# Most Consistently impressive cycle of Romantic Symphonies?



## emiellucifuge

Which of the above symphonic cycles do you consider the most consistently amazing?

Dvorak - The first 3 are not as mature as the later but with the 4th he really comes into his own. The 5th is decent but not amazing. And the last 4 are some of the best examples in the entire repertory of the symphony.

Beethoven - First ones are good examples of the classical tradition he worked in. The 3rd revolutionises everything and after this all his symphonies are of epic proportions, especially the 9th. There may be a few weake than the others, eg the 4th or 7th.

Mahler - Each symphony is an individual entity, vastly different from the others and yet genius in its own right.

Bruckner -

Brahms - 

Tchaikovsky - 

Schumann - 

Schubert -

Mendelssohn - 

Berlioz -


----------



## emiellucifuge

Oops Forgot to add Berlioz to the poll


----------



## Polednice

I certainly agree with your opinion on Dvorak, it was hard to vote against him (I decided on Brahms in the end). His early works clearly don't display the same mastery as the later ones, but they still have an original beauty to them. But it's amazing how clearly his symphonic talent suddenly comes across straight away with the 4th and the rest that follow. His 7th will forever remain one of my favourite all time symphonies.

It's always difficult in polls like these to _not_ vote for Beethoven, because there isn't really any good reason not to, and one can all too easily come under fire for not siding with this greatest revolutionary. However - and this is just because of his unfortunate position in history - I wouldn't place him amongst my favourites because only his later symphonies really appeal to me; I'm not a fan of his earlier classical style.

As I said briefly above, I voted for Brahms in the end. First and foremost, it has to be because, no matter how much any symphony by any other composer might impress me, Brahms's music had tremendous personal consequences for me when I first discovered him and explored his music. He will forever remain my ideal. Of course, of all his works, his symphonies are especially cherished. There is so much emotion and drama that he explores so concisely in just four symphonies, each of them as original and monumental as the last.

I wouldn't say that Tchaikovsky has the greatest symphonic output, purely because I've never been drawn into his first three. However, when Tchaikovsky got it right - _i.e._ the 4th and 6th - I think he achieved a mastery perhaps greater than any other composer.

As for the others on the list, I admire the works of Schumann, Schubert and Mendelssohn, but owing to their early Romantic style, their symphonies are less able to compete with the great symphonies of slightly later composers, but I would not hesitate to place them above others when it comes to piano and chamber works. And as for Mahler, I keep trying to listen to him and find out what's so great, but every time I try it just hurts!


----------



## Weston

emiellucifuge said:


> Beethoven - First ones are good examples of the classical tradition he worked in. The 3rd revolutionises everything and after this all his symphonies are of epic proportions, especially the 9th. There may be a few weaker than the others, eg the 4th or 7th.


I reluctantly went with *Beethoven* -- no big surprise coming from me. I don't usually consider him a romantic composer and so feel he doesn't belong in the group, but it answers your question "Which of the above symphonic cycles do you consider the most consistently amazing?" And some do consider him in the romantic period.

The 7th weaker? The 2nd movement never fails to move those hearing it. For me the 8th is the weaker link in the chain, but that may be because I get so annoyed at its being the shortest and so is too often used as filler on discs of Beethoven symphonies. I have more copies of it than any other piece of music.

If I had disqualified Beethoven, I would have gone with *Bruckner*. These always fill me with awe. I only wish he had stopped piddling around with them and made definitive editions so I wouldn't be worried I am missing something.


----------



## Weston

Polednice said:


> And as for Mahler, I keep trying to listen to him and find out what's so great, but every time I try it just hurts!


I couldn't agree more with this sentiment. I've been trying for decades to "get" Mahler. Maybe the only way for me is by listening with annotations at hand to explain to me what I'm supposed to be enjoying. But who has time for all that?


----------



## World Violist

Oh please... where's Sibelius???

I chose Mahler. No surprise coming from me.


----------



## Artemis

I doubt that Beethoven and Schubert should be included in this list, as they are not unambigiously Romantic Composers. Each of their nine symphonies is a mixture of the Classical and quasi Classical/Romantic. 

Ignoring this awkwardness, it's also a little unfair to compare composers who produced different numbers of symphonies, as the achievement of a consistently high quality is presumably more difficult as the number of symphonies increases (cet. par.). I guess this difficulty can't be overcome though.

