# Schubert as a "Great" Symphonist



## peeyaj

Reading thru the thread of "Greatest Symphonists", I was struck by the outright dismissal of TC's members on Schubert's importance and contributions to the symphonic literature. Perhaps it is the prevailing thought that Schubert, as the greatest of songwriters, struggles in large instrumental forces, and cannot equal with Beethoven in that genre.

But, scholars and critics dismissed this ephemeral claim.Yes, Schubert created six symphonies on the style of Haydn and Mozart, but his last two symphonies, the "Unfinished" and "Great" were some of the greatest and most popular in classical music. These two symphonies heralds the new sound of the symphony in the Romantic era and according to Wikipedia..

*"Schubert's first few symphonies may be works in progress. But the "Unfinished" and especially the Ninth Symphony are astonishing. The Ninth paves the way for Bruckner and prefigures Mahler."*

and according to this, on both Eroica and Unfinished: http://www.dorak.info/music/sform.html

On the other hand, the first movement of the Unfinished, despite being in sonata form with its themes (first and second subjects) and structure (well-articulated exposition, development, recapitulation and coda), does not observe the tonal plan of the sonata principle. The second subject is not recapitulated in the tonic but in the relative major. The tonal conflict is created by moving away from the tonic but not resolved by returning to it. The 'drama' of the movement is then provided by the contrasting themes. The more tuneful nature of the second subject is one of the first signs of what was going to come in the Romantic period. Both symphonies herald different aspects of the Romantic sonata form. Therefore, the differences cannot be attributed to a higher tendency of either composer to Romanticism.

*The major difference between them, that is the unusual tonal plan of the Unfinished, reflects the decreasing importance of the conventional tonal plan of the sonata principle in Romantic music. In Romantic music, key relationships are less important than thematic relationships. The contrast between the themes and their lyrical nature are more relevant. This shift of emphasis is emerging in the Unfinished. It is no surprise that the keys Schubert chose for his second subject in the Unfinished are the submediant and the mediant. The third relationships as the device of moving from the tonic, often seen in Beethoven, were a potent means for Schubert to enrich his harmonic scheme [p. 434 in Ref.3]. He used the submediant key to set up the tonal conflict in the exposition also in his Tragic Symphony in a minor key [p.74 of Ref.5]. He does what he likes but not what the Classical conventions impose. In retrospect, these modifications can be called forward-looking as later in the nineteenth century, such tonal deviations became a norm in Romantic music. *

And listen:











Thoughts???

Dvorak..



> In originality of harmony and modulation, and in his gift of orchestral coloring, Schubert has had no superior....
> 
> I have just observed that mastery of form came to Schubert spontaneously. This is illustrated by his early symphonies, five of which he wrote before he was twenty, at which, the more I study them, the more I marvel. Although the influence of Haydn and Mozart is apparent in them, Schubert's musical individuality is unmistakable in the character of the melody, in the harmonic progressions, and in many exquisite bits of orchestration. In his later symphonies he becomes more and more individual and original. The influence of Haydn and Mozart, so obvious in his earlier efforts, is gradually eliminated, and with his contemporary, Beethoven, he had less in common from the beginning. He resembles Beethoven, however, in the vigor and melodious flow of his basses; such basses we find already in his early symphonies. *His "Unfinished Symphony" and the great one in C are unique contributions to musical literature, absolutely new and original, Schubert in every bar*. What is perhaps most characteristic about them is the song-like melody pervading them. He introduced the song into the symphony and made the transfer so skilfully that Schumann was led to speak of the resemblance to the human voice (Aehnlichkeit mit dem Stimmorgan) in these orchestral parts.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Schubert just needed to live longer and maybe write a couple of money-spinning operas which could have given him the time and space to allow him to take complete control of his affairs. Had he done so and found success rather than have to sell even his finest works for peanuts I could imagine him taking time out to archive his works properly, maybe to the point of disowning some early symphonies and other fledgling works and consigning to the fire all those fragments which were only published after his death. At least he left us with two fine symphonies that were stamped with his own identity, two very promising ones and four others which certainly don't displease, despite their derivative nature. Taking into account the imperious body of work that he managed to shoehorn into his final five or so years we can only assume and hope that he would have forged ahead even further had he lived another 30 years whether it be writing symphonic works or anything else - maybe perhaps to the point of overshadowing the new kids on the block such as Mendelssohn and Schumann. On reflection, I think it's more regrettable that his early death stopped him from writing a real blockbuster of a piano concerto (had he ever felt like writing one) but there were surely some great symphonies to follow. Schubert's early death is one of art's greatest swindles.


