# BBC Music Mag - conductor's poll of symphonies



## juliante

Now I like a list, so when i saw that the BBC music magazine had polled 150 conductors for their favourite symphonies I was straight on the case. For your interest and discussion below. I was pleased to see Mahler well represented and interested no5 did not make the top 20. 

1. Beethoven 3 
2. Beethoven 9
3. Mozart 41
4. Mahler 9 
5. Mahler 2 
6. Brahms 4 
7. Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique 
8. Brahms Symphony 1 
9. Tchaikovsky 6 
10. Mahler 3 
11 Beethoven 5
12 Brahms 3
13 Bruckner 8
14 Sibelius 7
15 Mozart 40
16 Beethoven 7
17 Shostakovich 5
18 Brahms 2
19 Beethoven 6
20 Bruckner 7


----------



## GreenMamba

Sibelius 7 is a mild surprise. An audience poll might have selected 2 (I'd have chosen 5). 

No Haydn. No Schubert. No Dvorak. Of course, there are only 20 spots.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

juliante said:


> Now I like a list, so when i saw that the BBC music magazine had polled 150 conductors for their favourite symphonies I was straight on the case. For your interest and discussion below. I was pleased to see Mahler well represented and interested no5 did not make the top 20.
> 
> 1. Beethoven 3
> 2. Beethoven 9
> 3. Mozart 41
> 4. Mahler 9
> 5. Mahler 2
> 6. Brahms 4
> 7. Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique
> 8. Brahms Symphony 1
> 9. Tchaikovsky 6
> 10. Mahler 3
> 11 Beethoven 5
> 12 Brahms 3
> 13 Bruckner 8
> 14 Sibelius 7
> 15 Mozart 40
> 16 Beethoven 7
> 17 Shostakovich 5
> 18 Brahms 2
> 19 Beethoven 6
> 20 Bruckner 7


I love all of these symphonies! It's rare to find a list not to quibble with. OK, maybe Sibelius 5 instead of 7 

Also, mildly surprised Brahms' 1st didn't make it. I would replace the 2nd with it.
EDIT: never mind, Brahms' 1st is 8th on the list.


----------



## D Smith

Not a bad list though I'm surprised at the omission of Schubert, Dvorak and Haydn. I would have liked to see more 20th century works represented.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

No Haydn? 

Hmm .... interesting 

(I'm not going to pop my head above the parapet to suggest what might be dropped off that list in order to make room for any - yes, very cowardly of me!)


----------



## Pugg

Very strange no Mahler 5 .


----------



## Headphone Hermit

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I love all of these symphonies! It's rare to find a list not to quibble with. OK, maybe Sibelius 5 instead of 7
> 
> Also, mildly surprised *Brahms' 1st *didn't make it. I would replace the 2nd with it.


it is there - in #8 place


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Headphone Hermit said:


> it is there - in #8 place


Well, it sure is. I clearly need more coffee this morning


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

So all of Brahm's symphonies made the top 20. He only had 4.


----------



## joen_cph

Standard international repertoire, of course. Besides the absence of Dvorak and Schubert (Nielsen and some other composers example just aren´t known or performed enough), Mahler´s 9th on a fourth place is surprising to me - Barbirolli said that for a conductor it should take a year to prepare a Mahler symphony, and one would think that the 9th must be one of most difficult ones.

(EDIT: and it´s hardly a cheerful one either ...).


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Pugg said:


> Very strange no Mahler 5 .


I'm more surprised by the non-appearance of Mahler 6 and 8. The latter, in particular, must be huge fun to conduct.


----------



## Woodduck

Conductors' preferred works may be biased by their experience in performing them. Orchestral players' preferences could be different depending on the instrument they play, and nonmusicians' preferences might be different still.


----------



## Strange Magic

Not my 20 favorites, in line with Woodduck's thinking. Is there anyone whose list matches this?


----------



## joen_cph

Repetition - the TC result of 2011:
#1226 in http://www.talkclassical.com/11038-tc-150-top-recommended-82.html

1. Beethoven - Symphony No. 9 'Choral'
2. Mahler - Symphony No. 2 'Resurrection'
3. Beethoven - Symphony No. 3 'Eroica'
4. Mozart - Symphony No. 41 'Jupiter'
5. Shostakovich - Symphony No. 5
6. Mozart - Symphony No. 40 'Great'
7. Beethoven - Symphony No. 5
8. Beethoven - Symphony No. 7
9. Schubert - Symphony No. 9 'Great'
10. Brahms - Symphony No. 4
11. Dvořák - Symphony No. 9 'From the New World'
12. Beethoven - Symphony No. 6 'Pastoral'
13. Tchaikovsky - Symphony No. 6 'Pathetique'
14. Schubert - Symphony No. 8 'Unfinished'
15. Mahler - Symphony No. 5
16. Sibelius - Symphony No. 5
17. Mahler - Symphony No. 6 'Tragic'
18. Mahler - Symphony No. 9
19. Bruckner - Symphony No. 8 'The Apocalyptic'
20. Mahler - Symphony No. 4


----------



## Pat Fairlea

I was puzzled by this list, and assumed that it represents the symphonies that give conductors the greatest satisfaction *as conductors*. There are quite a few that would not be on my personal top 20, but I'm not a conductor. As a listener, I want Shost 10, Sibelius 6, Rach 2 on that list, but maybe they are difficult or unsatisfying to conduct?


