# The Greatest Symphonist of all Time?



## Klassic

How can anyone really compete with Mahler here. Does anyone disagree?


----------



## Art Rock

Define "greatest".......

Personal favourite is Mahler.


----------



## DavidA

Klassic said:


> Come on, how can anyone really compete with Mahler here. Does anyone disagree?


Ever hear of a guy called Beethoven? And there was one before him named W A Mozart. And not forgetting Poppa Haydn! Actually there are a number of other symphonists I would put before Mahler including Bruckner.


----------



## Klassic

Art Rock said:


> Define "greatest".......


Brought the form to its highest potential. But there are more ways of calculating greatness, one could speak of the fluidity between movements, progression of themes... There are even definitions beyond this. Maybe someone else thinks that Mahler was not the greatest symphonist due to ulterior considerations: excellent, I would love to hear.


----------



## Strange Magic

A) All Time hasn't ended yet. There's more to go (come).
B) I have no tool that accurately measures greatness but I do like all four of Brahms' symphonies a whole lot, and about equally. He goes to bat 4 times; hits 4 home runs, bats 1,000. Beethoven right behind him.


----------



## Klassic

DavidA said:


> Ever hear of a guy called Beethoven? And there was one before him named W A Mozart. And not forgetting Poppa Haydn! Actually there are a number of other symphonists I would put before Mahler including Bruckner.


Haydn is a minimalist compared to Mahler. Beethoven and Bruckner are excellent suggestions. I see Beethoven as pushing the symphony to its full potential; I see Mahler as a master practitioner of that potential.


----------



## Barbebleu

I would have to include Shostakovich in my favourite symphonists.


----------



## Dawood

Strange Magic said:


> A) All Time hasn't ended yet. There's more to go (come).
> B) I have no tool that accurately measures greatness but I do like all four of Brahms' symphonies a whole lot, and about equally. He goes to bat 4 times; hits 4 home runs, bats 1,000. Beethoven right behind him.


Now there's a baseball team!

I reckon folk would probably end up intentionally walking Brahms, but then right up next you've got Beethoven. He is such a dangerous hitter - frequently knocks it right out of the park. For me the money is on Sibelius - one of the great sluggers. A real clutch composer.


----------



## Strange Magic

Dawood said:


> Now there's a baseball team!
> 
> I reckon folk would probably end up intentionally walking Brahms, but then right up next you've got Beethoven. He is such a dangerous hitter - frequently knocks it right out of the park. For me the money is on Sibelius - one of the great sluggers. A real clutch composer.


Brahms, Beethoven, Sibelius: what a lineup! Manager also eyeing Prokofiev.....


----------



## DavidA

Klassic said:


> Haydn is a minimalist compared to Mahler. Beethoven and Bruckner are excellent suggestions. I see Beethoven as pushing the symphony to its full potential; I see Mahler as a master practitioner of that potential.


Yes and David was a minimalist compared to Goliath!


----------



## poconoron

Greatest? Well, my favorites in order:

Beethoven
Haydn
Mozart
Brahms
Schubert


----------



## MarkW

I would not want to be without many of Mahler's (but not all). But neither would I want to be without all of Brahms' and most of Beethoven's.


----------



## Cosmos

Repeating what others have said: can't say of all time, but I will also agree saying Mahler is my favorite symphonist of all time. I think that Mahler's symphonies came at the end of a rising era and became the pinnacle of what symphonies can do, and what a symphony is. Just after Mahler we get the meta-musical reactions to the symphony [the example that comes to mind is Webern's Symphony op. 21].

Of course, that might be overstating on my part, as well as imposing a historic narrative that ignores nuance. Really, it is only me justifying why I would say Mahler is the greatest, and I pick him over Beethoven because of personal preference.

As I'm typing, I think of how even though Beethoven invented the concept of what a symphony is, as in what we think of when we hear "symphony", I think Mahler pushed those limits


----------



## DavidA

I


Cosmos said:


> Repeating what others have said: can't say of all time, but I will also agree saying Mahler is my favorite symphonist of all time. I think that Mahler's symphonies came at the end of a rising era and became the pinnacle of what symphonies can do, and what a symphony is. Just after Mahler we get the meta-musical reactions to the symphony [the example that comes to mind is Webern's Symphony op. 21].
> 
> Of course, that might be overstating on my part, as well as imposing a historic narrative that ignores nuance. Really, it is only me justifying why I would say Mahler is the greatest, and I pick him over Beethoven because of personal preference.
> 
> As I'm typing, I think of how even though *Beethoven invented the concept of what a symphony is,* as in what we think of when we hear "symphony", I think Mahler pushed those limits


It was Haydn who really first developed the symphony as a form.


----------



## Klassic

DavidA said:


> It was Haydn who really first developed the symphony as a form.


*Cosmos* may have meant something different here, something less literal.


----------



## Cosmos

DavidA said:


> It was Haydn who really first developed the symphony as a form.





Klassic said:


> *Cosmos* may have meant something different here, something less literal.


I did mean less literal. Yes, Haydn developed the form, but Beethoven conceived the "idea" of what a symphony is, and what a symphony can do. Mozart was pushing toward it also, but he did not live long enough to realize it. What I mean is how the Beethoven Symphony contrast within movements, and contrasts between movements, but also realizes a coherent structure and feeling of unity between them all, like each movement carries equal weight with the rest of the work, and is connected thematically somehow.

Not sure if that reads well, i'm in a bit of a rush at the moment


----------



## manyene

Haydn's, for sheer quantity, variety, and its development, from the First right through to the 104th. His successors were standing on the giant's shoulders.


----------



## hpowders

Picking only one? Haydn.


----------



## Guest

Currently the symphonies I enjoy the most are those by Brahms, Bruckner and Coates. But, as ever, I reject "greatest" - I concur I believe with Woody Allen: art is subjective and cannot be played off against each other in order to create hierarchies (and hence any "greatest").


----------



## scratchgolf

Cosmos said:


> I did mean less literal. Yes, Haydn developed the form, but Beethoven conceived the "idea" of what a symphony is, and what a symphony can do. Mozart was pushing toward it also, but he did not live long enough to realize it. What I mean is how the Beethoven Symphony contrast within movements, and contrasts between movements, but also realizes a coherent structure and feeling of unity between them all, like each movement carries equal weight with the rest of the work, and is connected thematically somehow.
> 
> Not sure if that reads well, i'm in a bit of a rush at the moment


Well said and I completely agree. I also happen to think Dvorak has the most consistent symphonic output, as far as composers with 5 or more symphonies. My experience may not be all encompassing but it's genuine. I say 5 or more because that purposely excludes Brahms. Voting for Brahms would be like saying Beethoven was the most consistent opera composer.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

I'll go with Mahler as well. Each of his symphonies are like its own universe, seemingly infinite in their breadth and depth. As much as I adore and respect Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, et al., their best sound more like planets by comparison. If I were to do a top 10: 

1. Mahler
2. Beethoven
3. Mozart
4. Haydn
5. Brahms
6. Sibelius
7. Bruckner
8. Schumann
9. Nielsen
10. Shostakovich


----------



## tdc

While I don't think a concept like "greatest" can be established _precisely_, I do think that stronger arguments can be made for certain composers. Without a doubt very strong arguments could be made for Beethoven and Mahler. Sibelius and Haydn - also pretty great.

That said, at the moment these are my favorites:

Brahms
Ives
Mozart
Prokofiev

Since I haven't brought them up in a while Schubert 9 and Rach 3 are two individual symphonies I really enjoy.


----------



## Polyphemus

There is no Greatest symphonist. 
Most of us in here could provide a list of their top 10, 20 or even 50 composers and I doubt if any two lists would be identical.
How do you define greatest, is it not another word for the one I like most.

I don't think there are any rules or parameters which dictate what a symphony should be, how many movements and the structure is far from constant . I do know the composers I like best and play most often and I am sure that the same applies to you all but does that give us the right to pronounce one of them as the greatest, I think not.


----------



## DaveM

Mahler's symphonies are regal creations and unique in their originality for the time period in which they were composed.

Brahm's symphonies are magnificent achievements considering the fact that their construct does not appear to have been particularly influenced by composers that preceded him (Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven) or that were (or almost were) contemporaries (such as Schumann).

But, IMO, Beethoven has to be number one and I would say that it's not even close. He composed nine uniquely different symphonies and a case could be made for one or more of symphonies 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 being considered number one all time depending on the criteria one might choose to use: originality ('#3 and #9), beauty (#6 and #9), popularity (#5 and #9) etc.


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

My personal pick is Beethoven.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Webern .


----------



## joen_cph

Mahler & Bruckner on a par for me.

Maybe 10-15 composers in a second row.


----------



## Barbebleu

Need to add Sibelius and Nielsen to the list of great symphonists.


----------



## bharbeke

Haydn wrote the most symphonies that I like, and he pioneered the format.

In terms of "batting average," Mendelssohn and Brahms are among the best.


----------



## isorhythm

1. Beethoven
2. Mahler
3. Brahms


----------



## EdwardBast

DavidA said:


> I
> 
> It was Haydn who really first developed the symphony as a form.


This simply isn't true. He is the earliest symphonist the majority of listeners still care about today, which is a very different thing.


----------



## Morimur

There are too many great symphonists. Two I am partial to: Beethoven and Mahler.


----------



## drnlaw

Klassic said:


> How can anyone really compete with Mahler here. Does anyone disagree?


Not me! But I imagine you'll get a little bit of flak from some. I have music loving friends who write Mahler off as simply a bombastic narcissist.


----------



## drnlaw

Cosmos said:


> Repeating what others have said: can't say of all time, but I will also agree saying Mahler is my favorite symphonist of all time. I think that Mahler's symphonies came at the end of a rising era and became the pinnacle of what symphonies can do, and what a symphony is. Just after Mahler we get the meta-musical reactions to the symphony [the example that comes to mind is Webern's Symphony op. 21].
> 
> Of course, that might be overstating on my part, as well as imposing a historic narrative that ignores nuance. Really, it is only me justifying why I would say Mahler is the greatest, and I pick him over Beethoven because of personal preference.
> 
> As I'm typing, I think of how even though Beethoven invented the concept of what a symphony is, as in what we think of when we hear "symphony", I think Mahler pushed those limits


I agree. I look at Mahler as the pinnacle of symphonic music, the very top of a bell curve.


----------



## Blancrocher

Beethoven is obviously the greatest symphonist of all time (though he's currently my personal #4)


----------



## Klassic

drnlaw said:


> Not me! But I imagine you'll get a little bit of flak from some. I have music loving friends who write Mahler off as simply a bombastic narcissist.


Nothing wrong with being a bombastic narcissist, just so long as one is a genius like Beethoven or Mahler. Thank goodness these fellas were bombastic! Your friends are missing the point: they need more bombastic narcissism in their lives. There is nothing wrong with bombastic narcissism in the context of music.


----------



## GreenMamba

I think bombastic is, by definition, a bad thing.


----------



## Mahlerian

drnlaw said:


> Not me! But I imagine you'll get a little bit of flak from some. I have music loving friends who write Mahler off as simply a bombastic narcissist.


You have music loving friends who don't know very much about Mahler.


----------



## DaveM

Blancrocher said:


> Beethoven is obviously the greatest symphonist of all time (though he's currently my personal #4)


IMO, that is the best perspective in answering the question posed by the OP ie. distinguishing between the greatest and one's personal or present favorite. If the two are the same then great, but that doesn't mean they have to be.


----------



## Klassic

Mahlerian said:


> You have music loving friends who don't know very much about Mahler.


Mahlerian is correct here. Mahler was actually the opposite of a narcissist, and I suppose we would say his music is _powerful_ as opposed to _bombastic_. Maybe someone else can think of a better word?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> distinguishing between the greatest and one's personal or present favorite.


Unless you're defining "greatest" as "most influential," which, though it is an objective criteria, is very difficult to precisely quantify, then the only difference between "greatest" and "favorite" is that the former is a consensus based on many people's favorites.


----------



## Klassic

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Unless you're defining "greatest" as "most influential," which, though it is an objective criteria, is very difficult to precisely quantify, then the only difference between "greatest" and "favorite" is that the former is a consensus based on many people's favorites.


I _tried_ to define this early on in the thread: _'Brought the form to its highest potential. But there are more ways of calculating greatness, one could speak of the fluidity between movements, progression of themes... There are even definitions beyond this.'_


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Klassic said:


> I _tried_ to define this early on in the thread: _'Brought the form to its highest potential. But there are more ways of calculating greatness, one could speak of the fluidity between movements, progression of themes... There are even definitions beyond this.'_


Yes, but those are just subjective criteria, and for any such criteria you could name you could find others creating different criteria. That you may find a great many to agree with such criteria doesn't make them objective, any more than agreeing on the rules to a game makes the rules objective (it's always possible to simply change them). Normally I don't concern myself with this rather cliched distinction, but when someone else mentions the distinction between "greatest" and "personal favorite," it's useful to remind (or inform) people that the difference is only one of agreeing on subjective criteria (greatest) VS your own subjective criteria (favorite), not one of subjectivity (favorite) VS objectivity (greatest).