----------



## Ukko

The 'Unfinished' ends just in time. The 'Great' does not.


----------



## GraemeG

elgars ghost said:


> Schubert's early death is one of art's greatest swindles.


A perfect summary of music's ultimate tragedy. No loss is so keenly felt as this one.
To think that the C major symphony, the Quintet, the last 3 quartets, the last 3 piona sonatas were all written by a man not thirty (or only just), and then, nothing more.
Schubert truly was the music world's greatest loss.
GG


----------



## Rasa

Honestly, the fifth symphony is a great listen aswell.


----------



## Ukko

Rasa said:


> Honestly, the fifth symphony is a great listen aswell.


Yes it is. The 3rd is a good time too.


----------



## peeyaj

Even Dvorak admits that Schubert is the greater symphonist than Schumann and Mendelssohn would be. He also reflects Schubert's influence on his symphonic writing.

Schumann wrote, after finding the score of Great C Major, that it is the ''greatest instrumental work since the death of Beethoven.''


----------



## Ukko

peeyaj said:


> Even Dvorak admits that Schubert is the greater symphonist than Schumann and Mendelssohn would be. He also reflects Schubert's influence on his symphonic writing.
> 
> Schumann wrote, after finding the score of Great C Major, that it is the ''greatest instrumental work since the death of Beethoven.''


Sure that wasn't 'greatest' as in 'longest'?


----------



## peeyaj

Here's the quote of Dvorak regarding Schubert, Mendelssohn and Schumann.



> Of Schubert's symphonies, too, I am such an enthusiastic admirer that I do not hesitate to place him *next to Beethoven, far above Mendelssohn, as well as above Schumann.* Mendelssohn had some of Mozart's natural instinct for orchestration and gift for form, but much of his work has proved *ephemeral.* Schumann is at his best in his songs, his chamber music, and his pianoforte pieces. His symphonies, too, are great works, yet they are not always truly orchestral; *the form seems to hamper the composer, and the instrumentation is not always satisfactory.* This is never the case with Schubert.





Hilltroll72 said:


> Sure that wasn't 'greatest' as in 'longest'?


It's actually paraphrased from Schumann's article on his discovery of Schubert's Great C Major.

Here's the link. It's an interesting read on history of of the Symphony and how great is the admiration of Schumann in Franz.



> http://www.franzschubert.org.uk/articles/art00011.html


Regarding the longest.. Bruckner tried and tried, but he would never reach the grandeur and ''heart" of the Great C Major.


----------



## peeyaj

I hope the ''Beethoven fanboys'' of TC will acknowledge Schubert's symphonies.


----------



## Vaneyes

peeyaj said:


> I hope the ''Beethoven fanboys'' of TC will acknowledge Schubert's symphonies.


This LvB & Others "fanboy" will acknowledge that I've heard too much of Schubert's symphonies. Of major classical composers symphonies, I think Schubert's are the weakest. His symphonic limitations and irritations include his inability to fully extricate himself from the classical period, and the incessant repetition of not-very-interesting-themes-after-first-hearings.

So much of Franz's work is top notch. It's a shame he couldn't do better with the symphonies. And where are his concerti?


----------



## peeyaj

Vaneyes said:


> ...Of major classical composers symphonies, I think Schubert's are the weakest.


Compared to what?? To Schumann's symphonies in which Schumann's inability to orchestrate adequately hamper him? Or to Mendelssohn's ephemeral symphonies that looks back to Classical era. Or to Haydn's 1 symphony with 104 variations?

You are entitled to your own opinion. But dismissing Schubert's symphonist as ''weakest'' is juvenile to the core. Dvorak ranked his symphonies second to Beethoven and his last two, are some of the greatest in the repertoire. I admit that Brahms and Mahler are greater symphonists than Schubert, but to label those works as ''weakest'' is controversial.