I wonder too whether it does Schubert an injustice to include all his symphonies, as his early ones were written at an age when Beethoven (and many of the others on the list) had hardly rolled out of bed.

So, given all this unfairness to poor little Schubert, I'm voting for him. If we had been allowed a second choice, I would have voted for LvB, and ater that, Schumann and Brahms followed by Mendelssohn. I can't see the point of Mahler or Bruckner. In both cases I gave up some time ago trying to see what others claim they see in these two.


----------



## Dim7

I think it's ridiculous if Beethoven is going to win this. Come on, symphonies 1,2,4,8 are almost ignored. Yeah they get played because they are composed by Beethoven, but they are sooo much behind in popularity when compared to symphonies 6 & 7 and especially 3,5 & 9. They are not particularly original, historically important or influental symphonies. I do think there are people who genuinely think that it is most consistently impressive cycle of romantic symphonies (if we count it as a romantic symphony cycle), but I have a feeling that most people who vote for it vote because they really like the more popular ones from that cycle and from respect of Beethoven's influence and god-like status in classical music. 

I'm not going to vote because I have heard only Beethoven's, Brahms' and Mahler's cycle completely. But I think I would vote for Mahler probably anyways - I like all of his symphonies more or less. Just compare him to Beethoven, only the seventh symphony is relatively ignored.


----------



## World Violist

Dim7 said:


> Just compare him to Beethoven, only the seventh symphony is relatively ignored.


And it's still impressive.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

emiellucifuge said:


> Oops Forgot to add Berlioz to the poll


O.K. then- I'll run him up the flagpole...


----------



## emiellucifuge

Thank you Chi.

My Personal Favorite composer is antonin Dvorak, and while I love each and everyone of his symphonies I think i will vote for Mahler. Each symphony is gargantuan and strikingly indivdual.

Ive just returned from a performance of the Symphonie Fantastique and it really is magnificient.

I havent heard the full cycles of Brahms, Tchaikovsky and Schumann.

I did think about adding Sibelius as he wrote in a largely romantic style but I decided against it as he lived through maturity in the 20th century.


----------



## Tapkaara

Yes, I too would like to know where Sibelius is. My vote goes to Sibelius.


----------



## Aramis

I don't think that Schumann was really great symphonist. I enjoy his symphonies, but they are not very impressive when it comes to cunst. I definitively wouldn't put him along with greatest romantic symphonists.

What about Liszt? Faust and Dante symphonies are masterpieces. Should't he be included in this poll (especially if Berlioz is)?



> but I decided against it as he lived through maturity in the 20th century.


So did Mahler. Half of his symphonies were written in early XXth century.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Maybe Chi would be kind enough to include all those requested?


----------



## Artemis

I thought it might be interesting to see what the famous (infamous?) ABC Australian Poll  on that nation's favourite symphonies might tell us in connection with the best/most consistent set of symphonies by "Romantic" composers.

Basing an opinion as follows:


more weight given the higher the average score of each composer's symphonies as listed in the top 100;
more weight given the higher the number of symphonies in the top 100 vis-a-vis the total number of (mature) symphonies composed by each composer;
more weight given the lower the variance of results as between the composer's listings;
the overall result of the above considerations weighted by a level of difficulty factor based on the total number of symphonies written by each composer, on the premise that it is more difficult to achieve consistent results the higher the number of symphonies composed.
I suggest that the Australian classical listening public have impliedly voted roughly as follows in response to the question in the OP (highest first):


Mahler
Beethoven
Schubert
Bruckner
Sibelius
Tchaikovsky
Dvorak
Brahms
Mendelssohn
Schumann
Berlioz
My weighting is a secret but I can assure you that it's utterly arbitrary but not entirely silly. Before anyone informs me that it's "_rubbish in, rubbish out_", I am of course fully aware that the ABC results are highly debatable; hence do not blame me if the results look daft.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Thank you Aramis thats very interesting.

IM glad to see ive included most of those bar sibelius.
And it is surprising that all the composers on the list are romantic, even though they were not bound by the criteria we are in this thread.