----------



## Mahlerian

Klassic said:


> Mahlerian is correct here. Mahler was actually the opposite of a narcissist, and I suppose we would say his music is _powerful_ as opposed to _bombastic_. Maybe someone else can think of a better word?


Dramatic? Imposing? Full of contrast, shade, and color?

Bombast literally means empty, high-flown rhetoric, but it's somehow taken on another connotation of anything that uses high-flown rhetoric or loud flourishes regardless of the amount of substance involved.


----------



## Klassic

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Yes, but those are just subjective criteria, and for any such criteria you could name you could find others creating different criteria. That you may find a great many to agree with such criteria doesn't make them objective, any more than agreeing on the rules to a game makes the rules objective (it's always possible to simply change them). Normally I don't concern myself with this rather cliched distinction, but when someone else mentions the distinction between "greatest" and "personal favorite," it's useful to remind (or inform) people that the difference is only one of agreeing on subjective criteria (greatest) VS your own subjective criteria (favorite), not one of subjectivity (favorite) VS objectivity (greatest).


I concede. I cannot say Mahler was the greatest symphonist of all time, but I can say he was one of the greatest symphonists of all time. And if there is such a thing as, "greatest symphonists of all time," then we can make a _distinction_ between a "great symphonist" and a "mediocre" or "poor symphonist." Mahler was one of the greatest symphonists of all time, at least this much is not subjective.


----------



## sosophisticated

I think Jimi Hendrix was the best.


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> ...it's useful to remind (or inform) people that the difference is only one of agreeing on subjective criteria (greatest) VS your own subjective criteria (favorite), not one of subjectivity (favorite) VS objectivity (greatest).


If one agrees with that premise as absolute which I don't. When some one gives their opinion, unless one gives specifics, you don't know whether they are using subjective or objective criteria. Besides, IMO, the above is in the realm of nitpicking.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Klassic said:


> How can anyone really compete with Mahler here. Does anyone disagree?


*The Greatest Symphonist of all Time?*
You should retitle this thread simply "Beethoven".
I think even Mahler would agree.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> If one agrees with that premise as absolute which I don't. When some one gives their opinion, unless one gives specifics, you don't know whether they are using subjective or objective criteria. Besides, IMO, the above is in the realm of nitpicking.


There are no objective criteria, only objective qualities that we agree upon as being criteria to begin with. If everyone suddenly decided that music that caused great mental distress was the criteria for greatness, we'd have a very different canon that what we currently have; and there's nothing objective preventing us from having that criteria. In fact, many people probably do (see genres like noise rock and death metal).


----------



## ArtMusic

Klassic said:


> How can anyone really compete with Mahler here. Does anyone disagree?


I would consider Haydn as the greatest symphonist.


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> There are no objective criteria, only objective qualities that we agree upon as being criteria to begin with.


A distinction without a difference.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Unless you're defining "greatest" as "most influential," which, though it is an objective criteria, is very difficult to precisely quantify, .


I'm interested .... how could 'most influential' be an 'objective' criteria?

How could one demonstrate 'objectively' that a particular composer had been influenced more (or less) by any one of a variety of preceding composers? Surely one would have to rely on opinion here - and hence it would be stretching it to call the process 'objective'?


----------



## Headphone Hermit

sosophisticated said:


> I think Jimi Hendrix was the best.


Now, that is a 'sosophisticated' post - erm, perhaps only in one manner


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> A distinction without a difference.


Not so! See Hamlet: "nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so." There's a difference between a quality itself, and our agreement that we use that quality as a criteria for judgment.



Headphone Hermit said:


> I'm interested .... how could 'most influential' be an 'objective' criteria?
> 
> How could one demonstrate 'objectively' that a particular composer had been influenced more (or less) by any one of a variety of preceding composers? Surely one would have to rely on opinion here - and hence it would be stretching it to call the process 'objective'?


In the abstract it's objective in that composers are influenced by other composers, and influenced more by some than others. In practice, we're just left guessing at quantifying that influence. We can make educated guesses based on how similar their music is to their predecessors, and what they might have said about them, but that's about it. It's why I said that it's difficult to quantify in practice. But being difficult to quantify doesn't impact its objective status. In general, it gives us more of a basis to form an objective ranking, if only because it is objective and we often have evidence to go on, than other criteria which aren't objective at all.

To use an analogy, you may see an object in the distance. Your distance from that object is an objective measurement; you may not know what, exactly, the measurement is, but you may be able to make an educated guess based on your knowledge of distances. Your inability to be precise, though, doesn't affect whether or not the distance is objective or not. On the other hand, whether you think that object is good or bad is not and cannot be objective, even if everyone else agrees with you.


----------



## DaveM

I think you will feel at home in the tonal vs atonal discussions.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> I think you will feel at home in the tonal vs atonal discussions.


Considering my relative lack of knowledge when it comes to music theory, I highly doubt that! I am, however, enjoying reading from people that do know what they're talking about.


----------



## Truckload

scratchgolf said:


> Well said and I completely agree. I also happen to think Dvorak has the most consistent symphonic output, as far as composers with 5 or more symphonies. My experience may not be all encompassing but it's genuine. I say 5 or more because that purposely excludes Brahms. Voting for Brahms would be like saying Beethoven was the most consistent opera composer.


Got a real chuckle out of that Beethoven remark! Also I agree about Dvorak.


----------



## drnlaw

Mahlerian said:


> You have music loving friends who don't know very much about Mahler.


Das ist zehr true!


----------



## drnlaw

Mahlerian said:


> Dramatic? Imposing? Full of contrast, shade, and color?


All of that!

Why must one write at least 15 characters to be able to post a message? Sometimes more is less.

However, I cheerfully abide the tyranny of the electron.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Eva Yojimbo said:


> In the abstract it's objective in that composers are influenced by other composers, and influenced more by some than others. In practice, we're just left guessing at quantifying that influence. We can make educated guesses based on how similar their music is to their predecessors, and what they might have said about them, but that's about it. It's why I said that it's difficult to quantify in practice. But being difficult to quantify doesn't impact its objective status. In general, it gives us more of a basis to form an objective ranking, if only because it is objective and we often have evidence to go on, than other criteria which aren't objective at all.


Your appear to understand of objectivity in a manner that is different from the one that is commonly used in contexts such as this. In terms of epistemology (with reference especially to research methodology), what you describe is not 'objective' - it is 'subjective'. The fact that you can attribute a measurement to it does not, in itself, make this an 'objective' measure - especially, as you rightly point out, because this is just a guess.

The analogy you use is not relevant to the context of 'most influential'. A composer (say one active in the 1960s) could be expected to have been 'influenced' by a very wide range of other composers. It is reasonable to suppose that some may have been more influential than others. It is reasonable to suppose that some may have had a direct, first-hand experience through direct contact with their works whilst others would have a less-direct impact (for example 'A' influences 'B' who then in turn is one of the influences on 'C' although 'C' has had little direct contact with 'A'.) It is reasonable to suppose that a composer may emulate some aspects of a predecessor (and thus be influenced by them) and it is also reasonable to suppose that a composer may wish to avoid those aspects of a predecessor (and thus be 'influenced' by them in a different direction). Determining what to attribute to 'most influential' is thus clearly a subjective (albeit, informed) judgement - and therefore is not 'objective' in any meaningful sense.


----------



## Howling Moon

Brahms went four for four, and sixteen for sixteen in terms of movements. I'm not calling him the greatest, but I am suggesting that he consistently touched heaven in his symphonic writing (and most everything else, as he destroyed anything he felt was second-rate).


----------



## Truckload

Howling Moon said:


> Brahms went four for four, and sixteen for sixteen in terms of movements. I'm not calling him the greatest, but I am suggesting that he consistently touched heaven in his symphonic writing (and most everything else, as he destroyed anything he felt was second-rate).


In my orchestration class in college, the professor always used examples from Schumann and Brahms as examples of bad orchestration. I personally am not sure if he was completely correct, as Brahms had the chance to hear his symphonies performed and could have made changes if he desired, but he did not.

This was particularly interesting at the time (the 1970's) as my musicology professor (a declared hater of Wagner) put Brahms up there with Bach and Beethoven as one of the top three composers of all time.


----------



## Cosmos

Truckload said:


> In my orchestration class in college, the professor always used examples from Schumann and Brahms as examples of bad orchestration. I personally am not sure if he was completely correct, as Brahms had the chance to hear his symphonies performed and could have made changes if he desired, but he did not.
> 
> This was particularly interesting at the time (the 1970's) as my musicology professor (a declared hater of Wagner) put Brahms up there with Bach and Beethoven as one of the top three composers of all time.


I'm interested in what your professor found issue with in those composer's symphonies


----------



## Howling Moon

Who were the examples of good orchestration?


----------



## EdwardBast

Isn't it wonderful that there are so many great symphonists? We are all exceedingly lucky to be living in this best of all possible worlds.


----------



## Truckload

Howling Moon said:


> Who were the examples of good orchestration?


Examples of good orchestration he used in class included Tchaikovsky, Richard Strauss, Dvorak, and Rimsky-Korsakov. That was not meant to be an all inclusive list, just the examples used in class.

For the final, we had to listen to a 1 minute orchestral excerpt and write down as much as we could onto sheet music. It was a 90 minute test, and he would replay the 1 minute excerpt every 15 minutes. I was very lucky that it was from Tchaikovsky Waltz of the Flowers. A piece that we had to transcribe from the orchestra down to a piano transcription for homework just the previous week. So I could almost see it in my head without even hearing it. The students who did the homework were OK. The ones who didn't do the homework, did not do so well.

The week before that we had to take a section of a Beethoven Piano Sonata and transcribe for orchestra. That was fun.


----------



## Blancrocher

Howling Moon said:


> he destroyed anything he felt was second-rate).


Well, I certainly _hope_ it was second-rate! I'm not sure I trust him :lol:


----------



## Klassic

EdwardBast said:


> Isn't it wonderful that there are so many great symphonists? We are all exceedingly lucky to be living in this best of all possible worlds.


Someone needs to read Voltaire's Candide. Leibniz was a delusional person. But yes, on a different level I agree; we are very lucky to be living in a time filled with so much quality music.


----------



## Mahlerian

Klassic said:


> Someone needs to read Voltaire's Candide. Leibniz was a delusional person. But yes, on a different level I agree; we are very lucky to be living in a time filled with so much quality music.


Leibniz's argument was the rational conclusion reached by following his premises to their conclusions. We would do better to reject his premises (as nearly all do today) than criticize his logical facility.


----------



## Klassic

Mahlerian said:


> Leibniz's argument was the rational conclusion reached by following his premises to their conclusions. We would do better to reject his premises (as nearly all do today) than criticize his logical facility.


Delusional people believe delusional premises. He was very skilled in logic though.


----------



## Truckload

Cosmos said:


> I'm interested in what your professor found issue with in those composer's symphonies


Pretty much standard stuff. Are you familiar with the overtone series? The theory of good orchestration (at least at that time) was that to avoid a muddy sound there should not be any notes closer together than about a fifth from the G3 downward and nothing closer together than an octave from about B3 downward.

Other characteristics of good orchestration include

1) properly balancing foreground, background and middle ground elements so that minimal adjustment in dynamics is needed by the conductor - this is harder to do than one might imagine
2) using the orchestra to create a variety of tone colors within a work to add interest
3) creating individual parts for each section and player that are interesting and challenging (but not ridiculously hard
4) use the orchestra to accurately convey the composer's intentions (or yours if you are the composer and not an arranger)


----------



## Klassic

Truckload said:


> Pretty much standard stuff. Are you familiar with the overtone series? The theory of good orchestration (at least at that time) was that to avoid a muddy sound there should not be any notes closer together than about a fifth from the G3 downward and nothing closer together than an octave from about B3 downward.
> 
> Other characteristics of good orchestration include
> 
> 1) properly balancing foreground, background and middle ground elements so that minimal adjustment in dynamics is needed by the conductor - this is harder to do than one might imagine
> 2) using the orchestra to create a variety of tone colors within a work to add interest
> 3) creating individual parts for each section and player that are interesting and challenging (but not ridiculously hard
> 4) use the orchestra to accurately convey the composer's intentions (or yours if you are the composer and not an arranger)


No wonder I've never heard of your professor.


----------



## Truckload

Klassic said:


> No wonder I've never heard of your professor.


Perhaps you will share with us your definition of good orchestration?


----------



## Klassic

Truckload said:


> Perhaps you will share with us your definition of good orchestration?


Respighi, Sibelius, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky.


----------



## Chordalrock

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Not so! See Hamlet: "nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so."


Like all labels, 'good' is a label that applies better to some things than to other things.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> There's a difference between a quality itself, and our agreement that we use that quality as a criteria for judgment.


Some agreements make more sense than others.


----------



## Truckload

Klassic said:


> Respighi, Sibelius, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky.


I agree that all on your list are really good at getting the most out of the orchestra. In that regard I particularly admire Respighi. The list I gave were just examples, not intended to be all inclusive.


