# Greatest Symphonists



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Hundreds of redundant lists entitled "100 greatest symphonies" pollute the cyber space. Often they are filled with only a small variety of composers, for example; Beethoven will fill the first 4 spaces, mozart will have 8 of his in there and Haydn too, Dvorak usually has 4, Vaughan Williams also a few, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Bruckner and Mahler often have multiple symphonies (maybe all) included.

This makes for a fairly boring read and while it may be interesting to see which ar ranked above others, it is exceedingly difficult to find any new material or new composers to look at.

I hereby propose a list of Symphonists instead of Symphonies, it will be a lot harder (obviously because there are less composers than works), but should be a great way for people new (or not) to the symphonic repertoire to discover hundreds of works through a handful of composers.

So please, Post your top 10, 20 or even 100 symphonists. I will also hereunder compile a list of nominees in no order, and others may be added, maybe we will rank it one day.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Brahms, Alfven, Aho, Clifford, Bainton, Arnold, Dvorak, Atterberg, C.P.E Bach, J.C> Bach, Balada, Balakirev, Bantock, Barber, Bax, Beethoven, Bennett, Berkeley, Berlioz, Bernstein, Berwald, Bizet, Bliss, Blomdahl, Borodin, Braga Santos, Brian, Bristow, Bruch, Bruckner, Saint-Saens, Cannabich, Chapi, Chausson, Cherubini, Clementi, Copland, Creston, Czerny, de Arriage, de Freitas Branco, Diamond, Dittersdorf, Dohnanyi, Dukas, Dyson, Elgar, Enescu, Fibich, Franck, Gade, Gardner, Gerhard, Glazunov, Gliere, Goldmark, Gorecki, Gottschalk, Gould, Gretchaninov, Grieg, Hanson, Saeverud, Harris, Hartmann, Haydn, Henze, Herschel, Hindemith, Holmboe, Honegger, Hovhaness, Hummel, Ives, Kabalevsky, Kalinnikov, Kalomiris, Kancheli, Karlowicz, Kachaturian, Kokkonnen, Kraus, Lachner, Lalo, Langgaard, Larsson, Leifs, Lindblad, Liszt, Lloyd, Lutoslawski, Lyapunov, Lyatoshynsky, Madetoja, Mahler, Malipiero, Martin, Martinu, Martucci, Maslanka, Mehul, Melartin, Mendelssohn, Mennin, Miaskovsky, Mielck, Moeran, Milhaud, Moyzes, Mozart, Nielsen, Nystroem, Paderewski, Panufnik, Parry, Part, Penderecki, Norgard, Peterson-Berger, Pettersson, Glass, Piston, Potter, Prokofiev, Rachmaninov, Raff, Rautavaraa, Rawsthorne, Reger, Reinecke, Riegger, Rimsky-Korsakov, Rochberg, Rosenberg, Rott, Roussell, Rubbra, Rubinstein, Ruggles, Sallinnen, Schmidt, Schnittke, Schubert, Schumann, Schuman, Scriabin, Sessions, Shchedrin, Shostakovich, Sibelius, Silvestrov, Simpson, Spohr, Stanford, Steinberg, Stenhammar, Strauss, Stravinsky, Suk, Sullivan, Svendsen, Szymanowski, Tabakov, Taneyev, Tchaikovsky, Tcherepnin, Thompson, Tournemire, Vanhal, Vorisek, Weill, Widor, Williamson, Wiren, Wolf, Zemlinsky, Zwilich.

These are only the symphonists I know so this is a work in progress.

Maybe this week I will extract herefrom a shortlist of all those who have say.. 3 or more symphonies, as well as special nominees from those who have written less but deserve to be mentioned for exceptional work.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I'd add Walton & Messiaen to that pretty comprehensive list. & I agree that Bliss, Lutoslawski & Penderecki have written some good symphonies.

Gounod, Grieg & Kodaly also wrote full-scale symphonies, though I haven't heard them in a long time. I suppose it's a pity that the radio waves are always dominated by the most popular symphonies/symphonists...

Australian composer Richard Hughes also wrote a pretty good symphony in the 1950's, although that's still pretty obscure, even here...


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

My top 10 symphonists? It would be the popular list, slightly skewed.

*Beethoven* would be at the top, then in no order: B*ruckner, Brahms, Schubert, Vaughan-Williams, Gliere, Shostakovich, Haydn, Sibelius, and Rachmaninoff.*

There are glaring omissions, I know:

*Mozart,* I still haven't warmed to. I suppose if I hadn't grown up listening to that accursed Sonata facile in C as my sister was learning piano . . .
*
Dvorak? * I loved the No. 9, but burned myself out listening to it. Now all his other symphonies sound like that work to me.

*Mahler?* Too unwieldy for my life at the moment.

I love *Schumann's *fantastic piano concerto, but have yet to find a spark of interest in his symphonies.

Likewise with *Mendelssohn*. I like his overtures, but the symphonies leave me unmoved --except for the amazing string symphonies, but they are closer to baroque suites than to symphonies to my ears.

The *Gliere *on my list is there because I am just discovering him. His No.3 is consuming my listening at the moment -- fantastic brass. In another thread I described the 4th movement as an orgy in brass.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Andre said:


> Australian composer Richard Hughes also wrote a pretty good symphony in the 1950's, although that's still pretty obscure, even here...


Douglas Lilburn also should be on that list. (I know he's not from Australia, but at least the same hemisphere.) Very fine modern day romanticist.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Weston said:


> Douglas Lilburn also should be on that list. (I know he's not from Australia, but at least the same hemisphere.) Very fine modern day romanticist.


I can certainly concur with this. Lilburn is a fine symphonist.


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms. 

The rest is silence.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

bdelykleon said:


> Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms.
> 
> The rest is silence.


 There were plenty of other symphonists who either excelled or made just as powerful music as any of those composers.


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> There were plenty of other symphonists who either *excelled *or made just as powerful music as any of those composers.


Oh really? Show me one, and back it with an intelligent analysis of its musical content. "Because I like it more" doesn't work.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

bdelykleon said:


> Oh really? Show me one, and back it with an intelligent analysis of its musical content. "Because I like it more" doesn't work.


I don't have anything to prove to you. I'm just telling you that you're wrong, which you clearly are.


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> I don't have anything to prove to you. I'm just telling you that you're wrong, which you clearly are.


Ok then, if I'm clearly wrong, it would be easy to show me one symphony capable of uniting the themes of a symphony not in a obvious, but hidden way, like Brahms did in the fourth. Or did someon else put into the symphony an old fashioned form like the Chaconne, and using it as a mean to both go ahead and remind the past?


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

bdelykleon said:


> Ok then, if I'm clearly wrong, it would be easy to show me one symphony capable of uniting the themes of a symphony not in a obvious, but hidden way, like Brahms did in the fourth. Or did someon else put into the symphony an old fashioned form like the Chaconne, and using it as a mean to both go ahead and remind the past?


The title of this thread is greatest symphonists not who's the best and why. I told you that you were wrong in believing that nobody could touch Brahms, Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven and this is my whole point: there were plenty of symphonists that made equally powerful or even more appealing music than these composers you mentioned.


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> The title of this thread is greatest symphonists not who's the best and why


May I quote the Oxford dictionary?



Mirror Image said:


> I told you that you were wrong in believing that nobody could touch Brahms, Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven and this is my whole point: there were plenty of symphonists that made equally powerful or even more appealing music than these composers you mentioned.


