# Symphonies of Nielsen



## Guest (Aug 12, 2014)

I just got the Vanska set of Nielsen symphonies. Since I am unfamiliar with these works, in what order should I tackle them? I usually would start with the most popular or widely acclaimed, but from what I hear, the Nielsen symphonies are consistantly good. I need to start somewhere and in the morning I will check on the recommendations of those in the know. That's means TC peeps. Good night all.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Might as well start with no. 1 and move up. You'll get a good idea of how Nielsen developed through time.


----------



## mikey (Nov 26, 2013)

From memory Nielsen was fond of his first, so you could work through.
If you want to start mature/popular, then 4 and 5 I would think.


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2014)

Don't tackle any of them. This is music, not (American) football.

As for which order, well, none of us are you. Only you are you. You're asking us which order according to most popular or widely acclaimed? But that would be according to other people besides you. People who are not you. I.e., you've left yourself out of this equation entirely!

My suggestion, correction, my request is that you listen to all of them, several times, and then tell us what you experienced.


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2014)

some guy said:


> Don't tackle any of them. This is music, not (American) football.
> 
> As for which order, well, none of us are you. Only you are you. You're asking us which order according to most popular or widely acclaimed? But that would be according to other people besides you. People who are not you. I.e., you've left yourself out of this equation entirely!
> 
> My suggestion, correction, my request is that you listen to all of them, several times, and then tell us what you experienced.


Your response sounds very negative to me. I don't like negativity.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Jerome said:


> Your response sounds very negative to me. I don't like negativity.


Nah, he can just be sarcastic, caustic, or coy at times, he's really not so serious as he may sound sometimes. His post could be summed up as "dude, I dunno, but it's really up to you and whatever order you listen to them in just listen to them all and tell us what you think".


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2014)

Lukecash12 said:


> Nah, he can just be sarcastic, caustic, or coy at times, he's really not so serious as he may sound sometimes. His post could be summed up as "dude, I dunno, but it's really up to you and whatever order you listen to them in just listen to them all and tell us what you think".


Thanks for clearing that up. I feel much better now.


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2014)

Thanks for the comments so far. Today I'm going to "tackle" No. 1. I'll listen to it at least twice and continue until I have it thoroughly "tackled".


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

As a Nielsen newbie, if you have a few extra dollars, you might find Robert Simpson's Carl Nielsen, Symphonist helpful. And it doesn't just cover his symphonies.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

My own experience was that I listened to the Jascha Horenstein version of the 5th on Nonesuch back in the 1970s and loved it. I didn't go any farther with Nielsen symphonies until about ten years ago when I bought the Naxos cheapies of 1,2,3 and 6 and Blomstedt's SFO 4th & 5th and went through them in numerical order multiple times. 

Personally, I loved them all immediately except for No. 6 which took longer to grow on me.

Enjoy.


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

I personally find 2nd and 3rd to be the works I listen to the most frequently-even though not necessarily the symphonies that the man is most remembered for they are nonetheless very individual and at the same time particularly 'accessible'-as with a previous 'poster' I do find the 6th to be the most 'challenging'!


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Every time I have a chance to survey a new composer I always like to start from the beginning as it will give a better view of how the composer develops over time, and that often, as Some Guy imply, takes a lot of re-listening to each work! And it is often good, not to judge any music before having heard several interpretations, even subtle interpretative differences can make or brake an awful lot of works (for this, a service like "spotify" is a very useful tool)!

After this You'll better know what appeal to You and what don't!

/ptr


----------



## Bruce (Jan 2, 2013)

Vesteralen said:


> My own experience was that I listened to the Jascha Horenstein version of the 5th on Nonesuch back in the 1970s and loved it. . . .
> 
> Personally, I loved them all immediately except for No. 6 which took longer to grow on me.
> 
> Enjoy.


Horenstein was my introduction to Nielsen, and I, too, grew up with his recording of No. 5 on Nonesuch. It's still my favorite recording of that work. I also found No. 6 to be the most difficult, and am still working on it.

