# Rank Nielsen's Symphonies in Order



## neoshredder

I'm definitely interested in going through this cycle. I'll put in my rankings in a week from now. But interested in what others that went through the cycle think.


----------



## joen_cph

1st Tier: 4+5
2nd Tier: 3+6
3rd Tier: 1+2

5/Bernstein. Shouldn´t be missed IMO.
4/various, incl. Blomstedt/Decca, and for a quite alternative view Martinon/RCA
6/no favourite recording
3/various, including Bernstein and Chung/Bis
2/various, including M.Gould/RCA and Chung/Bis
1/no favourite recording


----------



## PetrB

No. 5 ~ Bernstein, N.Y. Philharmonic.

The rest, by my taste and criteria, are more than "alright." but the 5th is the 5th, and it is the only one I have returned to repeatedly over decades without yet having lost interest and pleasure in it -- even then, the first half (the contiguous parts one and two) is what make it such an outstanding work.

The rest, excellent / outstanding writing, but for me, meh.


----------



## ptr

I'm about on the same line as joen_cph, *4 5 3 6 1 2*, Nielsen brings out lots of theose "Nordic" qualities in his music that appeal to my own sensibilities ((Like Sibelius on a pure non intellectual base)
My basic start for whom to listen to is usually Herbert Blomstedt (both his cycles (EMI and Decca) have great qualities!), I've never fallen for Bernstein, I think Vänskä and Michael Schønwandt is to undefined and shallow, I feel that Ole Schmidt has some very good ideas but is marred by sound, I often end up with the old Danish Masters, Erik Tuxen, Thomas Jensen and Launy Grøndahl or Swede Tor Mann for interpretative depth (the last bunch on historical reissues on Danacord that might not be to every ones taste), I have yet to listen to new Alan Gilbert's NYPO cycle on Dacapo but the first CD got some rave reviews locally!

/ptr


----------



## starry

The 4th is the important one.


----------



## joen_cph

starry said:


> The 4th is the important one.


Well, opinions on this will vary. Deryck Cooke called the 5th (1921-1926) the greatest symphony of the 20th Century, and it was conducted by Furtwängler in Frankfurt in 1927 at the ISCM (following talks between Nielsen and Furtwängler), and later in that year also by Monteux in Concertgebouw and Horenstein in Königsberg/Kaliningrad, those conductors immediately acknowledging its importance too.


----------



## starry

I agree opinions vary, though the 4th I think has been the most popular one. The second most popular is likely the 5th and then the 3rd.


----------



## jimsumner

5 is the clear apex for me, followed by 4 as the clear runner-up. I'd finish with 3, 2, 6 and 1 but that's a lot more fluid than the top two, both of which I consider to be masterpieces, whatever that means.


----------



## Vesteralen

Nothing compares with the 5th, in my opinion. After that, I differ from most others in that I enjoy the 3rd more than the 4th.

So, to make a long story short, for my taste it's: 5, 3, 4, 2, 1, 6. I'm starting to like the 6th a little more recently, but 2 through 5 are still the essentials for me.


----------



## Garlic

No one seems to like the 6th as much as me. My ranking would probably be 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 - he started great and just kept getting better.


----------



## neoshredder

I've tried to get into his Symphonies. But I think they are less accessible than Sibelius. He doesn't stick with a melody as long as Sibelius. He might have more in common with Brahms in that category.


----------



## joen_cph

The Finale of the 3rd has a quite grand melody, for example, going through many variations.

Concerning the 6th, it strikes me as a more "conceptual" piece, an assemblage of very diverse moments, seemingly disparate, any musical logic being less prominent ...


----------



## PetrB

neoshredder said:


> I've tried to get into his Symphonies. But I think they are less accessible than Sibelius. He doesn't stick with a melody as long as Sibelius. He might have more in common with Brahms in that category.


Melody, Schmelody ~ by insistently seeking out tunes, you're missing a boodle of tremendous music. I'm sure it is your first preference (i.e. melody) but it should not, really, be your only criterion.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> ...but it should not, really, be your only criterion.


As a pretty consistent rule, any time we see the word "should" it's followed by a value judgment.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> As a pretty consistent rule, any time we see the word "should" it's followed by a value judgment.


_Should, ought_, and the like don't even exist as a remote concept in some languages: in those cultures, you're washing the windows or not washing the windows, period

So how to better the phrasing of an urged suggestion, make it a bit softer and more P.C. -- _*"You might wish to explore adding some other criteria to your mono-list of melody."*_ ???


----------



## starthrower

Shredder, you might want to try Nielsen's concertos for clarinet or flute? Or the wind quintet.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

1,6,2,3,4,5 as that's the way they are ordered in pairings on my shelf ;-)


----------



## jim prideaux

I consider Nielsen to be a great composer-from a purely personal perspective I rate his music but I am often dismayed by how little attention seems to be paid to his third symphony which is the one work of his that I listen to more frequently than any other.....


----------



## tahnak

Svelte Silhouette said:


> 1,6,2,3,4,5 as that's the way they are ordered in pairings on my shelf ;-)


This is my arrangement too.


----------



## Pedro de Alvarado

I love all of them, but the third is probably my favourite. 
I visit Kopenhagen often (relatives live there), and I really associate the output of Mr. Nielsen with those trips. When walking through the streets of Kopenhagen in the evening, I nearly always listen to no. 3 on my mp3-player.


----------



## Orfeo

Vesteralen said:


> Nothing compares with the 5th, in my opinion. After that, I differ from most others in that I enjoy the 3rd more than the 4th.
> 
> So, to make a long story short, for my taste it's: 5, 3, 4, 2, 1, 6. I'm starting to like the 6th a little more recently, but 2 through 5 are still the essentials for me.