> His symphonic limitations and irritations include his inability to fully extricate himself from the classical period, and the incessant repetition of not-very-interesting-themes-after-first-hearings.


Ok.. How about Haydn's recycling of his themes in his 104 symphonies?

Ask Berlioz, Schumann, Dvorak and Bruckner about that. Those composers were influenced by Schubert's symphonic style. Like I said in my op, Schubert's last two symphonies herald the new sound of the Romantic era. The ''Unfinished'', according to scholars, are the first true Romantic symphony. The ''Great'' on the other hand, influenced the new generation of composers such as Bruckner and Mahler.

Incessent repetitions? Schubert knows what he's doing. Again, those repititions of long melodic lines influenced Bruckner and Mahler. I



> So much of Franz's work is top notch. It's a shame he couldn't do better with the symphonies. And where are his concerti?


Again, Schubert's last two symphonies are revolutionary in their time. The Unfinished and Great, are great masterpieces on the symphonic literature. Generation of listeners and composers attest that.

And..

If you died at the age of 31, you don't have enough time to write in other genre. It's a good thing that Schubert wrote masterpieces on the vocal, symphonic, and chamber genre. You don't have to blame a composer who died so young because he haven't written a concerti.


----------



## Eviticus

I personally adore Schubert's last one and a half symphonies as do most classical fans and recognise their impact on the romantics. But his first 7 are generally considered sub par and so as a collective, most are not interested in the majority of his output in that genre.

In crude metaphorical terms it's the difference between say a one hit wonder like Dexys Midnight Runners "Come on Eileen" and all of Michael Jacksons biggest hits from the 80's. 

Would you choose Dexy's Greatest hits over Jacko's based on that one song? Possibly.
But then would you really proclaim them great songwriters when there's only one good song in the collection? Potentially but unlikely.


----------



## Beethovenrox

No offense but I think Schubert was kind of a Beethoven wannabe....


----------



## tahnak

Yes. He can be considered a great symphonist. The Unfinished and the Great are a testimony to that. The other seven symphonies are also gems. He is a major first rate symphonist.


----------



## Ukko

Beethovenrox said:


> No offense but I think Schubert was kind of a Beethoven wannabe....


There was a lot of that going on. But... Schubert seems to have accepted early on that he couldn't handle Classical sonata form, that the process stifled his creativity. If his non-lieder music had been better known, he would be a prime candidate as an instigator of Romantic music's 'freedoms'. It wasn't, so he wasn't.


----------



## jalex

Beethovenrox said:


> No offense but I think Schubert was kind of a Beethoven wannabe....


Except he doesn't sound very much like Beethoven at all?


----------



## jalex

Anyway, I think Schubert was 'someone who wrote a couple of great symphonies' rather than 'a great symphonist'. Much like Janacek was 'someone who wrote a couple of outstanding string quartets' and not a 'great writer of string quartets'. One and a half symphonies is ground much to shaky for a reputation to be built on, and the earlier symphonies, whilst fairly enjoyable, don't add much to Schubert's case (except maybe #5).


----------



## brianwalker

Our captivation with quantity occludes the truth from even the clear headed. His eight and ninth are easily some of the greatest symphonies ever composed, and his third and fifth are absolute delights. The quality of the melodies, the orchestration, and the architecture of the ninth is stunning and continues to fascinate me. If he had lived a decade longer, he would certainly have been the greatest symphonist of all time. The way he handles dealing with music of extreme length is absolutely brilliant in the ninth. Beethoven's 9th is longer, but it has more real "movements", so to speak. Only Mahler excels better in this aspect.


----------



## Eviticus

brianwalker said:


> Our captivation with quantity occludes the truth from even the clear headed. His eight and ninth are easily some of the greatest symphonies ever composed, and his third and fifth are absolute delights. The quality of the melodies, the orchestration, and the architecture of the ninth is stunning and continues to fascinate me. If he had lived a decade longer, he would certainly have been the greatest symphonist of all time. The way he handles dealing with music of extreme length is absolutely brilliant in the ninth. Beethoven's 9th is longer, but it has more real "movements", so to speak. Only Mahler excels better in this aspect.