I'll be interested to know how you fare with these works, Jerome. Especially 1, 2 and 3, which I've not heard.


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2014)

Jerome said:


> Your response sounds very negative to me. I don't like negativity.


Hmmm. We have very different views of negativity, it seems. My post was entirely positive.

Do something. Tell us what you did.

That's all positive, eh?


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2014)

ptr said:


> Every time I have a chance to survey a new composer I always like to start from the beginning as it will give a better view of how the composer develops over time, and that often, as Some Guy imply, takes a lot of re-listening to each work! And it is often good, not to judge any music before having heard several interpretations, even subtle interpretative differences can make or brake an awful lot of works (for this, a service like "spotify" is a very useful tool)!
> 
> After this You'll better know what appeal to You and what don't!
> 
> /ptr


As usual, ptr, I have great respect for you opinion. I am working my way through in order and looking forward to the latter symphonies that apparently get the most love.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Jerome said:


> As usual, ptr, I have great respect for you opinion. I am working my way through in order and looking forward to the latter symphonies that apparently get the most love.


What are your thoughts so far?


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2014)

Lukecash12 said:


> What are your thoughts so far?


So far I've listen to the first two symphonies, thrice through each. They both start with electrifying opening statements that drew me in to the rest of the symphony. These recordings by BIS have terrific sound quality and allow me to hear every nuance of Nielsen's counterpoint. So far neither of these symphonies would rate in my top 20 but they were well worth listening to.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Let's see here. You have a box set of Carl Nielsen's symphonies, one of several if not many currently available (there is also a fairly extensive catalogue of single discs with his symphonies on them.) Ergo: Nielsen is no obscure symphonist, and there is a general consensus that: 
he was a good / great composer
the symphonies are good enough / popular enough to warrant all those extant recordings in circulation.

So, you are unfamiliar with all six symphonies. Get familiar with them, then.

I fail to understand when there is already the obvious 'yea vote' with all those recordings as visible evidence, what seems to be a further need to find which of those symphonies others think 'the best.' I also cannot at all admire that approach and somewhat feel sorry for anyone who really needs 'permission' from others before they can just sit down and listen to something they have already purchased. I also can not fathom what meaning, or influence, those 'which is better / best' opinions would have on you as a listener.

So... in whatever order you will as you will, and the suggestion to listen to them in the order they were created is so loaded with common sense it needs no further comment.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

PetrB said:


> Let's see here. You have a box set of Carl Nielsen's symphonies, one of several if not many currently available (there is also a fairly extensive catalogue of single discs with his symphonies on them.) Ergo: Nielsen is no obscure symphonist, and there is a general consensus that:
> he was a good / great composer
> the symphonies are good enough / popular enough to warrant all those extant recordings in circulation.
> 
> ...


Or maybe he just wanted to know the ones we liked best? Take it easy man, you're over-thinking it.


----------



## Guest (Aug 14, 2014)

Lukecash12 said:


> Or maybe he just wanted to know the ones we liked best? Take it easy man, you're over-thinking it.


Yup. .


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Lukecash12 said:


> Or maybe he just wanted to know the ones we liked best? Take it easy man, you're over-thinking it.


If you are unfamiliar with a work(s) and you have ordered a box set, the most ideal way to see what you think of the music is to put it on, without asking anyone which is their favorite, without reading any of the liner notes. Then, you have a remote possibility of your own tabula rasa upon which the music can make an impression without any other external influences. Better that, then afterwards read up, ask 'which do you like most' on fora -- after, not before listening.

Really, there are only six Nielsen symphonies, not 41, or over one hundred 

The inquiry of 'which do you like best' before the proud new owner of the box set has listened to all of said box set's contents smacks to me of seeking crowd opinion on 'which is the best' before having had the courage to explore and independently make up ones own mind, which I find more than a little sad.