----------



## Klassic

Truckload said:


> I agree that all on your list are really good at getting the most out of the orchestra. In that regard I particularly admire Respighi. The list I gave were just examples, not intended to be all inclusive.


Truckload, looking back on my comments I think they were a bit out of place. You were explaining your professor's position, also you were kind enough to share what your professor said, which makes for a compelling thread. Thanks.


----------



## tdc

I've heard Beethoven's orchestration described as 'utilitarian', or 'not exceptional', though some say his orchestration was excellent when proper instruments from his time period are used. I haven't seen too much criticism of Brahms in this area before. 

I'm starting to agree with some guy on this topic who suggested 'orchestration' is quite tied up into the actual composition, so it becomes a difficult thing to separate. Sure there are some stand out composers like Ravel, but the neat orchestration was part of his style, and he certainly did not compose like Brahms. 

Regardless, when it comes to weighing how good I think a symphony is, the orchestration is not nearly as important as things like the notes, harmonies and rhythms. Personally I do think of Brahms as a great symphonist and I've never had a problem with his orchestration.


----------



## KenOC

tdc, I suspect I'm the one who described Beethoven's orchestration as "utilitarian." But it certainly _does _work, eh? I mean, the thought of Beethoven sounding like Rimsky-Korsakov is frightening.


----------



## Martyn Harper

1. Beethoven 

2. Mahler
3. Shostakovich

I have a great admiration for the symphonies of Vaughan Williams but they cannot be put on a par with Beethoven.


----------



## nina foresti

Mahler, Beethoven, Shostakovich in that order.

Wm.Schuman's 3rd Symphony and Hindemith's Symphony in E flat are both works that nobody talks about and I believe to be superb and sorely neglected works.


----------



## Pugg

Mahler, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky .


----------



## dsphipps100

I would have to list Mahler as the heavy hitter on this "team". When the bases are loaded, you're down by three, there's two outs, and it's full count, Mahler'll knock it clean outta the park.


----------



## Truckload

Beethoven was actually a very adventurous and skilled orchestrator for his time. Valves for brass instruments had yet to be invented, so the impact he achieved with the brass section is particularly remarkable. 

In the 6th symphony he creates a thunderstorm effect and bird sounds. Also in the 6th the woodwinds become equal partners with the string section. All very exciting uses of the orchestra.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Headphone Hermit said:


> Your appear to understand of objectivity in a manner that is different from the one that is commonly used in contexts such as this. In terms of epistemology (with reference especially to research methodology), what you describe is not 'objective' - it is 'subjective'. The fact that you can attribute a measurement to it does not, in itself, make this an 'objective' measure - especially, as you rightly point out, because this is just a guess.


I think, perhaps, you misunderstood me. It's not the measurement or guess that's objective or that makes it so, rather it's the actual distance that is objective, meaning that there is a physically existing space between you and the object that exists independent of your thoughts about it. The ability to measure that distance is a way in which we model what exists objectively. That measurement will not change no matter what you or anyone else thinks about it.



Headphone Hermit said:


> The analogy you use is not relevant to the context of 'most influential'. A composer (say one active in the 1960s) could be expected to have been 'influenced' by a very wide range of other composers. It is reasonable to suppose that some may have been more influential than others. It is reasonable to suppose that some may have had a direct, first-hand experience through direct contact with their works whilst others would have a less-direct impact (for example 'A' influences 'B' who then in turn is one of the influences on 'C' although 'C' has had little direct contact with 'A'.) It is reasonable to suppose that a composer may emulate some aspects of a predecessor (and thus be influenced by them) and it is also reasonable to suppose that a composer may wish to avoid those aspects of a predecessor (and thus be 'influenced' by them in a different direction). Determining what to attribute to 'most influential' is thus clearly a subjective (albeit, informed) judgement - and therefore is not 'objective' in any meaningful sense.


What's subjective in this sense, like in the distance example, is our informed guess at the distance/level of influence. This is bound to be inaccurate, and the less we know the more inaccurate it will probably be. However, this is some objective level at which any given composer was influenced by another composer. We may not know what that level is, but not knowing doesn't cease to make it objective, any more than not knowing precisely what the distance between yourself and an object makes that distance not objective.

I was mostly using this idea of influence as being objective as a way to contrast it with standards/criteria that are necessarily subjective. Take, eg, the development of thematic material. That a composer does this is objective; that we declare this a positive quality, one which we use as a standard for determining greatness, is entirely subjective. If many people agree, it merely becomes a social standard, but never an objective one.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Chordalrock said:


> Like all labels, 'good' is a label that applies better to some things than to other things. Some agreements make more sense than others.


Saying "good" applies "better" doesn't really the answer the question of why it applies at all, and whether its application is due to a subjective standard or anything objective. That some agreements make "more sense" also doesn't answer that issue.


----------



## Chordalrock

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Saying "good" applies "better" doesn't really the answer the question of why it applies at all, and whether its application is due to a subjective standard or anything objective. That some agreements make "more sense" also doesn't answer that issue.


There have been whole books written on this topic, and this thread certainly isn't the place for an indepth discussion of it.

I suspect you may be jumping to conclusions about an issue that is actually a very complex and deep philosophical subject.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Eva Yojimbo said:


> However, this is some objective level at which any given composer was influenced by another composer. We may not know what that level is, but not knowing doesn't cease to make it objective, any more than not knowing precisely what the distance between yourself and an object makes that distance not objective.
> 
> I was mostly using this idea of influence as being objective as a way to contrast it with standards/criteria that are necessarily subjective. Take, eg, the development of thematic material. That a composer does this is objective; that we declare this a positive quality, one which we use as a standard for determining greatness, is entirely subjective. If many people agree, it merely becomes a social standard, but never an objective one.


Sorry to say this, but the more you write, the more clearly you demonstrate that you misuse (or misunderstand) the term 'objective' in terms of data collection and analysis. In research terms. 'objective' cannot be applied in the way that you do to the ways that a composer has been influenced by previous composers


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Chordalrock said:


> I suspect you may be jumping to conclusions about an issue that is actually a very complex and deep philosophical subject.


I'd argue it's a very simple issue that's been vastly over-complicated by philosophy, much of which was not immune to thinking that mind-content had its basis in something external to the mind.



Headphone Hermit said:


> Sorry to say this, but the more you write, the more clearly you demonstrate that you misuse (or misunderstand) the term 'objective' in terms of data collection and analysis. In research terms. 'objective' cannot be applied in the way that you do to the ways that a composer has been influenced by previous composers


In my understanding, subjective VS objective is a way of distinguishing things of the mind (former) VS things external to the mind (latter). You might make the argument that influence is a thing of the mind, but I'd argue that data about the mind is objective. EG, if you ask 100 people whether they liked Mozart, their "like" itself may be subjective, but the data about how many like him is not; the data is about their state of mind, not whether the state of mind is right or has any non-mind basis. In that sense, influence can be like that data; it can be, to some extent, known or, at least, inferred from objective data (the accuracy of the knowledge/inference is, again, a different matter).


----------



## Chordalrock

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I'd argue it's a very simple issue that's been vastly over-complicated by philosophy, much of which was not immune to thinking that mind-content had its basis in something external to the mind.


But mind-content does have its basis in something external to the mind - the object being perceived. When you listen to a Bach piece, you can tell it's not a collection of random notes, because the basis of your perception is a real object in the real world, and those two objects (Bach and random notes) are entirely different. Your mind doesn't just randomly create content for itself when stimulated.

You're trying to negate the importance of objective qualities in stimulating subjective pleasure, as though any two notes strung together had the same potential to please as a Beethoven symphony. It's a point of view that never has and never will be considered insightful in the context of academic philosophy, and rightly so.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Eva Yojimbo said:


> if you ask 100 people whether they liked Mozart, their "like" itself may be subjective, but the data about how many like him is not; the data is about their state of mind


As I said, you appear to misunderstand the way that 'subjective/objective' are used in research methodology.

The 'fact' that a majority of people 'think' something is not, in itself 'proof' that the said thought is correct


----------



## EdwardBast

Klassic said:


> Someone needs to read Voltaire's Candide. Leibniz was a delusional person. But yes, on a different level I agree; we are very lucky to be living in a time filled with so much quality music.


Did it not occur to you that I wrote what I did _because_ I have read Voltaire?


----------



## EdwardBast

Truckload said:


> I agree that all on your list are really good at getting the most out of the orchestra. In that regard I particularly admire Respighi. The list I gave were just examples, not intended to be all inclusive.


Respighi is okay at orchestrating Respighi, but what a botch he made of Rachmaninoff's Etudes Tableaux!


----------



## Truckload

EdwardBast said:


> Respighi is okay at orchestrating Respighi, but what a botch he made of Rachmaninoff's Etudes Tableaux!


I had never listened to his arrangement/transcription previously. I am listening now. Anything in particular I should be focusing on?


----------



## Chromatose

I vote Beethoven too!


----------



## Crassus

Are we talking about symphonists or orchestrators?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Chordalrock said:


> But mind-content does have its basis in something external to the mind - the object being perceived. When you listen to a Bach piece, you can tell it's not a collection of random notes, because the basis of your perception is a real object in the real world, and those two objects (Bach and random notes) are entirely different. Your mind doesn't just randomly create content for itself when stimulated.
> 
> You're trying to negate the importance of objective qualities in stimulating subjective pleasure, as though any two notes strung together had the same potential to please as a Beethoven symphony. It's a point of view that never has and never will be considered insightful in the context of academic philosophy, and rightly so.


Some mind-content has such referents, and these things we call "objective;" other mind-content does not have referents, like the concept of "good," and these things we call "subjective." Absolutely, the Bach music is an object, but whether that object is "good" is entirely mind-dependent, subjective, and based on standards that we create from how our mind reacts to objects. To assume that qualities like "good" is an inherent property of objects is what's known as the mind-projection fallacy, and it's quite common. If you go back to the original post that sparked this digression, someone was trying to distinguish between "personal favorites" VS "greatest," as if "greatest" is not as subjective as "personal favorites" are (it may be a collation of many personal favorites, a communal standard, but then that would be the only difference).

I'm not trying to imply that objective qualities don't matter in stimulating subjective pleasure at all; of course it does! But it's equally true that the same objective qualities can provoke different reactions in different people, and, when that happens, how do you determine which reaction is "true" or "right?" The obvious answer is that you don't. The most you can say is that X quality appeals to Y people who have Z standards based upon that. The question of why certain qualities provoke certain reactions in different people may be an interesting area of study, cognitive aesthetics I guess, but you'll never get an ought, a standard, from an is, a statement about objects or people's reactions to objects.

As for not being insightful in the context of academic philosophy I'll just say; this is not a forum for academic philosophy!


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Headphone Hermit said:


> As I said, you appear to misunderstand the way that 'subjective/objective' are used in research methodology.
> 
> The 'fact' that a majority of people 'think' something is not, in itself 'proof' that the said thought is correct


As I said, you appear to misunderstand what I'm saying, as your second paragraph is saying basically the same thing I am! The only additional thing I said was that "influence" differed from other standards only in that it is a question with a factual answer. Either a composer was influenced by another or they weren't; If they were, then they were influenced by them to some degree. The issue of influence is an issue about what composers thought, just as as the issue of whether people like Mozart is an issue of what they think. What people think is a question with a factual question, which is different than saying whether what they think is factual or capable of being factual.


----------



## hpowders

Klassic said:


> How can anyone really compete with Mahler here. Does anyone disagree?


Yes. I do. For logic of form and uncanny wittiness and inventiveness, nobody beats Haydn, of the Paris and London Symphonies. Haydn, the greatest symphonist of all.

Mahler is fine as long as you don't have benign prostate enlargement.


----------



## Stavrogin

*sneaks in*



> The Greatest Symphonist of all Time?


The one who uses the least brass.

*sneaks out*


----------



## Strange Magic

EdwardBast said:


> Respighi is okay at orchestrating Respighi, but what a botch he made of Rachmaninoff's Etudes Tableaux!


Aside from the fact that Respighi declined to give attention to Rachmaninoff's "secret program" for each Étude, I'm not aware of any botch on Respighi's part. I'm not crazy about the Respighi transcriptions, but that's because the études chosen aren't among my favorites anyway.


----------



## Chordalrock

Eva Yojimbo said:


> other mind-content does not have referents, like the concept of "good," and these things we call "subjective."


1) It depends on what you mean by good. It can have a referent, such as pleasure or happiness. It can also be something more abstract, such as "constructed with skill", and still be something more than personal opinion. If I say that Ockeghem's "Missa Prolationum" is constructed with great skill, I'm certainly more correct than someone who says it's carelessly and poorly constructed.

2) Whether you value skilful construction is your business, but I would argue that it makes more sense to value skilful construction than not to value it. Why it makes more sense should be easy enough to intuit, even if it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to prove analytically. It must be remembered that something can be true even if it can't be proved to be so.