----------



## jdec

Agree with many of them in the list, but Dvorak 9th and Mahler 6th should have made it in the top 20. Disappointed on that.


----------



## EdwardBast

The list of symphonies interests me not one iota. I'd like to see the list of conductors.  Is that available?


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

EdwardBast said:


> The list of symphonies interests me not one iota. I'd like to see the list of conductors.  Is that available?


The list of conductors who voted? Or a list of ranked conductors?


----------



## starthrower

EdwardBast said:


> I'd like to see the list of conductors.  Is that available?


It's the music after 1945 sucks list of conductors.


----------



## nbergeron

There's not much to complain about in this list, although Mahler 3 does seem like an interesting choice for number 10, especially considering there's no Schubert or Prokofiev.


----------



## Bruckner Anton

I am not surprised with the list at all.


----------



## juliante

EdwardBast said:


> The list of symphonies interests me not one iota. I'd like to see the list of conductors.  Is that available?


Yes the magazine published them and their choices. 151 were polled. But I am not typing that out


----------



## juliante

Pat Fairlea said:


> I was puzzled by this list, and assumed that it represents the symphonies that give conductors the greatest satisfaction *as conductors*. There are quite a few that would not be on my personal top 20, but I'm not a conductor. As a listener, I want Shost 10, Sibelius 6, Rach 2 on that list, but maybe they are difficult or unsatisfying to conduct?


They were asked: '...to name the three symphonies they consider the greatest.'


----------



## joen_cph

That is much less focused on the performance qualities of the works then.


----------



## Guest

At last, the definitive list as determined by the experts. No more fruitless arguments on TC ever again (on this subject at any rate.).


----------



## EdwardBast

Johnnie Burgess said:


> The list of conductors who voted? Or a list of ranked conductors?


The list of conductors who voted. It would be interesting to know if those polled comprise a who's who of conductors or a "Who?"


----------



## Weston

They seem like the usual suspects to me, scarcely different from what I would expect non-experts to choose.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> The list of conductors who voted. It would be interesting to know if those polled comprise a who's who of conductors or a "Who?"


Well some might not be content unless Bernstein, HvK and Furtwangler were polled, and of course, who you know on the list might not be who others know, but amongst the 151, some of the usual suspects were asked...

Ashkenazy
Dutoit
Elder
Fischer (Thierry)
Harding
Jansons
Jurowski
Malkki
Markl
Mehta
Nezet-Seguin
Nott
Petrenko
Rattle
Segerstam
Stenz
Vanska

as well as plenty I've never heard of but who might be specialist conductors or only known for their work with British orchestras?


----------



## Pugg

MacLeod said:


> Well some might not be content unless Bernstein, HvK and Furtwangler were polled, and of course, who you know on the list might not be who others know, but amongst the 151, some of the usual suspects were asked...
> 
> Ashkenazy
> Dutoit
> Elder
> Fischer (Thierry)
> Harding
> Jansons
> Jurowski
> Malkki
> Markl
> Mehta
> Nezet-Seguin
> Nott
> Petrenko
> Rattle
> Segerstam
> Stenz
> Vanska
> 
> as well as plenty I've never heard of but who might be specialist conductors or only known for their work with British orchestras?


Is this guessing or knowing?


----------



## Guest

Pugg said:


> Is this guessing or knowing?


I went out and purchased the magazine, just so I could post the truth here!


----------



## PlaySalieri

Headphone Hermit said:


> No Haydn?
> 
> Hmm .... interesting
> 
> (I'm not going to pop my head above the parapet to suggest what might be dropped off that list in order to make room for any - yes, very cowardly of me!)


Yes my friend that's correct - NO Haydn. Zilch.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Pat Fairlea said:


> I was puzzled by this list, and assumed that it represents the symphonies that give conductors the greatest satisfaction *as conductors*. There are quite a few that would not be on my personal top 20, but I'm not a conductor. As a listener, *I want Shost 10, Sibelius 6, Rach 2 on that list, but maybe they are difficult or unsatisfying to conduct?*


Who knows - they may be your favourites but these esteemed conductors rate them on average outside of the top 20.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Out of the 20 symphonies 17 were written before the 20th century.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Out of the 20 symphonies *17 were written before the 20th century.*


Ah - well spotted.
Which rather supports what many of us have been saying on TC over the years.


----------



## Blancrocher

stomanek said:


> Ah - well spotted.
> Which rather supports what many of us have been saying on TC over the years.


In fairness, there might be one or two more if composers didn't decrease their odds of getting on lists like this by calling their works "Concerto for Orchestra" or basically anything without "symphony" in it. Working composers may want to think about such things before calling their latest highly symphony-like piece "I feel a pang of pain when I think of what's beyond the stars."


----------



## PlaySalieri

I cant grumble too much about this list - even a Mozart fanatic like me recognises the Eroica as one heck of a symphony. 
I'm glad to see Mozart 40 and 41 in the top 20 - given he's hardly ever played at all by these 100 piece orchestras and I suppose it's not too surprising that the 19thC big guns dominate. 

Still it makes me smile to see no Haydn and nothing too much after Mahler.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Beethoven, Brahms, and Mahler wrote 11 of the 20.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

stomanek said:


> I cant grumble too much about this list - even a Mozart fanatic like me recognises the Eroica as one heck of a symphony.
> I'm glad to see Mozart 40 and 41 in the top 20 - given he's hardly ever played at all by these 100 piece orchestras and I suppose it's not too surprising that the 19thC big guns dominate.
> 
> Still it makes me smile to see no Haydn and nothing too much after Mahler.