----------



## Guest (Aug 14, 2014)

Easy now, Pete B. Taunt them too much and they'll start a poll thread just to spite you!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

arcaneholocaust said:


> Easy now, Pete B. Taunt them too much and they'll start a poll thread just to spite you!


If this is the only occasion of like need for guidance after the fact of holding that which one is asking about in hand, before listening to it on their own, I would think it an exception, and perhaps say nothing about it at all. Happily, it is not quite 'the ruling rule,' but it happens far too often, and I hope to change the way some / too many seem to even approach works before they have 'just listened' to them.

First ~ "Face the music," the rest, imho, should follow.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

PetrB said:


> If you are unfamiliar with a work(s) and you have ordered a box set, the most ideal way to see what you think of the music is to put it on, without asking anyone which is their favorite, without reading any of the liner notes. Then, you have a remote possibility of your own tabula rasa upon which the music can make an impression without any other external influences. Better that, then afterwards read up, ask 'which do you like most' on fora -- after, not before listening.
> 
> Really, there are only six Nielsen symphonies, not 41, or over one hundred
> 
> The inquiry of 'which do you like best' before the proud new owner of the box set has listened to all of said box set's contents smacks to me of seeking crowd opinion on 'which is the best' before having had the courage to explore and independently make up ones own mind, which I find more than a little sad.


Dude, you're pontificating a bit much. Also, it's arguable that having this "pure tabula rasa" of yours doesn't necessarily lead to a better, more personal experience. Humans are social creatures and it is a good thing, validation and advice aren't always the antithesis of individuality and original inspiration.

In not so many words: _the most ideal way to see what you think of music is to mentally apprehend it however you please_. The apprehension stage pales in comparison to the comprehension stage, however one goes about it doesn't matter so much as pleasure (the purpose of listening), which is the ruling consideration. For many it is fun to ask about something you are excited to hear, this doesn't make us sheeple.


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

Lukecash12 said:


> Dude, you're pontificating a bit much. Also, it's arguable that having this "pure tabula rasa" of yours doesn't necessarily lead to a better, more personal experience. Humans are social creatures and it is a good thing, validation and advice aren't always the antithesis of individuality and original inspiration.
> 
> In not so many words: _the most ideal way to see what you think of music is to mentally apprehend it however you please_. The apprehension stage pales in comparison to the comprehension stage, however one goes about it doesn't matter so much as pleasure (the purpose of listening), which is the ruling consideration. For many it is fun to ask about something you are excited to hear, this doesn't make us sheeple.


I agree. It really wears thin when people are constantly suggesting that it is somehow amateurish and ridiculous to ask these types of questions. There's no need to psychoanalyze and pick apart the question. He is simply exploring a new composer's symphonies and is interested what people have to say about them. It builds anticipation. It gives you things to look for when listening. The list goes on and on. It doesn't mean the person is lazy or inept.

Regarding the Nielsen symphonies, I have yet to have the pleasure of hearing them so I'll have to wait on making a suggestion.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> ...and I hope to change the way some / too many seem to even approach works before they have 'just listened' to them.


Why would you want to do that? Why not just let them approach music the way they want?


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Dustin said:


> I agree. It really wears thin when people are constantly suggesting that it is somehow amateurish and ridiculous to ask these types of questions. There's no need to psychoanalyze and pick apart the question. He is simply exploring a new composer's symphonies and is interested what people have to say about them. It builds anticipation. It gives you things to look for when listening. The list goes on and on. It doesn't mean the person is lazy or inept.
> 
> Regarding the Nielsen symphonies, I have yet to have the pleasure of hearing them so I'll have to wait on making a suggestion.


You've been missing out, bro, take it from your friends at TC.


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

Lukecash12 said:


> You've been missing out, bro, take it from your friends at TC.


Alright then well i'll move them up a few notches on the to-do list!


----------



## Guest (Aug 14, 2014)

PetrB said:


> The inquiry of 'which do you like best' before the proud new owner of the box set has listened to all of said box set's contents smacks to me of seeking crowd opinion on 'which is the best' before having had the courage to explore and independently make up ones own mind, which I find more than a little sad.