In addition to skill, it also makes sense to value uniqueness. And some pieces of music are undeniably more unique than others. Again, uniqueness is a very abstract concept, but something in the real world does correspond to "unique music". And yet again, even more abstract is the idea that unique works of music should be valued more highly than commonplace music - still even so, there's something about the nature of reality itself that makes uncommon valuables more valuable than common valuables (all else being equal). Thus it makes sense to say that unique pieces should be valued more than common pieces, since the former are more valuabe, and you should value that which is more valuable (otherwise you are doing something irrational).

It might be wrong to say that uniqueness is an objective value, but it would be more wrong still to claim that its perception as a value is nothing more than meaningless opinion.

3) The concept of good may be something that humans have invented, but it makes sense to apply the word to pieces of music that have the qualities "skilfully constructed" and "unique". Thus it could be said that objects having these qualities also have the quality "goodness". Whether this is strictly speaking so doesn't really concern me. It is certainly more accurate than the subjectivist position that "goodness" is pure meaningless opinion.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> To assume that qualities like "good" is an inherent property of objects is what's known as the mind-projection fallacy, and it's quite common.


Just because something is wrong, doesn't mean that its opposite is right. And ironically, sometimes you get closer to the truth via a fallacy than by holding that its opposite is correct.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> If you go back to the original post that sparked this digression, someone was trying to distinguish between "personal favorites" VS "greatest," as if "greatest" is not as subjective as "personal favorites" are (it may be a collation of many personal favorites, a communal standard, but then that would be the only difference).


When someone asks your personal favorite composer, you're supposed to say whose music you like to listen to the most. When someone asks whom you think is the greatest composer, you're supposed to attempt to look past your own biases and decide which composer you think composed the best music the most consistently. Uniqueness is obviously part of what makes a piece of music truly great, but I just happen to enjoy listening to dodecaphonic music and gravitate toward it more than Beethoven or Bach even if I don't find it all that unique compared with the best works of those composers. Some works are clearly unique and composed with great skill, but I just don't enjoy them.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> I'm not trying to imply that objective qualities don't matter in stimulating subjective pleasure at all; of course it does! But it's equally true that the same objective qualities can provoke different reactions in different people, and, when that happens, how do you determine which reaction is "true" or "right?"


I don't think it's as difficult - or impossible - as you claim. The persistence of certain composers in the highest echelons of the canon provides some evidence of that. Humans are fallible creatures who can let their personal associations or tendencies to cloud their judgement, or who may lack the experience to judge such matters properly, but I think it's relatively obvious that the amount of consenus that experts can reach on these matters is significant enough to count for something.

Even if no human can ever grasp the true, correct value of a piece of music, this doesn't mean that "an ideal observer" wouldn't be able to. The question that would remain is: how closely would the evaluations of this ideal observer align with those of experienced and intelligent humans? Would it have any relationship with them? Would humans be able to improve themselves as listeners (via exposure and study and practice) and come to resemble the ideal observer in many respects?



Eva Yojimbo said:


> The obvious answer is that you don't. The most you can say is that X quality appeals to Y people who have Z standards based upon that.


People don't evaluate music based on criteria. They evaluate it based on their experience (how unique is the piece?), their aural image of it (what impression does it create?), their associations (what it brings to mind, consciously or unconsciously), and their emotional reactions. The latter two push the evaluation toward subjectivity, but can be minimised by a rational person if he is alert when making the evaluation. The former two push the evaluation toward objectivity, and can be emphasised in any evaluation.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> The question of why certain qualities provoke certain reactions in different people may be an interesting area of study, cognitive aesthetics I guess, but you'll never get an ought, a standard, from an is, a statement about objects or people's reactions to objects.


You seem to be assuming that mind-reality isn't part of real reality and thus somehow doesn't matter. The truth is, it's all just reality at the end of the day, and there are such experiences as intolerable suffering, which could accurately be verbalised as "no! this should not be!" - where the nature of the experience itself seems to be an "ought" or "ought not". Poor Hume, who never did prove his is-ought distinction, merely naively assumed such a thing was fact.

The fact that you can't find an ought by examining stones or stars doesn't mean you can't find it - equally importantly - by examining human experience itself. But you're just trolling me at this point by dragging the is-ought distinction into this, aren't you?



Eva Yojimbo said:


> As for not being insightful in the context of academic philosophy I'll just say; this is not a forum for academic philosophy!


I just wanted you to know that your certainty about your own philosophical infallibility on these topics isn't warranted by what has been going on in the academia.


----------



## poconoron

hpowders said:


> Yes. I do. For logic of form and uncanny wittiness and inventiveness, nobody beats Haydn, of the Paris and London Symphonies. Haydn, the greatest symphonist of all.
> 
> Mahler is fine as long as you don't have benign prostate enlargement.


I agree about Haydn being #1, and for me Beethoven is 2nd.


----------



## hpowders

poconoron said:


> I agree about Haydn being #1, and for me Beethoven is 2nd.


Well that's good to know!! There are 4-5 of us here on the forum.

Beethoven took the form to the max, but Haydn had to come before him.

I wonder what Beethoven's symphonies might have been like without Haydn's influence.

Both incredible geniuses!


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Chordalrock said:


> 1) It depends on what you mean by good. It can have a referent, such as pleasure or happiness. It can also be something more abstract, such as "constructed with skill", and still be something more than personal opinion. If I say that Ockeghem's "Missa Prolationum" is constructed with great skill, I'm certainly more correct than someone who says it's carelessly and poorly constructed.
> 
> 2) Whether you value skilful construction is your business, but I would argue that it makes more sense to value skilful construction than not to value it. Why it makes more sense should be easy enough to intuit, even if it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to prove analytically. It must be remembered that something can be true even if it can't be proved to be so.
> 
> In addition to skill, it also makes sense to value uniqueness. And some pieces of music are undeniably more unique than others. Again, uniqueness is a very abstract concept, but something in the real world does correspond to "unique music". And yet again, even more abstract is the idea that unique works of music should be valued more highly than commonplace music - still even so, there's something about the nature of reality itself that makes uncommon valuables more valuable than common valuables (all else being equal). Thus it makes sense to say that unique pieces should be valued more than common pieces, since the former are more valuabe, and you should value that which is more valuable (otherwise you are doing something irrational).
> 
> It might be wrong to say that uniqueness is an objective value, but it would be more wrong still to claim that its perception as a value is nothing more than meaningless opinion.
> 
> 3) The concept of good may be something that humans have invented, but it makes sense to apply the word to pieces of music that have the qualities "skilfully constructed" and "unique". Thus it could be said that objects having these qualities also have the quality "goodness". Whether this is strictly speaking so doesn't really concern me. It is certainly more accurate than the subjectivist position that "goodness" is pure meaningless opinion.


1. By "referrent" I mean something objective and external that you can point to. EG, the word "sun"'s referrent is "that big yellow/orange glowing warm thing in the sky." "Skill" is, again, something we judged relative to a subjective standard, and you can only judge skill once that standard is in place. Saying "Ockeghem's 'Missa Prolationum' is constructed with skill" is actually saying "(it) is constructed in accordance to a subjective standard we deem skillful." These are two different things.

2. You keep saying it "makes sense" to value this or that, but you haven't actually explained why it "makes sense" to value anything over another. If you take an easy (and completely different) example, the only reason it "makes sense" to value living over dying is because that's how evolutionary biology has programmed us. Yet there is nothing objective we can point to that can determine that it's "right" to value living over dying, it's merely something that we subjectively feel. No statement about what is--whether a work is unique, eg--can tell us that we OUGHT to value uniqueness. We're certainly free to value it, but there's no objective reason to (we may find plenty of subjective reasons that ultimately rest on us simply agreeing on them). I never said it was a "meaningless opinion," but the "meaning" cannot be tied to anything objective.

3. What you can say is that we value certain qualities, that certain pieces have those qualities, and thus those works are "good" _relative to our subjective values_. The goodness, however, comes not from the works themselves, but from their qualities matching our subjective values. Without the values, there is no referent by which to declare them good.



Chordalrock said:


> Just because something is wrong, doesn't mean that its opposite is right. And ironically, sometimes you get closer to the truth via a fallacy than by holding that its opposite is correct.


I have no idea what you're saying here... what is the opposite of the mind-projection fallacy? How do you ever get "closer to truth" via a fallacy? A fallacy is, by definition, a flaw in reasoning, and reasoning flaws are flaws precisely because they can't reliably lead to the truth.



Chordalrock said:


> When someone asks your personal favorite composer, you're supposed to say whose music you like to listen to the most. When someone asks whom you think is the greatest composer, you're supposed to attempt to look past your own biases and decide which composer you think composed the best music the most consistently.


The only difference is that "your personal favorite" is based on your own subjective standard, while "the greatest composer" is based on many people's favorites. That's really about it. The difference between individual VS communal standards. Neither is more objective or less-biased than the other.



Chordalrock said:


> I don't think it's as difficult - or impossible - as you claim. The persistence of certain composers in the highest echelons of the canon provides some evidence of that. Humans are fallible creatures who can let their personal associations or tendencies to cloud their judgement, or who may lack the experience to judge such matters properly, but I think it's relatively obvious that the amount of consenus that experts can reach on these matters is significant enough to count for something.
> 
> Even if no human can ever grasp the true, correct value of a piece of music, this doesn't mean that "an ideal observer" wouldn't be able to. The question that would remain is: how closely would the evaluations of this ideal observer align with those of experienced and intelligent humans? Would it have any relationship with them? Would humans be able to improve themselves as listeners (via exposure and study and practice) and come to resemble the ideal observer in many respects?


The persistence of certain composers in the echelon argue for the existence of communal standards that persist over time. That's pretty much it. Experts are just a different point of reference that one can choose to value or not; they are no more objective in their judgments than anyone else. If you compare this to something like science, there is no similarity, and science advances in measurable ways. Quantum physics is more accurate than General Relativity, General Relativity more accurate than Newton, Newton more accurate than anything before him, etc. There is nothing comparable in art.

It's not that humans "can't grasp" the "true, correct value of a piece of music," it's that there IS no "true, correct value!" What in the world is an "ideal observer?"



Chordalrock said:


> People don't evaluate music based on criteria. They evaluate it based on their experience (how unique is the piece?), their aural image of it (what impression does it create?), their associations (what it brings to mind, consciously or unconsciously), and their emotional reactions.


Then those things are their criteria.



Chordalrock said:


> The latter two push the evaluation toward subjectivity, but can be minimised by a rational person if he is alert when making the evaluation. The former two push the evaluation toward objectivity, and can be emphasised in any evaluation.


The uniqueness of a piece is objective; that we value that uniqueness and use it as a standard for judgement is not.



Chordalrock said:


> You seem to be assuming that mind-reality isn't part of real reality and thus somehow doesn't matter. The truth is, it's all just reality at the end of the day, and there are such experiences as intolerable suffering, which could accurately be verbalised as "no! this should not be!" - where the nature of the experience itself seems to be an "ought" or "ought not". Poor Hume, who never did prove his is-ought distinction, merely naively assumed such a thing was fact.
> 
> The fact that you can't find an ought by examining stones or stars doesn't mean you can't find it - equally importantly - by examining human experience itself. But you're just trolling me at this point by dragging the is-ought distinction into this, aren't you?


I'm not assuming that. Mind-content is every bit as real as anything else. The level of "realness" isn't the issue, it's merely the distinction between mind-only content and objects that exist external to the mind. That one makes such a distinction doesn't imply that one is valuing either over the other. I have no idea what makes you think Hume didn't "prove" his is-ought distinction. Firstly, he didn't really try to "prove" it, he merely stated it as a proposition. I've yet to hear a convincing argument as to why it's not true; the majority of counter-arguments don't even get it to begin with and assume the very thing Hume is challenging!

I'm not trolling at all. You say you can "find an ought" by "examining human experience;" so what true-statement about human experience naturally leads to an ought?



Chordalrock said:


> I just wanted you to know that your certainty about your own philosophical infallibility on these topics isn't warranted by what has been going on in the academia.


My certainty about my philosophical infallibility on this particular issue is warranted by my understanding the issue.


----------



## Chordalrock

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Saying "Ockeghem's 'Missa Prolationum' is constructed with skill" is actually saying "(it) is constructed in accordance to a subjective standard we deem skillful." These are two different things.


No, that's not what it means. To throw together random notes doesn't take skill. To compose Missa Prolationum requires skill and talent - even from a super computer. You can't create it randomly without a skillset and proficiency in applying an aesthetic and a set of rules (as well as breaking them when the aesthetic calls for it) - that requires skill.

Like I said, "skillfully constructed" quite simply means skillfully constructed, and refers to something that is real, something that is in reality skillfully constructed.

Perhaps you should attempt to think outside the box of simplistic philosophical cliches. You can't just hammer reality into little lumps of "subjective" and "objective", especially in that manner, and expect to not have mangled reality in the process.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> 2. You keep saying it "makes sense" to value this or that, but you haven't actually explained why it "makes sense" to value anything over another.