I ditto that (though I'll place the Sixth before the First).


----------



## clavichorder

I really like all of his symphonies. I would rank them thusly:

Internally here is how my favorites go at the moment:

6, 3, 4, 1, 2, 5

Here is a compromise:

6, 5, 4, 3, 1, 2. 

Here is what may ultimately happen:

5, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1


6 is really an amazing symphony, so perfect and yet so cutting edge, and I'm not sure why people can't see that about it. But my understanding of the 5th and my feeling for it is underdeveloped, so I hope to find out more about it in due time. And 3 and 4 are both incredibly different; 3 has a certain heart to it that I almost wish to put above 4, but 4 is a very seminal work that shows tremendous evolution of style.

I have nothing against 2, I like it very much, but number 1 really is a very punchy and powerful work. The 1st movement of the 1st has a certain fresh verve to it that is just such a bright start to his career.


----------



## Ukko

I rank them in ascending order 1 - 6.


----------



## Guest

So.

Twenty posts in 2013.

One post (on the first of January) in 2014.

And now two more posts (not counting this one that you're reading), and no one questioning the validity or utility of ranking Nielsen's symphonies in the first place.

And is it just me, or has there been a sharp uptick in resurrected threads recently? Seems half the active threead nowadays are from several years ago. That can't be a good trend.

Anyway, ranking Nielsen's symphonies. Why? What is accomplished by such an exercise? I listen to all six, all the time. They're all different. They're all good. The sixth is probably the one with most complete expression of Nielsen's musical thought, but it's also the last, too, so yeah. There's nothing inevitable or even necessary for getting everything right in your latest works. But it does happen from time to time. You work. You figure things out. You figure more things out.

Well, pushing numbers around seems to be a pleasant occupation for folks, so I'll leave you to it. I prefer listening to music, myself, but that's definitely a minority opinion. I've been a member of several classical music boards over the years, and listening to music comes way down on the list of fun things to do with most other members. It's kind of embarrassing to say that one enjoys listening to music. Social faux pas, ya know? Oh, well. Too late for me to change now.


----------



## Avey

some guy said:


> So.....
> Anyway, ranking Nielsen's symphonies. Why? What is accomplished by such an exercise? I listen to all six, all the time. They're all different. They're all good. The sixth is probably the ....


You are seriously _too much_ -- in a good way! First, you make the obvious complaint you are expected to make: What is the point of ranking/favorites/etc.?

Second, THEN YOU COMMENT ON YOUR PREFERRED!

Third, You are Wrong. :lol: (...first emoji...don't know how I feel about that...

*The Indomitable*. Spare my unnecessary ranking of the rest.


----------



## clavichorder

some guy said:


> And is it just me, or has there been a sharp uptick in resurrected threads recently? Seems half the active threead nowadays are from several years ago. That can't be a good trend.


If you are seeking that sharp sensation of being extremely mad at your computer screen, go edit an article on uncyclopedia and maybe you'll chance on how petty the mods are there. TC may not have a lot of fresh fuel for the fire, but other places sure do.


----------



## starthrower

I rank all of Nielsen's symphonies above some guy's self righteous indignation.


----------



## Guest

Avey said:


> Second, THEN YOU COMMENT ON YOUR PREFERRED!


Well, what I was trying to do was comment on one of them without stating a personal preference. Apparently one of us failed. Either I stated a personal preference or you read my intentionally neutral statement as being not neutral.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> I rank all of Nielsen's symphonies above some guy's self righteous indignation.


You're not being self-righteously indignant about my post, are you?


----------



## joen_cph

Nothing wrong with the occasional resurrection of an old thread, IMO. At times, it provides knowledge on former, interesting posts - or alternatively it can stop too much repetition of already stated views on a given subject.


----------



## Guest

That's why I used the word "trend."

To identify something beyond "the occasional resurrection."


----------



## starthrower

some guy said:


> You're not being self-righteously indignant about my post, are you?


You can't weasel your way out, guy. No, I wouldn't waste my energy. But why the obssesive need to admonish? You know it's futile, but you continue to do so. Correcting people on factual errors or misinformation is one thing, but the incessant condescension directed at members' harmless exchanges is tiresome. Give it up, man. We all know you have better things to offer.


----------



## haydnfan

some guy said:


> I prefer listening to music, myself, but that's definitely a minority opinion.


Yeah that is totally it. Nobody here listens to music. Only you have discovered that it is pleasurable to listen to music. The rest of us came here because we like looking at pictures of composers on wikipedia.


----------



## haydnfan

My favorite symphony is the fifth. For the others I like them all, and unless I'm specifically listening to them can't order them preferentially in my mind. I think there is a really attractive melody in either the first or second symphony that I really like. The sixth symphony, commonly considered his greatest, is actually not my favorite.

Anyway my favorite orchestral work by Nielsen is actually not any of his symphonies... it's his clarinet concerto.


----------



## Ukko

some guy: Oh, well. Too late for me to change now.

There seems to be general. perhaps sentimental support for "It's never too late." In this instance I think you are right. You would need to develop volition first, and you are probably beyond that.

BTW the resurrected threads thing seems to be the result of new members searching for something to post about. My memory span seems to average about 27 seconds nowadays, so it's not a problem for me.


----------



## joen_cph

I´d be surprised to see any statistical evidence for a flood of resurrected threads, not at least if excluding those threads that are meant to be continued ("Latest Purchases" etc.).

When I check the unread posts, very few of the other threads are older than a of couple months 

(currently 6 out of the 50 first ones)

Though a trend can of course also be identified in say 5 or 10 %.


----------

