# Symphonies that "include everything"



## gvn (Dec 14, 2019)

"No! A symphony should be like the world-it should include everything!" said Mahler to Sibelius.

Which individual symphonies really do "include everything" (or at least come closest to doing so)? Which, for instance, encompass the full range of emotions from unmitigated joy to unmitigated sorrow? (unlike, e.g., Hovhaness, in whose world sorrow is rare & always mitigated, or Penderecki, in whose world joy is rare & always mitigated). Which encompass on equal terms the utterly tangible/material and the utterly intangible/mysterious?

My own short list:

1. *Beethoven*: probably all of Nos. 3-9 (but not 1 or 2). Even, e.g., the Pastoral: it appears lightweight, yet it does a remarkably good job of touching all the bases.

2. *Berlioz*: at least the _Symphonie fantastique_.

3. *Mahler*: most, but perhaps not all (not, e.g., No. 7, I think).

4. *Messiaen*: the _Turangalîla-symphonie_ would certainly qualify, IF it's really a symphony at all (which is rather doubtful). And IF so, then also _Des Canyons aux étoiles_ and _Éclairs sur l'au-delà_ (whether or not Messiaen formally _called_ them symphonies, they undoubtedly belong to the same genre as the _Turangalîla_).

Anyone else? Not, I would say, Haydn (the whole body of his symphonies might perhaps "include everything," but no one of them individually does). Not Mozart or Schubert or Brahms or even Bruckner (his universe consists entirely of cathedrals without a single ordinary house or shop or theatre). Nor Mahler's greatest heir, Shostakovich (his world sometimes contains laughter and high spirits, but never any joy). But others might argue against me about these!

And does any composer now (or recently) active "include everything" in any symphony? If so, which? (What about MacMillan's Fifth, for instance? I haven't heard it; am merely responding to descriptions of it.)

NOTE that these are questions about GENRE, not quality. I'm not asking for a list of favorite symphonies or "great" symphonies. (I myself listen to Sibelius at least as often as Mahler!)


----------



## Posauner (Nov 8, 2020)

Tchaikovsky 6 is the first one that came to my mind. I think it does the most abrupt change of gears from the joyful march of the third movement into the heart-rending opening of the finale.


----------



## gvn (Dec 14, 2019)

Dvořák might perhaps also be considered. Even the New World: like the Pastoral, it doesn't make any grand statements, but it gives the impression of encompassing a remarkably diverse range of experiences. (Perhaps even more than Tchaikovsky. Tchaikovsky, like Bernstein, sometimes gives me the impression of living _only_ at the extremes of experience, with nothing much in between.)

Among recent symphonists, what about Rautavaara??


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

George LLoyd's 11th from 1985


----------



## MusicSybarite (Aug 17, 2017)

Nielsen's 2nd Symphony _The Four Temperaments_. I think it covers from deep sadness to sheer exhilaration.


----------



## MusicSybarite (Aug 17, 2017)

Even Nielsen's symphonies 4-6 have a wide range of emotions as well.


----------



## gvn (Dec 14, 2019)

Yes. I've never previously noticed any similarity between them, but I do think Mahler would have recognized Nielsen as a kindred spirit.



Becca said:


> George LLoyd's 11th from 1985


Telepathy. Sheer telepathy. I was just thinking exactly the same thing. And (as with Nielsen) other Lloyd symphonies might also be cited to a greater or lesser extent: the 4th, the 7th, and definitely the _Symphonic Mass_.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

Mahler #3 contains a whole heck of a lot. So much that when I listen I sometimes treat the first movement as its own piece.


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Nicholas Maw's "Odyssey", although not called a symphony, may fit the bill of trying to "include everything". Some professional critics even criticized it for trying to include too much. Personally I find the changes in mood and style more subtle than contrasting, although undoubtedly wide in its range of emotions.

Rautavaara's 6th, 7th and 8th should also fit the bill, ranging from tranquillity to outright horror and a decent amount of things in between.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Bloch's Symphony in C sharp minor. Exuberant, tragically sad, profound dignity - an emotional roller coaster, scored in Mahler's manner that far, far too people have ever heard. A deeply humane symphony.


----------



## Alfacharger (Dec 6, 2013)

Johnny Reinhard edited version of Charles Ives Universe Symphony.


----------



## Helgi (Dec 27, 2019)

You mentioned Sibelius, and to me (at least some of) his symphonies seem to contain the entire universe without _including everything_ like Mahler's.