To value more highly that which is more valuable is simply logical. Rare things are more valuable because they are rare. If there is one symphony that sounds like Beethoven's fifth and a million by thousands of composers that sound like a certain kind of noise (such as traffic noise), then clearly there is no single noise-symphony in that group that is indispensable - since it could be replaced by the almost million that remain. Even the million could just be easily replaced by recording more traffic noise. Thus Beethoven's symphony is objectively more valuable, since it's (1) valuable to people in potential (i.e. people can love it) and it's (2) indispensable (i.e. can't be replaced, or can't be replaced easily, by an object that is alike in aesthetic shape or effect).

Why to value skilful construction requires an argument of its own. I'd say the reason to value it would be that there is more to admire or enjoy in something that is constructed with great skill than something that isn't - all else being equal. It's of course possible to find delight in naive art, where personal associations can create value, or in unskilled but creative art, where uniqueness reached without great skill is still valuable. Great skill adds its own dimension that can be appreciated - cleverness of construction - and that's why to value it. It doesn't take anything away, since the thing we truly value about naive art - personal associations (perhaps even uniqueness) - are still present. To say that great skill takes away naivete is simply an affectation on the part of the critic.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> I have no idea what you're saying here... what is the opposite of the mind-projection fallacy? How do you ever get "closer to truth" via a fallacy? A fallacy is, by definition, a flaw in reasoning, and reasoning flaws are flaws precisely because they can't reliably lead to the truth.


Correct conclusions can be reached accidentally or via incorrect arguments. I can consult a frog about whether it will rain next week, and I can believe the frog predicts it will rain, and I can start believing it will rain because I believe the frog, and it just happens that it will rain next week. My reasons were humbug, but I was still right.

The opposite of the mind-projection fallacy would be your position that musical quality is nothing but personal opinion. I think the truth is "something in between", if such crude positions can be said to be at certain distances from the truth.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Chordalrock said:


> No, that's not what it means. To throw together random notes doesn't take skill. To compose Missa Prolationum requires skill and talent - even from a super computer. You can't create it randomly without a skillset and proficiency in applying an aesthetic and a set of rules (as well as breaking them when the aesthetic calls for it) - that requires skill.
> 
> Like I said, "skillfully constructed" quite simply means skillfully constructed, and refers to something that is real, something that is in reality skillfully constructed.


Now all you're doing is stating tautologies: "It's skillfully constructed because it's skillfully constructed." That's not even addressing how you can know what "skill" is to begin with! The most you've said is that "you can't create it randomly," which isn't saying much. Let's take a different example: piano playing. How do we know that Pollini is more "skillful" than, say, a random 5-year old. Well, Pollini can play faster, cleaner, with fewer mistakes. He's able to hit the notes he wants in the time he wants. The random 5-year old is slower, sloppier, makes many mistakes, and can't always hit the right notes at the right time. So when we say "Pollini's skillfull" we're actually just saying "he can play fast, clean, with few mistakes, hitting the notes he wants at the right time." The latter might be the objective fact, but that we take that as the criteria for defining "skillful" is subjective, and it's equally subjective that we value that "skill" over the absence of it.



Chordalrock said:


> To value more highly that which is more valuable is simply logical. Rare things are more valuable because they are rare. If there is one symphony that sounds like Beethoven's fifth and a million by thousands of composers that sound like a certain kind of noise (such as traffic noise), then clearly there is no single noise-symphony in that group that is indispensable - since it could be replaced by the almost million that remain. Even the million could just be easily replaced by recording more traffic noise. Thus Beethoven's symphony is objectively more valuable, since it's (1) valuable to people in potential (i.e. people can love it) and it's (2) indispensable (i.e. can't be replaced, or can't be replaced easily, by an object that is alike in aesthetic shape or effect).
> 
> Why to value skilful construction requires an argument of its own. I'd say the reason to value it would be that there is more to admire or enjoy in something that is constructed with great skill than something that isn't - all else being equal. It's of course possible to find delight in naive art, where personal associations can create value, or in unskilled but creative art, where uniqueness reached without great skill is still valuable. Great skill adds its own dimension that can be appreciated - cleverness of construction - and that's why to value it. It doesn't take anything away, since the thing we truly value about naive art - personal associations (perhaps even uniqueness) - are still present. To say that great skill takes away naivete is simply an affectation on the part of the critic.


Again you start with a tautology: "value what is valuable" without addressing how anything can be objectively valuable. Logic can not lead you to telling you what is valuable; you have to start with an assumed proposition that is not proved itself, and that assumed proposition will always be what you find valuable to begin with. The rarity of something might be objective, but there's no "logical reason" to value what is rarer over something that is not rare. Water isn't rare, but I value it far more than gold. Why? Because I value living over pretty, shiny things. Of course, even THAT valuation is not objective; anyone else is free to value pretty, shiny gold over water and enjoy their pretty, shiny things while dying of thirst. Further, it's not difficult to create something that's "rare" in music: record some random noises and you'll create a "work" that won't sound like any music ever heard! Rarity is only "valuable" when what is rare is desirable to begin with--supply and demand--and the "desirable" aspect is completely subjective.

You answered your own question with the second: something skillfully constructed gives YOU more to ENJOY. Enjoyment is entirely subjective. There are millions of people who can listen to the most "skillfully constructed" (by your standards) classical music and find it boring as hell, while they listen to Beyonce and find it the greatest thing in the world. There is absolutely nothing you can point to argue that you're right to enjoy your classical and their wrong to enjoy their pop. You may can point out objective differences between, but, again, you still haven't begun to demonstrate how you get from the is to the ought. All you've done is repeatedly assume the ought to begin with, and this is precisely the point Hume made. That every time people move from an is to an ought there is always a hidden assumption that remains unexpressed. All you've done thus far is prove him right.



Chordalrock said:


> Correct conclusions can be reached accidentally or via incorrect arguments. I can consult a frog about whether it will rain next week, and I can believe the frog predicts it will rain, and I can start believing it will rain because I believe the frog, and it just happens that it will rain next week. My reasons were humbug, but I was still right.
> 
> The opposite of the mind-projection fallacy would be your position that musical quality is nothing but personal opinion. I think the truth is "something in between", if such crude positions can be said to be at certain distances from the truth.


Of course correct conclusions can be reached by faulty logic, but pointing out the faulty logic is another way of saying we have no reason to assume you're right when your logic is wrong.

It's not "my opinion" that musical quality is "nothing but personal opinion." What I've said is that qualities themselves may be objective, but our valuing of them, the standards we create both individually and communally, are inherently subjective. That is not an opinion but a fact. As much of a fact as the sun's existence is a fact. The only reason people deny it is because of the mind-projection fallacy, the desire to think that their subjective beliefs have some basis is reality when they do not and cannot.

As a simple exercise, let's go through some of your arguments in this thread:

We value what is rare: A thing's rarity might be objective, but what objective can you point to that we ought to value what is rare?

We value what is skillful: A thing's skill might be objective given how we define skill, but what objective thing can you point to that we ought to value what is skillful?

In discussing both you even mentioned that we "can love" a rare thing, and "enjoy" a skillful thing; well, both the "love" and "enjoyment" are explicitly subjective feelings. Would we value either rarity or skill if we didn't "enjoy" or "love" it? If the answer is "no," then the obvious answer is that we only "value" such things because of subjective experiences.


----------



## Chordalrock

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Now all you're doing is stating tautologies: "It's skillfully constructed because it's skillfully constructed." That's not even addressing how you can know what "skill" is to begin with! The most you've said is that "you can't create it randomly," which isn't saying much.


So my argument wasn't a tautology after all, it just wasn't "saying much". But then again, it doesn't need to be saying much, it only needs to establish that "skillfully constructed" is a real, objective thing separate from "throwing together random notes". I mean, that is all that is needed for you to lose the argument on this point.

Of course, I also believe there are degrees of skill, but it's not necessary for my argument that I spend half an hour explaining the obvious.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> Again you start with a tautology: "value what is valuable"


No, I said "it's logical to value *more highly* that which is *more* valuable". That is not a tautology, though I didn't at that moment say what it means that something is valuable in the first place. I do point out later in that paragraph that what is objectively valuable is something that has the potential to be valued - which you seem to have missed.

And we're talking about art, not gold and water. All art has potential value to an intelligent sentient being in its adulthood if that art object is good enough. Some art has greater potential value due to being (1) better constructed, (2) more unique, and (3) more capable of pleasing due to other factors that can't be easily put into words.

By now, you should already have admitted that (1) better constructed is a real thing and that (2) more unique is a real thing. You should also admit that those two things create more potential value in an object.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> The rarity of something might be objective, but there's no "logical reason" to value what is rarer over something that is not rare.


Why are you trying to push this discussion toward the issue of whether someone should or should not value something? The discussion started from your claim that there is no objective greatness. I've never been interested in claiming that a person should value that which is great, or that a person should enjoy that which is great. The most I've said is that it's logical to value more highly that which is more valuable, but I might as well have left it unsaid, since it's off-topic.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> Water isn't rare, but I value it far more than gold. Why? Because I value living over pretty, shiny things.


The context of this discussion is music and art. When I say that "rare things are more valuable because they are rare", I mean this in the context of art.

What you value personally is completely irrelevant to the question of whether objects have value in and of themselves. You don't need to value Beethoven as a composer for Beethoven's music to be valuable to someone else, and thus valuable in general. I have called this 'general value' 'potential value'. I think it's a real thing that depends on the objective qualities of the object. Is this something you disagree with, or do you just want to emphasise personal evaluation in your rhetoric? And if the latter, what are you even doing complaining about the concept of objective greatness in this thread?



Eva Yojimbo said:


> it's not difficult to create something that's "rare" in music: record some random noises and you'll create a "work" that won't sound like any music ever heard!


Whether it's difficult or not to create unique music doesn't change the fact that the more unique the music, the more valuable it is.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> Rarity is only "valuable" when what is rare is desirable to begin with


As I pretty clearly said in my earlier message, what is valuable is that which has the potential to be valued. Are you sure you're even reading my messages fully, or are you just skimming them for sentences you feel you can quibble about (nevermind the context or what I actually meant)?


----------



## haziz

DavidA said:


> Ever hear of a guy called Beethoven? And there was one before him named W A Mozart. And not forgetting Poppa Haydn! Actually there are a number of other symphonists I would put before Mahler including Bruckner.


Agree with you about Beethoven, and will give the nod to Mozart and Haydn, but Bruckner? He definitely does not belong in the same company, not even close. But then I have never been a fan of Bruckner.


----------



## haziz

1. Beethoven and Tchaikovsky reign supreme

.
.
.
.
.

3. Dvorak
4. Brahms
5. Sibelius
6. Mozart
7. Borodin
8. Kalinnikov
9. Mendelssohn
10. Shostakovich
11. Haydn
...................


----------



## Phil loves classical

I think the Symphony is so wide in variety and scope, there can't ever be the greatest. But probably you can pick those within certain periods. 

I'm convinced there is no greater symphony that Beethoven's 9th, Berlioz' Symphonie Fantastique or Prokofiev's 6th. I don't care who can crank out more that are of good quality, and similar in expression.


----------



## Ethereality

Mozart's 3rd is overrated, it's all about Beethoven's 3rd. I know my opinion is a bit unconventional.


----------



## tdc

Lately the ones I listen to the most:

Stravinsky - Symphony in C
Stravinsky - Symphony in 3 Movements
Stravinsky - Symphony of Psalms 

I previously didn't care much for the Symphony of Psalms but it grew on me. I agree with Phil about Prokofiev 6. 

As far as symphonies not mentioned as often around here the symphonies of Charles Ives are all among my favorites. I love American classical music in general. Stravinsky had some American in his music, I consider him among the greatest symphonists.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Phil loves classical said:


> I think the Symphony is so wide in variety and scope, there can't ever be the greatest.


It's Beethoven as he was the one who brought that variety and scope the genre and also wrote (some of) the best exemplars.


----------



## JTS

No question - Beethoven. He expanded the symphony beyond anything anyone would ever have dreamed about


----------



## Forster

Kreisler jr said:


> It's Beethoven as he was the one who brought that variety and scope the genre and also wrote (some of) the best exemplars.


Your post (and my reading of others from 5 years ago!) prompts me to ask whether the earlier composers on whose shoulders Beethoven stood are not entitled to the same degree of recognition as LvB. If not, why not? I'm thinking not just of Mozart and Haydn but Stamitz, Sammartini, Wagenseil etc.

Others have suggested Mahler. I wonder whether his symphonies became rather too large for the form?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Forster said:


> I'm thinking not just of Mozart and Haydn but Stamitz, Sammartini, Wagenseil etc.


+There is a bunch of others, but these ones are notable for being not just "10-minute symphonies":





(published in 1762)





(1760)





(1760)

Also, the other Haydn; he was writing Mozart piano concertos before Mozart did. (I'm half-joking).
No.17 in E (1771): 



K.449/iii: 







 (similar to "Ein Mädchen oder Weibchen")

No.18 in C (1773): 



K.466/i: 



No.18 in C: 



K.345/ii:


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Beethoven is number one, no question about it. Close behind are Sibelius and Brahms. Mahler (I mentioned specifically as he is mentioned by the OP) is behind all of these - he needed a good editor, way too much unnecessary and boring stuff but the good parts are as good as any in the symphonic genre.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Ethereality said:


> Mozart's 3rd is overrated, it's all about Beethoven's 3rd. I know my opinion is a bit unconventional.