Appealing to you, but being appeling to you doesn't mesure greatness. What measure greatness is the overwhelming support and admiration of musicians, public and the Academia, and all them are unanimous that Brahms, Beethoven, Haydn and Mozart are the greatest symphonists. And the rest is silence.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

bdelykleon said:


> Appealing to you, but being appeling to you doesn't mesure greatness. What measure greatness is the overwhelming support and admiration of musicians, public and the Academia, and all them are unanimous that Brahms, Beethoven, Haydn and Mozart are the greatest symphonists. And the rest is silence.


So you need a book to tell you what's great? I think it's time to get your head out of the books and go listen to some classical music.


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> So you need a book to tell you what's great? I think it's time to get your head out of the books and go listen to some classical music.


The books actually confirm what I hear. And make me enjoy my music even more, who reads, listen more...


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

bdelykleon said:


> The books actually confirm what I hear. And make me enjoy my music even more, who reads, listen more...


You're the only one who confirm what you hear. A book doesn't do that for you and you're wrong if you believe it does. Only you can decide what you like or dislike. If a book does that for you, then I'm afraid there's nothing anyone can do to help you. Good luck to you.


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> You're the only one who confirm what you hear. A book doesn't do that for you and you're wrong if you believe it does. Only you can decide what you like or dislike. If a book does that for you, then I'm afraid there's nothing anyone can do to help you. Good luck to you.


Of course it does, it shows details annd makes coherent analysis of a piece. When you hear it again you can hear more clearly and understand better a piece. Music is not a completely subjective matter as you seem to think, it is not a question of liking it, but also of understanding how it works, how the music evolves, what are the internal relationships of a given work, what are the means used by a given composer, all this must be important in assessing composers, otherwise music is nothing more than a butterfly collection. To all this, formal knowledge is important, even to the listener.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

I think Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven should be givens on any list of greatest symphonists. The exclusion of any of them from any list would be highly suspect to me. I don't like Mozart, I am indifferent to Haydn, and I love Beethoven. So, this has nothing to do with my personal tastes, it's just that any list without them is against the standard academic grain, to be sure.

After these three, I do not think there are any other composers that can be listed with any authority by anybody. Brahms may seem an obvious choice. Perhaps Tchaikovsky. Perhaps Schubert. But these are all highly debatable. I think Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven are perhaps the only "scientific" additions anyone could have on this list. Anything else is pure opinion.

But I would most certainly add Sibelius (suprise, surprise!) to a list of greatest symphonists. The taut structures and oft-mentioned organic growth of his themes and how they connect throughout the music is pretty cool stuff, and the mark, I think, of a great symphonist.

Mahler is less "symphonic" than say a Beethoven or Sibelius, he is more rhapsodic. But the mastery of emotion and color in his symphonies is perhaps unequalled in the repertoire, so this makes him a great symphonist for me.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

bdelykleon said:


> Of course it does, it shows details annd makes coherent analysis of a piece. When you hear it again you can hear more clearly and understand better a piece. Music is not a completely subjective matter as you seem to think, it is not a question of liking it, but also of understanding how it works, how the music evolves, what are the internal relationships of a given work, what are the means used by a given composer, all this must be important in assessing composers, otherwise music is nothing more than a butterfly collection. To all this, formal knowledge is important, even to the listener.


I have music training and have composed several pieces myself, so you can spare me the lecture. Music is subjective whether you want to admit it or not. It all comes down to tastes and likes/dislikes. The average listener couldn't tell you what scale is being played or what key is a piece in, because more chances than not it's not important to them. I used to be interested in the technical aspects of a piece when I was learning music theory, but that soon became a dead end street and I found myself analyzing a piece to death and really draining all the life and enjoyment out of it. I could careless what the musicologist thinks or what the critic thinks. They're not me, they're not the ones who are judging a piece of music for me, I'm the only judge and jury when it comes to knowing what I like and what I don't like. I don't need a professor, a critic, you, or anyone else telling what to like or what not to like. If something is great, then it's my opinion that it's great and no one else's.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> I think Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven should be givens on any list of greatest symphonists. The exclusion of any of them from any list would be highly suspect to me. I don't like Mozart, I am indifferent to Haydn, and I love Beethoven. So, this has nothing to do with my personal tastes, it's just that any list without them is against the standard academic grain, to be sure.


But the person who mentioned these composers made it sound like Beethoven, Haydn, Brahms, and Beethoven were the only composers to do great things with the symphony. That's what it read like to me anyway. Don't you find his opinion in some way subjective when he said that all other composers who wrote symphonies were silenced?


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> The average listener couldn't tell you what scale is being played or what key is a piece in, because more chances than not it's not important to them. I used to be interested in the technical aspects of a piece when I was learning music theory, but that soon became a dead end street and I found myself analyzing a piece to death and really draining all the life and enjoyment out of it. I could careless what the musicologist thinks or what the critic thinks. They're not me, they're not the ones who are judging a piece of music for me, I'm the only judge and jury when it comes to knowing what I like and what I don't like. I don't need a professor, a critic, you, or anyone else telling what to like or what not to like. If something is great, then it's my opinion that it's great and no one else's.


The average listener can tell you (or actually, feels) in what mode the music is, wheather there was a modulation, if the harmony is more chromatic or not, if the themes are related, and so on, so even if it is not consciently felt, it must be analysed because it is a major part of the musical experience. And the coherence, the large scale view, the emotional impact, are all important and objective ways to analyse and judge a musical piece.


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> But the person who mentioned these composers made it sound like Beethoven, Haydn, Brahms, and Beethoven were the only composers to do great things with the symphony. That's what it read like to me anyway. Don't you find his opinion in some way subjective when he said that all other composers who wrote symphonies were silenced?


I didn't say they were silenced, only quoted jokingly Shakespeare...


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

bdelykleon said:


> The average listener can tell you (or actually, feels) in what mode the music is, wheather there was a modulation, if the harmony is more chromatic or not, if the themes are related, and so on, so even if it is not consciently felt, it must be analysed because it is a major part of the musical experience. And the coherence, the large scale view, the emotional impact, are all important and objective ways to analyse and judge a musical piece.


I seriously doubt the average listener can tell you what piece a key is in or what mode was just used or what chord that was. I'm talking about average listeners, in other words, people who have no musical study whatsoever.

Anyway, you have your views and I have mine. Let's just leave it at that.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Mirror Image said:


> But the person who mentioned these composers made it sound like Beethoven, Haydn, Brahms, and Beethoven were the only composers to do great things with the symphony. That's what it read like to me anyway. Don't you find his opinion in some way subjective when he said that all other composers who wrote symphonies were silenced?


Whether or not that what he meant is of little consequence to me. It's obviously not true that there are only 4 great symphonists. And if that's what he really thinks, I disgree completely.

And again I state: I think beyond Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, ANY composer is pure opinion.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> And again I state: I think beyond Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, ANY composer is pure opinion.


When you say "I think" that's an opinion. Opinion is not fact.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Mirror Image said:


> When you say "I think" that's an opinion. Opinion is not fact.


I think you are right!


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> I think you are right!


Well I want to clarify something, I think Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven were great and crucial advocates to the symphony, but I guess my point is that they're certainly not the only ones who have made important contributions. How about that? Is that a fair statement?


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> I seriously doubt the average listener can tell you what piece a key is in or what mode was just used or what chord that was. I'm talking about average listeners, in other words, people who have no musical study whatsoever.
> 
> Anyway, you have your views and I have mine. Let's just leave it at that.


TO say the exact key some would need perfect pitch which is rare, but defining major and minor modes is pretty easy and the avarage listener should be able to do this. And when I say about harmony I obviously wasn't talking about someone knowing when Beethoven uses a diminished chord and when the dominant seventh, but only percieving when it is more dissonant or when it is more tonal. You don't need books to do that, only ears.