Then you would be surprised the San Antonio Symphony in the 2016-2017 season will perform the last 5 symphonies of Mozart.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Then you would be surprised the San Antonio Symphony in the 2016-2017 season will perform the last 5 symphonies of Mozart.


Glad to hear it - wish I could be there.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Beethoven, Brahms, and Mahler wrote 11 of the 20.


16 out of the 20 are germanic composers.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

stomanek said:


> 16 out of the 20 are germanic composers.


Germanic composers dominated classical music for a long time.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

stomanek said:


> Who knows - they may be your favourites but these esteemed conductors rate them on average outside of the top 20.


Yup, well that's the semantic conundrum isn't it? Favourite, most interesting, most memorable..... all possible individual interpretations of the weasel word 'greatest'.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Pat Fairlea said:


> Yup, well that's the semantic conundrum isn't it? Favourite, most interesting, most memorable..... all possible individual interpretations of the weasel word 'greatest'.


or maybe - best?


----------



## Mahlerian

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Germanic composers dominated classical music for a long time.


The symphony also tended to be a Germanic form throughout the common practice period, and many of the best orchestral works of the 20th century were not called symphonies at all.


----------



## joen_cph

Pat Fairlea said:


> Yup, well that's the semantic conundrum isn't it? Favourite, most interesting, most memorable..... all possible individual interpretations of the weasel word 'greatest'.


Still, there are also institutional factors, conventions and traditions in their rating, building on the established pool of the international standard repertoire. 
If some conductors with in-depth knowledge on the Scandinavian repertoire for example voted for symphonies from there, they wouldn´t be on the top anyway.


----------



## realdealblues

Not too surprised by the list, other than not having Mahler's 6th on it and maybe Dvorak's 9th. Sibelius's 7th instead of 5th or 2nd is a little surprising as well but overall, with Mozart, Brahms, Beethoven & Mahler and you pretty much have the 4 most popular "Symphony" composers. You can quibble that Haydn wrote over 100 Symphonies, but I think the others are more popular in a general sense.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Mahlerian said:


> The symphony also tended to be a Germanic form throughout the common practice period, and many of the best orchestral works of the 20th century were not called symphonies at all.


2 of the 3 symphonies written in the 20th century were after WW1. They were written by non Germanic composers.

I think the symphony was starting to be replaced in the 20th century. I think the length of the symphonies were getting too long.


----------



## Haydn man

Right, send me this list of conductors they clearly require a little enlightenment.

No Haydn indeed


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Conductors' preferred works may be biased by their experience in performing them. *Orchestral players' preferences could be different depending on the instrument they play*, and nonmusicians' preferences might be different still.


The part I have bolded is true. Ask an orchestral 'cellist whether they prefer playing Brahms or Bruckner and I think the answer will _probably_ tend to favour Brahms. A rank-and-file cellist of the LSO (or it may have been the LPO, no matter) was once interviewed about the then coming season's programming and groaned when told there was going to be some Bruckner: "Oh no! Another hour and a half of scratching my instrument!" (A close paraphrase from memory.)
I'm a big fan of Bruckner, let me hasten to add!


----------



## GreenMamba

stomanek said:


> Who knows - they may be your favourites but these esteemed conductors rate them on average outside of the top 20.


And as mentioned up thread, each conductor only listed his top three. I don't know how much different results would be if they each listed their top 20. But it's entirely possible for someone to love Shostakovich 10, Mahler 6, Haydn 92, etc. but not be able to fit it into their personal top three.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

GreenMamba said:


> And as mentioned up thread, each conductor only listed his top three. I don't know how much different results would be if they each listed their top 20. But it's entirely possible for someone to love Shostakovich 10, Mahler 6, Haydn 92, etc. but not be able to fit it into their personal top three.


But Bruckner in their top 3. I think he wrote great symphonies but I would not ranking any in my top 3. How about you?


----------



## GreenMamba

Johnnie Burgess said:


> But Bruckner in their top 3. I think he wrote great symphonies but I would not ranking any in my top 3. How about you?


I wouldn't. I'd be curious how many votes were necessary to make the top 20. How many total different symphonies were mentioned? Who knows.


----------



## Guest

The winning symphony was chosen by 32 of the conductors. The article doesn't say whether they were asked to name three in order.

And some curiosities...one conductor chose Rach Symphony 1, 2 and 3. Another chose Gelgotas and Sumera (??). Another picked Lyatoshynsky and Tertarian. (??)


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

MacLeod said:


> The winning symphony was chosen by 32 of the conductors. The article doesn't say whether they were asked to name three in order.


Still I could not name Bruckner in any spot in my top 3. Beethoven or Mahler would get those spots.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Haydn man said:


> Right, send me this list of conductors they clearly require a little enlightenment.
> 
> No Haydn indeed


I think with Haydn - although he composed many superb symphonies - it would be difficult perhaps to rank a couple or three of them head and shoulders at the top of his output - with Mozart you immediately think of no 41 or 40 as the best - which is perhaps why he is the only 18thC composer on the list.


