# Need help deciding which British symphonist's box set to buy.



## Lord Lance

Through a second hand seller, I have stumbled across several box sets of symphonies from British composers. A field I haven't ventured into until recently.

My choices are:
1. Arnold Bax
2. Robert Simpsons
3. Ralph Vaughan Williams
4. Havergal Brian
5. William Walton
6. Richard Arnell
7. Peter Maxwell Davies [Its a compilation]
8. Malcom Arnold
9. Michael Tippet
10. George Llyod
11. Edmund Rubbra
12. William Alwyn

I love the symphonies of:
1. Mahler
2. Bruckner
3. Beethoven
4. Mozart
5. Haydn
6. Brahms [3 not so much.]
7. Dvorak and Schubert's 9
8. Saint-Saens Third Symphony
9. Tchaikovsky
10. Rachmaninoff
11. Sibelius

I dislike:
1. Prokofiev
2. Shostakovich
3. Enescu
4. Mahler's Eight


----------



## Art Rock

Without knowing much about your tastes, it is difficult to make a recommendation. Personally, I would say Bax, Vaughan Williams and Alwyn are essential (coming from a taste that is mostly based on (late) romantic and early modern music).


----------



## ptr

I second AR's suggestions!

/ptr


----------



## techniquest

I would add the Malcolm Arnold set to your collection and, since he wrote only 2, you may as well get the Walton set too


----------



## Orfeo

I would get Bax, but with Bryden Thomson with the London PO.
Rubbra/Hickox set is uniformly excellent.
Lloyd is a must get (there is no set of his symphonies per se, but each recordings are very fine).
Benjamin Frankel is highly recommended (CPO label).
Gordon Jacob
Parry (Bamert and the London PO).
Stanford is very worth considering.
Eugene Goossens (ABC label/Handley).


----------



## Headphone Hermit

if you fancy Bax as first choice ..... then go for Bax (It was what I voted for anyway!)


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Headphone Hermit said:


> if you fancy Bax as first choice ..... then go for Bax (It was what I voted for anyway!)


I'd incline to the Bax Thomson set or the Bax Handley set-- both are awesome; yet totally different interpretively and of course in the engineered sound. Both are powerful. Both are clear. Both great. The Handley I find is a bit more spacious sounding as far as having that ambient-depth-of-sound-stage to it. . .

But then again, I'd also incline to the EMI Handley RVW box set and the Thomson Chandos RVW box set as well; and for the same aforementioned reasons.

That's as 'narrowed-down' as I can get.

Sorry.


----------



## satoru

I voted for Tippett, since a set of his pieces are rather rare, but looks like I'm the only one... From the OP's taste, maybe Bax or RVW is a safe bet. Cheers!


----------



## Guest

> I love the symphonies of:
> 1. Mahler
> 2. Bruckner
> 3. Beethoven
> 4. Mozart
> 5. Haydn
> 6. Brahms [3 not so much.]
> 7. Dvorak and Schubert's 9
> 8. Saint-Saens Third Symphony
> 9. Tchaikovsky
> 10. Rachmaninoff
> 11. Sibelius


Based on your post, you hold the repertoire in high esteem. Given that assumption, it would be pretty odd to start with anything but Vaughan Williams. That being said, I will echo others who have supported Bax, Alwyn, and Walton - but certainly not before RVW.

As a side note, I have somehow still managed to evade listening to Peter Maxwell Davies...sigh...


----------



## SONNET CLV

The Bax set is stunning, whichever conductor you choose. (I own both sets.) Alwyn's Fourth Symphony is a must hear before you die. And don't shy away from those other guys, either. Explore. I'm a big fan of Arnold's Third Symphony, a couple by Lloyd and Simpson, and of course the set of RVW's. I haven't heard of a complete set of Havergal Brian's symphonies, but if there is one I'll probably pick it up. Over the years I've collected many if not every recording of a Brian symphony -- they are somewhat of an acquired taste, I admit. Walton's First played by Previn is a must hear. And Maxwell Davies is certainly worth exploring, especially for some of his more avant garde stuff. There is a box set of symphonies on cpo by British composer Benjamin Frankel which are well worth hearing. Also, the symphonies of Humphrey Searle. Count me lucky to have heard (and to have recordings of) all of the works you include on your Poll list. But don't stop there. The Brits have produced much beautiful music, especially in the 20th century, and it's worth exploring. Go to it.