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> Well I want to clarify something, I think Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven were great and crucial advocates to the symphony, but I guess my point is that they're certainly not the only ones who have made important contributions. How about that? Is that a fair statement?


That is a platitude. Because it is obvious.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

bdelykleon said:


> That is a platitude. Because it is obvious.


Yeah, it's an obvious statement that is correct, unlike the one you made earlier.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Mirror Image said:


> Well I want to clarify something, I think Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven were great and crucial advocates to the symphony, but I guess my point is that they're certainly not the only ones who have made important contributions. How about that? Is that a fair statement?


Yes it is fair.

And even though I think that Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven are the only sure-fire or scientific entries into the list of greatets symphonists, there are clearly other composers who I think also belong on such a list. I mentioned Sibelius and Mahler. But these are highly controversial additions, and no doubt, there are members here who would disgaree up and down that they belong on such a list. In other words, they are highly debatable.


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> Yeah, it's an obvious statement that is correct, unlike the one you made earlier.


Well I didn't say that the were the only important contributors to the genre, but only that they are the greatest, id est the most important, the begginers, the ones who established what the genre was about, those who set the standarts, those whose works were, and are, most admired by public and academia.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> Yes it is fair.
> 
> And even though I think that Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven are the only sure-fire or scientific entries into the list of greatets symphonists, there are clearly other composers who I think also belong on such a list. I mentioned Sibelius and Mahler. But these are highly controversial additions, and no doubt, there are members here who would disgaree up and down that they belong on such a list. In other words, they are highly debatable.


Yes, Sibelius and Mahler are highly debatable, but you won't hear any argument from me. They deserve to be on there. I'm not a big fan of Sibelius' symphonies, but he was an important contributor to the genre no doubt about it.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

bdelykleon said:


> Well I didn't say that the were the only important contributors to the genre, but only that they are the greatest, id est the more important, the begginenrs, the ones who established what the genre was about, those who set the standarts, those whose works were, and are, most admired by public and academia.


Okay, I understand your comment much better now. You're just saying that you feel Haydn, Beethoven, Mozart, and Brahms were most important because they helped innovate the symphony. I agree with this.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

why dont you like mozart tap?


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

emiellucifuge said:


> why dont you like mozart tap?


Mozart's music is structurally sound and flows from one theme to the next with the greatest of ease. Mozart was clearly a musical mastermind. But much of it, despite being structurally sound and all, sounds shallow and without much depth, especially if you compare it to Beethoven, say, who injected a more profound emotional/human element into his music.

Not all music has to be "deep" for me to appreciate it, though. I mentioned in another thread how much I like Bizet's Symphony in C. This is a fairly shallow work, I admit, but Bizet's tunes are better than Mozart's and the orchestration is richer and more interesting.

Although these are my personal feelings towards Mozart, I hope I am making it clear that I am not blindly bashing him. And also note that even I have enough respect for his achievments to say his inclusion of a list of greatest symphonists is not negotiable.

But being aware of one's achievements does not have to mean I am head-over-heels for his achievements; but he is just too influential to deny.

Notwithstanding, I am glad that, for the most part, people in this forum are respectful of those who do not worship the all-mighty Mozart. Quite honestly, I am sick and tired of being told that not liking Mozart's music is akin to musical heresy, and only a philistine or dilletante could not find him to be the greatest musician who ever lived. He is certainly great based on his influence, but not the greatest.

And by the way, if I were to make a list of MY OWN greatest symphonists, Mozart would not be on there. But I think the point of this thread is to be somewhat "scientific," thus my inclusion of him.


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

I think the whole basis of this thread is highly dubious.

As I understand it, the author believes that there are many "Top 100" lists of symphonies available on the internet, and they all have in common the fact that only a small number of composers appear on these lists, to the detriment of countless other composers who allegedly also wrote wonderful symphonies for which they are lacking recognition. It is proposed instead to start a new system which first lists the greatest symphonists and then proceeds to produce a list of their greatest works.

This strikes me as being a waste of time for three main reasons:

(i) The notion that one can start with a list of greatest symphonists, and then produce a list of their greatest symphonies seems to put cart before horse. The logical thing to do is first list the greatest symphonies and then, if one is interested, derive from this the greatest symphonists by some mechanical procedure. To do things in reverse order implies that one knows the greatest symphonies (i.e. in order to be able to identify the greatest symphonists). But if this were the case it would make the exercise futile, as one would merely come back to where you started from ab initio.

(ii) As noted in the OP, the apparent intention of this new procedure is to allow _"... people new (or not) to the symphonic repertoire to discover hundreds of works through a handful of composers"_ [my underlining] If this is correct, does it not completely contradict the notion that there is something wrong or defective about existing lists that involve only a small number of composers? It rather looks like having shot oneself in one's foot!

(iii) I am not aware that there are "_Hundreds of redundant lists entitled "100 greatest symphonies" pollute the cyber space100's."_, as alleged in the OP. One of the best lists that I am aware of is the one published on the DDD forum. Their list of 100 top symphonies includes the works of some 35 composers, which is hardly a small number. The initial premise, as set out in the OP, of a small number of composers is therefore totally incorrect.


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

Outside Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms the symphony is a useless form experimented with by second-raters.


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

Bach said:


> Outside Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms the symphony is a useless form experimented with by second-raters.


Maybe it's time you took your thick sunglasses off there Mr Bach, and realised that composers such as Schubert, Berlioz, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Bruckner, Tchaikovsky (even though the latter two are not favourites of mine) were also major symphonists in the 19th C, and quite definitely not second raters in any sense of the word.

Schubert's late symphonies are of importance and the C Major is of significance on its own merits and in foreshadowing developments picked up Bruckner many years later. I would accept that after the death of Beethoven the most popular form of music in the middle years of the nineteenth century were opera and solo piano pieces, but nevertheless the symphonies of Berlioz, Mendelssohn and Schumann were significant achievements in advancing the new Romantic form. Berlioz managed to unite Beethoven's conception of the symphony with his own preference for literary-inspired music by means of a recurrent themes, which was to set the theme for later symphonic work, picked up by the likes of Liszt and Saint-Saens.

Brahms of course came later and mediated the classical and romantic styles in symphony writing. Bruckner developed a new model for the symphony, being influenced by Schubert and Beethoven's Ninth symphonies and Wagnerian expansive form. His nine and Brahms' four symphonies represent a new peak at the end of the nineteenth century.

In the 20th C it would be equally silly to exclude Dvorak, Mahler and Sibelius as major symphonists, and composers of high quality (albeit not in the same super league as some of those mentioned earlier). But to call such composers "second raters" is plainly not correct.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Bach said:


> Outside Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms the symphony is a useless form experimented with by second-raters.


 This is one of the most ill-informed statements I've read on this forum.


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

Andy Loochazee said:


> Maybe it's time you took your thick sunglasses off there Mr Bach, and realised that composers such as Schubert, Berlioz, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Bruckner, Tchaikovsky (even though the latter two are not favourites of mine) were also major symphonists in the 19th C, and quite definitely not second raters in any sense of the word.


Schumann's symphonies are widely discredited and don't scrape the surface of his compositional excellence like the piano works.

Schubert's early symphonies are nice but fairly derivative and his later symphonies are sprawling and muddled. (again, hardly compare to his achievements in chamber music and lieder)

Berlioz didn't really write symphonies - more symphonic tone poems. Materialistic tack they are too.

Bruckner's symphonies are poorly orchestrated, rambling, verbose, pretentious rot.

