# What is the most haunting and beautiful symphony of all time?



## yajiu

Hi there, I would like to know what the members of this site feel is the most haunting and beautiful symphony of all time. What do you think?


----------



## David C Coleman

I am going to put Bruckners 4th here (Revised version). That opening horn call is quite unique. 
Other contenders might be Schuberts "Unfinished" and Mahlers 9th..(Last movement is amazing!!)


----------



## david johnson

i don't know, i've not heard all the sympnonies ever written.
schubert 8 would come close for me.

dj


----------



## anon2k2

I've noticed a lot of these "of all time" and "in the world" threads. I find it really difficult to answer these questions in any real way. A friend and I are trying to coax a mutual other friend into the world of classical music. Our "newbie" friend asked for a list (orally) of 
20th century composers that he should know about, we were able to rattle off a list of 50 or so in two minutes flat. Actual thinking would have provided hundreds.

So of all the thousands and thousands of symphonies ever written, which one is the most beautiful? Who knows, and while I have a few dozen favorites, mine are going to emotionally be very different than any one elses.


----------



## BuddhaBandit

My personal favorite for "beautiful" is Mahler's 8th, because of the wonderful vocal parts (especially in Part II). However, I also really like the opening movement to Ives's 1st.


----------



## yajiu

anon2k2 said:


> I've noticed a lot of these "of all time" and "in the world" threads. I find it really difficult to answer these questions in any real way. A friend and I are trying to coax a mutual other friend into the world of classical music. Our "newbie" friend asked for a list (orally) of
> 20th century composers that he should know about, we were able to rattle off a list of 50 or so in two minutes flat. Actual thinking would have provided hundreds.
> 
> So of all the thousands and thousands of symphonies ever written, which one is the most beautiful? Who knows, and while I have a few dozen favorites, mine are going to emotionally be very different than any one elses.


The beauty of a forum is that you get many different opinions, you can try them all out, and eventually you will agree with at least one of the member's suggestions. You're quite right, everyone will have a different opinion but that's just the point.

Thank you all for your suggestions they have all been excellent. I have checked some of them out and really like what I hear. I have really had a craving for music that could be described as: Dark brooding Pantomime, deep haunting symphony, a sea of intangible, unsettling, subtle mystery. Bizarre I know, but it would be outstanding to eventually find it.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

anon2k2 said:


> I've noticed a lot of these "of all time" and "in the world" threads. I find it really difficult to answer these questions in any real way.


Point well made, especially in light of the fact that this forum is filled to the brim with top-10 lists.

A more specific criticism: what is the difference between "haunting" and "beautiful" and "favourite"? I think the phrasing of the question ("haunting and beautiful") is a little too wordy, it's trying to be se specific that it actually becomes rather vague.

That said, I will attempt an answer, at least for the "haunting" part. I find Berlioz _Symphonie Fantastique_ haunting, firstly because it's supposed to be and secondly because the orchestral colours he creates to bring forth the expressiveness of his themes is in my opinion unmatched in the History of the Haunted Symphony.


----------



## Rondo

Mahler's 2nd.


----------



## Rachovsky

Rondo said:


> Mahler's 2nd.


Movement 5


----------



## Artemis

yajiu said:


> The beauty of a forum is that you get many different opinions ....


Sorry to disappoint you, but this isn't necessarily true, and in fact is not likely to be true. Most people can't be bothered to answer such simple questions as the one you posed, and the odd few that do so means that you are getting a self-selecting sample of opinion which is not worth the paper it's written on.


----------



## Gustav

A lot of "beginners" or people who have very superficial understandings of classical music and what it is all about, often think that it has plenty of "beautiful" or "Haunting" tunes. And indeed those are some of the words one can use to DESCRIBE a few aspects of a portion of the Classical oeuvre. It is however by no means a fair description of the genre. This is even more true for Symphonies. I wonder how many symphonists really wanted to create the effects of "Beautiful" and "haunting" melodies, of course, there are some, Tchaikovsky and Kallinikov comes to my mind. But, in the great tradition of German symphonists, be it Beethoven, Mozart, Mahler, Bruckner, etc.... I really have a hard time imagining that those masters would focus on tunes more so than development. I think development is something that is more interesting to look at. The nice tunes are nice, but they are pretty superficial, and becomes boring pretty quick. But, how Beethoven constructed a 4 movement symphony using a simple four-note rhythmic motif provides almost endless fascination.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

As to the "various opinions" on which Artemis takes issue, I have to agree with him. For those of us who have been here and at other forums for a long time, the "top-10-type" threads and the "favourite-so-and-so" threads are everywhere, but they seldom lead to any type of discussion from which anyone learns anything. People most often take them as a chance to trumpet their tastes (with no explanation or argument) and perhaps grab a "free" post.

But that said, these types of threads are a basic part of forum life. They've been here since the beginning and they're here to stay.


----------



## BuddhaBandit

Gustav brings up a good point... however, while discussing development details is great, threads like these are equally important. In particular, threads like these can get the ball rolling on deeper issues, such as when something like the following occurs:

"What is the most haunting and beautiful symphony of all time?"
"Bruckner's fourth, because of his great use of the recurring horn-call motif"
"Ah! What do you like about how he develops it?"