Would it be too much to say that about Sibelius' 7th?


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Check out Von Hausegger's Nature Symphony. Big range in both sound and emotions. Very lush orchestration. Late romantic and tonally complex.
It takes a while but I've really come to love this obscure piece even though there are few memorable themes. It has these wonderful, fleeting moments of beauty. The 2nd movement is absolutely tremendous. And the ending is rather spectacular as well. It's quite simply a massive symphony, an entire world indeed.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

Myaskovsky's Sixth Symphony comes to mind.
Glazunov's Eighth is worth thinking about.
Rebikov's Esclavage et Liberte for piano.
Bax's Third or Sixth Symphony (perhaps Seventh for that matter).
Bruckner's Eighth.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

The gargantuan "Gothic" symphony, the first symphony by the fascinating English composer Havergal Brian ( 1876-1972 ) is so vast and all encompassing as to bend your mind . And it lasts about one hour and 40 minutes . 
Scored for an even larger orchestra than Schoenberg's Gurrelieder , multiple choruses, children's chorus , vocal soloists , four antiphonal brass bands etc 
It consists of two parts ; a purely orchestral one leading to a setting of the Te Deum . The symphony is meant to evoke thevastness of Europe's mighty Gothic cathedrals , and takes repeated hearings to grasp . 
Because of the vast forces required and the enormous space required for them, there have been only about six ! Live performances so far , and only one studio recording ,on the Naxis label and recorded in of all places, Bratislava, capitol of Slovakia ,conducted by Slovak conductor Ondrej Lenard with the combined forces of the Slovak Philharmonic and Slovak radio orchestra and approximately half the population of Bratislava . 
The most recent recording is a live London recording from Albert Hall with Martyn Brabbins , the BBC symphony and various London choruses . An earlier London performance with Sir Adrian Boult conducting has also been available . You can hear both the Slovak and Boult recordings on youtube .
It's certainly not an easy listening experience but well worth the effort ! Brian's "Gothic " symphony is a work which is not easy to grasp even after repeated hearings . The Boult recording actually comes with the score , which is not easy to read even if you can read music well !


----------



## gvn (Dec 14, 2019)

For that matter, there's Mendelssohn's Second (the _Lobgesang_). I tend to think of Mendelssohn as a composer with a relatively narrow emotional range (like Spohr), but listening again to the _Lobgesang_, I don't think there are too many facets of human experience that aren't included in it. When I consider it from _that_ perspective, for the first time I begin to understand why so many people in Mendelssohn's own day thought it his greatest and most innovative achievement.

In fact, this thread is making me realize that my concept of "including everything" is _itself_ insufficiently all-inclusive -- it needs to be broadened!

Also, that it's an awfully long time since I last listened to some of these things. I fear it may be 20+ years since I last heard Brian's _Gothic_--not even sure where in the house I've filed it. And what about Bloch? Shameful, shameful.


----------



## gvn (Dec 14, 2019)

Orfeo said:


> Myaskovsky's Sixth Symphony comes to mind.
> Glazunov's Eighth is worth thinking about.
> Rebikov's Esclavage et Liberte for piano.
> Bax's Third or Sixth Symphony (perhaps Seventh for that matter).


I just played a little concert consisting of (i) Myaskovsky's 24th cond. Svetlanov (not his 6th, because I realized that I know the 6th well but tend to neglect the later stuff), (ii) Bax's Sixth cond. Del Mar, (iii) Glazunov's Eighth cond. Serebrier.

I found this thread opened new perspectives on the first two.

I was astonished at the richness & diversity of material in Myaskovsky's 24th (even though it's much shorter than his 6th). I've always thought of Myaskovsky as a lesser Shostakovich (paler, lower-key, more subdued). But I now found myself wondering if Shostakovich actually has the narrower emotional range of the two. I don't mean to suggest that Shostakovich is the "lesser" composer--merely that he focusses more intensely on a precisely defined, narrow range of emotions, whereas Myaskovsky probes more broadly and explores a far greater diversity of materials. I think I've been guilty of assuming that M had basically the same goals as S but failed to deliver them as effectively, whereas in reality M had quite different (and perhaps more questingly Mahlerian) goals.