Tchaikovsky has his moments, but sadly they're not frequent or valuable enough.

Perhaps Mendelssohn is my only oversight - he wasn't as 'great' as the wonderful composers on my list but his symphonies are beautiful, structured and succinct. Especially the Italian.



Andy Loochazee said:


> Schubert's late symphonies are of importance and the C Major is of significance on its own merits and in foreshadowing developments picked up Bruckner many years later.


A development we could have done without, methinks..



Andy Loochazee said:


> I would accept that after the death of Beethoven the most popular form of music in the middle years of the nineteenth century were opera and solo piano pieces, but nevertheless the symphonies of Berlioz, Mendelssohn and Schumann were significant achievements in advancing the new Romantic form. Berlioz managed to unite Beethoven's conception of the symphony with his own preference for literary-inspired music by means of a recurrent themes, which was to set the theme for later symphonic work, picked up by the likes of Liszt and Saint-Saens.


Horrible vulgar stuff.



Andy Loochazee said:


> In the 20th C it would be equally silly to exclude Dvorak, Mahler and Sibelius as major symphonists, and composers of high quality (albeit not in the same super league as some of those mentioned earlier). But to call such composers "second raters" is plainly not correct.


They are the very definition of second rate.


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

Mirror Image said:


> This is one of the most ill-informed statements I've read on this forum.


Yes, I know, in light of the unparalleled treasures composed by Bax and Bliss, I surprise even myself with my ignorance..


----------



## danae (Jan 7, 2009)

I'm confused. Are we talking about people who wrote great symphonies or great symphonic music?


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Bach said:


> Yes, I know, in light of the unparalleled treasures composed by Bax and Bliss, I surprise even myself with my ignorance..


No need to be sarcastic Bach. I just said your statement was ill-informed, which it was.


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

Bach said:


> Schumann's symphonies are widely discredited and don't scrape the surface of his compositional excellence like the piano works.


That comment doesn't fit my understanding of Schumann's contribution to the development of the romantic symphony. Schumann is highly regarded not just for his piano writing but across the board. I would suspect that you are basing your comments on some defunct former opinion of Schumann's alleged weak orchestration held in certain circles. This has largely been jettisoned in more recent academic work. You should try to read more widely, for example see musicologist John Daverio's book on Schumann "Herald of a New Poetic Age". This should straighten out your manifest misconceptions in this area.



> Schubert's early symphonies are nice but fairly derivative and his later symphonies are sprawling and muddled. (again, hardly compare to his achievements in chamber music and lieder)


Later symphonies sprawling? What, the Unfinished? The Great is a masterpiece of the highest order. Get real.



> Berlioz didn't really write symphonies - more symphonic tone poems. Materialistic tack they are too.


They were symphonies and the precursor of symphonic poems which were invented by much later Liszt, as I'm sure you know.



> Bruckner's symphonies are poorly orchestrated, rambling, verbose, pretentious rot.


I don't care for them either, but I wouldn't call them "rot". Some of them are widely held to be milestones in symphonic development. On my travels, a lot of people like Bruckner.



> Tchaikovsky has his moments, but sadly they're not frequent or valuable enough.


Worth a laugh I suppose, but that's it, no more.



> Perhaps Mendelssohn is my only oversight - he wasn't as 'great' as the wonderful composers on my list but his symphonies are beautiful, structured and succinct. Especially the Italian.


Good, I knew you were talking rot, and now you admit it.



> They [symphonies by Dvorak, Mahler, Sibelius] are the very definition of second rate.


No, in my book for "second rate" you're looking at composers well below these guys in the league table. But I do rather agree that definitions are everything here, and it could be argued that these are second rate on a very restrictive definition. I rather fear, however, that by "second rate" you actually mean "junk".

By the way, don't give up hope. There's time to learn. Many folk at your age are pretty ignorant of the beauty of music outside the very narrow sphere they have grown accustomed to in their sheltered lives.


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

Andy Loochazee said:


> That comment doesn't fit my understanding of Schumann's contribution to the development of the romantic symphony. Schumann is highly regarded not just for his piano writing but across the board. I would suspect that you are basing your comments on some defunct former opinion of Schumann's alleged weak orchestration held in certain circles. This has largely been jettisoned in more recent academic work. You should try to read more widely, for example see musicologist John Daverio's book on Schumann "Herald of a New Poetic Age". This should straighten out your manifest misconceptions in this area.
> 
> Later symphonies sprawling? What, the Unfinished? The Great is a masterpiece of the highest order. Get real.
> 
> ...


You know nothing about me. Keep your ad homs to yourself.

I have minimal interest in convincing myself to like large scale orchestral works that I don't already value. With the exception of Wagner (who encapsulate all sublimity of orchestral and vocal bravado) and sacred works, my taste is moving further away from arrogant European bombast and more towards organic and improvisational forms.

However, this is irrelevant to the discussion.

The symphony was born with Haydn and died with Brahms.


----------



## David Mayer (Jul 9, 2009)

Bach said:


> The symphony was born with Haydn and died with Brahms.


Are you a troll?

If not, shouldn't Prokofiev's Classical symphony disprove the "born with Haydn, died with Brahms" nonsense? It's practically a modern re-packaging of Haydn.


----------



## mueske (Jan 14, 2009)

Bach said:


> You know nothing about me. Keep your ad homs to yourself.
> 
> I have minimal interest in convincing myself to like large scale orchestral works that I don't already value. With the exception of Wagner (who encapsulate all sublimity of orchestral and vocal bravado) and sacred works, my taste is moving further away from arrogant European bombast and more towards organic and improvisational forms.
> 
> ...


Why? (seriously, I'd like to hear your thoughts about it)


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

The proverbial pot has been stirred.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

> Mozart was clearly a musical mastermind. But much of it, despite being structurally sound and all, sounds shallow and without much depth, especially if you compare it to Beethoven, say, who injected a more profound emotional/human element into his music.


Just because you can't hear the emotion in Mozart's music, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. His music wouldn't still be played as frequently as it is today two hundred years after his death if people thought his music was pleasant-sounding, but emotionless fluff--nor would he have gained the greatest respect from other famous composers like Chopin, Wagner, and Schubert if their wasn't something human in his works. Disliking Mozart's music is fine and common, but don't blame his ability to convey emotion in music when it may just be your fault as a listener.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

trazom said:


> Just because you can't hear the emotion in Mozart's music, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. His music wouldn't still be played as frequently as it is today two hundred years after his death if people thought his music was pleasant-sounding, but emotionless fluff--nor would he have gained the greatest respect from other famous composers like Chopin, Wagner, and Schubert if their wasn't something human in his works. Disliking Mozart's music is fine and common, but don't blame his ability to convey emotion in music when it may just be your fault as a listener.


My saying there is no emotion in Mozart's music is clearly MY OPINION and MINE ALONE, and not the final word on the matter. Most of what we say in here is opinion anyway, even though we don't preface everything with "It is my opinion that..." You are right I don't hear much emotion or humanity in it. But there must be something, I will give you that, that attracts people to him that I simply cannot hear. Sure. I buy all of that.

Some people tell me broccholi tastes good. When I taste it, I taste sweaty socks. But that's just me, it ain't the broccholi.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Oh! Sorry, then, for misinterpreting your post. Most of that was me venting from pent-up annoyance from reading youtube comments, anyways.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

trazom said:


> Oh! Sorry, then, for misinterpreting your post. Most of that was me venting from pent-up annoyance from reading youtube comments, anyways.


Seems like there are some on YouTube that agree with me? Hmmm...perhaps for all of those who do hear the emotion in Mozart, there are those who do not. Who is right? 