I prefer Schubert's 9th any day of Beethoven's (which is by Beethoven's standards too repetitive and has some real awkward moments in the last movement). However, to claim Schubert was amongst the top 3 greatest symphonists of all time based on 1 and a half symphonies is too ambitious. For all we know, had he have lived another 10 years he could have churned out more mediocre symphonies and wrapped up the 8th with sub par movements... It's all speculative.


----------



## brianwalker

Eviticus said:


> I prefer Schubert's 9th any day of Beethoven's (which is by Beethoven's standards too repetitive and has some real awkward moments in the last movement). However, to claim Schubert was amongst the top 3 greatest symphonists of all time based on 1 and a half symphonies is too ambitious. For all we know, had he have lived another 10 years he could have churned out more mediocre symphonies and wrapped up the 8th with sub par movements... It's all speculative.


Certainly he's no top three, but even based on his last two works alone I would rank him above, sometimes even far above, composers who have received more votes in the Greatest Symphonist poll.

Edit: I'm not sure if you're referring to my vote in the poll, but I only voted for Schubert because he was so underrated. I consider Beethoven a marginally better symphonist.


----------



## jalex

Eviticus said:


> I prefer Schubert's 9th any day of Beethoven's (which is by Beethoven's standards too repetitive and has some real awkward moments in the last movement).


I hate to derail these threads, but 1) where is it too repetitive? (I assume the scherzo but maybe not) and 2) where are the awkward moments?


----------



## elgar's ghost

Some people go on about its overall length but for me Schubert's 9th doesn't waste a moment (am I right in thinking that it was the longest purely INSTRUMENTAL symphony at the time?). The andante con moto movement comes in for some stick for being too long but to yield its treasures properly it requires a long-striding hike across the fields while inhaling lungfuls of pure air, not a wheezy short stroll around the backstreets - as does the rest of the work.


----------



## Beethovenrox

jalex said:


> Except he doesn't sound very much like Beethoven at all?


He started out witting more light stuff, but then his music started to sound more dark and heavy like Beethoven and it didn't work as well IMO.


----------



## jalex

One thing I've always admired about Schubert is that he didn't sound like Beethoven in a time when sounding like Beethoven was probably both tempting and potentially lucrative.


----------



## Eviticus

jalex said:


> I hate to derail these threads, but 1) where is it too repetitive? (I assume the scherzo but maybe not) and 2) where are the awkward moments?


Well LvB's 9th has never had the appeal that symphonies 3-8 have for me. I always feel like he was thinking colossus and therefore just wanted everything humongous such as the movements which for me are unnecessarily long and could have been much better if the were shorter. For example - Eroica's giant movements never _felt _excessively long by comparison.

I find the first 2 movements very repetitive. I don't mind repetition if the main themes are manipulated in a way that keeps the listener stimulated such as the way he handled the 5th's opener with such genius. But they lose their intensity because (especially with the scherzo) you feel like your back at the start again and again. I think elgars ghost summed up Schuberts 9th by saying it doesn't waste a moment and i'm inclined to agree whereas i feel Beethovens 9th does.

The opening of the fourth movement is the one i really struggle with. There's no fluidity pre-chorale. The cello's and basses pace back and forth as if lost; stopping and starting awkwardly especially when he re-introduces the themes from the previous three movements which for me (although a great innovation) doesn't quite work. Dvorak carried this feat off far more subtlety in his own 9th. Then comes in the repetition of the the ode to joy theme which almost feels exhausted by the first voice.

Just my personal taste of course but I've read that LvB himself struggled with the opening of the 4th movement and thought it was a little too long. Wagner also commented at how inflexible the ode to joy theme was.


----------



## jalex

Eviticus said:


> I find the first 2 movements very repetitive. I don't mind repetition if the main themes are manipulated in a way that keeps the listener stimulated such as the way he handled the 5th's opener with such genius. But they lose their intensity because (especially with the scherzo) you feel like your back at the start again and again.


To accuse the opening music of being boring and the scherzo of losing intensity - _Mon Dieu_! it is beyond my comprehension. But there is no arguing with personal taste I suppose.