I didn't realize Mozart's 3rd was even rated.


----------



## SanAntone

The "Symphony" is an outdated form of musical expression. Orchestral music has taken different paths, all for the good. To continue to celebrate a form that came to fruition and expired during the hegemony of diatonic tonality seems to be misplaced allegiance.


----------



## annaw

SanAntone said:


> The "Symphony" is an outdated form of musical expression. Orchestral music has taken different paths, all for the good. To continue to celebrate a form that came to fruition and expired during the hegemony of diatonic tonality seems to be misplaced allegiance.


Oh well, I do think that a lot of good came from orchestral music developing on but I don't find it particularly outrageous to celebrate _both_ Rembrandt and Picasso, or Goethe and Joyce .

EDIT: To answer the question, it's definitely Beethoven for me. (My answer to who's the best orchestrator would be different though.)


----------



## Aries

SanAntone said:


> The "Symphony" is an outdated form of musical expression. Orchestral music has taken different paths, all for the good. To continue to celebrate a form that came to fruition and expired during the hegemony of diatonic tonality seems to be misplaced allegiance.


The continued celebration of the form shows that it isn't outdated. There is a need for symphonies because it is the very basic, universal form. It is a comprehensive treatise with all musical possibilities, while other forms like concertos or sonatas are bound to more specialized aspects like solo virtuosity. Newer forms like symphonic poems have also a less universal, more specialized (here programmatic) character and are overall less successful.

If you want to express something in music with all musical possibilities, the symphony is the best choice because there is no obligation to specific instruments, some programmatics or a specific form.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> The "Symphony" is an outdated form of musical expression. Orchestral music has taken different paths, all for the good. To continue to celebrate a form that came to fruition and expired during the hegemony of diatonic tonality seems to be misplaced allegiance.


Logically then, the only allegiance should be to current forms and/or exponents. Tippett, for example, doesn't get a look in with any of his symphonies?


----------



## joen_cph

SanAntone said:


> The "Symphony" is an outdated form of musical expression. Orchestral music has taken different paths, all for the good. To continue to celebrate a form that came to fruition and expired during the hegemony of diatonic tonality seems to be misplaced allegiance.


Exactly when?

It's been evolving and varied continually - for example by Nørgård, Pettersson, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Holmboe, Gloria Coates, Schnittke, Bancquart, Dutilleux, Wuorinen, Rochberg, Berio, Denisov, Nørholm, Silvestrov, Penderecki, Gorecki, Lutoslawski, Slonimsky etc. - all with traits that expand or revise earlier thinking and models. And if it's even becoming 'too' varied in relation to earlier forms, there's nothing wrong with using the term for any large, orchestral work.


----------



## Neo Romanza

SanAntone said:


> The "Symphony" is an outdated form of musical expression. Orchestral music has taken different paths, all for the good. To continue to celebrate a form that came to fruition and expired during the hegemony of diatonic tonality seems to be misplaced allegiance.


Who are you to do tell someone what they're passionate about is "misplaced allegiance"? Just because you think the form is outdated, doesn't stop composers from continuing to write them. You're being extremely critical here and, quite frankly, there's no sense in it.

Anyway, back on topic, I LOVE the symphony and I still find it a valid form of expression. As for the "greatest" symphonist, well, that's incredibly difficult to determine, but Beethoven, Brahms, Mahler, Bruckner, Sibelius, Shostakovich come to mind immediately.


----------



## SanAntone

joen_cph said:


> Exactly when?
> 
> It's been evolving and varied continually - for example Nørgård, Pettersson, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Holmboe, Gloria Coates, Schnittke, Bancquart, Dutilleux, Wuorinen, Rochberg, Berio, Denisov, Nørholm, Silvestrov, Slonimsky etc. - all with traits that expand or revise earlier thinking and models. And if it's even becoming 'too' varied in relation to earlier forms, there's nothing wrong with using the term for any large, orchestral work.


The term "symphony" meant something specific from about 1770 to 1840. Since then, and slowly over the course of the 19th and early 20th centuries, it has become a word used for any large scale orchestral work until today it is a meaningless vestigial label used to add luster to otherwise unclassifiable works.


----------



## joen_cph

It hasn't been meaningless for quite a lot of composers since for example 1840, supposedly not for the public either. You'd have to discard a lot of music to discard post-1840 symphonies.


----------



## Aries

SanAntone said:


> The term "symphony" meant something specific from about 1770 to 1840.


Symphonies existed before and after, and 1770-1840 is only 70 years.



SanAntone said:


> Since then, and slowly over the course of the 19th and early 20th centuries, it has become a word used for any large scale orchestral work until today it is a meaningless


"Large scale orchestral" is a meaning. And "symphony" also has the meaning that the work isn't a large scale orchestral suite for example.



SanAntone said:


> vestigial label


The label is useful for the listener to compare it, classify it and to know what to expect.

If someone labels a work "music for orchestra" I suspect a inner weakness, because otherwise the composer would have no reason to shy away from the term "symphony" and the huge tradition and comparison possibilities.



SanAntone said:


> used to add luster to otherwise unclassifiable works.


The form has to serve the content.


----------



## SanAntone

joen_cph said:


> It hasn't been meaningless for quite a lot of composers since for example 1840, supposedly not for the public either. You'd have to discard a lot of music to discard post-1840 symphonies.


I never said or implied discarding any of these works. I have pointed out that the label meant something specific earlier and has lost that specific meaning.

A number of composers never used it for their orchestral works; giving them imaginative titles, or calling them "Symphonic/Tone Poems". But other modern composers still used the term, I guess so they can link them to the past tradition even if they no longer employ the same harmonic and formal rhetoric.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

SanAntone said:


> The "Symphony" is an outdated form of musical expression. Orchestral music has taken different paths, all for the good. To continue to celebrate a form that came to fruition and expired during the hegemony of diatonic tonality seems to be misplaced allegiance.


Someone should tell the classical world the symphony got outdated, according to SanAntone. We really need to stop this outdated form of musical expression from being the most frequently performed form by orchestras around the world.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Neo Romanza said:


> Who are you to do tell someone what they're passionate about is "misplaced allegiance"? Just because you think the form is outdated, doesn't stop composers from continuing to write them. You're being extremely critical here and, quite frankly, there's no sense in it.
> 
> Anyway, back on topic, I LOVE the symphony and I still find it a valid form of expression. As for the "greatest" symphonist, well, that's incredibly difficult to determine, but Beethoven, Brahms, Mahler, Bruckner, Sibelius, Shostakovich come to mind immediately.


Whether it's rightly-dated or not, the symphony is my preferred genre of music and only solo piano music comes close to it.


----------



## SanAntone

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Someone should tell the classical world the symphony got outdated


The *term* that was used to describe a specific musical form. Not orchestral music which has continued to be written, but without the constraints of the previous formal rhetoric (which was a product of the diatonic tonal system) which defined "symphony". 

Anyway, I'll not contribute anymore to this thread since it seems my posts are derailing the discussion. I had thought an interesting side conversation could have developed about the evolution of the symphony and the various iterations the form has taken on.

But some have gotten their hackles up and there's too much static.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone has a good point; Bruckner and Mahler symphonies are nothing like any 18th century symphony, and since then it's become a nebulous term to denote any extended orchestral work, pretty much, (depending on the composer's wish). As if to reflect the philosophy; "it must now contain everything".


----------



## SanAntone

Anyway, to answer the thread's question: *Shostakovich*.


----------



## Forster

hammeredklavier said:


> As if to reflect the philosophy; "it must now contain everything".


Which is why I've fingered Mahler. It's his fault.


----------



## joen_cph

SanAntone said:


> I never said or implied discarding any of these works. I have pointed out that the label meant something specific earlier and has lost that specific meaning.
> 
> A number of composers never used it for their orchestral works; giving them imaginative titles, or calling them "Symphonic/Tone Poems". But other modern composers still used the term, I guess so they can link them to the past tradition even if they no longer employ the same harmonic and formal rhetoric.


Still, using the term seems to be a major misunderstanding according to you, by both the composer and the public, even if you're not necessarily discrediting the content of, or implicitly the composing of, those pieces then. But most would consider it somewhat disqualifying however, to belong to an allegedly 'wrong' or 'faulty' category ...


----------



## hammeredklavier

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I didn't realize Mozart's 3rd was even rated.


Btw, "Symphonies No. 2 (attributed to Leopold Mozart) and 3 (written by Carl Friedrich Abel) are spurious." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_symphonies_by_Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart


----------



## Aries

hammeredklavier said:


> SanAntone has a good point; Bruckner and Mahler symphonies are nothing like any 18th century symphony, and since then it's become a nebulous concept to denote any extended orchestral work, pretty much, (depending on the composer's wish).


Where is the point? Pieces need names. A nebulous term is still better than no term. The term "symphony" still marks an specific entitlement.

Bruckners and Mahlers music is different to 18th century music, but the style of painters has changed too and it is still called "paintings" what they do.


----------



## SanAntone

SanAntone said:


> Anyway, to answer the thread's question: *Shostakovich*.


Tp be honest, I should have included *Mahler*, *Bruckner*, and *Sibelius* since these three are the major late 19th early 20th century contributors, as well as names like *Mieczyslaw Weinberg* (22) and *Nikolai Myaskovsky* (27), *Karl Amadeus Hartmann* (8), and *Einojuhani Rautavaara* (8) have continued the tradition of the symphony in the late 20th century to the greatest achievement, IMO.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Forster said:


> Your post (and my reading of others from 5 years ago!) prompts me to ask whether the earlier composers on whose shoulders Beethoven stood are not entitled to the same degree of recognition as LvB. If not, why not? I'm thinking not just of Mozart and Haydn but Stamitz, Sammartini, Wagenseil etc.


We have that expression of standing on the shoulders of giants. Newton might have stood on the shoulders of giants but his achievement in physics puts Kepler, Huyghens, Hooke etc. justifiedly into the subordinate ranks. 
Giants are also standing on the shoulders of dwarves like Wagenseil 
I think in the case of Beethoven and the Symphony this is justified as it is in Newton's case. There are the dwarves who slightly extended the opera "sinfonia" to a separate piece, still of very modest dimensions ~1730s-50s. Haydn and others in the 1760-80s followed but even with late Mozart and Haydn a symphony was not quite as weighty and sublime as an oratorio or an opera. Beethoven changed this with the Eroica. He lifted the genre to a different "ideological level" (but this was coherent with the heightened musical sophistication and weight, otherwise it would not have had such an impact). His symphonies were such an achievement that they a) "screened off" most of even Mozart and Haydn, certainly all lesser predecessors and contemporaries and b) both the classicist direction (of Mendelssohn, Schumann, Brahms etc.) and the more daring "Neudeutsche" (Berlioz, despite not German, Liszt, Wagner, despite not many symphonies) and the "nationalist schools" (Dvorak, Tchaikovsky etc.) all could take Beethoven as point of departure, despite their differences.



> Others have suggested Mahler. I wonder whether his symphonies became rather too large for the form?


Mahler's symphonies are the late, overripe fruits, despite even later symphonies (although the were mostly cutting back to more classicist forms and much less sprawling pieces). They are a bit like Reger's or Elgar's violin concertos. Very few people think the latter are the best because they are the longest...


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast

hammeredklavier said:


> SanAntone has a good point; Bruckner and Mahler symphonies are nothing like any 18th century symphony, and since then it's become a nebulous term to denote any extended orchestral work, pretty much, (depending on the composer's wish). As if to reflect the philosophy; "it must now contain everything".


I think you've explained better than SanAntone what he tried to put across. But the usage of the term doesn't hang on its structural inner workings, its aesthetic form, but rather on two things: the composer's decision to name the work a symphony and the audience's agreement with that label. If we followed your (yours and SanAntone) argument, then the sole move from minuet to scherzo should have entailed the end of the "symphony" (I'm exaggerating, of course, for the sake of argument).

To answer this over 5 year old question, *Mahler*, then Beethoven, then we can talk about the rest.


----------



## 13hm13

*Samuel Barber:* he packed everything and the kitchen sink into his short/succinct Symp 1 (in one movement),
And his 1943/4 symph. No. 2 is equally worthy as it seamlessly incorporates Romanticism and dissonance.


----------



## Aries

Joseph Haydn also wrote many symphonies in the italian type (fast - slow - fast) and in sonata da chiesa type (slow - fast - slow - fast).

Monteverdi's symphonies are much different. Just very short preludes to acts of his operas: 




The symphonies of late Haydn and Mozart are not the prototype of the symphony. And later changes are not unjustified alternations of the form.