----------



## Nereffid

Another perspective on symphonies, from my A La Carte Polls.
A completely different methodology because participants did no ranking, they were just asked whether they like a work or not. The 20 symphonies that got the greatest percentage of likes were:

1. Beethoven 5
2. Beethoven 3
3. Beethoven 7
4. Beethoven 6
5. Mahler 6
6. Beethoven 9
7. Mahler 9
8. Mahler 4
9. Dvorak 9
10. Mozart 40
11. Sibelius 5
12. Tchaikovsky 5
13. Schubert 8
14. Mahler 1
15. Brahms 4
16. Mendelssohn 4
17. Mahler 2
18. Sibelius 7
19. Mahler 5
20. Sibelius 2

This differs from the BBC and TC Top 150 lists about as much as they do from each other. The one clear omission is Mozart 41.

All three lists agree on Beethoven 3,5,6,7,9, Brahms 4, Mahler 2,4,9, and Mozart 40.


----------



## Art Rock

Johnnie Burgess said:


> But Bruckner in their top 3. I think he wrote great symphonies but I would not ranking any in my top 3. How about you?


Bruckner's 9th (in the 3 movement version) would be my #1 choice (Schubert 8 and Mahler 4 being the others).


----------



## joen_cph

And Bruckner´s 8th might be my first choice.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Nereffid said:


> Another perspective on symphonies, from my A La Carte Polls.
> A completely different methodology because participants did no ranking, they were just asked whether they like a work or not. The 20 symphonies that got the greatest percentage of likes were:
> 
> 1. Beethoven 5
> 2. Beethoven 3
> 3. Beethoven 7
> 4. Beethoven 6
> 5. Mahler 6
> 6. Beethoven 9
> 7. Mahler 9
> 8. Mahler 4
> 9. Dvorak 9
> 10. Mozart 40
> 11. Sibelius 5
> 12. Tchaikovsky 5
> 13. Schubert 8
> 14. Mahler 1
> 15. Brahms 4
> 16. Mendelssohn 4
> 17. Mahler 2
> 18. Sibelius 7
> 19. Mahler 5
> 20. Sibelius 2
> 
> This differs from the BBC and TC Top 150 lists about as much as they do from each other. The one clear omission is Mozart 41.
> 
> All three lists agree on Beethoven 3,5,6,7,9, Brahms 4, Mahler 2,4,9, and Mozart 40.


Tchaikovsky 6 just missed out on being in your top 20.


----------



## EdwardBast

Pick the three most important things in your life: Food, water, air, classical music and televised rugby matches. Hey, no cares about music! Or rugby.

What some of us are objecting to in the BBC poll might be due to the vagaries of sampling. Giving a lot of conductors only three choices could yield very different results from asking, for example, 50 (conductors we've heard of  ) for seven favorites. My guess is the range of choices would be far broader in the latter case. Might even see some Haydn.


----------



## Orfeo

TalkingHead said:


> The part I have bolded is true. Ask an orchestral 'cellist whether they prefer playing Brahms or Bruckner and I think the answer will _probably_ tend to favour Brahms. A rank-and-file cellist of the LSO (or it may have been the LPO, no matter) was once interviewed about the then coming season's programming and *groaned when told there was going to be some Bruckner: "Oh no! Another hour and a half of scratching my instrument!*" (A close paraphrase from memory.)
> I'm a big fan of Bruckner, let me hasten to add!


Probably not so surprising at all. Bruckner's music is perhaps the most difficult to perform (especially) if you're a string player (constant tremolo on the strings and what not). The demands this great Austrian placed on his players are massive, and it takes great physicality to perform his music.

In a sense, it's kind of surprising that his music is well recorded and somewhat well performed (not so in the Americas, however). Then again, orchestras have evolved well enough over generations to cope well with the music and its demands.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> Pick the three most important things in your life: Food, water, air, classical music and televised rugby matches. Hey, no cares about music! Or rugby.
> 
> What some of us are objecting to in the BBC poll might be due to the vagaries of sampling. Giving a lot of conductors only three choices could yield very different results from asking, for example, 50 (conductors we've heard of  ) for seven favorites. My guess is the range of choices would be far broader in the latter case. Might even see some Haydn.


I don't see what there is to object to? Obviously, we might all object if the magazine were to claim it now has definitive evidence that the Eroica really is the greatest ever symphony. But it isn't really making such a claim. It's reporting a poll - how do you object to the outcome of a poll of opinions (no matter how well-informed), providing the terms of the poll are made clear?

And why should it be only "conductors "we've heard of"? Who? You? Me? I expect if you were to poll TC, almost all of the 151 polled would be "known" to someone.

As for the number of choices, are you suggesting that Eroica might not come top if the could pick more? It seems blindingly obvious that if you only get three, and that most are likely to pick the usual suspects, some will be missed out. So what?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Nereffid said:


> Another perspective on symphonies, from my A La Carte Polls.
> A completely different methodology because participants did no ranking, they were just asked whether they like a work or not. The 20 symphonies that got the greatest percentage of likes were:
> 
> 1. Beethoven 5
> 2. Beethoven 3
> 3. Beethoven 7
> 4. Beethoven 6
> 5. Mahler 6
> 6. Beethoven 9
> 7. Mahler 9
> 8. Mahler 4
> 9. Dvorak 9
> 10. Mozart 40
> 11. Sibelius 5
> 12. Tchaikovsky 5
> 13. Schubert 8
> 14. Mahler 1
> 15. Brahms 4
> 16. Mendelssohn 4
> 17. Mahler 2
> 18. Sibelius 7
> 19. Mahler 5
> 20. Sibelius 2
> 
> This differs from the BBC and TC Top 150 lists about as much as they do from each other. *The one clear omission is Mozart 41.*
> 
> All three lists agree on Beethoven 3,5,6,7,9, Brahms 4, Mahler 2,4,9, and Mozart 40.