I _am_ curious about precisely what you find too repetitive in the first movement though ie. specific motives or whatever. I can understand the accusal for the second movement despite strongly disagreeing with the sentiment; it _is _repetitive, though to me not in a dull way at all. Rather the opposite.



> The opening of the fourth movement is the one i really struggle with. There's no fluidity pre-chorale. The cello's and basses pace back and forth as if lost; stopping and starting awkwardly especially when he re-introduces the themes from the previous three movements which for me (although a great innovation) doesn't quite work. Dvorak carried this feat off far more subtlety in his own 9th.


It isn't meant to be fluid, nor particularly subtle. Perhaps you don't know what's going on there? Beethoven recalls the themes from the previous movements, then angrily rejects them with cello because they are 'unsatisfactory' for the overall design of the symphony; it needs a profoundly joyful conclusion. The Ode to Joy theme is finally settled on as suitable.

I find that in most other symphonies which recall previous movements in their final movement in the manner of Beethoven's 9th, it seems superfluous, almost an affectation.



> Just my personal taste of course but I've read that LvB himself struggled with the opening of the 4th movement and thought it was a little too long.


Haven't heard this before; source?



> Wagner also commented at how inflexible the ode to joy theme was.


I have to say, I've never felt that way listening to it!


----------



## Eviticus

The opening theme is good but before the end of the lengthy movement I've heard enough of it so it _becomes_ boring (as with the scherzo after much repetition). Some nice passages though especially in the scherzo.

Yes i had read the theory of what Beethoven was trying to say with the opening of the fourth movement before but even if it's intended to sound awkward, it doesn't appeal to me. I'm much more a fan of Beethoven Heroic period.


----------



## Webernite

The Scherzo's a bit tiresome, but I don't find the first movement repetitive at all...


----------



## jalex

Eviticus said:


> The opening theme is good but before the end of the lengthy movement I've heard enough of it so it _becomes_ boring


Well given that that theme only really occurs maybe 4 times in the whole 15 minute long first movement and is _never_ heard the same way twice, I can't really see the problem...


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Beethovenrox said:


> No offense but I think Schubert was kind of a Beethoven wannabe....


they see me trollin', they hatin'


----------



## Beethovenrox

regressivetransphobe said:


> they see me trollin', they hatin'


Are you saying I'm a troll??


----------



## Webernite

He's just a hater. Don't worry.


----------



## peeyaj

Are we going to infest this thread with tiring Beethoven comparisons again? 

Beethoven is the greatest symphonist. Ever. It is futile to compare him to Schubert. His 3, 5, 6, 7 are masterpieces in the symphonic repertoire. That's given. 

The aim of this board is to discuss the merit of Schubert as a ''great'' symphonist. Not some kind of fanboy wars..


----------



## Rasa

Beat dat Beethoven


----------



## regressivetransphobe

peeyaj said:


> Are we going to infest this thread with tiring Beethoven comparisons again?
> 
> Beethoven is the greatest symphonist. Ever.
> 
> The aim of this board is to discuss the merit of Schubert as a ''great'' symphonist. Not some kind of fanboy wars..


Are we going to turn this into another Lipton vs. Snapple debate?

LIPTON IS SUPERIOR. Nothing else can compare, ever.

Let's not turn this into another Lipton vs. Snapple fanboy war.


----------



## presto

I like all the symphonies apart from the 9th it doesn’t strike me as an inspired work and far too long, perhaps he was trying a bit too hard.


----------



## Oskaar

Beethovenrox said:


> No offense but I think Schubert was kind of a Beethoven wannabe....


That is actually hard for me to see.


----------



## Oskaar

Maybe Beethoven was the greatest symfphonists ever. I will not argue that. But I struggle to get into them. There is no strugle with Schumann. But those composers ar totally different, so I find comparision quite weird.


----------



## poconoron

Schubert is among the top 10 symphonists, IMHO.


----------



## TresPicos

Eviticus said:


> I personally adore Schubert's last one and a half symphonies as do most classical fans and recognise their impact on the romantics. But his first 7 are generally considered sub par and so as a collective, most are not interested in the majority of his output in that genre.


Schubert's #5 sub par? Riiiiight...