And no hard feelings, by the way.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

I don't hear any emotion in Mozart except for his "Requiem," but that's just my opinion.


----------



## danae (Jan 7, 2009)

This is for Tapkaara.

I started listening to classical since I was in my mother's womb. My parents mostly listened to 60s and 70s classic rock, Bach, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninov, Chopin, jazz, blues, soul, greek art song and of course Mozart. I grew up loving most of this music... except Mozart. He sounded superficial to me, without depth and without anything I could relate to emotionally. Until I discovered him. I was about 22 and I had to finish a mandatory course in analysis of tonal structures, for which I had to write a paper on Mozart's Great G minor symphony, that is, his 40th. That' s when I discovered him. I was so wrong about him. 
In this work, which I consider a masterpiece, there is not one note that is out of place. And you don't see this only through analysis (if that were the case then there'd be no point in listening and feeling), but you can hear it. Maybe a trained listener can hear it even in the first hearing of the work. For me it took a lot of hearings and eventually I became addicted to it. I couldn't stop listening to it and playing it on the piano. I wanted to know why it was so perfect. I played the harmonic chains of the developmental section of the 1st mvnt over and over again. Finally I understood why the emotions were so strong, and this discovery applied also to most of his music, whether in major or minor modes. I realized that it's the balance that causes these emotions. It's the perfect balance between melody, rhythm, texture and harmony, and it's the feeling that when something happens (in the music I mean), it's almost never without a clear reason and purpose.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Bach said:


> The symphony was born with Haydn and died with Brahms.


I'd say it was in it's death throes around 1900, when a few major composers like Debussy & Ravel refused to name their pieces 'symphonies.' Even though _La Mer _is laid out like a symphony, etc. Then you had composers like Bartok, who composed symphonic works like _Concerto for Orchestra _& _Music for Strings, Percussion & Celesta_, but also refused to name them symphonies. It's definitely a dead medium now, has been for a long time (at least since post WWII). One of the last great symphonies would probably be Messiaen's _Turangalila_, but even that stretches the boundaries. He could have called it something else easily. Major composers like Varese, Boulez, Xenakis, Stockhausen, Ligeti, Kurtag, etc. didn't write symphonies. It has outlived it's use, really. Maybe too limiting?...


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

danae said:


> This is for Tapkaara.
> 
> I started listening to classical since I was in my mother's womb. My parents mostly listened to 60s and 70s classic rock, Bach, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninov, Chopin, jazz, blues, soul, greek art song and of course Mozart. I grew up loving most of this music... except Mozart. He sounded superficial to me, without depth and without anything I could relate to emotionally. Until I discovered him. I was about 22 and I had to finish a mandatory course in analysis of tonal structures, for which I had to write a paper on Mozart's Great G minor symphony, that is, his 40th. That' s when I discovered him. I was so wrong about him.
> In this work, which I consider a masterpiece, there is not one note that is out of place. And you don't see this only through analysis (if that were the case then there'd be no point in listening and feeling), but you can hear it. Maybe a trained listener can hear it even in the first hearing of the work. For me it took a lot of hearings and eventually I became addicted to it. I couldn't stop listening to it and playing it on the piano. I wanted to know why it was so perfect. I played the harmonic chains of the developmental section of the 1st mvnt over and over again. Finally I understood why the emotions were so strong, and this discovery applied also to most of his music, whether in major or minor modes. I realized that it's the balance that causes these emotions. It's the perfect balance between melody, rhythm, texture and harmony, and it's the feeling that when something happens (in the music I mean), it's almost never without a clear reason and purpose.


Why don't you private message him?


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Andre said:


> I'd say it was in it's death throes around 1900, when a few major composers like Debussy & Ravel refused to name their pieces 'symphonies.' Even though _La Mer _is laid out like a symphony, etc. Then you had composers like Bartok, who composed symphonic works like _Concerto for Orchestra _& _Music for Strings, Percussion & Celesta_, but also refused to name them symphonies. It's definitely a dead medium now, has been for a long time (at least since post WWII). One of the last great symphonies would probably be Messiaen's _Turangalila_, but even that stretches the boundaries. He could have called it something else easily. Major composers like Varese, Boulez, Xenakis, Stockhausen, Ligeti, Kurtag, etc. didn't write symphonies. It has outlived it's use, really. Maybe too limiting?...


I agree that the symphony isn't a very popular medium anymore, but it's safe to say it's still a viable way for a composer to express themselves.


----------



## danae (Jan 7, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> Why don't you private message him?


Cos we're discussing the issue of Mozart + emotion and I wrote something I would others to read too. Do you send private messages to all who you respond to?


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

At the risk of adding to the "food supply"....


Bach said:


> Bruckner's symphonies are poorly orchestrated, rambling, verbose, pretentious rot.


Gee, does that mean you've changed your mind about Bruckner's 7th?........


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

danae said:


> This is for Tapkaara.
> 
> I started listening to classical since I was in my mother's womb. My parents mostly listened to 60s and 70s classic rock, Bach, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninov, Chopin, jazz, blues, soul, greek art song and of course Mozart. I grew up loving most of this music... except Mozart. He sounded superficial to me, without depth and without anything I could relate to emotionally. Until I discovered him. I was about 22 and I had to finish a mandatory course in analysis of tonal structures, for which I had to write a paper on Mozart's Great G minor symphony, that is, his 40th. That' s when I discovered him. I was so wrong about him.
> In this work, which I consider a masterpiece, there is not one note that is out of place. And you don't see this only through analysis (if that were the case then there'd be no point in listening and feeling), but you can hear it. Maybe a trained listener can hear it even in the first hearing of the work. For me it took a lot of hearings and eventually I became addicted to it. I couldn't stop listening to it and playing it on the piano. I wanted to know why it was so perfect. I played the harmonic chains of the developmental section of the 1st mvnt over and over again. Finally I understood why the emotions were so strong, and this discovery applied also to most of his music, whether in major or minor modes. I realized that it's the balance that causes these emotions. It's the perfect balance between melody, rhythm, texture and harmony, and it's the feeling that when something happens (in the music I mean), it's almost never without a clear reason and purpose.


Thank you for a very insightful commentary.

You have no argument from me about the structural and technical wizardry of Mozart. You mentioned the ingenious harmonic progressions and the feeling that not a note was out of place. I agree with all of this.

But, despite all of that, I am bored to tears sitting through a Mozart symphony or concerto when I hear them on the radio. (I hear A LOT of Mozart on the radio!) If I listen, I too would hear the magical flow of notes and how cleverly he links them together. The harmonic tricks may be less obvious on a first listen, but no doubt they are there. But why am I still bored?

The answer is what I made reference to above. Perhaps it's not the music. Perhaps it is me. OK, it likely is me and not the music.

Mozart bores me. Plain and simple. Despite the talent he brings to the table, I still am bored. I guess my puny brain is not wired to appreciate his art, the same way my tongue is not wired to appreciate the delicacy known as broccholi, although people FOR YEARS have tried to convince me how yummy it is.

But isn't this how it is for all of us and the music we like? Why do I go gaga for Sibelius, yet other think he's cold. Mirror Image loves Ravel. I am indifferent to him. I like Khachaturian. Mirror Image is indifferent to him. Some like Shostakovich. Others think he's junk. The music is THE SAME, it's the person that is different, and our brains interpret the music in differetn ways. This is called personal taste and, by the way, it is not universal.

But that is hardly an original idea of mine. We all know that.