----------



## Art Rock

A name not mentioned yet is EJ Moeran. He wrote only one symphony but that is a great one. His violin concerto and (especially) his cello concerto are even better imo.


----------



## DavidA

RVW. No contest!


----------



## Lord Lance

arcaneholocaust said:


> Based on your post, you hold the repertoire in high esteem. Given that assumption, it would be pretty odd to start with anything but Vaughan Williams. That being said, I will echo others who have supported Bax, Alwyn, and Walton - but certainly not before RVW.
> 
> As a side note, I have somehow still managed to evade listening to Peter Maxwell Davies...sigh...


Which repertoire?


----------



## Lord Lance

I heard his Bax's Second Symphony. I don't know what to say. The main part of each movement of the symphony left me puzzled and I didn't like his orchestration.


----------



## PetrB

William Walton

Peter Maxwell Davies

Michael Tippet


----------



## dgee

Mate, based on your likes and dislikes and being confounded by Bax, I'd say VW would probably be most to your taste and they're fairly decent (OK - 4 and 5 are a purple patch, the rest are variable). Walton wrote two symphonies - listen to those too because the first is excellent and the second is fun. 

Then get a spotify subscription and check them all out whenever you feel like it


----------



## elgar's ghost

If you like the symphonies of, say, Bruckner and Sibelius then I suggest giving Robert Simpson's a go - not that his symphonies are really anything like those of Bruckner or Sibelius to listen to, but a combination of certain elements of the two are the closest I can get in terms of scratching about for a starter reference. That said, both the architecture and interior design are essentially Simpson's own and, like many great buildings, there is a timeless quality about them. The complete set (all 11 of them plus the Variations on a theme by Nielsen) is available only on Hyperion.


----------



## Lord Lance

dgee said:


> Mate, based on your likes and dislikes and being confounded by Bax, I'd say VW would probably be most to your taste and they're fairly decent (OK - *4* and 5 are a *purple patch*, the rest are variable). Walton wrote two symphonies - listen to those too because the first is excellent and the second is fun.
> 
> Then get a spotify subscription and check them all out whenever you feel like it


RWV's Fourth is brilliant.


----------



## maestro267

Havergal Brian and Peter Maxwell Davies' complete symphonies are yet to be fully recorded. We're missing Max's 7th-10th and Brian 5, 14, 19, 21 and 26-29. This must be rectified.


----------



## Lord Lance

maestro267 said:


> Havergal Brian and Peter Maxwell Davies' complete symphonies are yet to be fully recorded. We're missing Max's 7th-10th and Brian 5, 14, 19, 21 and 26-29. This must be rectified.


The reason for why Peter Maxwell Davies' symphonies aren't recorded and released as a single box set is because his symphonies aren't popular enough or have the fanbase to warrant a commercial venture by production companies.


----------



## Mahlerian

Ludwig van Beethoven said:


> The reason for why Peter Maxwell Davies' symphonies aren't recorded and released as a single box set is because his symphonies aren't popular enough or have the fanbase to warrant a commercial venture by production companies.


Nonsense. Naxos simply hasn't gotten around to them yet. I doubt Havergal Brian is much more popular at all (and certainly at the moment he's less well known).

*Checking Amazon sales rankings for the first few Peter Maxwell Davies discs (all Naxos releases) and the first few Havergal Brian discs (various labels) that come up, the Maxwell Davies discs are significantly higher though still somewhat low (28-30K rank as opposed to 250-400K rank).


----------



## Lord Lance

Mahlerian said:


> Nonsense. Naxos simply hasn't gotten around to them yet. I doubt Havergal Brian is much more popular at all (and certainly at the moment he's less well known).
> 
> *Checking Amazon sales rankings for the first few Peter Maxwell Davies discs (all Naxos releases) and the first few Havergal Brian discs (various labels) that come up, the Maxwell Davies discs are significantly higher though still somewhat low (28-30K rank as opposed to 250-400K rank).


Care to explain?


----------



## Mahlerian

Ludwig van Beethoven said:


> Care to explain?