That is an odd one - as every poll I have ever seen has the jupiter in the top 10 or better. how to explain it? Either the symphony is not as good as is generally thought - or a freak sample.


----------



## Nereffid

stomanek said:


> That is an odd one - as every poll I have ever seen has the jupiter in the top 10 or better. how to explain it? Either the symphony is not as good as is generally thought - or a freak sample.


It ranks #28 in symphonies, I think, and the percentages are fairly close. If another half-dozen people voted in the poll its position might change substantially.
This is the poll right here.

Besides, the polls measure popularity, not whether something is "good".


----------



## Strange Magic

All polls are wrong!


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

joen_cph said:


> That is much less focused on the performance qualities of the works then.


The performance qualities of the works might still have influenced the conductors' judgments, subconsciously or otherwise.


----------



## EdwardBast

MacLeod said:


> I don't see what there is to object to? Obviously, we might all object if the magazine were to claim it now has definitive evidence that the Eroica really is the greatest ever symphony. But it isn't really making such a claim. It's reporting a poll - how do you object to the outcome of a poll of opinions (no matter how well-informed), providing the terms of the poll are made clear?
> 
> And why should it be only "conductors "we've heard of"? Who? You? Me? I expect if you were to poll TC, almost all of the 151 polled would be "known" to someone.
> 
> As for the number of choices, are you suggesting that Eroica might not come top if the could pick more? It seems blindingly obvious that if you only get three, and that most are likely to pick the usual suspects, some will be missed out. So what?


I only said "some of us" because I didn't want to sound like I was pointing fingers. What I was really thinking was "some of you."  Anyway, I was just trying to console those aggrieved by the absence of their favorite composers and works, especially those not inclined to consider how biases and skewed conclusions can result from arbitrary sampling. I never take these kinds of polls too seriously--especially when they use the words Bruckner and great in close proximity.  And I think the Eroica is a perfectly plausible and unsurprising choice.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> The performance qualities of the works might still have influenced the conductors' judgments, subconsciously or otherwise.


Or are they picking works they have recorded recently?


----------



## arpeggio

I just got my copy of the issue (I am a subscriber).

The editors of the BBC Magazine frequently misrepresent the various polls that they conduct. One of the worst was "The 20 Greatest Conductors". They asked 100 conductors which conductors where their "inspirations". Not greatest. For example: Matthias Bamert selected George Szell, Leopold Stokowski and Lorin Maazel. It turns out he studied with all of them. The editors than twisted the results around to proclaim that the results of the poll is who these conductors considered the greatest (see Vol. 19, Number 11, April, 2011)

There was a BBC poll on who were the ten greatest child prodigies (Vo. 17, No.10, June 2009). Mozart did not make it.

For the record I scanned the results into a PDF files and the actual results are interesting.

View attachment best symphonies.pdf


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

arpeggio said:


> I just got my copy of the issue (I am a subscriber).
> 
> The editors of the BBC Magazine frequently misrepresent the various polls that they conduct. One of the worst was "The 20 Greatest Conductors". They asked 100 conductors which conductors where their "inspirations". Not greatest. For example: Matthias Bamert selected George Szell, Leopold Stokowski and Lorin Maazel. It turns out he studied with all of them. The editors than twisted the results around to proclaim that the results of the poll is who these conductors considered the greatest (see Vol. 19, Number 11, April, 2011)
> 
> There was a BBC poll on who were the ten greatest child prodigies (Vo. 17, No.10, June 2009). Mozart did not make it.
> 
> For the record I scanned the results into a PDF files and the actual results are interesting.
> 
> View attachment 87759


There are some surprising choices in there.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Johnnie Burgess said:


> There are some surprising choices in there.


Yes, I noticed one instance of Barber's 1st symphony, which made me listen to it and I'm glad I did.

Also noticed one vote for Haydn's 1st !?!


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Yes, I noticed one instance of Barber's 1st symphony, which made me listen to it and I'm glad I did.
> 
> Also noticed one vote for Haydn's 1st !?!


Haydn 94 got some votes.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Haydn 94 got some votes.


I can see 94 but 1? I thought it must be a typo


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I can see 94 but 1? I thought it must be a typo


Bloch symphony 1 got a vote, so why not.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Bloch symphony 1 got a vote, so why not.


I haven't heard Bloch's 1st but I have heard Haydn's 1st and there are about 100 Haydn symphonies better


----------



## Sloe

Johnnie Burgess said:


> There are some surprising choices in there.


Only two votes for a Carl Nielsen symphony both for the fourth symphony.
Now I see why he is considered underrated.
Two nice surprises:
One vote for Wilhelm Stenhammar´s first symphony and one vote for Per Nörgård´s eight symphony.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Sloe said:


> Only two votes for a Carl Nielsen symphony both for the fourth symphony.
> Now I see why he is considered underrated.
> Two nice surprises:
> One vote for Wilhelm Stenhammar´s first symphony and one vote for Per Nörgård´s eight symphony.


Shows some wide variety in their choices.


----------



## Sloe

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Shows some wide variety in their choices.


I would say both wide variety and lots of the same.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Sloe said:


> I would say both wide variety and lots of the same.