Once again, negativity. It breeds more. What I'm about to say is a perfect example.

What I find "more than a little sad" is someone who spends such an inordinate amount of time in an internet chat forum at the expense of all the other things that life has to offer.

I only have a little time to listen to classical music because I work 60 hours a week and still manage to give extended personal attention to my wife, step-children, and baby. I will listen just as I wish and seek out whatever information and/or opinions that help me to use my listening time as efficiently as possible.

_Your_ opinion, however, will no longer be requested. Don't bother responding to this because I don't care.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Jerome said:


> Once again, negativity. It breeds more. What I'm about to say is a perfect example.
> 
> What I find "more than a little sad" is someone who spends such an inordinate amount of time in an internet chat forum at the expense of all the other things that life has to offer.
> 
> ...


So... how bout them Dodgers? I mean, let's not drag a good thing down. You seem like a positive, family man and you have a baby, eh? God I love kids, especially babies they make me bawl crocodile tears when I get to be there for milestones, get to read to them and sing with them. Yeah, it's not all roses. Sometimes it stinks, heh. But I guess the best way I could put it is that when it is rosy you simply can't find a rosier rose, right?

But I digress, which of the two did you like better?


----------



## Guest (Aug 14, 2014)

Lukecash12 said:


> But I digress, which of the two did you like better?


The first one. There were parts of both that astounded me. But there were passages in the second that sounded - how should I say it - simplistic as if from a less mature composer.

So far the third is shaping up to be the best. When the vocal part came in I was surprised and moved by it.


----------



## Guest (Aug 14, 2014)

Jerome said:


> Yup. .


Um, nope:

"Since I am unfamiliar with these works, in what order should I tackle them?"

"I usually would start with the most popular or widely acclaimed...."

"I need to start somewhere and in the morning *I will check on the recommendations of those in the know.*" [Emphasis mine.]


----------



## Guest (Aug 14, 2014)

Dustin said:


> ...people are constantly suggesting that it is somehow amateurish and ridiculous to ask these types of questions.


Any support for this assertion?



Dustin said:


> There's no need to psychoanalyze and pick apart the question.


And even less need to make this command as no one so far has been doing either of these things.



Dustin said:


> He is simply exploring a new composer's symphonies and is interested what people have to say about them. It builds anticipation. It gives you things to look for when listening. The list goes on and on. It doesn't mean the person is lazy or inept.


Building anticipation for what? For future exploration. But he is already (present tense) exploring, according to you. Even though he started this thread by saying that he had heard none of them. Pre-exploration exploring? At the time of the OP, he had done zero exploring of Nielsen's symphonis. None. Read the OP.



Dustin said:


> I have yet to have the pleasure of hearing them so I'll have to wait on making a suggestion.


Better hurry up, then. He'll have finished with them all himself before you know it. Hurry!!!


----------



## Guest (Aug 14, 2014)

Jerome said:


> _Your_ opinion, however, will no longer be requested. Don't bother responding to this because I don't care.


"I will do things however I like. You, however, must do things the way I like, whether you like it or not."

Ah, the internets. The lovely lovely internets.


----------



## Polyphemus (Nov 2, 2011)

Blomstedt's 4 & 5 is the place to start, the others will follow naturally. The BIS set is also a worthy addition. I imagine in time you will acquire both, we all do.


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

this morning-walking along part of the coast of N.E. England I listened to Schonwandt interpretation of the second symphony on my I pod and I can readily admit to having enjoyed the work so much that I listened to it more than once-it did occur to me that Denmark is immediately across the north sea and this may have informed the notion that the music directly reflected the environment-but I digress, simple point is the more I encounter these works the more satisfaction I derive from them!


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

ptr said:


> Every time I have a chance to survey a new composer I always like to start from the beginning as it will give a better view of how the composer develops over time, and that often, as Some Guy imply, takes a lot of re-listening to each work! And it is often good, not to judge any music before having heard several interpretations, even subtle interpretative differences can make or brake an awful lot of works (for this, a service like "spotify" is a very useful tool)!