And the Bruckner fan answers, and _voilà_, a discussion on development.


----------



## david johnson

Artemis said:


> Sorry to disappoint you, but this isn't necessarily true, and in fact is not likely to be true. Most people can't be bothered to answer such simple questions as the one you posed, and the odd few that do so means that you are getting a self-selecting sample of opinion which is not worth the paper it's written on.


but mine was not written upon paper. therefore, according to your criteria, it is quite valuable. 

dj


----------



## Gustav

BuddhaBandit said:


> Gustav brings up a good point... however, while discussing development details is great, threads like these are equally important. In particular, threads like these can get the ball rolling on deeper issues, such as when something like the following occurs:
> 
> "What is the most haunting and beautiful symphony of all time?"
> "Bruckner's fourth, because of his great use of the recurring horn-call motif"
> "Ah! What do you like about how he develops it?"
> 
> And the Bruckner fan answers, and _voilà_, a discussion on development.


In an ideal world, and ideal place for discussion, we should see less thread like these, which deals with really superficial aspects of music. I said "Development" as an example, of the many things people can talk about, and have a more interesting discussion on. Therefore, I don't believe threads like these are "important" at all, i.e. people don't get anything out of it. Do you learn more by knowing a certain symphonic movement has a really nice "haunting" passage? I doubt it. Even without going into the more "technical" aspect of classical music, we can still make interesting discussions simply by saying what we "get" from listening to certain pieces of music, and why you like it and why didn't.


----------



## David C Coleman

Artemis said:


> Sorry to disappoint you, but this isn't necessarily true, and in fact is not likely to be true. Most people can't be bothered to answer such simple questions as the one you posed, and the odd few that do so means that you are getting a self-selecting sample of opinion which is not worth the paper it's written on.


What a load of over complicated nonsense from most of you here!!! Not everybody on this forum will have the same degree of knowledge and insight of music.

Bearing in mind that most composers wrote their music for the benefit and enjoyment of all who wanted to listen to it and not just for professional musicians and pompous, upper class individuals who only seem to listen to it today, and think that the common layman has no interest or even right to take an interest in it!!!

If you can't be botherd to lower yourselves and answer an innocent and and simple question like this, then I suggest you join a forum which is more suitable to your requirements


----------



## BuddhaBandit

> In an ideal world, and ideal place for discussion, we should see less thread like these, which deals with really superficial aspects of music. I said "Development" as an example, of the many things people can talk about, and have a more interesting discussion on. Therefore, I don't believe threads like these are "important" at all, i.e. people don't get anything out of it. Do you learn more by knowing a certain symphonic movement has a really nice "haunting" passage? I doubt it. Even without going into the more "technical" aspect of classical music, we can still make interesting discussions simply by saying what we "get" from listening to certain pieces of music, and why you like it and why didn't.


True, but my point was that threads like these often encourage posters to include the "why", which is the basis for most good discussion.

So, in that vein, here's a question for the previous posters: what gives your favorite "haunting" symphony its haunting quality? Can we make any generalizations about how composers achieve a "haunting" effect?


----------



## yajiu

Thank you all for your wonderful suggestions, you have enriched my life with the gift of your experience and music. I have benefited much from the input of the members here.

as to the question: what gives your favorite "haunting" symphony its haunting quality? Can we make any generalizations about how composers achieve a "haunting" effect?

I think that the answer is tied inextricably with the human animal. Our basic human instinct is survival, this drives everything we do and has contributed to human beings as the biological success story that we are. Death is a mystery to us, the prospect of which has certain emotions tied to it. Things like a clock ticking, a syncopated rhythm (representing heart failure - the final sound), and 'a day that is dead' (music from a style that comes from far in the past that sounds beautiful but alien to our ears) are all archetypes that I believe humans understand and relate to on a subconscious level.

Agree? Disagree?


----------



## Gustav

yajiu said:


> as to the question: what gives your favorite "haunting" symphony its haunting quality? Can we make any generalizations about how composers achieve a "haunting" effect?


It's actually fairly straightforward, it's called "aesthetics". When you percieve a chord for instance, it's perfect harmony (think about perfect 3rd, 5th and 7th) is very pleasureful on the ears. And, on a physiological level, we find it very pleasing. That's it, really, it's no more than a natural phenomenon that somehow in one way or the other helps the survival of human race. After all, indulging in artistic activities, be it playing music, singing music, or writing music must have some positive impact on the human physiology. Otherwise, explain why we find pleasure in doing it. 
But, that's a very basic view. We are here to discuss music, not aesthetics, and human psychology, we should leave that to some other forum.


----------



## BuddhaBandit

This is not really what my original question was geared towards... while human psychology may play a role, the composer also makes conscious choices that create the intended effect. So, the question is, what is the composer doing that makes the symphony "haunting"? Is it the use of perfect fifths in the melody? A clarinet/violin duet? An arpeggio in the bassoons? Etc. etc. etc.