For many production companies, Maxwell Davies' symphonies may not be considered significant enough to make an investment in (sometimes companies will invest in a recording for reasons of prestige rather than profit), and their relatively low popularity (Nos. 7-10 have yet to be recorded, apparently, though the last of these was just premiered this year) is definitely not enough to attract Deutsche Grammophon or Sony or Warner Classics. However, Naxos makes a habit of recording composers whom other companies ignore, such as Maxwell Davies or Havergal Brian, so it is not all that surprising that they would make an investment, even for a relatively low return. I think that as Naxos's series of Maxwell Davies' works continues, they will end up recording all of the symphonies (Havergal Brian's, too).

Comparing Maxwell Davies and Havergal Brian's Naxos discs via Amazon.com sales rank, the former come out significantly higher. This indicates more people are interested in them (I haven't really been taken with anything from either composer that I've heard, personally.)

It's worth noting that a good number of the above mentioned British composers are only recorded on labels like Naxos, Chandos, and Hyperion, which make a habit of recording lesser-known composers, and specifically British composers in the case of the latter two. Most of these works aren't very popular at all outside of their home country. Even Vaughan Williams's symphonies aren't played all that often over here.

The point of all of this is that if Maxwell Davies is considered unpopular, then none of the rest of these composers (Vaughan Williams excepted) are really popular either.


----------



## maestro267

The Naxos Maxwell Davies discs are reissues of discs originally released on Collins Classics in the 1990s.

Also, it must be significant. How many _living_ composers have ten symphonies to their credit? It has been a major part of the last 40 years' work of one of Britain's greatest living composers.

And Havergal Brian is gaining ground on the recordings front. We had two performances of his mighty Gothic Symphony in the space of a year, one of which was released on disc, becoming the third recording of this largest of symphonies currently available.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Ludwig van Beethoven said:


> I heard his Bax's Second Symphony. I don't know what to say. The main part of each movement of the symphony left me puzzled and I didn't like his orchestration.


I understand what you say. I remember getting a sampler disc of British music from Chandos in the early 1990s and being flummoxed by it. It must have fallen behing a bookcase because I didn't come across it until a couple of years ago, by which time I had the full version of everything on the sampler (and thoroughly enjoy it all, including the Bax). I had totally forgotten about this sampler disc, but when I saw it, it instantly came back to me that I had not understood, appreciated or enjoyed it at all.

Time may change your tastes, but if you don't like it at the moment, then follow your instincts and go for the RVW (I *had* thought the list in the OP was in order of interest, but it seems I was mistaken). Whatever you choose, I hope you enjoy it


----------



## MrCello

Ludwig van Beethoven said:


> I dislike:
> ...
> 2. Shostakovich


I think you made a mistake. :lol:


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

PetrB said:


> William Walton
> 
> Peter Maxwell Davies
> 
> Michael Tippet


I have Walton's. Can you give us more specific recommendations on Davies and Tippet? I've not given them much of a chance yet, and I certainly disagree in great measure with Davies (the man) in regards to his views on musical education but that shouldn't interfere with the musical experience.


----------



## PetrB

Richannes Wrahms said:


> I have Walton's. Can you give us more specific recommendations on Davies and Tippet? I've not given them much of a chance yet...


Mine was a simple and personal reflex response.

Walton, for a plucky, fluent and pleasant earlier modern vocabulary of the neoclassical stripe and a sort of clarity; the other two -- in the coined phrase of a famous British conductor -- "for the noise they make."

I personally have little interest in the old form in new clothing, and the rest of those composers (R.V.Williams was 'a fine symphonist, etc.) are all one way or t'other sounding to me like rehash melanges of 'grand symphonic practice,' i.e. similar gestures with a just slightly more 'modern' vocabulary -- and to these ears they all sound banal as all get out. They are but only very slightly re-costumed late romantic symphonies, about which I have a downright aversion 

This has me 'off' of much of British music, 19th and 20th century... there is a ton of British music I just plain ole don't care for. To me, some of those touted as the best come off like those writers of bad literature, the dilettante aristocrat who thought to write a book. I will admit my reaction here, so general yet truly heartfelt and sincerely 'what I think,' is more than a little odd, as I have no other 'generalized blanket' reject of music from other nations.