Beethoven 3, 9 and several of Mahler are just standard choice. Most would pick them as their favorite. Look at the number of recordings for them. And they do sell.


----------



## Sloe

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Beethoven 3, 9 and several of Mahler are just standard choice. Most would pick them as their favorite. Look at the number of recordings for them. And they do sell.


I believe they picked Beethoven and Mahler symphonies because they think they are excellent and not because they are standard choices.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Sloe said:


> I believe they picked Beethoven and Mahler symphonies because they think they are excellent and not because they are standard choices.


Yes they are excellent but some would complain they are picked too much.


----------



## Bulldog

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Yes they are excellent but some would complain they are picked too much.


That's what complainers do.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Bulldog said:


> That's what complainers do.


People like them, so they must be popular for some reason.


----------



## jdec

MacLeod said:


> Well some might not be content unless Bernstein, HvK and Furtwangler were polled, and of course, who you know on the list might not be who others know, but amongst the 151, some of the usual suspects were asked...
> 
> Ashkenazy
> Dutoit
> Elder
> Fischer (Thierry)
> Harding
> Jansons
> Jurowski
> Malkki
> Markl
> Mehta
> Nezet-Seguin
> Nott
> *Petrenko*
> Rattle
> Segerstam
> Stenz
> Vanska
> 
> as well as plenty I've never heard of but who might be specialist conductors or only known for their work with British orchestras?


May I ask which of the Petrenkos is on the list? Vasily or Kirill? or both? Thanks


----------



## KenOC

I would assume Vasily since he is better known for purely orchestral conducting, I think, and especially for his Shostakovich cycle.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

jdec said:


> May I ask which of the Petrenkos is on the list? Vasily or Kirill? or both? Thanks


It was Vasily.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

jdec said:


> May I ask which of the Petrenkos is on the list? Vasily or Kirill? or both? Thanks


Vasily. His picks were Beethoven 9, Elgar 2 and Tchaikovsky 6. The info is in the pdf file attached in post #69


----------



## Vaneyes

*Mahler*: 1 - 7, 9
*Bruckner*: 3 - 9
*Brahms*: 1 - 4
*LvB*: 3


----------



## ArgumentativeOldGit

Haydn wrote so many symphonies, and of generally such consistent quality (with none of them really standing out as head and shoulders above the others), that I'd guess he splits the votes. Also, I'd guess there may be a tendency to go for the "big" symphonies rather than the "small" ones - i.e. Bruckner's 8th rather than Haydn's 88th.

Recently, I found choosing even my ten favourite symphonies a virtually impossible job - so if I we're asked to pick three, I'd be bound to omit many I wouldn't want to be without. I'd guess it's the same with the conductors polled: asked to name three, they pick not necessarily their three favourites, but three *of* their favourites. So there's quite a bit of randomness in all this.

Having said all that, I'm off to look at the individual choices, as i think lists are great fun!

(My own three, by the way, would be Mozart41, Beethoven6, and Tchaikovsky6. No, wait....)


----------



## Vaneyes

ArgumentativeOldGit said:


> ....So there's quite a bit of randomness in all this.
> 
> Having said all that, I'm off to look at the individual choices, as i think lists are great fun!
> 
> (My own three, by the way, would be Mozart41, Beethoven6, and Tchaikovsky6. No, wait....)


Amen. You have the correct spirit. :tiphat:


----------



## SONNET CLV

juliante said:


> Now I like a list, so when i saw that the BBC music magazine had polled 150 conductors for their favourite symphonies I was straight on the case. For your interest and discussion below. I was pleased to see Mahler well represented and interested no5 did not make the top 20.
> 
> 1. Beethoven 3
> 2. Beethoven 9
> 3. Mozart 41
> 4. Mahler 9
> 5. Mahler 2
> 6. Brahms 4
> 7. Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique
> 8. Brahms Symphony 1
> 9. Tchaikovsky 6
> 10. Mahler 3
> 11 Beethoven 5
> 12 Brahms 3
> 13 Bruckner 8
> 14 Sibelius 7
> 15 Mozart 40
> 16 Beethoven 7
> 17 Shostakovich 5
> 18 Brahms 2
> 19 Beethoven 6
> 20 Bruckner 7


The poll-ees were conductors, right? Therefore I suspect such persons "experience" a symphony perhaps differently, in some respects, than many of us non-conductors. Looking over the list, I notice that these symphonies are generally ones in which a lot of stuff happens -- a lot of contrasts, moods, a lot of detail things to work on. I suspect Beethoven's 3rd and 9th provide a conductor with opportunities that he just doesn't get to work with in, say, 1,2,4 and 7. All those on the list are rather exciting works, too. So I suppose a conductor can get some gratifying applause at the end of the pieces. And that's important, too.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

SONNET CLV said:


> The poll-ees were conductors, right? Therefore I suspect such persons "experience" a symphony perhaps differently, in some respects, than many of us non-conductors. Looking over the list, I notice that these symphonies are generally ones in which a lot of stuff happens -- a lot of contrasts, moods, a lot of detail things to work on. I suspect Beethoven's 3rd and 9th provide a conductor with opportunities that he just doesn't get to work with in, say, 1,2,4 and 7. All those on the list are rather exciting works, too. So I suppose a conductor can get some gratifying applause at the end of the pieces. And that's important, too.


For Beethoven only Symphonies 2 and 8 did not get a vote. All the others got at least one vote.