----------



## Artemis

Aramis said:


> I don't think that Schumann was really great symphonist. I enjoy his symphonies, but they are not very impressive when it comes to cunst. I definitively wouldn't put him along with greatest romantic symphonists.
> 
> What about Liszt? Faust and Dante symphonies are masterpieces. Should't he be included in this poll (especially if Berlioz is)?
> 
> So did Mahler. Half of his symphonies were written in early XXth century.


I disagree with your opinion about Schumann. He was a very great composer all round, and his symphonies are splendid examples of the emerging Romantic style. On most music Boards that I have been involved in there has usually been far more interest/respect for Schumann than he is given credit for here. On the other hand, Liszt's two symphonies aren't in the same (higher) league as Schumann's but I agree with you that Liszt ought to have been included in the poll.


----------



## Polednice

Artemis said:


> On the other hand, Liszt's two symphonies aren't in the same (higher) league as Schumann's but I agree with you that Liszt ought to have been included in the poll.


I agree with your positioning of Schumann's and Liszt's symphonies. I've never been particularly impressed with Liszt's symphonies; they lack a certain craftsmanship I can hear more easily in other composers. As for the list, I suppose it depends how many symphonies constitutes a symphony "cycle" (as the original question says)! Two doesn't seem to cut it, but then surely any more than one should count


----------



## Tapkaara

On the one hand, I think Sibelius should be included on the "Romantic Symphony" list, but aside from hir first two, or perhaps first three symphonies, I'd say he could just as easily be considered a "20th century" composer. Perhaps this is a better title for him after all!

I think Sibelius is one of the few composers, like Beethoven, who's music really does defy a standard time classification. At least from the Third Symphony on.

Mahler, despite any originality or innovation on his part, is still more more a "Romantic-era" composer than Sibelius. His music fits very well into that cookie-cutter appellation. So on those ground,s I cast my vote for Mahler as the greatest Romantic symphonist...that is... if we say Sibelius is not purely Romantic.

Same goes for Beethoven. I could be inclined to say him, but I do not see him as purely Romantic either. Again, then, my vote goes to Mahler.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I think it's ridiculous if Beethoven is going to win this. Come on, symphonies 1,2,4,8 are almost ignored. Yeah they get played because they are composed by Beethoven, but they are sooo much behind in popularity when compared to symphonies 6 & 7 and especially 3,5 & 9. They are not particularly original, historically important or influental symphonies.

Give me a break. The only reason that Beethoven's symphonies nos. 1, 2, 4, and 8 are ignored is because the were composed by Beethoven, and the quality, innovation, and fame of these others eclipses them. Had they been written by nearly any other composer they'd be considered major works within their oeuvre. Their popularity is completely irrelevant (what does popularity have to do with artistic merit?). Haydn wrote 102 symphonies, and yet 90 of these are virtually eclipsed in popularity by the reputation of the final 12 "London Symphonies"... and yet there are any number of masterpieces within these other 90. Hell, if we look at the recordings of Beethoven's piano sonatas we might assume that little matters beyond nos. 8, 14, 15, 17, 21, 23, 26, and 29... all the "named" sonatas... and yet this is completely unjustified.

Just recently I finally got around to purchasing the Karajan 1963 recording of the complete Beethoven cycle. I'll admit that it had been a while since I had listened to symphonies nos. 1 and 2... but I was immediately struck by the power of Beethoven's symphonic efforts right out of the gate. No. 1 clearly builds upon the late examples of Haydn and Mozart's more dramatic efforts... and yet there is something quite original already... this tense build up and intimation of what is to come... this almost fierce muscularity. Certainly Bruckner... and especially Brahms with his 4 symphonies (all written after he was well into his career) may have produced a cycle that is more consistent... but one might ask where they achieve the same heights as the best of Beethoven's symphonies. It would seem to me that a lesser symphony by Beethoven is rather like a lesser play by Shakespeare. certainly the 1st is not on the same level as the 3rd and _The Merchant of Venice_ and _Love's Labors Lost_ are not equal to _Hamlet, King Lear_, or _MacBeth_... but they are still pretty damn good.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I admire the works of Schumann, Schubert and Mendelssohn, but owing to their early Romantic style, their symphonies are less able to compete with the great symphonies of slightly later composers

Listening to Beechum's classic recordings of Schubert's symphonies nos. 3, 5, and 6 I would in no way underestimate him. Nos. 8 and 9 would have no problem standing in comparison to the best symphonies by any composer.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I don't think that Schumann was really great symphonist. I enjoy his symphonies, but they are not very impressive...