Until joining spotify, it was never really possible for me to satisfy these completist urgings, and I've enjoyed the opportunity to indulge myself. Going back and gradually listening to the more or less complete works of Nielsen has been a particular delight since I've enjoyed his symphonies for quite some time. My enthusiasm for him was recently renewed after hearing a terrific live performance of his violin concerto, btw, and I've since enjoyed hearing a sizable portion of his works for string quartet and for voice.

With respect to the question in the OP, I'll hesitatingly put forward the 6th symphony as my favorite--but I have a way of preferring any of the others after a fresh listen.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Lukecash12 said:


> _the most ideal way to see what you think of music is to mentally apprehend it however you please_. The apprehension stage pales in comparison to the comprehension stage, however one goes about it doesn't matter so much as pleasure (the purpose of listening), which is the ruling consideration.


Of course you're correct -- just as several teachers of mine each said about piano playing or composition, _"whatever works."_ is the 'ultimate way.' Better said, I really really prefer the most direct approach, the disc, the composer & the performers on it, can not wait to unwrap that sucker, put it on, and hear what is on that disc (even if it is music I know) -- all well before reading liner notes, asking what people think of it, etc. ... and I strongly advocate that approach.

Other than that, thank you for your counter pontification about people and being social


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Lukecash12 said:


> In not so many words: _the most ideal way to see what you think of music is to mentally apprehend it however you please_.


Of course you're correct -- just as several teachers of mine each said about piano playing or composition, _"whatever works."_ is the 'ultimate way.'

Better said, I really really prefer the most direct approach, the disc, the composer & the performers on it, can not wait to unwrap that sucker, put it on, and hear what is on that disc (even if it is music I know) -- all well before reading liner notes, asking what people think of it, etc. ... and I strongly advocate that approach.

Other than that, thank you for your counter pontification about people and being social


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

some guy said:


> Any support for this assertion?
> 
> And even less need to make this command as no one so far has been doing either of these things.
> 
> ...


I don't need support. The tone of the messages shines through brighter than a neon sign in Vegas.

Yes, in fact you did pick apart his question. He asked a question, which you did not answer. Instead you picked it apart and told us why you would not be answering it.

Building anticipation for what?? Come on man. Seriously... How much clearer could this be? The pieces he is asking about. If someone tells another person how great something is, that person will anticipate it more. Understand?

These snotty-toned messages constantly being lobbed at the original posts really makes me(and I'm sure others) re-consider even spending time around this place.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

PetrB said:


> If you are unfamiliar with a work(s) and you have ordered a box set, the most ideal way to see what you think of the music is to put it on, without asking anyone which is their favorite, without reading any of the liner notes. Then, you have a remote possibility of your own tabula rasa upon which the music can make an impression without any other external influences. Better that, then afterwards read up, ask 'which do you like most' on fora -- after, not before listening.
> 
> Really, there are only six Nielsen symphonies, not 41, or over one hundred
> 
> The inquiry of 'which do you like best' before the proud new owner of the box set has listened to all of said box set's contents smacks to me of seeking crowd opinion on 'which is the best' before having had the courage to explore and independently make up ones own mind, which I find more than a little sad.


Although PetrB may be undiplomatic, I agree with the spirit of the points he was trying to make.

We all have bad listening habits which have been embedded in all of us by the marketing practices of the classical music industry. (Most of these marketing geniuses must have hailed from the marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corp). KenOC cited an excellent article in another thread which addressed some of these issues: http://www.theguardian.com/music/tomserviceblog/2014/aug/06/classical-music-recording-industry-paul-morley

As a result we frequently get involved in meaningless discussions on who was the greatest composer of this and what is the best recording of that.

My dilemma has been how to express my observations without coming across as a complete elitist pseudo-intellectual snob. My failure has frequently gotten me into trouble.

Ten years ago I would have answered the question. I would have stated listen to them in chronological sequence.