----------



## Artemis

Eviticus said:


> I personally adore Schubert's last one and a half symphonies as do most classical fans and recognise their impact on the romantics. *But his first 7 are generally considered sub par and so as a collective, most are not interested in the majority of his output in that genre.*
> 
> In crude metaphorical terms it's the difference between say a one hit wonder like Dexys Midnight Runners "Come on Eileen" and all of Michael Jacksons biggest hits from the 80's.
> 
> Would you choose Dexy's Greatest hits over Jacko's based on that one song? Possibly.
> But then would you really proclaim them great songwriters when there's only one good song in the collection? Potentially but unlikely.


Where have you read that Schubert's Symphony No 5 is "sub par"?


----------



## TresPicos

Artemis said:


> Where have you read that Schubert's Symphony No 5 is "sub par"?


In the sentence you highlighted?

I interpreted "his first 7" (as a contrast to the previously mentioned "last one and a half symphonies") as symphonies no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, and then I distributed the "sub par" property given to "his first 7" to each of those symphonies, including no. 5. The "and so as a collective" part I figured belonged to the second clause, since the "and so" was needed there as a conjunction; if the "as a collective" part actually referred to the first clause only, thereby introducing the possibility for no. 5 to maybe be above par but still part of the "sub par group", then I figured it should have been placed before the "and so".

But then again, English is not my native language.


----------



## Art Rock

I think she is addressing Eviticus, not you....


----------



## Artemis

TresPicos said:


> In the sentence you highlighted?
> 
> I interpreted "his first 7" (as a contrast to the previously mentioned "last one and a half symphonies") as symphonies no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, and then I distributed the "sub par" property given to "his first 7" to each of those symphonies, including no. 5. The "and so as a collective" part I figured belonged to the second clause, since the "and so" was needed there as a conjunction; if the "as a collective" part actually referred to the first clause only, thereby introducing the possibility for no. 5 to maybe be above par but still part of the "sub par group", then I figured it should have been placed before the "and so".
> 
> But then again, English is not my native language.


That's interesting. Your observations have made me look again at the construction of the sentence which I highlighted.

Upon further scrutiny I think that what was intended was that, in the opinion of Eviticus, the first 7 of Schubert's symphones are generally considered to be "sub-par", and from this it is inferred that most people are not interested in the entire symphonic output of Schubert (1-10) even though Nos 8 and 9 are good. But I agree that the meaning is not 100% clear, as it could mean that only symphonies 1-7 are considered to be "sub-par".

What does seem clear is that Eviticus believes that each of Schubert's symphonies 1 to 7 is considered generally to be "sub-par". Among these, I selected Symphony No 5 (which is probably the best of them) and requested any evidence that could be brought to bear to substantiate the assertion.

I don't know what is meant by "sub-par". If it is "sub-par" compared with Schubert's No 8 or No 9 then there might be some substance in it, but if so it seems like a very weak point to make. I rather think that what is meant is "sub-par" compared with the standard of most other late Classical symphonies by other composers. If so, I would be interested to see a further explanation of this.


----------



## TresPicos

Art Rock said:


> I think she is addressing Eviticus, not you....


Ah yes... 

Sorry, Artemis. And thanks, Art Rock.

Next time, I'll try waking up completely before posting.


----------



## Eviticus

Ah yes my sentence is not very clear. What i was trying to say was both that the set 1 - 7 is obviously weaker than the great 2, but also that there appears nothing special about any one of those symphonies (at least from what i have read - including No.5).

I have heard No.5 banded about quite a lot by a few BIG Schubert fans and see it's ranked at No.50 on the greatest list. I think it's a lovely little graceful symphony to listen to and the nicest of the first 7 but i appear to be missing something as people keep bringing this up as if it stands amongst the greatest. Personally, i have only ever read the opinion that this is Schubert shifting from Haydn to being 'Mozartian' and if i am honest some rather condescending views concerning this (symphony) that would go down on this site the equivilent of reading Richard Dawkin's God Delusion during a Catholic Mass. 

That's why i asked the question what merits are there (originality, influence, innovations, general appeal) about this symphony that make some posters on here treasure it so and make it stand so high on the greatest list? As i honestly don't know.

Like i said it's nice but then so is Mozarts 29th in A but that doesn't even appear top 100 (nor sadly do any of Michael Haydns nice symphonies).


