of _Fifth Symphonies are SUPER good._


----------



## NightXsenator

Well, in terms "supremacy=popularity" it may be, but personally I more prefer symphonies with #6. Remembering Mahler, Tchaikovsky, Miaskovsky, Pettersson, Bruckner, Beethoven...


----------



## Aries

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Ever since Beethoven penned his most famous symphony, it seems that composers have shown a tendency to give of some of their best when they write for a piece that bears the heading "Symphony #5."


The 9th is Beethovens most famous symphony, and some composers after Beethoven gave their best at the ninth. (Bruckner, Mahler, Dvorak.) One gave his worst. (Shostakovic)



Chi_townPhilly said:


> As examples, I'd cite-
> Schubert
> Bruckner
> Tchaikovsky
> Mahler
> Sibelius
> Shostakovich
> Prokofiev
> Every one of these, I'd argue, is a clear masterwork (though I recognize that some might have reservations about my inclusion of Bruckner.


No, but the 9ths is better.



Chi_townPhilly said:


> Additionally, I'm slightly conflicted about placing Schubert 5 in this company).


His other early symphonys are nice too.

Tchaikovskys 4th and 6th have similar quality as the 5th.

Mahlers 5th has the same durch das Dunkel zum Licht topic as Beethovens 5th.

Prokoviefs 5th is his war symphony, like Shostakovics 7th. That has nothing to do with Beethoven.


----------