Yes... I think that Schumann was far more of a master of the smaller scale works... his lyrical piano pieces... to say nothing of his lieder. I think of him not unlike the Romantic poets whose _oeuvres_ were largely composed of small lyric poems. In many ways... I think Schumann might agree... in the sense that he was quite critical of the grandiose bombast of Romanticism. Having said that... I found that John Eliot Gardiner's recordings of the complete symphonies were a revelation, and completely undermine any notion that he was a poor symphonist.


----------



## Dim7

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I think it's ridiculous if Beethoven is going to win this. Come on, symphonies 1,2,4,8 are almost ignored. Yeah they get played because they are composed by Beethoven, but they are sooo much behind in popularity when compared to symphonies 6 & 7 and especially 3,5 & 9. They are not particularly original, historically important or influental symphonies.
> 
> Give me a break. The only reason that Beethoven's symphonies nos. 1, 2, 4, and 8 are ignored is because the were composed by Beethoven, and the quality, innovation, and fame of these others eclipses them. Had they been written by nearly any other composer they'd be considered major works within their oeuvre. Their popularity is completely irrelevant (what does popularity have to do with artistic merit?).


I didn't intend to imply that popularity was particularly relevant to artistic merit. I just suspect that people are missing the point of this poll when Beethoven is getting this many votes while there is such a great disparity in popularity between Beethoven's symphonies (not just in general but in this forum, there have been of course topics about Beethoven' symphonies). To me it seems that people just see Beethoven's name and think "OOOHHH BEETHOVEN IS GOD GOTTA VOTE HIM!" while forgetting that in this thread it was about _consistently_ impressive symphonic sycles.



> Certainly Bruckner... and especially Brahms with his 4 symphonies (all written after he was well into his career) may have produced a cycle that is more consistent... but one might ask where they achieve the same heights as the best of Beethoven's symphonies.


Yes yes yes yes but again, this was not about who wrote the best symphony ever but about consistency. (Bruckner though for me has achieved about the same heights as the best Beethoven symphonies, but I definately wouldn't doubt anyone who'd say they disagree)


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Yes yes yes yes but again, this was not about who wrote the best symphony ever but about consistency. 

In which case we could find some composer who produced a collection of consistently mediocre... or bad symphonies?


----------



## nickgray

Mahler! Although I love every composer mentioned (or not) in the poll, the most _impressive_ symphonic cycle is definitely the Mahler's one.


----------



## Sid James

I voted Brahms. I don't consider Beethoven, Schubert (or Sibelius) to really be Romantics. They're more transitional figures to me, the former two between Classicism & Romanticism, the latter between Romanticism & Modernism...


----------



## Artemis

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I don't think that Schumann was really great symphonist. I enjoy his symphonies, but they are not very impressive...
> 
> Yes... I think that Schumann was far more of a master of the smaller scale works... his lyrical piano pieces... to say nothing of his lieder. I think of him not unlike the Romantic poets whose _oeuvres_ were largely composed of small lyric poems. In many ways... I think Schumann might agree... in the sense that he was quite critical of the grandiose bombast of Romanticism. Having said that... I found that John Eliot Gardiner's recordings of the complete symphonies were a revelation, and completely undermine any notion that he was a poor symphonist.


I fully agree that the old-fashioned view of Schumann that he was a poor orchestrator and excelled only in solo piano and lieder works is such a load of nonsense.

His four symphonies are, as I noted previously in this thread, splendid. I have several sets of these symphonies. For anyone new to Schumann's orchestral side, I would recommend the Sawallisch/Staatskapelle Dresden set as possibly the best of all. Another very good set is Chailly/Gewandhausorchester. A set which in my opinion is not up to much is Zinman/Tonhalle. For anyone already appreciative of Schumann's symphonies who might like to try a HIP version (with original instruments), the best set in my view is Roy Goodman/Hanover Band. This is my current favourite.

There is lots of other very high quality orchestral work by Schumann, aside from his excellent Piano and Cello Concertos, which is definitely worth exploring, but that's the subject of another post some place else.