----------



## Artemis

Eviticus said:


> Personally, i have only ever read the opinion that this is Schubert shifting from Haydn to being 'Mozartian' and if i am honest *some rather condescending views *concerning this (symphony) that would go down on this site the equivilent of reading Richard Dawkin's God Delusion during a Catholic Mass.
> 
> That's why i asked the question what merits are there (*originality, influence, innovations, general appeal)* about this symphony that make some posters on here treasure it so and make it stand so high on the greatest list? As i honestly don't know.


Could you name the place where you read the "condescending views" you refer to?

As for "..._ originality, influence, innovations, general appeal ..."_ that's clearly a reference to DDD. Are you seriously saying that that you are satisfied that every other symphony listed by DDD is ranked correctly, the only exception being you are in doubt about Schubert's No 5? If so, that does seem to be rather astonishing. Why only this symphony?


----------



## TresPicos

Eviticus said:


> I have heard No.5 banded about quite a lot by a few BIG Schubert fans and see it's ranked at No.50 on the greatest list. I think it's a lovely little graceful symphony to listen to and the nicest of the first 7 but i appear to be missing something as people keep bringing this up as if it stands amongst the greatest.
> ...
> That's why i asked the question what merits are there (originality, influence, innovations, general appeal) about this symphony that make some posters on here treasure it so and make it stand so high on the greatest list? As i honestly don't know.


It could be that exactly this "lovely little graceful symphony" quality of the 5th is what seduces less informed, beauty-is-a-merit-too type of listeners into appreciating it. Man, will they feel dumb when they finally get a grasp on things...


----------



## Eviticus

Artemis said:


> Could you name the place where you read the "condescending views" you refer to?
> 
> As for "..._ originality, influence, innovations, general appeal ..."_ that's clearly a reference to DDD. Are you seriously saying that that you are satisfied that every other symphony listed by DDD is ranked correctly, the only exception being you are in doubt about Schubert's No 5? If so, that does seem to be rather astonishing. Why only this symphony?


I've read a many views that seem somewhat condescending. A review of the symphony by the omniscient mussel says its considered by musicologists to be a juvenile work although its an advancement on originality and style from the 4th (i heartedly agree on that point). Another overview on the symphony re-produced on Beeri.org go on to point out "Schubert's first five symphonies may seem lagging, never reaching past the dimensions of Haydn and Mozart". Peter Standler (i think thats how you spell his name) referred to the symphony "...like the trout quintet, this is good Schubert but far from great" - a common theme re-iterated by many amazon reviewers. A thread on the classical music mayhem site pulls this symphony apart.

I share the latter views on it being good but not great and only point or highlight this symphony because devout Schubertians such as yourself Peeyaj and Trespicos have highlighted this alongside the 8th and 9th (which on here is the first real time i've seen it regarded so highly). If we were to use the merits highlighted above to determine a great symphony, then i think there are other symphony's on the greatest list that deserve to be higher and think this symphony is only so high because of the heavy influence on this site from the Schubertians.


----------



## TresPicos

..................


----------



## Artemis

Eviticus said:


> I've read a many views that seem somewhat condescending. A review of the symphony by the omniscient mussel says its considered by musicologists to be a juvenile work although its an advancement on originality and style from the 4th (i heartedly agree on that point). Another overview on the symphony re-produced on Beeri.org go on to point out "Schubert's first five symphonies may seem lagging, never reaching past the dimensions of Haydn and Mozart". Peter Standler (i think thats how you spell his name) referred to the symphony "...like the trout quintet, this is good Schubert but far from great" - a common theme re-iterated by many amazon reviewers. A thread on the *classical music mayhem* site pulls this symphony apart.


I thought I would come out of semi-retirement from T-C to respond to this.

As I rather suspected, one of the places (if not the main place) you were referring to in your previous post, where you said you had read bad things about Schubert's Symphony No 5, was the _Classical Music Mayhem_ forum. Thanks for confirming this. If I may say so, I would have would have thought it pretty obvious that the kind of anti-Schubert comments that are regularly spewed out on that forum are self-evidently quite ridiculous.