Many of those listed (Rubbra, Vaughan Williams, Simpson) sound most to me like they are writing something safely modern for the average petit bourgeoise concert-goer _(i.e. safe and extremely bland)_ and they just do not grab me in any way at all, to a point where I can not even admire them for the quality of their craft. I've been unable to sit through the entirety of any of their symphonies, the very notes and gestures sounding vapid, corny, and I have essayed a goodly number of them. Simply not my cuppa... but hey, I can not stand tea as a drink, either 

ADD: P.s. I overlooked entirely the OP's likes / dislikes entry, so 'just answered to the poll.' Of course my picks are those most antithetical to those likes / dislikes, ergo, not at all helpful for the OP.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Vaughan Williams... vapid, bland, corny? Are you sure this is the same composer as the one I'm thinking of?
I find his music sweet and fulfilling.
I think the same about tea though


----------



## PetrB

MoonlightSonata said:


> Vaughan Williams... vapid, bland, corny? Are you sure this is the same composer as the one I'm thinking of?
> I find his music sweet and fulfilling.
> I think the same about tea though


A-yep, it is a matter of personal preferences, in my case, not for R.V. Williams --whose craft and modal contrapuntal skills I can genuinely, if but remotely, admire. When someone posted this critical description of a lot of 20th century British music, calling it _*The Cow-Pat School*,_ (and that is not wholly unique to the English, i.e. a _lot_ of Aaron Copland's music could then be _*The Pony Road-Apple School*_) I rather envied whomever had coined that phrase!


----------



## Headphone Hermit

PetrB said:


> A-yep, it is a matter of personal preferences, in my case, not for R.V. Williams --whose craft and modal contrapuntal skills I can genuinely, if but remotely, admire. When someone posted this critical description of a lot of 20th century British music, calling it _*The Cow-Pat School*,_ (and that is not wholly unique to the English, i.e. a _lot_ of Aaron Copland's music could then be _*The Pony Road-Apple School*_) *I rather envied whomever had coined that phrase*!


Elizabeth Lutyens (in turn nick-named 'Twelve-tone Lizzie'), I think .... although there are a number of others credited with similarly dismissive phrases, including Copeland http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/arts/music/13smit.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


----------



## violadude

My favorites from those list are Rubbra, Vaughn-Williams, Simpson and Maxwell-Davies. Based on your dislike section though, I probably would avoid the latter two. Go with Rubbra or Vaughn-Williams.


----------



## Triplets

Art Rock said:


> Without knowing much about your tastes, it is difficult to make a recommendation. Personally, I would say Bax, Vaughan Williams and Alwyn are essential (coming from a taste that is mostly based on (late) romantic and early modern music).


I dislike Bax, and I have tried repeatedly. Alwyn is more of a fringe recommendation. RVW is essential, but I have never been able to appreciate the Sea Symphony. The rest of his canon is astounding.


----------



## PetrB

Headphone Hermit said:


> Elizabeth Lutyens (in turn nick-named 'Twelve-tone Lizzie'), I think .... although there are a number of others credited with similarly dismissive phrases, including Copeland http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/arts/music/13smit.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


LOL. Twelve-tone Lizzie, _"Oh, what a world! What a world!"_
Still, that is one weak-kneed watery comeback in comparison to the smart and "Ouch! That smarts!" of "Cow pat Music."

Twelve-tone Lizzie wins, TKO in first fifteen seconds, 1st round


----------



## Radames

Vaughan Williams is the most accessible. You would surely like him best. His 8th is one the most underrated pieces I know of. Great stuff.


----------



## Lord Lance

Mahlerian said:


> For many production companies, Maxwell Davies' symphonies may not be considered significant enough to make an investment in (sometimes companies will invest in a recording for reasons of prestige rather than profit), and their relatively low popularity (Nos. 7-10 have yet to be recorded, apparently, though the last of these was just premiered this year) is definitely not enough to attract Deutsche Grammophon or Sony or Warner Classics. However, Naxos makes a habit of recording composers whom other companies ignore, such as Maxwell Davies or Havergal Brian, so it is not all that surprising that they would make an investment, even for a relatively low return. I think that as Naxos's series of Maxwell Davies' works continues, they will end up recording all of the symphonies (Havergal Brian's, too).
> 
> Comparing Maxwell Davies and Havergal Brian's Naxos discs via Amazon.com sales rank, the former come out significantly higher. This indicates more people are interested in them (I haven't really been taken with anything from either composer that I've heard, personally.)
> 
> It's worth noting that a good number of the above mentioned British composers are only recorded on labels like Naxos, Chandos, and Hyperion, which make a habit of recording lesser-known composers, and specifically British composers in the case of the latter two. Most of these works aren't very popular at all outside of their home country. Even Vaughan Williams's symphonies aren't played all that often over here.
> 
> The point of all of this is that if Maxwell Davies is considered unpopular, then none of the rest of these composers (Vaughan Williams excepted) are really popular either.