Today my answer is listen to them in any order you want. They are all excellent and it really does not matter.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

arpeggio said:


> Although PetrB may be undiplomatic, I agree with the spirit of the points he was trying to make.
> ...
> Ten years ago I would have answered the question. I would have stated listen to them in chronological sequence.
> 
> Today my answer is listen to them in an order you want. They are all excellent and it really does not matter.


My issue with these sorts of questions is that you will always get a whole range of answers. None of us can determine what will work for you, and we don't want to make you feel bad that your opinion may not match up with everyone else's. I think that most of us encountered the music we love on our own. I didn't listen to all of Nielsen's symphonies through in order the first time I heard them, nor those of Mahler or Beethoven. I encountered them in whatever sequence I encountered them, and perhaps some of them clicked and others didn't.

Perhaps some want to go through things systematically or in an order prescribed by others, but I can't presume to know how they'll react. Everyone is different, and that's fine.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Pointless TC shenanigans at its finest.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

PetrB said:


> Of course you're correct -- just as several teachers of mine each said about piano playing or composition, _"whatever works."_ is the 'ultimate way.' Better said, I really really prefer the most direct approach, the disc, the composer & the performers on it, can not wait to unwrap that sucker, put it on, and hear what is on that disc (even if it is music I know) -- all well before reading liner notes, asking what people think of it, etc. ... and I strongly advocate that approach.
> 
> Other than that, thank you for your counter pontification about people and being social


Yeah no hard feelings, I wasn't trying to get on your case. Just pointing out that being social is a good thing, you know?

So, Jerome, how far along are you now? Are you enjoying his later symphonies?


----------



## Guest (Aug 15, 2014)

arpeggio said:


> We all have bad listening habits which have been embedded in all of us by the marketing practices of the classical music industry.


I'm in a home in Split right now. When I make my meals, I'm in the room where the TV is. The other day, a war movie was on. It was all in Croatian, but the rhythms, the motifs, the pacing were all pure Hollywood. So I don't think it's the classical music industry so much as it is TV. TV has taught several generations of people how to listen to music by using a fairly limited and utterly predictable set of musical cliches to accompany--to essentially duplicate--the actions and the story on the screen. I had been puzzling over the ubiquity of certain responses to music in TC threads which all seemed to be deflections. That is, they are not so much responses to the music so much as it is that the music is being used for other, non-musical purposes. The music is not important in and of itself; it is only important insofar as it can convey information (biographical, psychological, philosophical, political) or as it can produce emotions in listeners. (Which is a bit of a puzzle, as all humans are emotional creatures and respond emotionally to just about anything. Sunsets, for instance. Puppies and kittens. Butterflies.)

Anyway, those two uses of music are the two uses that Hollywood used. Uses. In movies and TV shows alike, music is there to either give plot information (dun dun dun: the bad guys are coming, or do dee do dee do dee dee do: the crisis is over, or some sweeping, swelling thing in the strings that tells us that the male lead and the female lead are about to start making out) or to make us feel emotional. So when the quirky little guy who's always cracking a joke gets shot on patrol, it's not enough to have him turn all serious at the end, or to cut to the scene where his mom is being told of his death. No, there has to be the appropriate (appropriately cliched) music to make us feel all teary eyed about this tragedy. Sheer manipulation.

It's constant and it's everywhere.

So there was my answer. We have all of us been exposed to some extent to the sonic manipulation in movies and tv. It's no wonder, then, that when we get to art musics, which tend to be ever so slightly less manipulative of the auditor, being more interested in interesting and thoughtful manipulations of the _materials,_ listeners still respond as they've been taught to respond by Hollywood. Probably why those threads on talking about music itself rather than about our own selves don't get off the ground. Probably why even 100 year old music still puzzles and bewilders and annoys. There is very little sense of what music is, or what music can be, separate from its putative effects on our emotions or its ability to give us information about another self, the composer, what he or she was feeling or suffering or how she or he reacted to world events.