Did you not appreciate that that the two main characters who run that place make a speciality of criticising Schubert? Almost every single work of Schubert they look at it comes in for similar criticism from the same two people, and hardly anyone else endorses their comments. In fact, most of the time the same two seem to be simply talking only to one another, often competing to see who can produce the most toe-curlingly crass and ignorant comments that purport to pass off as "musicology".

In fact, I looked at the CMM Symphony No 5 thread several weeks ago, immediately after you made your earlier post, as I had anticipated that's what you were referring to. That's why I asked you which place you were referring to. It's typically a very short thread as they hardly get any support from the few other members. It's merely yet another example of the same argument that everything Schubert wrote was a second or third rate imitation of Beethoven or Mozart or Haydn. If you think I'm exaggerating, you might have a look through some of the other threads relating to Schubert, and you'll soon find out that systematically it's the same sneering comment about Schubert repeated time and time again.

If you really do wish to acquire some useful knowledge about the early symphonic work of the young Schubert (who was only 19 when wrote Symphony No 5), there are far more knowledgeable people than either of those two CMM characters. For example, I have a 30 minute tape recording of a 1996 _Discovering Music_ radio programme in which the BBC's Charles Hazelwood analysed the work at length, and he rated it very highly indeed. You might be able to get a podcast of this programme if you dig around for it on Google, as I believe it may still be available. His analysis is far convincing of the merits of Schubert's masterful achievements in this work than the dismissive twaddle written by the two comedians on CMM.



> I share the latter views on it being good but not great and only point or highlight this symphony because devout Schubertians such as yourself Peeyaj and Trespicos have highlighted this alongside the 8th and 9th (which on here is the first real time i've seen it regarded so highly). If we were to use the merits highlighted above to determine a great symphony, then i think there are other symphony's on the greatest list that deserve to be higher and think this symphony is only so high because of the heavy influence on this site from the Schubertians.


 As for this second part of your post, I'm afraid this is another area where you are barking up the wrong tree if you think that Schubert's Symphony No 5 is placed so high in the T-C list of recommended symphonies merely because this forum is under the "heavy influence" of Schubertians. I would very much doubt this assertion, and see no reason to doubt that the generally high opinion of Schubert on this forum is broadly in line with that on most other popular general purpose classical music forums, and with public opinion among classical music enthusiasts more widely.

Did you bother to ask yourself how or why should a site the size of T-C, with lots of people coming and going all the time, ever become biased in the manner you suggest? As far as I am aware, there is no management policy to encourage or discourage fans of any particular composer. There is therefore no reason to suggest that the results that emerge in polls etc are systematically biased in favour of any one composer.

It seems amazing that you should make such a sweeping and unsupported assertion about the membership structure of this forum merely because you do not happen to believe that Schubert's Symphony No 5 should be so highly rated as it was on T-C's recommended symphony poll last year.


----------



## Eviticus

Artemis said:


> you should make such a sweeping and unsupported assertion about the membership structure of this forum


Sweeping and unsupported the assumption maybe but i don't believe it's a criticism about the membership structure of this forum. I know from experience of musing over different discussions in different forums (without joining them) to see how they work. Every classical forum has heavy support for different composers and this DOES affect the ratings polls and lists etc. Afterall, these lists are not compiled by machines but people who value certain things and opinions more than others. It's just human nature so in that regard my assumption is grounded in some logic.

As for the mayhem forum - I have never joined so don't much about it. It certainly wasn't the main place but it was the most derogatory place (which was the reason for my God delusion comment). That forum was more the icing on the cake than the self raising flour... as like i say the general feel out there is that this is Schubert becoming Mozartian and somehow finding his own voice and lyricism however, I'll check out your recommendation.

Glad my posts stimulate enough emotion in you to pluck you out of semi retirement.


----------



## peeyaj

@Artemis

Thanks for the post.. Don't feed the troll.


----------



## Eviticus

peeyaj said:


> @Artemis
> 
> Thanks for the post.. Don't feed the troll.


According to Wikipedia - Trolls post inflammatory remarks designed to provoke an emotional response. Now look at my last post compared with yours...

Peeyaj you should be more receptive to having your views challenged else you may become close minded. It's only healthy to have someone ask what/why is it that you believe something is so good/great/bad etc and that is all i am asking.


----------