Listening to Bax from this standpoint was also enlightening. I play Bax often but don't fully understand him, don't feel that I quite see his symphonies "in focus." Often he seems to wander about all over the place. But perhaps that's exactly the point. Instead of asking for "focus," perhaps I should let myself drift with the current as it roams broadly over the whole universe and refuses to tidy itself into neat little boxes.

Glazunov, on this occasion, disappointed me--surprisingly, because temperamentally I feel more rapport with his music than with either M's or B's. I think maybe it was a mistake playing him after the others, but also I think I chose the wrong recording--if I wanted to listen for all-inclusiveness, I should have chosen the rough-edged Rozhdestvensky rather than the sleek, suave Serebrier.



Orfeo said:


> Bruckner's Eighth.


Does anyone know what Mahler thought of Bruckner's symphonies? Obviously he used them as a springboard, but did he consider himself (e.g.) as following in Bruckner's steps, or as doing what Bruckner ought to have done but didn't? (I can easily imagine him taking either view, or even both!)


----------



## gvn (Dec 14, 2019)

Helgi said:


> You mentioned Sibelius, and to me (at least some of) his symphonies seem to contain the entire universe without _including everything_ like Mahler's.
> 
> Would it be too much to say that about Sibelius' 7th?


I'm already starting to think two things.

(i) Sibelius reported their famous conversation as if he & Mahler were polar opposites: he wanted a symphony to be totally unified, integrated, internally coherent, whereas Mahler wanted to bring in as many disparate things as possible. But were they really opposites? Couldn't Sibelius have replied, "But my dear Mahler, my symphonies _are_ like the world, they _do_ include everything--because, fundamentally, everything in the universe is unified. Superficially the trumpet and the piccolo and the bass viol may seem very different, but fundamentally they are woven out of the same elementary particles and they emit the same stuff--sound waves. Everything in the universe has far more kinship than disparity!"

(ii) It's evident from Sibelius's testimony that Mahler's remark stuck deep in his mind. Did it perhaps influence the course of his later music--so that, without in any way giving up his search for total unification, total integration, total monothematicism, he strove to make it a more all-inclusive unification, integration, monothematicism? Think of the 5th, the 6th, the 7th. And then think of Tapiola, which is in so many ways the culmination of his method, the closest thing we'll ever get to Sibelius's 8th. Think how many different moods & colors are embraced in its compact monothematicism!


----------



## Pauli91FIN (Jan 15, 2020)

Beethoven: 9
Mahler: almost all
Shostakovich: 5
Tchaikovsky: 5 and 6

I also think that Sibelius adopted a more "Mahlerian approach" in his later symphonies. My personal favorite from him might be the deeply melancholic number 4.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Alfred Schnittke No.1


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Here's a link to a standard American symphony (!!!) that, when in full performance, includes even the kitchen sink:

https://american-standard.kitchen-faucet.org/symphony-single-handle-pull-down.html

Can't say I ever heard it, though.


----------



## MrMeatScience (Feb 15, 2015)

gvn said:


> Does anyone know what Mahler thought of Bruckner's symphonies? Obviously he used them as a springboard, but did he consider himself (e.g.) as following in Bruckner's steps, or as doing what Bruckner ought to have done but didn't? (I can easily imagine him taking either view, or even both!)


They had a bit of a weird relationship. Bruckner did have Mahler do the piano transcription of his Third Symphony (I'm pretty sure it was that one, not checking myself) while he was a student. Mahler thought highly of him but turned a very critical eye towards his work. When Mahler conducted Bruckner he made many many changes to the score, including some pretty sweeping architectural changes, such as in the Fourth. Funnily when Mahler wrote his Fifth he cited Bruckner as his predecessor for the triumphal chorale passages, which Alma took a lot of umbrage with, since she saw it as untrue to Mahler's character. There's an interesting article by Benjamin Korstvedt from a few years ago where he argues Mahler's revisions of Bruckner reveal what Harold Bloom would have called the "anxiety of influence." Mahler seemed to place himself as a successor to Bruckner when it suited him but was quick to distance himself on other occasions.


----------



## Fredrikalansson (Jan 29, 2019)

I suspect it's easier to write a massive Mahlerian work and say it includes everything than to write a more concentrated Sibelian work in which everything has been distilled. Sibelius 7th is a case in point. I think it contains more of human perception than any Mahler symphony. 