----------



## hpowders

Some list. It's like "Your Hit Parade". Same old....same old. 

Meanwhile the terrific Schuman symphonies continue to beg for new performances.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

hpowders said:


> Some list. It's like "Your Hit Parade". Same old....same old.
> 
> Meanwhile the terrific Schuman symphonies continue to beg for new performances.


But there was a lot of names that did not make the list.

More people should let the leaders of the orchestra's know what they want to hear.


----------



## kanishknishar

MacLeod said:


> Well some might not be content unless Bernstein, HvK and Furtwangler were polled, and of course, who you know on the list might not be who others know, but amongst the 151, some of the usual suspects were asked...
> 
> Ashkenazy
> Dutoit
> Elder
> Fischer (Thierry)
> Harding
> Jansons
> Jurowski
> Malkki
> Markl
> Mehta
> Nezet-Seguin
> Nott
> Petrenko
> Rattle
> Segerstam
> Stenz
> Vanska
> 
> as well as plenty I've never heard of but who might be specialist conductors or only known for their work with British orchestras?


Jankowski? Really? Has he made such spectacular recordings like the other legends?


----------



## Guest

Herrenvolk said:


> Jankowski? Really? Has he made such spectacular recordings like the other legends?


I'm sorry - I don't understand your question. Who is Jankowski?


----------



## Casebearer

My main conclusion would be that the symphony is dead, as no living being - despite education and better access to whatever you need - has been able to write anything that comes close to the top 20 for many decades. 

Maybe symphonies are like sonnets. Shakespeare wrote some nice ones. Are we discussing the equivalent of sonnets?


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Casebearer said:


> My main conclusion would be that the symphony is dead, as no living being - despite education and better access to whatever you need - has been able to write anything that comes close to the top 20 for many decades.
> 
> Maybe symphonies are like sonnets. Shakespeare wrote some nice ones. Are we discussing the equivalent of sonnets?


I would not say it is dead. What most people would put in the top 20 are very good. It takes a good work to top them.


----------



## Guest

More seems to be made of this list than need be. Since none of us was there listening to the conductors being polled (assuming it was face-to-face) so we can't be sure what they were actually asked - important to understand this to be able to understand their choices. That leaves us with the article itself, which simply says they were asked to name the three they consider to be the greatest.

Then there is the process of sorting the data into some kind of order:

"We counted up the votes, and, where there were tie-breakers, gave the deciding vote to our trusted critics."

Lastly, a few conductors were quoted as offering an insight into their choices. So for example, Daniel Harding said of Mozart's _Jupiter_, "Mozart conjures up this incredibly complex counterpoint which is as inspiring as anything I can think of."

It seems to me to be a quite unremarkable list. I'm not sure why its predictability should be so perplexing. And even though they are (*gosh*) conductors, they are still just expressing opinions.


----------



## Pugg

MacLeod said:


> I'm sorry - I don't understand your question. Who is Jankowski?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek_Janowski


----------



## Sloe

Good to see that the conductors like the symphonies they are mostly conducting.


----------



## Mahlerian

Casebearer said:


> My main conclusion would be that the symphony is dead, as no living being - despite education and better access to whatever you need - has been able to write anything that comes close to the top 20 for many decades.
> 
> Maybe symphonies are like sonnets. Shakespeare wrote some nice ones. Are we discussing the equivalent of sonnets?


I'm not necessarily going to disagree that the symphony, as a form, hasn't been the most fruitful genre in a while, but remember that in the 1950s, Mahler's works would not have been on that list (including works from the 1880s!), so sometimes there is a delay.


----------



## Guest

Pugg said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek_Janowski


Well someone round here has typed a name incorrectly.


----------



## PlaySalieri

SONNET CLV said:


> The poll-ees were conductors, right? Therefore I suspect such persons "experience" a symphony perhaps differently, in some respects, than many of us non-conductors. * Looking over the list, I notice that these symphonies are generally ones in which a lot of stuff happens -- a lot of contrasts, moods, a lot of detail things to work on.* I suspect Beethoven's 3rd and 9th provide a conductor with opportunities that he just doesn't get to work with in, say, 1,2,4 and 7. All those on the list are rather exciting works, too. So I suppose a conductor can get some gratifying applause at the end of the pieces. And that's important, too.


Nice to know there is some merit in those works then.


----------



## Casebearer

Mahlerian said:


> I'm not necessarily going to disagree that the symphony, as a form, hasn't been the most fruitful genre in a while, but remember that in the 1950s, Mahler's works would not have been on that list (including works from the 1880s!), so sometimes there is a delay.


There was some cynicism in my post. Many great symphonies (and concertos for orchestra) have been written after 1900. The delay in appreciation is considerable. But maybe the conductors also gave some socially desirable answers.


----------



## violadude

Woodduck said:


> Conductors' preferred works may be biased by their experience in performing them. Orchestral players' preferences could be different depending on the instrument they play, and nonmusicians' preferences might be different still.


Yup, that could explain the omission of guys like Haydn. His symphonies are very fine, but the big gun type symphonies like Mahler's and Beethoven's are typically pieces that conductors work up to conducting, while they probably have conducted numerous Haydn symphonies by that time in their life. So it could be that many of these pieces are symphonies they relate to an overwhelming feeling of success and accomplishment, one of those "high on life" (realistically though, more like high on dopamine) moments that happens to people every so often. That could give those symphonies a very powerful emotional connection for conductors. Just a thought.