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

Andre said:


> I'd say it was in it's death throes around 1900, when a few major composers like Debussy & Ravel refused to name their pieces 'symphonies.' Even though _La Mer _is laid out like a symphony, etc. Then you had composers like Bartok, who composed symphonic works like _Concerto for Orchestra _& _Music for Strings, Percussion & Celesta_, but also refused to name them symphonies. It's definitely a dead medium now, has been for a long time (at least since post WWII). One of the last great symphonies would probably be Messiaen's _Turangalila_, but even that stretches the boundaries. He could have called it something else easily. Major composers like Varese, Boulez, Xenakis, Stockhausen, Ligeti, Kurtag, etc. didn't write symphonies. It has outlived it's use, really. Maybe too limiting?...


I think you are completely wrong. The symphony may have reached the peak of its life cycle by the time of Brahms 4th but it did not die soon after as you suggest. Some very significant works in this genre were written later, from Dvorak through to Shostakovich with much in between including high quality symphonies by Mahler, Elgar, Prokofiev, Sibelius, Neilson, Rachmaninoff, Hindemith, Vaughan Williams.

Secondly, the likes of Varese, Boulez, Xenakis, Stockhausen, Ligeti, Kurtag are not "major composers" in terms of the broad public perception of classical music. They are very minor figures at best, and some would say largely insiginificant. At any rate it was clearly not in their style to write symphonies, and they probably wouldn't have had a clue where to begin even if they had tried. Theirs was a new style of music which took the public for a ride, and which is largely discredited as nobody takes any interest in it apart from maybe few adherents who form a tiny minority relative to the numbers interested in the main focal points of classical music.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> But isn't this how it is for all of us and the music we like? Why do I go gaga for Sibelius, yet other think he's cold. Mirror Image loves Ravel. I am indifferent to him. I like Khachaturian. Mirror Image is indifferent to him. Some like Shostakovich. Others think he's junk. The music is THE SAME, it's the person that is different, and our brains interpret the music in differetn ways. This is called personal taste and, by the way, it is not universal.


Yes, I do love Ravel, so you got that right. No question about it. I even love his solo piano pieces and I don't normally even listen to solo piano. I'm lukewarm about his chamber works, I think Debussy wrote more attractive chamber music.

I like Sibelius a lot, but I'm just not crazy about his symphonies, but he wrote some amazing music that deserves to be heard and carefully examined.

Anyway, it's not that I'm indifferent to Khachaturian it's just I haven't really heard anything that made me sit up and smile or sit back and think. I only own one recording of his music and it's on Apex and it's got excerpts from Spartacus and some other things on it:










Honestly, I need to go back and listen to his music some more.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Mirror Image said:


> Yes, I do love Ravel, so you got that right. No question about it. I even love his solo piano pieces and I don't normally even listen to solo piano. I'm lukewarm about his chamber works, I think Debussy wrote more attractive chamber music.
> 
> I like Sibelius a lot, but I'm just not crazy about his symphonies, but he wrote some amazing music that deserves to be heard and carefully examined.
> 
> ...


Well, speaking of Khachaturian and symphonies...check out his three symphonies. Not the greatest works in the genre, but pretty memorable, nevertheless.


----------



## danae (Jan 7, 2009)

Andy Loochazee said:


> Secondly, the likes of Varese, Boulez, Xenakis, Stockhausen, Ligeti, Kurtag are not "major composers" in terms of the broad public perception of classical music. They are very minor figures at best, and some would say largely insiginificant. At any rate it was clearly not in their style to write symphonies, and they probably wouldn't have had a clue where to begin even if they had tried. Theirs was a new style of music which took the public for a ride, and which is largely discredited as nobody takes any interest in it apart from maybe few adherents who form a tiny minority relative to the numbers interested in the main focal points of classical music.


Actually, they are major composers of the 20th century. As for their significance, it's been well established the past few years, and not only by this "tiny minority" to which you refer.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> Well, speaking of Khachaturian and symphonies...check out his three symphonies. Not the greatest works in the genre, but pretty memorable, nevertheless.


I will check those out, but they're hard to find that I do know.


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

danae said:


> It's the perfect balance between melody, rhythm, texture and harmony, and it's the feeling that when something happens (in the music I mean), it's almost never without a clear reason and purpose.


That is exactly what I feel in MOzart, every note has its purpose, it is hard to tell this in a verbal way, but every note mozart wrote has a deep musical meaning, when we tell things like development, modulation, sonata form, this is only a technichal, and incomplete, way to tell the incredible coherence of Mozarts music: every harmonic colouring has a deep meaning in the chain of events, and has a direct influence in the music as it follows. Haydn and Beethoven ahve also this quality, but in Mozart it is much greater, it impresses and astonishes me. I can't find this in any other period or composer, it is so unique and so perfect.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

bdelykleon said:


> That is exactly what I feel in MOzart, every note has its purpose, it is hard to tell this in a verbal way, but every note mozart wrote has a deep musical meaning, when we tell things like development, modulation, sonata form, this is only a technichal, and incomplete, way to tell the incredible coherence of Mozarts music: every harmonic colouring has a deep meaning in the chain of events, and has a direct influence in the music as it follows. Haydn and Beethoven ahve also this quality, but in Mozart it is much greater, it impresses and astonishes me. I can't find this in any other period or composer, it is so unique and so perfect.


I agree with Tapkaara. Mozart just bores the hell out of me. Nothing really moves me or grabs ahold of me. It lacks the emotional content I find important in music. His "Requiem," however, is a great piece of music really has a lot of depth to it.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

danae said:


> Actually, they are major composers of the 20th century. As for their significance, it's been well established the past few years, and not only by this "tiny minority" to which you refer.


Andy Loochazee is clearly wrong here. Most of the C20th symphonists he lists were born in the C19th. They were all active, for the most part, before 1945. Look at the generations of composers active since then, and comparatively few of the major figures have produced symphonies. Of course, there have been exceptions, like Rautavaara, Lutoslawski, Hovhannes, Penderecki, Glass, Gorecki, Part, but you can equally say that many other composers (Xenakis, Boulez, Varese, Kurtag, Ligeti, Stockhausen - and these are definitely not minor figures), have avoided the genre alltogether.

I'd say that the symphony as a genre is dead in the water now. Composers prefer not to lock themselves into a genre like that when composing a piece. It doesn't mean that they couldn't do it if they tried, it's just that they're not interested in exploring this genre that has been done to death in the past...


----------



## David Mayer (Jul 9, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> But, despite all of that, I am bored to tears sitting through a Mozart symphony or concerto when I hear them on the radio. (I hear A LOT of Mozart on the radio!) If I listen, I too would hear the magical flow of notes and how cleverly he links them together. The harmonic tricks may be less obvious on a first listen, but no doubt they are there. But why am I still bored?
> 
> The answer is what I made reference to above. Perhaps it's not the music. Perhaps it is me. OK, it likely is me and not the music.


I really like Mozart, and I stand 100% behind everything you wrote. Music is inescapably a subjective endeavor; anyone who tells you differently is a charlatan.

It's telling that you should even feel compelled to defend yourself. If you don't like Mozart, and find him boring, then why the hell should you listen to him? I listen to classical music for enjoyment and stimulation, not to gain acceptance from others.

Frankly, I'm suspicious of anyone who claims their favorite composers are "Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, and Brahms." Sure, they could be telling the truth, but it feels like they're trying to figure out who their favorite composers _should_ be.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

David Mayer said:


> Frankly, I'm suspicious of anyone who claims their favorite composers are "Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, and Brahms." Sure, they could be telling the truth, but it feels like they're trying to figure out who their favorite composers _should_ be.