An example of both in a single composer: Vaughan-Williams first version of the London Symphony was a more sprawling work than we know today. His Sea Symphony was as all encompassing as Whitman's poetry. But he seems to have moved from the Mahlerian to the Sibelian model. I think RVW's 6th and 9th are distilled metaphysical experiences.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

gvn said:


> I just played a little concert consisting of (i) Myaskovsky's 24th cond. Svetlanov (not his 6th, because I realized that I know the 6th well but tend to neglect the later stuff), (ii) Bax's Sixth cond. Del Mar, (iii) Glazunov's Eighth cond. Serebrier.
> 
> I found this thread opened new perspectives on the first two.
> 
> ...



After listening to most of Myaskovsky's music, I must conclude that its emotional range is not a bit narrower than Shostakovich's. Just vastly different personalities.
Bax, and Glazunov for that matter, reveal their secrets slowly, but very keen structurally. I don't find Bax's music as wandering about all over the place, but it does have a very wide range of emotions to offer.
Mahler did refer Bruckner as half-god, half simpleton. He deeply admired Bruckner during his younger years, but kind of outgrew him as he was getting older.


----------



## gvn (Dec 14, 2019)

Orfeo said:


> After listening to most of Myaskovsky's music, I must conclude that its emotional range is not a bit narrower than Shostakovich's. Just vastly different personalities.


Yes, I've been too inclined to group them together. Since writing my previous post, I've listened to Myaskovsky's 21st-27th in sequence over 3 evenings, and that has strengthened my impression of very rich emotional diversity in his work.



Orfeo said:


> Bax, and Glazunov for that matter, reveal their secrets slowly, but very keen structurally. I don't find Bax's music as wandering about all over the place, but it does have a very wide range of emotions to offer.


I'm _quite_ sure that my feeling about Bax "wandering" must be fundamentally wrong somewhere. When I sit down and examine his work closely, one of the things that strikes me is that there's actually a very highly organized structural core embedded inside every one of his symphonies. There's at least as much head (and backbone!) in them as heart.


----------



## gvn (Dec 14, 2019)

starthrower said:


> Alfred Schnittke No.1


Are there symphonists currently active who aim to "include everything" (in either the massive Mahlerian fashion or the distilled Sibelian fashion)? Lots of inventive things seem to be happening in that field, especially in Baltic/Nordic/Eastern European countries.


----------



## Simon23 (Dec 8, 2020)

It seems to me, Sibelius 5th.


----------



## Alfacharger (Dec 6, 2013)

gvn said:


> Are there symphonists currently active who aim to "include everything" (in either the massive Mahlerian fashion or the distilled Sibelian fashion)? Lots of inventive things seem to be happening in that field, especially in Baltic/Nordic/Eastern European countries.


Maybe Jack Gallagher....


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Fredrikalansson said:


> I suspect it's easier to write a massive Mahlerian work and say it includes everything than to write a more concentrated Sibelian work in which everything has been distilled. Sibelius 7th is a case in point. I think it contains more of human perception than any Mahler symphony.
> 
> ...


My thinking, exactly. Which is why I immediately thought of the Brian _Gothic_ Symphony. Which, after a moment of reflection, is probably more "brouhaha" than world-full-of-life-experiences.

Which brought me round to a saner choice, and the only one that really makes a lot of sense to me, Schubert's _Unfinished_ Symphony, No. 8. For what "includes everything" more than a musical depiction of the heart and soul of Mankind? Where "heart" may be read as the physical, and "soul" as the spiritual, intellectual, consciousness, whatever.

It's not really an irony that the _Unfinished_ is truly complete. I've long suspected that Schubert himself realized the symphony said everything in those two concise and poignant movements, making anything additional an unnecessary redundancy at best. The _Unfinished_ is the one "unfinished" work for which I've never craved to hear a finished version. (While I actually appreciate the finished, completed version of Mahler's Tenth!)

Which may also explain why I've never taken to Schubert's "Great Ninth", a symphony so full of stuff it reeks of overblown redundancy and distills down to so little substance. For what could follow that great Eighth? Even from the pen of Schubert, for whom I have unmitigated respect and admiration.

Though I count Schubert's lovely Mozartian-styled Fifth as my favorite Schubert symphony, the Eighth is in a universe of its own, a work of such substance and depth that it seems to be the single most important truly significant Schubert work amongst a plethora of highly important and significant Schubert works.

Is it the Symphony that "includes everything"? To my ears, yes. And to my heart and soul as well.


----------