----------



## juliante

violadude said:


> Yup, that could explain the omission of guys like Haydn. His symphonies are very fine, but the big gun type symphonies like Mahler's and Beethoven's are typical pieces that conductors work up to conducting, while they probably have conducted numerous Haydn symphonies by that time in their life. So it could be that many of these pieces are symphonies they relate to an overwhelming feeling of success and accomplishment, one of those "high on life" (realistically though, more like high on dopamine) moments that happens to people every so often. That could give those symphonies a very powerful emotional connection for conductors. Just a thought.


Yep I reckon I would feel king of the world after conducting a big gun symphony and and therefore may well feel they are 'great'. They are though to be fair!


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

violadude said:


> Yup, that could explain the omission of guys like Haydn. His symphonies are very fine, but the big gun type symphonies like Mahler's and Beethoven's are typically pieces that conductors work up to conducting, while they probably have conducted numerous Haydn symphonies by that time in their life. So it could be that many of these pieces are symphonies they relate to an overwhelming feeling of success and accomplishment, one of those "high on life" (realistically though, more like high on dopamine) moments that happens to people every so often. That could give those symphonies a very powerful emotional connection for conductors. Just a thought.


Several Haydn symphonies were picked including #1 but none were picked by a second person so they were ranked.


----------



## u01rar

Indeed remember these are the top 20msymphonies 'to conduct', not to listen to......I imagine their list may have been different if they were asked that question.


----------



## fluteman

I like the TC list better than the conductors' list. I'd put the Mozart 38 (Prague) and 36 (Linz), the Prokofiev 1 (Classical) and 5, the Stravinsky Symphony in C, the Nielsen 5, and the Copland 3 ahead of some of those listed on both lists in terms of personal favorites, but it's all good.


----------



## PlaySalieri

u01rar said:


> Indeed remember these are the top 20msymphonies 'to conduct', not to listen to......I imagine their list may have been different if they were asked that question.


I dont think so - the conductors were asked to name their 3 greatest/favourite symphonies.


----------



## juliante

I did notice one more interesting thing - every Mahler symphony (not 10) was represented in the responses - the top 3s. Which shows the depth and breadth of his achievements in this form.


----------



## Nereffid

Nereffid said:


> Another perspective on symphonies, from my A La Carte Polls.
> A completely different methodology because participants did no ranking, they were just asked whether they like a work or not. The 20 symphonies that got the greatest percentage of likes were:
> 
> 1. Beethoven 5
> 2. Beethoven 3
> 3. Beethoven 7
> 4. Beethoven 6
> 5. Mahler 6
> 6. Beethoven 9
> 7. Mahler 9
> 8. Mahler 4
> 9. Dvorak 9
> 10. Mozart 40
> 11. Sibelius 5
> 12. Tchaikovsky 5
> 13. Schubert 8
> 14. Mahler 1
> 15. Brahms 4
> 16. Mendelssohn 4
> 17. Mahler 2
> 18. Sibelius 7
> 19. Mahler 5
> 20. Sibelius 2
> 
> This differs from the BBC and TC Top 150 lists about as much as they do from each other. The one clear omission is Mozart 41.





Nereffid said:


> It ranks #28 in symphonies, I think, and the percentages are fairly close. If another half-dozen people voted in the poll its position might change substantially.


Following up on this, for anyone who might be interested (only me?):
I bumped the poll in which the Jupiter featured, and it went from 45 voters to 64. And hey presto! 17 of the 19 new voters like it. So the revised top 10 is:

1. Beethoven 5
2. Beethoven 3
3. Beethoven 7
4. Beethoven 6
5. Mahler 6
6. Beethoven 9
7. Mahler 9
8. Mahler 4
9. Dvorak 9
10=. Mahler 2
10=. Mozart 41

... and all is right with the world.


----------



## brianvds

Woodduck said:


> Conductors' preferred works may be biased by their experience in performing them. Orchestral players' preferences could be different depending on the instrument they play, and nonmusicians' preferences might be different still.


Plus, I suppose a conductor's favourite symphonies to conduct might not necessarily be his favourites to listen to.

Something that just occurred to, and perhaps a somewhat unkind thought: the symphonies on the list are all popular old war horses. Perhaps the conductors like them because they always get the biggest and best applause with these?


----------



## EdwardBast

juliante said:


> I did notice one more interesting thing - every Mahler symphony (not 10) was represented in the responses - the top 3s. Which shows the depth and breadth of his achievements in this form.


No, what it shows is the preferences of a certain list of conductors.


----------



## Waehnen

I wonder, where do you have the full results, not just top 20? 

(My fast google search wasn´t lucky.)


----------



## Waehnen

arpeggio said:


> I just got my copy of the issue (I am a subscriber).
> 
> For the record I scanned the results into a PDF files and the actual results are interesting.
> 
> View attachment 87759


I found the info as an attachment!


----------



## larold

I think the last time BBC Music Mag did one of these a Mahler symphony was No. 1. I'm not surprised by anything in the list though I would not go to concerts to hear most of them. Almost all are already over-played, over-recorded and over-scheduled at concert. Only Sibelius Symphony 7 and to lesser extent Mahler No. 3 are outliers from that principle. The Mahler takes too many forces to perform or it would be on everyone's schedule. 

For some reason it has taken most of a century for Sibelius' best symphony, No.7, to come to the attention of conductors.


----------