----------



## World Violist

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Yes yes yes yes but again, this was not about who wrote the best symphony ever but about consistency.
> 
> In which case we could find some composer who produced a collection of consistently mediocre... or bad symphonies?


Consistent impressivity is what we're after.

As for mediocre... I hate stepping on peoples' toes like that.

Beethoven is a weird case as far as this thread goes. Because, while I even oppose the inclusion of him on the basis of his being a pretty much classical composer, and acknowledge the greatness of all his symphonies, I can't see why his symphonies are getting so many votes either. I agree with an earlier post: that a lot of people see Beethoven and are like "Hey, Beethoven. *click*"

This isn't about popularity or greatness or mediocrity or anything remotely like that. It's about how many symphonies are consistently impressive.

So what constitutes "impressive"? Maybe emotion, form, instrumentation, melodic invention, whatever--but still it has to be consistent through most of the composer's symphonic oeuvre. And by voting Beethoven I begin to think that some people cheat themselves a bit by not particularly thinking of those "other" symphonies so much as "the" symphonies, which are to them far more impressive than any other symphonies, including the same composer's earlier works. Thus, inconsistency in impressivity. Problem in choice of voting.

I personally think that Bruckner wouldn't make it in this thread either; the only symphonies of his that have seriously impressed me so far have been 4 and 8. That's really about it.

Anyway, carry on.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

emiellucifuge said:


> Maybe Chi would be kind enough to include all those requested?


I'd like to... but once again, we have run up against the 10-element limit in polling threads.

In polls with more than 10 options, I think it's best to include the 9 options you think are most likely to be popular, and then reserve slot 10 for the line "other- please specify in post." I guess we can file this under "lessons for the future..."


----------



## emiellucifuge

Lesson learnt


----------



## Bobotox

Raff wrote the best set of symphonies in the 19th century. I listened to all of them and all of them are close to perfect. It is a shame really that he is almost never played. He should really be on everyone's list of best symphonies.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I can't see why his symphonies are getting so many votes either. I agree with an earlier post: that a lot of people see Beethoven and are like "Hey, Beethoven. *click*"

This isn't about popularity or greatness or mediocrity or anything remotely like that. It's about how many symphonies are consistently impressive.

So what constitutes "impressive"? Maybe emotion, form, instrumentation, melodic invention, whatever--but still it has to be consistent through most of the composer's symphonic oeuvre. And by voting Beethoven I begin to think that some people cheat themselves a bit by not particularly thinking of those "other" symphonies so much as "the" symphonies, which are to them far more impressive than any other symphonies, including the same composer's earlier works. Thus, inconsistency in impressivity. Problem in choice of voting.

I think you underestimate the participants here. I assume that anyone taking the time to post on a classical music site might just have a bit more understanding of the music in question than to simply look at the poll and go "Beethoven! Uh, I've heard of him." *click* The question of consistency would seem to be one of individual interpretation. Perhaps the gap between Beethoven's 2nd and his 9th is larger than that which exists between any of Brahms 4 symphonies or even between the weakest (what would that be?) and strongest of Mahler. On the other hand... If I had to choose just one cycle of symphonies to live with it would certainly be that of Beethoven... as much as I love the Brahms, Mahler, Bruckner, and Schubert.


----------



## Artemis

StlukesguildOhio said:


> On the other hand... If I had to choose just one cycle of symphonies to live with it would certainly be that of Beethoven... as much as I love the Brahms, Mahler, Bruckner, and Schubert.


I think you have put your finger on the key issue here, namely that most people will tend to vote for their favourite composer symphony cycle regardless of any issues concerning overall consistency of quality.


----------



## Ravellian

Can we just stop these 'ranking' topics? There is no best and there is no worst here. Can't we just enjoy the symphonies for the sake of themselves? It really seems like people are letting the influence of pop music Top 40 lists seep into their assessments of the works of art music, which is sad.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Well to be honest Ravellian, i find it fun to hear others opinion and also to share my own on specific topics such as this one. And what better way than a poll, and hopefully they lead to interesting dicussions.


----------



## TresPicos

I guess Mahler, Bruckner or Sibelius is the obvious choice here, but I felt that Dvorak needed at least one vote. His last four symphonies are really consistently impressive. 

Overall, I think very few composers are consistently impressive throughout their entire symphonic output, even the ones who only wrote two or three.