Hmmm...that's an interesting point-of-view, David. I never thought of it that way. Yeah, I mean Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven are far from my favorite composers. In fact, I hardly ever listen them at all...if ever. I do enjoy Brahms though, but I don't even listen to him that much.

There are so many composers out there that I find it hard to believe that these people who put down Haydn, Beethoven, or Mozart are even classical fans to begin with. Classical music is about much more than just listing a set of composers because of what a book tells us, it's about figuring out what composers speak to you emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually. It's about fulfillment. Classical music isn't a popularity contest where everybody puts down the same names just to be "cool." No, it's about finding what composers speaks to your soul and satisfies you the most.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

> I agree with Tapkaara. Mozart just bores the hell out of me. Nothing really moves me or grabs ahold of me. It lacks the emotional content I find important in music. His "Requiem," however, is a great piece of music really has a lot of depth to it.


Why is it that every time someone makes a post admitting their praise for Mozart, you feel the need to make a post expressing your disapproval of him and your _thinly_-veiled annoyance to those that like him? You did it the first time when I posted here responding with "I only find emotion his Requiem," then rudely pointed out to danae that she could have sent tapkaara a private message instead of expressing her opinion, and now you're saying THIS after bdelykleon explained their admiration for Mozart.

We get that you don't like Mozart, but other people here(surprise) do. Suck it up and move on already.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

trazom said:


> Why is it that every time someone makes a post admitting their praise for Mozart, you feel the need to make a post expressing your disapproval of him and your _thinly_-veiled annoyance to those that like him? You did it the first time when I posted here responding with "I only find emotion his Requiem," then rudely pointed out to danae that she could have sent tapkaara a private message instead of expressing her opinion, and now you're saying THIS after bdelykleon explained their admiration for Mozart.
> 
> We get that you don't like Mozart, but other people here(surprise) do. Suck it up and move on already.


I have no problem with people liking whoever they want to, but I can express my like/dislike about any composer anytime and anywhere I want. If you don't like my dismissal of Mozart's music, then don't read it.


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

Chi_town/Philly said:


> At the risk of adding to the "food supply"....Gee, does that mean you've changed your mind about Bruckner's 7th?........


I think I would actually keep Bruckner 7 there, mainly because of its historical importance (as Hitler's trauermusik) and excellent motifs. Shame it's structurally crap, really..


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

Andre said:


> Andy Loochazee is clearly wrong here. Most of the C20th symphonists he lists were born in the C19th. They were all active, for the most part, before 1945. Look at the generations of composers active since then, and comparatively few of the major figures have produced symphonies. Of course, there have been exceptions, like Rautavaara, Lutoslawski, Hovhannes, Penderecki, Glass, Gorecki, Part, but you can equally say that many other composers (Xenakis, Boulez, Varese, Kurtag, Ligeti, Stockhausen - and these are definitely not minor figures), have avoided the genre alltogether.


What are you talking about? What I said was very clear. I said in post # 62:



> The symphony may have reached the peak of its life cycle by the time of Brahms 4th but it did not die soon after as you suggest. Some very significant works in this genre *were written later*, from Dvorak through to Shostakovich with much in between including high quality symphonies by Mahler, Elgar, Prokofiev, Sibelius, Neilson, Rachmaninoff, Hindemith, Vaughan Williams.


Brahms Symphony No 4 was written in 1885. With the exception of some early symphonies by Dvorak, all of the symphonies I refer to above were written after that data, in some cases up to 70 years after date. That was the only point I was making.

Therefore, how can you possibly dispute this and say I am "clearly wrong"? Rather, it's you who is very clearly wrong to suggest that the symphony virtually died out after Brahms.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Bach said:


> Outside Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms the symphony is a useless form experimented with by second-raters.


Thanks Bach, I will now immediately stop listening to Mahler and Bruckner and focus on those 4 symphonists only. I thought both of them sounded much more interesting, but I stand corrected.


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

Good choice.


----------



## danae (Jan 7, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> I have no problem with people liking whoever they want to, but I can express my like/dislike about any composer anytime and anywhere I want. If you don't like my dismissal of Mozart's music, then don't read it.


I agree entirely. So please be so kind as to apply this on your own attitude towards other people's opinions and don't dismiss them by telling them to exchange opinions by private messages, when you don't like what's being said. Telling me to send a p.m. to Tapkaara about an issue that seemed to be of interest to more people on this thread was the same as telling me to shove off. 
So in the future, when you don't want to read someone else's opinion, then don't. OK?


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

I should like, if I may, to bring this discussion back to its original purpose (posts # 1 & 2) and to my earlier post (# 37) which expressed the view that this thread is highly dubious.

To summarise very briefly, it is alleged that the existing lists of greatest symphonies (which lists apparently abound in great numbers all over the internet) are afflicted by one common problem which is that they all focus on too narrow a range of composers. The proposed solution to this perceived defect was to agree a list of the greatest symphonists and then to derive a list of the greatest symphonies. This procedure is, it was suggested, somehow capable of generating a more interesting list of the best symphonies than what is currently available. 

In my post # 37, I pointed out that this procedure is ridiculous because it is not possible to decide upon the greatest symphonists independently of the best symphonies, as the causality run the other way, namely the best symphonies must determine the best symphonists, not the other way round. Therefore this whole exercise is a complete waste of time, as it is tantamount to placing cart before horse.

If anyone disagrees, could they please speak?


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Anyway, like I said, Mozart's music is emotionless drivel. Doesn't do anything for me.


----------



## danae (Jan 7, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> Thank you for a very insightful commentary.
> 
> You have no argument from me about the structural and technical wizardry of Mozart. You mentioned the ingenious harmonic progressions and the feeling that not a note was out of place. I agree with all of this.
> 
> ...


Thank you for the "thank you". Actually I wasn't trying to convince you about anything, just to tell you about my own personal encounter with Mozart's music after years of being bored of his music. He's not the only composer I changed my mind about. I used to love Haydn, now I can't convince myself to sit through any of his works. When I was a teenager, I spent 2 years adoring metal, which I now completely hate. Sometimes musical taste changes. Of course sometimes it doesn't!


----------



## opus (Jul 10, 2009)

I agree that sometimes Mozart can be boring if you listen it too long i think!! maybe it is in classical period and it is sometimes repitative. When i look more deep into Mozart's music especially not so popular tunes, i see no big difference beetwen him and other period composers such as Haydn, Spohr etc.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

opus said:


> I agree that sometimes Mozart can be boring if you listen it too long i think!! maybe it is in classical period and it is sometimes repitative. When i look more deep into Mozart's music especially not so popular tunes, i see no big difference beetwen him and other period composers such as Haydn, Spohr etc.


That's why the Classical period is my least favorite. I actually like Baroque better than Classical if you could believe that!


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

> As I stated earlier, I can give my opinion about any composer I want to on this forum.


Yes, you are allowed to post your opinion about any composer you want; but you posted the same exact opinion at least three different times. I was simply stating I don't understand your need to feel you have to repeat yourself.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

trazom said:


> Yes, you are allowed to post your opinion about any composer you want; but you posted the same exact opinion at least three different times. I was simply stating I don't understand your need to feel you have to repeat yourself.


No comment.


----------



## David C Coleman (Nov 23, 2007)

In terms of influence and development, then Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven would probably fit the bill. I would also put Schubert there as well for his massive jump in emotional depth from Nos 5 & 6 to the "Unfinished" and the "The Great C major", undoubtedly as good as anything Ludwig van wrote in my book!.
I wouldn't put Brahms there because as good as his four examples are, he didn't really break any new ground except poosibly the inserting of an intermezzo rather than a full blown scherzo and trio.
Bruckner, Mahler, Shosta., Nielsen, Sibelius, Vaughan Williams. are great Symphonists but their musical styles probably only have comparatively limited appeal...