Maxwell Davies certainly isn't as popular as Bax and Vaughan Williams is popular only in certain circles. Not all British compositional music listeners have heard of him.



MrCello said:


> I think you made a mistake. :lol:


He is still a twentieth century Russian composer.


----------



## Lord Lance

Thanks for everyone's help. I am very grateful to all who voted for RVW. Bax confounds me and Simpsons' symphonies aren't exactly "*Great*".

Ralph Vaughan Williams may very well be Britain's most talented symphonist.

Bought RVW's symphonies box set. Do not regret the decision.


----------



## Mahlerian

Ludwig van Beethoven said:


> Maxwell Davies certainly isn't as popular as Bax and Vaughan Williams is popular only in certain circles. Not all British compositional music listeners have heard of him.


You are seriously overestimating Bax's popularity. He is not often recorded (except by Chandos and Naxos), nearly never played outside of the UK, and next to unknown to the average classical music listener.

I specifically excepted Vaughan Williams from my comparison, because he is the only person listed who does have significant popularity outside of the UK (and even then not nearly as much as in the UK; there's no way The Lark Ascending would win a US poll of "Top Classical Music Pieces of All Time").

Britten and Elgar are the other two UK composers who have significant popularity abroad.


----------



## Lord Lance

Mahlerian said:


> You are seriously overestimating Bax's popularity. He is not often recorded (except by Chandos and Naxos), nearly never played outside of the UK, and next to unknown to the average classical music listener.
> 
> I specifically excepted Vaughan Williams from my comparison, because he is the only person listed who does have significant popularity outside of the UK (and even then not nearly as much as in the UK; there's no way The Lark Ascending would win a US poll of "Top Classical Music Pieces of All Time").
> 
> Britten and Elgar are the other two UK composers who have significant popularity abroad.


Britten and Elgar are symbols of Britain's compositional music. They signify what lies in Britain. It may not be correct to do so but everyone starts with Britten and Elgar. If you do not, then you are an oddity. Their names come with the other great giants like Strauss.

Also, Bax's popularity is justified. He was a masterful orchestrator [Not that I find it particularly good, but still genius is genius.]

Granted, Vaughan Williams' popularity lies solely because of Sea Symphony and The Lark Ascending. Not sure how many people venture outside these 'classics'. Same could be said about Haydn - revered and respected above all but rarely heard. Unlike Beethoven or Mozart or Brahms, all works of theirs are performed in all genres. Brahms' chamber output is played by all chamber groups, Beethoven's choral works and piano works are performed alongside his overperformed symphonies and piano concerti. But some composers' works like RVW are rarely performed. They just sit there being respected and all.

You may have a point though, Bax isn't a musical giant by any standard like Strauss or Chopin. When I said he was more popular than Maxwell Davies, it was a comparison of someone with negligible popularity to someone who is revered in certain dedicated circles. One triumphs zero.


----------



## Mahlerian

Ludwig van Beethoven said:


> Britten and Elgar are symbols of Britain's compositional music. They signify what lies in Britain. It may not be correct to do so but everyone starts with Britten and Elgar. If you do not, then you are an oddity. Their names come with the other great giants like Strauss.


Yes, three composers who were quite fine but whose music generally touches me very little (though I'd put Britten above the other two in my personal ranking).



Ludwig van Beethoven said:


> Also, Bax's popularity is justified. He was a masterful orchestrator [Not that I find it particularly good, but still genius is genius.]


Lots of composers are great orchestrators. It really only matters to me if their music has substance.