----------



## starry

Sibelius - all are pretty good
Tchaikovsky - the last 4 are good and some interesting music in the first two at times maybe.
Brahms - all 4 are good, particularly the last 3
Schumann - 1,3 and 4 good. 2 not too bad
Mahler - 1,2 and 4
Mendelssohn - 3 and 4 are good


Beethoven and Schubert are classical. The ones I put near the top are more on the classical side than romantic in comparison to Mahler, Bruckner and Berlioz, and that's why I prefer them. I prefer economy to indulgence.


----------



## Polednice

Ravellian said:


> Can we just stop these 'ranking' topics? There is no best and there is no worst here. Can't we just enjoy the symphonies for the sake of themselves? It really seems like people are letting the influence of pop music Top 40 lists seep into their assessments of the works of art music, which is sad.


I completely sympathise with your opinion. These questions ask for meaningless, unrealistic or, at best, unhelpful responses to art. Obviously, I didn't raise this problem myself, and I voted and engaged in the discussion because polling nonsense questions does seem to be everybody else's preferred method, and it can raise decent discussion!  Still, I think we (myself included - I'll try!) need to exercise our ability to ask some more thought-provoking, serious questions (I have tried in the past, whenever something specific has been on my mind).


----------



## Tapkaara

What would this (or any) internet forum be without its lists and polls?


----------



## Conor71

I found it really difficult to choose between Beethoven & Mahlers cycles as I love them both - I ended up giving my vote to Beethoven probably as I am on a bit of a Beethoven kick at the moment and am re-discovering and appreciating his work on a higher level than before .


----------



## Lukecash12

Mendelssohn all the way. He was the symbol of perfection to me in his time period. So well organized, balanced, sweeping, melodic, and touching. He wrote some truly significant music.


----------



## maestro267

I voted for Mahler on the 'consistently impressive' grounds. If it was a 'Favourite Romantic Sym. Cycle' poll, I'd go for Tchaikovsky.


----------



## Art Rock

Brahms - all 4 brilliant

Next Mahler, Dvorak, Sibelius.


----------



## LatinClassics

Bruckner, Mahler, Tchaikovsky, Sibelius, Brahms, and Dvorak are who I consider to be the greatest Romantic symphonists.


----------



## LatinClassics

Lukecash12 said:


> Mendelssohn all the way. He was the symbol of perfection to me in his time period. So well organized, balanced, sweeping, melodic, and touching. He wrote some truly significant music.


Mendelssohn was a fine, competent composer, but his music doesn't have enough dynamic constrasts for me. He seems to stay in one cheerful mood through most of the symphonies. That said, I do enjoy the "Scottish," "Italian," and "Reformation" symphonies a lot. I just wish there were more varying moods in the music, but he was great no doubt.


----------



## alfine

emiellucifuge said:


> Which of the above symphonic cycles do you consider the most consistently amazing?


Is cycle the right word? I wonder how much a composer thinks about "the next one" after having slogged through bar after bar of emotional music or even relates his symphonic works together with over arching themes. Perhaps only Brahms with his four symphonies are "tight" enough as a foursome to be considered a true cycle.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Yes I realise that it is an awful term to use. Apologies


----------



## kmisho

I had to vote Beethoven. He wrote 9 symphonies and every one of them is well worth listening to. I can't say this of any other symphonist, even among composers I prefer over Beethoven.


----------



## handlebar

Mahler by far. The term "Romantic" though does make this a personal choice as it's definition can be so different to each of us.

But GM it is for me!!

Jim


----------



## JAKE WYB

Im glad Sibelius isnt on the poll because it would be an automatic chioce for overall cycle romantic or not - i dont think of him as consistently romantic and i can here take a choice of purely proper reasons as under Siblius I like and enjoy the great romantics on a reasonably even subjective level.

My vote tussled between Mahler and dvorak

I chose dvorak because his first 6 symphonies never fail to be a glorious listen regardless of any immaturity and are never appreciated enough - first movement of symphpny1 is one of my favourites and symphpny 3 and 4 are to me as beautiful and good quality as 7,8,9 and for consistently fresh and enjoyable music the dvorak cycle is to me the most solid even though others like mahler and tchaikosky reach a few more greater peaks occasionally


----------