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

David C Coleman said:


> In terms of influence and development, then Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven would probably fit the bill. I would also put Schubert there as well for his massive jump in emotional depth from Nos 5 & 6 to the "Unfinished" and the "The Great C major", undoubtedly as good as anything Ludwig van wrote in my book!.
> I wouldn't put Brahms there because as good as his four examples are, he didn't really break any new ground except poosibly the inserting of an intermezzo rather than a full blown scherzo and trio.
> Bruckner, Mahler, Shosta., Nielsen, Sibelius, Vaughan Williams. are great Symphonists but their musical styles probably only have comparatively limited appeal...


Apart from your comment about Schubert, I don't agree with your suggestion that "influence and development" is the only or main criterion for a great symphonist. What's the use of an influential composer (e.g. in terms of introducing new styles etc) if he wrote lousy symphonies that no-one listens to?

The most important thing is whether or not they wrote outstanding quality music. Brahms did so and therefore should be included among the greats. So too did Schumann and Mendelssohn before him, and they too should be included among the greats.

However, as I suggested previously in this thread, the logic of identifying great symphonists first, and then great symphonies, is completely skew-whiff. It should be done the other way round.


----------



## JAKE WYB (May 28, 2009)

David C Coleman said:


> In terms of influence and development, then Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven would probably fit the bill. I would also put Schubert there as well for his massive jump in emotional depth from Nos 5 & 6 to the "Unfinished" and the "The Great C major", undoubtedly as good as anything Ludwig van wrote in my book!.
> I wouldn't put Brahms there because as good as his four examples are, he didn't really break any new ground except poosibly the inserting of an intermezzo rather than a full blown scherzo and trio.
> Bruckner, Mahler, Shosta., Nielsen, Sibelius, Vaughan Williams. are great Symphonists but their musical styles probably only have comparatively limited appeal...


You post does not echo my own observations - the popular symphonies of Mahler and Sibelius and Shostakovich are as much if not more well loved by concert going audiences as any by Mozart or Haydn. Compare any Haydn symphony with Sibelius 2, 5 or 7, Shostakovich 5, 7, 9 and 10 Mahler 1,2,5,6, in terms of concert appearances and audience appreciation and youll see they have far wider appeal than Haydn and most Mozart sympnoes not that poularity has much to do with greatness particularly.

Plus, Sibelius was equal to your chosen greats in maturing and exploring new ways of symphonic thought and with deeper and often more accessible music and plus in terms of influence Sibelius has probably more influence on the last and current generations on not just symphonic but many leading composers than anybody. Not that influence should have much to do with ultimate greatness either.


----------



## danae (Jan 7, 2009)

Andy Loochazee said:


> However, as I suggested previously in this thread, the logic of identifying great symphonists first, and then great symphonies, is completely skew-whiff. It should be done the other way round.


I agree. I think this is the way to procceed in identifying great symphonists, if of course one sticks to this limitation. 'Cause it's possible that someone who wrote great symphonic music was not so skillful in other genres, like Nielsen for instance, who is justifiably known mainly for his last 3 symphonies.


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

I've decided my favourite C20 symphony is Rachmaninov's second. Followed by RVW's 5th.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Bach said:


> I've decided my favourite C20 symphony is Rachmaninov's second. Followed by RVW's 5th.


Really? Bach, I thought you said you thought Rachmaninov's orchestral music was crap?


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

Most of it is but the slow movement from the 2nd uses melody and harmony beautifully - so I can ignore the average orchestration.


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

In fact, as a complete work - I wouldn't listen to it. The slow movement is delicious though - I want to transcribe it as a jazz tune.


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

Actually, the same can be said of the Vaughan-Williams too - I only listen to the Romanza.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Why do you have such high standards bach, you describe the orhcestration of Rachmaninoff as AVERAGE - when it is obviously so much better than the average.

I am glad this topic has sparked so much discussion, to the one who argued the pointlessness of the thread - I say that it is equallypointless to waste time thinking about how pointless something is.

Will edit the original list and come up with nominations soon.


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

Compared to Strauss, Ravel and Debussy it is fairly mediocre.. wouldn't you agree?


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Bach said:


> Compared to Strauss, Ravel and Debussy it is fairly mediocre.. wouldn't you agree?


Well we all know Rachmaninov wasn't known for his orchestrations, but this doesn't distract from the music.

There is plenty of music I enjoy were the orchestration isn't good, but this doesn't take away from the enjoyment of the music or at least it doesn't for me.

Not every composer is gifted with the ability of realizing the full potential of an orchestra where every instrument is used to some to effect.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I agree with Mirror Image on this one. I am a musical layperson, so I don't criticise a composer's use of a cello, for example, over the viola. Anyway, I think listening in this way would just distract one from enjoying the music. I don't like to over-analyse because I am not a composer, I'm just a listener, so I leave to the composer the way s/he wants to use the orchestra...

& I think that the reasons we like composers don't always depend on their orchestration. It's more complicated than that. If orchestration was my number one focus, then I'd love Richard Strauss, who Bach mentions. But I just find many of his pieces long-winded & boring. I don't care how good the orchestration is...


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

I think the orchestration issue is given too much analytical criticism. Rachmaninov may not have been an orchestrator of grand fame like a Strauss or Rimsky-Korskov, but he still knew what he was doing.

If a composer's orchestrations don't sparkle and dazzle like Ravel's, doesn't mean the person is a lousy orchestrator.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> I think the orchestration issue is given too much analytical criticism. Rachmaninov may not have been an orchestrator of grand fame like a Strauss or Rimsky-Korskov, but he still knew what he was doing.
> 
> If a composer's orchestrations don't sparkle and dazzle like Ravel's, doesn't mean the person is a lousy orchestrator.


Tell that to Bach.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Mirror Image said:


> Tell that to Bach.


Bach, refer to my post #99.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Andre said:


> I agree with Mirror Image on this one. I am a musical layperson, so I don't criticise a composer's use of a cello, for example, over the viola. Anyway, I think listening in this way would just distract one from enjoying the music. I don't like to over-analyse because I am not a composer, I'm just a listener, so I leave to the composer the way s/he wants to use the orchestra...
> 
> & I think that the reasons we like composers don't always depend on their orchestration. It's more complicated than that. If orchestration was my number one focus, then I'd love Richard Strauss, who Bach mentions. But I just find many of his pieces long-winded & boring. I don't care how good the orchestration is...


I agree if a piece doesn't grab you emotionally, then the orchestration doesn't really mean that much in the end.

Orchestration doesn't make great music, the music and what the composer is trying to convey does. Orchestration is only icing on the cake.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> Bach, refer to my post #99.


Yeah, he's the one that making a big deal about orchestration, not me. He thinks just because I love Ravel so much that I think I measure every composer by their orchestration. Truth be told, *I like Ravel because of his music not because of his orchestrations.*


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Mirror Image said:


> Yeah, he's the one that making a big deal about orchestration, not me. He thinks just because I love Ravel so much that I think I measure every composer by their orchestration. Truth be told, *I like Ravel because of his music not because of his orchestrations.*


Well sure. But Bach is a young man of VERY discriminating tastes and only the very BEST will do.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> Well sure. But Bach is a young man of VERY discriminating tastes and only the very BEST will do.


Yes, he is young, in time, he will learn to branch out a little more.


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

Maybe, maybe not.


----------