Music qua music is anathema to movies and tv shows. It's got its job to do, and it's the only job it should do. Sounds as important on their own, for their own selves? Naw.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

some guy said:


> I'm in a home in Split right now. When I make my meals, I'm in the room where the TV is. The other day, a war movie was on. It was all in Croatian, but the rhythms, the motifs, the pacing were all pure Hollywood. So I don't think it's the classical music industry so much as it is TV. TV has taught several generations of people how to listen to music by using a fairly limited and utterly predictable set of musical cliches to accompany--to essentially duplicate--the actions and the story on the screen. I had been puzzling over the ubiquity of certain responses to music in TC threads which all seemed to be deflections. That is, they are not so much responses to the music so much as it is that the music is being used for other, non-musical purposes. The music is not important in and of itself; it is only important insofar as it can convey information (biographical, psychological, philosophical, political) or as it can produce emotions in listeners. (Which is a bit of a puzzle, as all humans are emotional creatures and respond emotionally to just about anything. Sunsets, for instance. Puppies and kittens. Butterflies.)
> 
> Anyway, those two uses of music are the two uses that Hollywood used. Uses. In movies and TV shows alike, music is there to either give plot information (dun dun dun: the bad guys are coming, or do dee do dee do dee dee do: the crisis is over, or some sweeping, swelling thing in the strings that tells us that the male lead and the female lead are about to start making out) or to make us feel emotional. So when the quirky little guy who's always cracking a joke gets shot on patrol, it's not enough to have him turn all serious at the end, or to cut to the scene where his mom is being told of his death. No, there has to be the appropriate (appropriately cliched) music to make us feel all teary eyed about this tragedy. Sheer manipulation.
> 
> ...


And part of the problem is when people respond to all of that with hyperbolic ideas. There is nothing wrong with music set in a context either.


----------



## Guest (Aug 15, 2014)

Lukecash12 said:


> Yeah no hard feelings, I wasn't trying to get on your case. Just pointing out that being social is a good thing, you know?
> 
> So, Jerome, how far along are you now? Are you enjoying his later symphonies?


I've been taking just one a day and listening to it several times when I can throughout the day - mostly during drive time. So today it's No. 4. I will let you know.

No. 3 was certainly my favorite so far. I wanted more of that haunting second movement. Actually, I wish Neilsen had done more with it. It reminded me of Debussy's "Sirens", but the vocal part - at least in my recording - was thinner and farther back in the mix. I would have liked to hear it as a small chorus instead of just single voices. What are your thoughts on that? Any tips as I listen to No. 4?


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Just finishing up my first listen to all six symphonies with my new Vanska set, and I can say they are all good. Can't say a favorite at this time.


----------



## Ras (Oct 6, 2017)

Fritz Kobus said:


> Just finishing up my first listen to all six symphonies with my new Vanska set


I have Vanska's Bis recordings too - but I never listen to them - I prefer:

* Paavo Jarvi on RCA*









*John Storgårds on Chandos *









*Alan Gilbert on Dacapo*









and *Herbert Bloomstedt 2nd recording with the San Francisco Symphony on Decca.* (NOT the 1st one on EMI)









*If you want a Danish recording of this Danish composer Michael Schønwandt* has a "double set" (including a cycle on cds and a cycle on dvds).


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

I like No.1 and No.5 best. No.2 is good - the others do not grab me quite so much. But all are enjoyable listens each time/every time.

Re. OP - I certainly would not seek advice as to what order to listen to _any_ symphony cycle. In this case, the fact there are only 6 in total suggests a lack of personal confidence. As the OP was written in 2014 I hope this insecurity has resolved itself by now.


----------



## doublehill (Feb 7, 2014)

Old thread but curious if anyone has comments about the above recordings? I am trying to decide between Schønwandt and Gilbert. 

I also found this one by Sir Colin Davis:


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Of those, Schønwandt without a doubt but I'm not sure that I'd put it above Blomstedt/SFSO. I haven't been convinced by what I've heard of Gilbert's Nielsen.