Instead symphonies always changed like the music overall did.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> His symphonies were such an achievement that they a) "screened off" most of even Mozart and Haydn, certainly all lesser predecessors and contemporaries and b) both the classicist direction (of Mendelssohn, Schumann, Brahms etc.) and the more daring "Neudeutsche" (Berlioz, despite not German, Liszt, Wagner, despite not many symphonies) and the "nationalist schools" (Dvorak, Tchaikovsky etc.) all could take Beethoven as point of departure, despite their differences.


"During his studies with Weinlig he had tried to discover the secret of Mozart's fluency and lightness in solving difficult technical problems. In particular he tried to emulate the fugal finale of the great C major Symphony, 'magnificent, never surpassed', as he called it years later, and at eighteen he wrote a fugato as the finale of his C major Concert Overture, 'the very best that I could do, as I thought at the time, in honour of my new exemplar'." [ Wagner: A Biography / Curt von Westernhagen / P. 82 ]


----------



## Torkelburger

SanAntone said:


> Tp be honest, I should have included *Mahler*, *Bruckner*, and *Sibelius* since these three are the major late 19th early 20th century contributors, as well as names like *Mieczyslaw Weinberg* (22) and *Nikolai Myaskovsky* (27), *Karl Amadeus Hartmann* (8), and *Einojuhani Rautavaara* (8) have continued the tradition of the symphony in the late 20th century to the greatest achievement, IMO.


Those are indeed fine symphonists, but IMO the greatest achievement in the tradition of the symphony in the later half of the 20th century or at least post-Shostakovich were Hans Werner Henze, Krzysztof Penderecki, Alfred Schnittke, Witold Lutoslowski, and Michael Tippett. Far more substantial I would say.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Mahler's symphonies are impressive - but it would be more interesting for me to make a case for Mozart.
He was a symphonist from age 8 until his death. Apart from Haydn he probably composed more symphonies that are in the modern repertoire than any other composer - and his iconic last 3 (I would say 4 as the Prague merits inclusion) - are generally regarded as the zenith of the classical symphony. You can't downgrade Mozart for not composing thematically expansive romantic symphonies as the symphony only developed that way from Beethoven onwards - he was arguably the best symphonist in his era and maybe the best symphonist in all eras.


----------



## JTS

PlaySalieri said:


> Mahler's symphonies are impressive - but it would be more interesting for me to make a case for Mozart.
> He was a symphonist from age 8 until his death. Apart from Haydn he probably composed more symphonies that are in the modern repertoire than any other composer - and his iconic last 3 (I would say 4 as the Prague merits inclusion) - are generally regarded as the zenith of the classical symphony. You can't downgrade Mozart for not composing thematically expansive romantic symphonies as the symphony only developed that way from Beethoven onwards - he was arguably the best symphonist in his era and maybe the best symphonist in all eras.


Correct. One has to speculate how he would have developed given ten more years as he had only just reached his maturity as a symphonist with 39-41. But of course, we have to go by what we have. Same with Schubert.


----------



## SanAntone

Torkelburger said:


> Those are indeed fine symphonists, but IMO the greatest achievement in the tradition of the symphony in the later half of the 20th century or at least post-Shostakovich were Hans Werner Henze, Krzysztof Penderecki, Alfred Schnittke, Witold Lutoslowski, and Michael Tippett. Far more substantial I would say.


Since I hardly listen those four composers I can't comment, but from the other music I've heard by them I prefer the composers in my list. I probably shouldn't have used the phrase "greatest achievement" since I don't usually speak in terms of greatest as opposed to favorite.

Actually, orchestral/symphonic works don't interest me as much as vocal (especially opera), chamber, or piano music. I don't know why I am in this thread.


----------



## Torkelburger

SanAntone said:


> Since I hardly listen those four composers I can't comment, but from the other music I've heard by them I prefer the composers in my list. I probably shouldn't have used the phrase "greatest achievement" since I don't usually speak in terms of greatest as opposed to favorite.
> 
> Actually, orchestral/symphonic works don't interest me as much as vocal (especially opera), chamber, or piano music. I don't know why I am in this thread.


I understand. I know all composers quite well, and prefer my list. You may not want to judge the composers from what little you've heard, given that several composers drastically changed their style quite often. Henze alone composed in atonal, serial, neoclassical, Stravinskian, and even incorporated jazz, rock, and popular styles. Penderecki's symphonies from #2 onwards are drastically different from the atonal and aleatoric styles he is known for; they incorporate Stravinskian techniques with Neo-Romanticism as well as some of the old stuff (sparingly). Quite wonderful and unique.

Lutoslowski is perhaps the most important of the bunch. Specifically the Third Symphony, which may be the most important symphony written after Shostakovich. Being a fan of the avant-garde, you may appreciate how it brought the AG to the forefront with new techniques never really used before in symphonies and really brought them into wide acceptance. He really changed the game.

BTW, being a fan of opera, I'm surprised you are not a fan of Henze, who is one of the most celebrated opera composers of the last 100 years. He wrote 15 of them and was just as famous for his operas as his symphonies, if not more. You should check some of them out if you haven't yet.


----------



## SanAntone

Torkelburger said:


> I understand. I know all composers quite well, and prefer my list. You may not want to judge the composers from what little you've heard, given that several composers drastically changed their style quite often. Henze alone composed in atonal, serial, neoclassical, Stravinskian, and even incorporated jazz, rock, and popular styles. Penderecki's symphonies from #2 onwards are drastically different from the atonal and aleatoric styles he is known for; they incorporate Stravinskian techniques with Neo-Romanticism as well as some of the old stuff (sparingly). Quite wonderful and unique.
> 
> Lutoslowski is perhaps the most important of the bunch. Specifically the Third Symphony, which may be the most important symphony written after Shostakovich. Being a fan of the avant-garde, you may appreciate how it brought the AG to the forefront with new techniques never really used before in symphonies and really brought them into wide acceptance. He really changed the game.
> 
> BTW, being a fan of opera, I'm surprised you are not a fan of Henze, who is one of the most celebrated opera composers of the last 100 years. He wrote 15 of them and was just as famous for his operas as his symphonies, if not more. You should check some of them out if you haven't yet.


I am aware of the number of operas Henze wrote, but I haven't had time to delve into them. I much prefer watching opera vs listening, especially for first time exposure and if the Met hasn't done one of his, I will have to search YouTube for something. Although I have to say, even as someone who loves opera and watches/listen to it a lot, I often find 20th century opera difficult. I did create a folder for his operas (there's five on Spotify) but just haven't listened to any of them.

But I will listen, it sometimes takes me a while to get to a composer since I have a methodical way of doing it.

What I usually do (I am working through Sofia Gubaidulina at the moment) is create playlists on Spotify of every work available there, and collect them into folders for Orchestral, Concertante, Chamber, etc. and go through them chronologically. Then I slide the composer into one of four tiered groups depending up on how much the music resonated with me.

Depending upon which tier I place them will determine how often I go back and listen to their music. I greatly appreciate your comments, and was aware of the stylistic changes for Penderecki and Henze. And I may come to the same conclusion you have regarding their merits.

I love the process of investigating composers, so "it's all good."


----------



## PlaySalieri

JTS said:


> Correct. One has to speculate how he would have developed given ten more years as he had only just reached his maturity as a symphonist with 39-41. But of course, we have to go by what we have. Same with Schubert.


I am arguing based on what we have.

Few composers reeled off 6 great symphonies in a row the way Mozart did.


----------



## joen_cph

Agree, 35 (though more condensed) has always been among my favourites, and 36+38 are great too ...


----------



## hammeredklavier

PlaySalieri said:


> Few composers reeled off 6 great symphonies in a row the way Mozart did.


I rate the 33rd, 34th more highly than the 35th due to the expressiveness of the slow movements


----------



## Phil loves classical

Torkelburger said:


> I understand. I know all composers quite well, and prefer my list. You may not want to judge the composers from what little you've heard, given that several composers drastically changed their style quite often. Henze alone composed in atonal, serial, neoclassical, Stravinskian, and even incorporated jazz, rock, and popular styles. Penderecki's symphonies from #2 onwards are drastically different from the atonal and aleatoric styles he is known for; they incorporate Stravinskian techniques with Neo-Romanticism as well as some of the old stuff (sparingly). Quite wonderful and unique.
> 
> Lutoslowski is perhaps the most important of the bunch. Specifically the Third Symphony, which may be the most important symphony written after Shostakovich. Being a fan of the avant-garde, you may appreciate how it brought the AG to the forefront with new techniques never really used before in symphonies and really brought them into wide acceptance. He really changed the game.
> 
> BTW, being a fan of opera, I'm surprised you are not a fan of Henze, who is one of the most celebrated opera composers of the last 100 years. He wrote 15 of them and was just as famous for his operas as his symphonies, if not more. You should check some of them out if you haven't yet.


Lutoslawski was a beautiful man. Just don't have the same interest in the composers of nowadays, and I believe I've tried.


----------



## joen_cph

Lutoslawski's 4th is quite lyrical and serene, the 3rd doesn't appear scurrile either.


----------



## Torkelburger

joen_cph said:


> Lutoslawski's 4th is quite lyrical and serene, the 3rd doesn't appear scurrile either.


Precisely, which just goes to show you atonality, aggregate harmony, aleatoric procedures, etc. does not always equal ugliness, "random" sounds, etc. etc.


----------



## Heck148

Torkelburger said:


> Those are indeed fine symphonists, but IMO the greatest achievement in the tradition of the symphony in the later half of the 20th century or at least post-Shostakovich were Hans Werner Henze, Krzysztof Penderecki, Alfred Schnittke, Witold Lutoslowski, and Michael Tippett. Far more substantial I would say.


I esp enjoy the symphonies of Penderecki and Tippett...certainly major works...Penderecki is definitely influenced by Shostakovich [a good thing]....I'm listening a lot at present to his orchestral symphonies 1 - 5...
Tippett's are very good also, esp 2-4...


----------



## SanAntone

Lutosławski wrote four symphonies. Granted they are significant works, but there are other 20th century composers who wrote more symphonic works displaying a specific concern with that form. I can't see Lutosławski being more important as a symphonic voice as composers such as Nikolai Myaskovsky, Mieczyslaw Weinberg, Einojuhani Rautavaara, Karl Amadeus Hartmann, Per Nørgård, and Benjamin Frankel, all who wrote major symphonic works, and more of them.


----------



## Torkelburger

SanAntone said:


> Lutosławski wrote four symphonies. Granted they are significant works, but there are other 20th century composers who wrote more symphonic works displaying a specific concern with that form. I can't see Lutosławski being more important as a symphonic voice as composers such as Nikolai Myaskovsky, Mieczyslaw Weinberg, Einojuhani Rautavaara, Karl Amadeus Hartmann, Per Nørgård, and Benjamin Frankel, all who wrote major symphonic works, and more of them.


I'm afraid I could not (respectfully) disagree more. QUALITY over quantity, my friend.


----------



## SanAntone

Torkelburger said:


> I'm afraid I could not (respectfully) disagree more. QUALITY over quantity, my friend.


You assume I was implying otherwise, my friend.  If we are considering "symphonists" I do think it is important that a composer under consideration devoted a significant amount of his energies to that form. A composer who wrote four did not do that to the extent a composer who wrote 8, 15, 22, or 27 has.

I forgot to mention another composer, *Bohuslav Martinů* who wrote 8 excellent symphonies.

I certainly do not denigrate the achievement of Lutosławski, I just contest your characterization that his achievement is greater than that of the other composers I have mentioned who devoted more of their attention and energies to the symphony.


----------



## joen_cph

By Martinu there are 6? I think the concertante ones and sinfoniettas are too concertante to be 'real' symphonies.


----------



## elgar's ghost

At least as far as the 20th century goes I do hold a bit of torch for the six symphonies by Paul Hindemith. Most go under the radar, perhaps partly because none were numbered so they are rarely taken into consideration as a cycle in itself. There was also a _Sinfonietta_ from 1949 but it might be pushing it in terms of adding it to the _bona fide_ ones listed below.

Symphony: _Mathis der Maler_ (1934):
Symphony in E-flat (1940):
_Symphonia serena_ (1946):
Symphony: _Die Harmonie der Welt_ (1951):
Symphony in B-flat for concert band (1951):
_Pittsburgh Symphony_ (1958):


----------



## Knorf

I really like all of Hindemith's symphonies, but especially the Symphony In E-flat. Would that they were all played more often!


----------



## SanAntone

joen_cph said:


> By Martinu there are 6? I think the concertante ones and sinfoniettas are too concertante to be 'real' symphonies.


You're right, I misspoke (sic).


----------



## Torkelburger

SanAntone said:


> You assume I was implying otherwise, my friend.  If we are considering "symphonists" I do think it is important that a composer under consideration devoted a significant amount of his energies to that form. A composer who wrote four did not do that to the extent a composer who wrote 8, 15, 22, or 27 has.
> 
> I forgot to mention another composer, *Bohuslav Martinů* who wrote 8 excellent symphonies.
> 
> I certainly do not denigrate the achievement of Lutosławski, I just contest your characterization that his achievement is greater than that of the other composers I have mentioned who devoted more of their attention and energies to the symphony.