Ludwig van Beethoven said:


> Granted, Vaughan Williams' popularity lies solely because of Sea Symphony and The Lark Ascending. Not sure how many people venture outside these 'classics'. Same could be said about Haydn - revered and respected above all but rarely heard. Unlike Beethoven or Mozart or Brahms, all works of theirs are performed in all genres. Brahms' chamber output is played by all chamber groups, Beethoven's choral works and piano works are performed alongside his overperformed symphonies and piano concerti. But some composers' works like RVW are rarely performed. They just sit there being respected and all.


Bachtrack lists 76 upcoming concerts featuring Vaughan Williams. This is far from insignificant, and there's a good deal of variety in terms of the works being performed.

http://bachtrack.com/find/composer=111



Ludwig van Beethoven said:


> You may have a point though, Bax isn't a musical giant by any standard like Strauss or Chopin. When I said he was more popular than Maxwell Davies, it was a comparison of someone with negligible popularity to someone who is revered in certain dedicated circles. One triumphs zero.


In terms of upcoming performances according to Bachtrack, they are equal, with a mere 4 upcoming performances.

http://bachtrack.com/find/composer=11
http://bachtrack.com/find/composer=3680

In terms of recordings, Maxwell Davies has about half of what Bax does, according to Arkivmusic: 93 vs 183.

I'd put them both at zero as far as interest outside of dedicated circles goes.


----------



## Lord Lance

Mahlerian said:


> Lots of composers are great orchestrators. It really only matters to me if their music has substance.


Isn't that a given? Which composer's popularity lies within the fact that their music is shallow or empty. And since even substance is entirely subjective, I doubt how you categorize music. Some say Mahler has substance, some say he is nothing but a composer with a gift for bombast and orchestration on large scale, with nothing to show. Your opinion is just as valid as his is.



Mahlerian said:


> Bachtrack lists 76 upcoming concerts featuring Vaughan Williams. This is far from insignificant, and there's a good deal of variety in terms of the works being performed.
> 
> http://bachtrack.com/find/composer=111


The variety is heartening to know and as I said earlier his popularity relies solely on the British public. To the rest of the world, he is relatively unknown as concert venues would verify.



Mahlerian said:


> In terms of upcoming performances according to Bachtrack, they are equal, with a mere 4 upcoming performances.
> 
> http://bachtrack.com/find/composer=11
> http://bachtrack.com/find/composer=3680
> 
> In terms of recordings, Maxwell Davies has about half of what Bax does, according to Arkivmusic: 93 vs 183.
> 
> I'd put them both at zero as far as interest outside of dedicated circles goes.


Quoting numbers doesn't prove anything. Numbers are misleading. Commercial prospects of neither composers were ever good. Concert organizers are averse to risk.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Ludwig van Beethoven said:


> Same could be said about Haydn - revered and respected above all but *rarely heard*.


Oh, good grief - where does such nonsense come from?


----------



## Mahlerian

Ludwig van Beethoven said:


> Isn't that a given? Which composer's popularity lies within the fact that their music is shallow or empty. And since even substance is entirely subjective, I doubt how you categorize music. Some say Mahler has substance, some say he is nothing but a composer with a gift for bombast and orchestration on large scale, with nothing to show. Your opinion is just as valid as his is.


I don't believe that substance is subjective. Appeal is subjective, certainly, and this includes what strikes one individual or another as substantial, but substance is something that is inherent in a work.

Can you give an example of a person who understands Mahler's works and finds them insubstantial? Most of the time I run into people who think of Mahler's music as bombastic, bloated, etc., they have next to no understanding of it as music, or some personal antipathy towards his style which prevents them from coming to understand.

An opinion regarding a work of art is valid as a personal reaction, and in that sense all opinions are of equal value. But not all opinions are equally relevant to that work; an opinion that comes from understanding (negative or positive) is far more relevant to a work than one that comes from a position of little understanding (again, whether positive or negative).



Ludwig van Beethoven said:


> Quoting numbers doesn't prove anything. Numbers are misleading. Commercial prospects of neither composers were ever good. Concert organizers are averse to risk.


It proves that concert organizers for the groups and venues tracked by Bachtrack are just as loath to program Bax as Maxwell Davies. I didn't claim that either was a draw, nor did I claim that either was box office poison. I'm simply giving a few statistics that at least give us more perspective than simple assertions would.