----------



## doublehill (Feb 7, 2014)

Thanks Becca. Appreciate this.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Schonwandt, Gilbert and Blomstedt are all keepers for me, too, but if you dont mind a little more rustic and cheaper option then Kuchar is a bargain alternative. Personally, i rate Schonwandt as my fave set at the mo (I only got into that set and the Gilbert 6 months ago so theyre still fresh for me).


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Merl said:


> Schonwandt, Gilbert and Blomstedt are all keepers for me, too, but if you dont mind a little more rustic and cheaper option then Kuchar is a bargain alternative. Personally, i rate Schonwandt as my fave set at the mo (I only got into that set and the Gilbert 6 months ago so theyre still fresh for me).


Yeah, I have had the Blomstedt SFSO set for a long time - no problems with that one.
I also have Kuchar which was indeed very cheap, given what came with it, but I haven't really had time to check it out much yet. I thought No 1 was pretty good.

My question is about Salonen and the Swedish RSO. I got that as one of those 199 Koruna downloads from Supraphonline, and it includes the symphonies plus some other stuff. Any comments on quality? (Again, I haven't had time to listen much yet. I though 2 was good, but 1 not as good as Kuchar. I can't remember why and it was marginal.)


----------



## vincula (Jun 23, 2020)

I prefer Blomstedt's earlier recording with the Danish Radio SO to the San Francisco one. Otherwise, it's Schønwandt conducting the same orchestra that normally "does" it for me.

This Blomstedt box's a real bargain:

















Regards,

Vincula


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Bernstein in no.5 is essential. Schønwandt is too heavy in that symphony, btw.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

joen_cph said:


> *Bernstein in no.5 is essential*. Schønwandt is too heavy in that symphony, btw.


Yes, and so is Bernstein's third with ""Det Kongelige Kapel".

For the complete set my preferences are Oramo and Schønwandt.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Eclectic Al said:


> Yeah, I have had the Blomstedt SFSO set for a long time - no problems with that one.
> 
> My question is about Salonen and the Swedish RSO.


Salonen made a decent set, but it seems to me, that he - like Blomstedt with SFSO - weighs perfection higher than expression.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

vincula said:


> I prefer Blomstedt's earlier recording with the Danish Radio SO to the San Francisco one.


So do I. It is simply more Danish in expression.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

For Nielsen symphonies:

#2 - Gould/CSO
#3 - Bernstein/Royal DanishOrch; Live broadcast tape - Blomstedt/CSO
#4 - Martinon/CSO
#5 - Bernstein/NYPO
#s 1 & 6 - I have Blomstedt/SFSO....haven't really made other comparisons...


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

I have two Nielsen cycles, and both have served me well:

Colin Davis/LSO
https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/8048610--nielsen-symphonies-nos-1-6





Theodore Kuchar/Janácek Philharmonic Orchestra
https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/7965350--nielsen-symphonies-nos-1-6


----------



## Ned Low (Jul 29, 2020)

I really can't concentrate whilst listening to Nielsen. His music is meandering endlessly and pointlessly. He definitely produces beautiful moments within each movement yet fails when it comes to transitions.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Ned Low said:


> I really can't concentrate whilst listening to Nielsen. His music is meandering endlessly and pointlessly. He definitely produces beautiful moments within each movement yet fails when it comes to transitions.


I think I sort of understand what you mean, but what you describe as endless meandering is probably exactly the thing that makes Nielsen to me interesting to listen to. It's his constant wittiness and unpredictability - you never really know what he'll do next - the finale of his 4th symphony is a fantastic example of that. He was definitely stylistically very individual and would experiment with his works quite a bit, but he exhibited a great talent since young age and his orchestration is wonderfully colourful in my opinion.

Bur to each their own .

When it comes to recordings then I have never been able to decide which symphony cycle is my favourite - I love Oramo's BIS sound quality a lot but should listen more to arrive to any kind of definite conclusion.


----------