Brahms wrote 4 symphonies; which some consider to be the best in all of classical music. If not, you'd still be very hard-pressed to find a set of symphonies by anyone, "symphonist" or not, that is better who is not named Mozart, Beethoven, or Mahler--(I don't want to open the Haydn can of worms so I won't mention it).

There are composers who wrote more than one or even two violin concertos, but it would be completely foolish and downright intellectually dishonest to disqualify Mendelssohn's as one of the finest achievements in history or even place his below theirs, just because he only wrote one. It makes no sense.

Anyway, I won't belabor that point any further so feel free to have the last word on it.

I will say just this about Hartmann, though. While I absolutely LOVE his symphonies and all his compositions (I have all of the symphonies on CD and some piano pieces). And it is a shame he is not performed more often (as well as Martinu too), I wouldn't consider his symphonies in the upper echelon of the repertoire.

I often find his music somewhat derivative at times. Take the sixth symphony for example. It is highly contrapuntal music that is too reminiscent of Hindemith and Bartok; and the orchestration (in the Toccata) borderlines on a flat out rip off (sorry for the strong words) of Bartok's _Music for Strings, Percussion, and Celeste_. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE this piece. They are wonderful, marvelous colors. But they are not entirely Hartmann's. They're Bartok's. And it's too much of it. Sorry. But let's be honest. I have to call it the way I see it.


----------



## SanAntone

Torkelburger said:


> There are composers who wrote more than one or even two violin concertos, but it would be completely foolish and downright intellectually dishonest to disqualify Mendelssohn's as one of the finest achievements in history or even place his below theirs, just because he only wrote one. It makes no sense.


I don't think much of Mendelssohn in general, but especially his violin concerto. We will have to agree to disagree about all of this.


----------



## Torkelburger

Knorf said:


> I really like all of Hindemith's symphonies, but especially the Symphony In E-flat. Would that they were all played more often!


I remember a couple years ago there was a thread about our favorite symphonists of the 20th century and I mentioned Hindemith and we had to convince others that he actually wrote symphonies! I believe some argued that since he didn't number them (No. 1, No. 2, etc.) they weren't "proper" so he wasn't REALLY a symphonist. They said the same when I said Stravinsky was one of my favorite symphonists!


----------



## Torkelburger

SanAntone said:


> I don't think much of Mendelssohn in general, but especially his violin concerto. We will have to agree to disagree about all of this.


As long as it's not BECAUSE he only wrote ONE.


----------



## SanAntone

Torkelburger said:


> As long as it's not BECAUSE he only wrote ONE.


 .....................


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast

Torkelburger said:


> BTW, being a fan of opera, I'm surprised you are not a fan of Henze, who is one of the most celebrated opera composers of the last 100 years. He wrote 15 of them and was just as famous for his operas as his symphonies, if not more. You should check some of them out if you haven't yet.


Which would you say are Henze's greatest operas? I like a lot of his music (my favourite being Voices I think), but still haven't gotten around to listening to his operas.


----------



## Heck148

Knorf said:


> I really like all of Hindemith's symphonies, but especially the Symphony In E-flat. Would that they were all played more often!


The Hindemith Eb Symphony is a wonderful piece, it should be a concert staple.


----------



## Knorf

Heck148 said:


> The Hindemith Eb Symphony is a wonderful piece, it should be a concert staple.


Totally agree. It saddens me how few people know anything about it, and there are very few recordings. Fortunately, one of them is Bernstein with the NYPO, and it's outstanding!


----------



## Knorf

Torkelburger said:


> I believe some argued that since he didn't number them (No. 1, No. 2, etc.) they weren't "proper" so he wasn't REALLY a symphonist.


And, as it happens, Ralph Vaughan Williams didn't number his symphonies, either...So I guess he's not a real symphonist! :lol:



> They said the same when I said Stravinsky was one of my favorite symphonists!


To suppprt your point, it's pretty indisputable, after all, that Stravinsky wrote three of the most important symphonies of the 20th century!


----------



## Bwv 1080

SanAntone said:


> Lutosławski wrote four symphonies. Granted they are significant works, but there are other 20th century composers who wrote more symphonic works displaying a specific concern with that form. I can't see Lutosławski being more important as a symphonic voice as composers such as Nikolai Myaskovsky, Mieczyslaw Weinberg, Einojuhani Rautavaara, Karl Amadeus Hartmann, Per Nørgård, and Benjamin Frankel, all who wrote major symphonic works, and more of them.


Could not disagree more! would trade all of those for Witold in a second
And dont forget the other orchestral works - symphony is such an arbitrary term for 20th cent music

Concerto for Orchestra
Musique funèbre
Jeux vénitiens
Livre pour orchestre
Novelette
Chain I
Chain III

All great works


----------



## Heck148

Knorf said:


> Totally agree. It saddens me how few people know anything about it, and there are very few recordings. Fortunately, one of them is Bernstein with the NYPO, and it's outstanding!


Yes, Bernstein/NYPO did a great job with it...outstanding score...I think audiences would find it quite appealing...it needs way more programming time...


----------



## Torkelburger

allaroundmusicenthusiast said:


> Which would you say are Henze's greatest operas? I like a lot of his music (my favourite being Voices I think), but still haven't gotten around to listening to his operas.


Unfortunately with operas, outside of Mozart and Wagner, I don't listen to much. I'm trying to remedy that. For the 20th century, I've only heard about 30 complete operas, and a lot of those probably don't qualify as legit (like Philip Glass's "operas"--not really operas. Or Stravinsky's Oedipus Rex (which is really an oratorio...although I've heard Rake's Progress a couple times)). And many of them people on this site wouldn't care about at all, like those of Tobias Picker (small operas mostly for chamber groups, really). As far as the "major" 20th century operas, I have listened to and enjoyed Britten's Peter Grimes and A Midsummer's Nights Dream, of course. I've also like Thomas Ades's opera. But that's my limited experience.

If anyone knows Henze's best place to start with his opera's, I'd love to give it a go. I know his symphonies and concertos very well.


----------



## SanAntone

Torkelburger said:


> Unfortunately with operas, outside of Mozart and Wagner, I don't listen to much. I'm trying to remedy that. For the 20th century, I've only heard about 30 complete operas, and a lot of those probably don't qualify as legit (like Philip Glass's "operas"--not really operas. Or Stravinsky's Oedipus Rex (which is really an oratorio...although I've heard Rake's Progress a couple times)). And many of them people on this site wouldn't care about at all, like those of Tobias Picker (small operas mostly for chamber groups, really). As far as the "major" 20th century operas, I have listened to and enjoyed Britten's Peter Grimes and A Midsummer's Nights Dream, of course. I've also like Thomas Ades's opera. But that's my limited experience.
> 
> If anyone knows Henze's best place to start with his opera's, I'd love to give it a go. I know his symphonies and concertos very well.


Henze has written a number of one act operas which are easily digestible. _The Bassarids_ is a good place to start, or _Das verratene Meer_, _Venus und Adonis_. Many of his works that are classified as operas are some form of musical theatre, but are not exactly operas, and he often did not call them such. _El Cimarrón_ is one of these, as well as _Das Floß der Medusa_. The one I'm getting into more recently is _Das verratene Meer_ one of his later works, ~1988.

I've not seen any of these staged, but the music is compelling. There is a nice three movement suite from the music for _The Bassarids_ which is also available.








> Performance: Komische Oper Berlin, cond. Vladimir Jurowski
> 
> Music by Hans Werner Henze to an English libretto by W. H. Auden and Chester Kallman, after Euripides's The Bacchae.The conflict in the opera is between human rationality and emotional control, represented by the King of Thebes, Pentheus, and unbridled human passion, represented by the god Dionysus.
> 
> A noteworthy feature of the opera is its construction like a classical symphony in four 'movements':
> 
> 'Movement I' = sonata form
> 'Movement II' = scherzo and trio
> 'Movement III' = adagio and fugue
> 'Movement IV' = passacaglia
> 
> Henze has noted that he quotes from Johann Sebastian Bach's St. Matthew Passion and the English Suite in D minor.


----------



## Torkelburger

Great! Will start checking it out


----------



## Torkelburger

Torkelburger said:


> Unfortunately with operas, outside of Mozart and Wagner, I don't listen to much. I'm trying to remedy that. For the 20th century, I've only heard about 30 complete operas, and a lot of those probably don't qualify as legit (like Philip Glass's "operas"--not really operas. Or Stravinsky's Oedipus Rex (which is really an oratorio...although I've heard Rake's Progress a couple times)). And many of them people on this site wouldn't care about at all, like those of Tobias Picker (small operas mostly for chamber groups, really). As far as the "major" 20th century operas, I have listened to and enjoyed Britten's Peter Grimes and A Midsummer's Nights Dream, of course. I've also like Thomas Ades's opera. But that's my limited experience.
> 
> If anyone knows Henze's best place to start with his opera's, I'd love to give it a go. I know his symphonies and concertos very well.


forgot to mention Wozzeck, my favorite. Have the score and know it well. Also Rihm operas I love. Dionysos being my favorite. Will need to post in the guestbook at some point to share thoughts.


----------



## elgar's ghost

The only complete Henze opera I have heard is _The English Cat_. I've commented on it on numerous threads in the past, but below are the comments I wrote when I last posted the work in the Current Listening thread.

_The English Cat is a bittersweet work. It centres around a group of anthropomorphic cats in the late Victorian era, some of whom represent the pompous and hypocritical Royal Society for the Protection of Rats. The society's associates include an orphan mouse, Louise, who happens to have more common sense than all the cats put together.

The crux of the plot is a love affair between Minette, the impressionable new wife of the aristocratic president-elect of the society (Lord Puff) and Tom, her happy-go-lucky admirer and the attempts of the president-elect's rakish and impoverished nephew (Arnold) to inherit Lord Puff's fortune by taking advantage of the extra-marital scandal with the aid of his devious creditor (Jones)._

If anyone likes the soundworld of Stravinsky's _The Rake's Progress_ then this might appeal.


----------



## haziz

Klassic said:


> How can anyone really compete with Mahler here. Does anyone disagree?


Yes, I disagree. Mahler does make it into my list of top 20 symphonists, but I can easily think of at least a dozen symphonists that I would rank above him.


----------



## Xisten267

My top ten (favorite) symphonists today:

1. Beethoven
2. Bruckner
3. Mahler
4. Tchaikovsky
5. Brahms
6. Sibelius
7. Dvorák
8. Shostakovich
9. Schubert
10. Mozart


----------



## SanAntone

*Who is the Greatest Symphonist of all Time?*

There is no greatest symphonist _for all time_.

One might arguably come up with a list of the greatest symphonist for each musical era, but that 's about all, Styles change, orchestras change, audiences change, so that the music produced will be different and without any true basis for comparison.

For me symphonists (a term I interpret as a composer writing for the orchestra) became progressively more interesting during the 20th century and into the 21st.


----------



## Kreisler jr

SanAntone said:


> For me symphonists *(a term I interpret as a composer writing for the orchestra)* became progressively more interesting during the 20th century and into the 21st.


I think that this is a rather problematic interpretation because "symphonist" means something very different to most of us, I'd guess. Wagner or Strauss were without a doubt great and important composers for the orchestra but in my use of the term they would not be "symphonists" at all. "Symphonist" would have a far narrower meaning, namely composer of symphonies and thus tied to the history of the genre from roughly the 1760s-70s or so when the genre became established as somewhat independent from the "sinfonia" for an opera or so until today. So Segerstam or whoever today writes many symphonies would be a symphonist (although maybe not a very significant one) because the genre obviously vaned during the 20th century.
"Composer for the orchestra" would be an entirely different question with Wagner, Debussy, Ravel, Messiaen... as important figures who wrote (almost) no symphonies.


----------



## SanAntone

Kreisler jr said:


> I think that this is a rather problematic interpretation because "symphonist" means something very different to most of us, I'd guess. Wagner or Strauss were without a doubt great and important composers for the orchestra but in my use of the term they would not be "symphonists" at all. "Symphonist" would have a far narrower meaning, namely composer of symphonies and thus tied to the history of the genre from roughly the 1760s-70s or so when the genre became established as somewhat independent from the "sinfonia" for an opera or so until today. So Segerstam or whoever today writes many symphonies would be a symphonist (although maybe not a very significant one) because the genre obviously vaned during the 20th century.
> "Composer for the orchestra" would be an entirely different question with Wagner, Debussy, Ravel, Messiaen... as important figures who wrote (almost) no symphonies.


I may have been overly broad, but I was getting at the fact that the _idea_ of a symphony changed during the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. Haydn's understanding of a symphony was different from Mahler, and Mahler's from Arvo Pärt and other composers of C20/21 - most of whom had their own ideas of why they called an orchestral work "a symphony."


----------



## Terrapin

1. Beethoven
2. Haydn
3. Tchaikovsky 
4. Brahms
5. Mahler
6. Bruckner
7. Mozart
8. Dvorak
9. Schubert
10. Sibelius


----------



## HerbertNorman

I listened to the seventh and the 10th Symphony of Shostakovich again yesterday... he is in my top three...no doubt


----------