----------



## Lord Lance

Mahlerian said:


> I don't believe that substance is subjective. Appeal is subjective, certainly, and this includes what strikes one individual or another as substantial, but substance is something that is inherent in a work.
> 
> Can you give an example of a person who understands Mahler's works and finds them insubstantial? Most of the time I run into people who think of Mahler's music as bombastic, bloated, etc., they have next to no understanding of it as music, or some personal antipathy towards his style which prevents them from coming to understand.
> 
> An opinion regarding a work of art is valid as a personal reaction, and in that sense all opinions are of equal value. But not all opinions are equally relevant to that work; an opinion that comes from understanding (negative or positive) is far more relevant to a work than one that comes from a position of little understanding (again, whether positive or negative).
> 
> It proves that concert organizers for the groups and venues tracked by Bachtrack are just as loath to program Bax as Maxwell Davies. I didn't claim that either was a draw, nor did I claim that either was box office poison. I'm simply giving a few statistics that at least give us more perspective than simple assertions would.


You did however claim that interests for both composers was zero. Which is untrue.

As for your opinions on music's substantiality is concerned, lets agree to disagree. Its not a topic which I'd discuss on the internet.

It was however, interesting, to debate with you.


----------



## Lord Lance

Headphone Hermit said:


> Oh, good grief - where does such nonsense come from?


A person with statistics to back and familiar with almost the entire output of Haydn's non choral works.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Ludwig van Beethoven said:


> A person with statistics to back and familiar with almost the entire output of Haydn's non choral works.


You said that 'Haydn is rarely heard'. 
It may be useful for you to share the statistics that you *claim* to have - I think your claim is untrue


----------



## Lord Lance

Headphone Hermit said:


> You said that 'Haydn is rarely heard'.
> It may be useful for you to share the statistics that you *claim* to have - I think your claim is untrue


Beethoven : http://bachtrack.com/find-concerts/composer=12

Concerts conducted: 730

Haydn: http://bachtrack.com/find/composer=2302

Concerts conducted: 238

That's a measly third for the father of symphony and string quartet whose works for voice are innumerable and whose output for chamber music is huge.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Ludwig van Beethoven said:


> Beethoven : http://bachtrack.com/find-concerts/composer=12
> 
> Concerts conducted: 730
> 
> *Haydn: http://bachtrack.com/find/composer=2302
> 
> Concerts conducted: 238*
> 
> That's a measly third for the father of symphony and string quartet whose works for voice are innumerable and whose output for chamber music is huge.


Ah, so perhaps you don't understand the meaning of 'rarely'? You have just demonstrated that Haydn is *frequently* played ... albeit not as frequently as Beethoven.


----------



## Lord Lance

Headphone Hermit said:


> Ah, so perhaps you don't understand the meaning of 'rarely'? You have just demonstrated that Haydn is *frequently* played ... albeit not as frequently as Beethoven.


Fair enough. I didn't use the right words. What I was going for was that in comparison to the other big two composers, Haydn is performed a third of what they are. Which makes his popularity much less than that of either beethoven or Mozart. Both owe a lot to him.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

It's strange how Haydn was the great innovator, the developer of sonata form, the standardiser of the symphony...
and yet most people who aren't classical music enthusiasts will think of about 5 other composers before him.
I think that all three (Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven) wrote amazing symphonies.


----------



## Lord Lance

MoonlightSonata said:


> It's strange how Haydn was the great innovator, the developer of sonata form, the standardiser of the symphony...
> and yet most people who aren't classical music enthusiasts will think of about 5 other composers before him.
> I think that all three (Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven) wrote amazing symphonies.


Forget people who don't listen to compositional music. Talk about regular listeners. Even they just respect him from far and rarely talk about what a master Smith he was. He is there when classical music is talked about - granted, with the big three but still he gets a mention. People mostly listen to his 12 London Symphonies. And what about string quartets? Go straight to beethoven. He composed what 60+ string quartets? Doesn't matter. It infuriates me at times. Folks at TC may think differently of him - which is a very good thing - but the general populace's perception is different. That could be said for every composer except the top 20, I guess.

Still, those of us lucky enough to hear all his works know different.


----------



## maestro267

The reason I prefer other composers to the earlier ones is that I prefer the bigger variety of colours offered by the large late-Romantic/modern orchestra. It's more aurally satisfying and fulfilling than the simpler sounds of earlier times.


----------