----------



## Gustav

BuddhaBandit said:


> This is not really what my original question was geared towards... while human psychology may play a role, the composer also makes conscious choices that create the intended effect. So, the question is, what is the composer doing that makes the symphony "haunting"? Is it the use of perfect fifths in the melody? A clarinet/violin duet? An arpeggio in the bassoons? Etc. etc. etc.


that depends, some composers wanted to charm while others wanted to change the world. It's not a question of "What", but "why". The "what" IS simple to explain, anyone who has mastered the art of composition and has a melodic gift can write "haunting" music. (like so many of our film composers of today). To write "Meaningful" music, on the other hand, takes much more "talent".


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

David C Coleman said:


> Bearing in mind that most composers wrote their music for the benefit and enjoyment of all who wanted to listen to it and not just for professional musicians and pompous, upper class individuals who only seem to listen to it today...


David C Coleman, while I empathize with the uderlying sentiment of your statement, I would be careful not to be overly general. Let us not forget that in the 18th and 19th centuries, an overwhelming amount of Classical music was written under heavy patronage from the nobility or from the upper classes, and composers simply could not have existed without that support. By extension, the intended audiences were the very pompous upper class and indoctrinated individuals that you snub. In short, the elitist standing of classical music today is not something that 20th century snobs invented, it began that way.

"Music for the Masses" was an idea that was propagated by the 19th century virtuosi like Paganini and Liszt. The showpieces that they wowed audiences with are mostly forgotten, or at least seen today in their proper context, as popular virtuosic works (i.e. with little or no musical substance). Another 19th Century example of bringing music to the masses was Rossini through his operas. Wildly popular in his day, how many Rossini operas are still performed today in the standard repertory of opera houses? Certainly the _Barber of Seville_, but after that?



Gustav said:


> When you percieve a chord for instance, it's perfect harmony (think about perfect 3rd, 5th and 7th) is very pleasureful on the ears.


Careful, Gustav, you are on shaky ground here. First of all, there is no such thing as a perfect 3rd or a perfect 7th. While perfect 5ths exists, 3rds and 7ths are either major or minor. Secondly, the "psychologically pleasing perfection" of the major third (as heard in a major triad) is a fallacy that western ears have simply become accustomed to over the centuries through temepered tuning. If one heard these various intervals in their pure Pythagorean forms, based on perfect proportions within the octave, they would sound *horrendously out of tune* to our modern ears.



Gustav said:


> And, on a physiological level, we find it very pleasing. That's it, really, it's no more than a natural phenomenon that somehow in one way or the other helps the survival of human race.


This statement is extremely ethnocentric. You are taking something that has developed over hundreds of years in the aesthetic collective consciousness of the Western world and applying it to the whole human race as a natural principle, which is proposterous. In the music of many cultures, there are completely different intervalic and harmonic systems than ours, and those systems sound just as "natural" and "universal" to those people as ours does to us.


----------



## Gustav

Kurkikohtaus said:


> Careful, Gustav, you are on shaky ground here. First of all, there is no such thing as a perfect 3rd or a perfect 7th. While perfect 5ths exists, 3rds and 7ths are either major or minor. Secondly, the "psychologically pleasing perfection" of the major third (as heard in a major triad) is a fallacy that western ears have simply become accustomed to over the centuries through temepered tuning. If one heard these various intervals in their pure Pythagorean forms, based on perfect proportions within the octave, they would sound *horrendously out of tune* to our modern ears.


ahh, sometimes i say the stupidiest things, yes, i meant perfect 5th, and what i meant in general is that the musical relationships are quite pleasing on the ears. While this is a western construct, we are after all talking in a forum populated by predominantly western individuals.



Kurkikohtaus said:


> This statement is extremely ethnocentric. You are taking something that has developed over hundreds of years in the aesthetic collective consciousness of the Western world and applying it to the whole human race as a natural principle, which is proposterous. In the music of many cultures, there are completely different intervalic and harmonic systems than ours, and those systems sound just as "natural" and "universal" to those people as ours does to us.


If you had read my words carefully and understood what i was saying, you'll notice that i wasn't at any point referring to "The whole of human race", the fact that we are here, talking about western classical music, in english should be pretty indicative of which "we" I was referring to.


----------



## EricIsAPolarBear

Not to get involved in the discussion of the merit of this question, i'd like to agree with the poster above who mentioned Mahler's second symphony. Just as I clicked on the link to this discussion, it was the first symphony that came to mind. The recurring themes in the first movement and the fifth movement especially qualify for me as both haunting and beautiful. I took a walk once on the beach with this symphony playing through my headphones and it was a truly purifying experience I will never forget.


----------



## confuoco

*Behms - No. 2*

I have a few beloved symphonies, but for the "the most haunting and beautiful" request one of the top candidats is Symphony No. 2 by Brahms. Absolutely wonderful symphony, fulled up with beautiful themes. For me rare example of symphony, in that every movement delights me much. Symphony full of loveliness, calm, wisdom and in the last movement spontaneous and cheerful (maybe atypical for Brahms). What a fascinating work!!!


----------



## shsherm

Taste in music is an individual characteristic and is difficult to generalize. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". People who have listened to music and enjoy classical music all have their favorites and we may agree or disagree on the most hauting and beautiful piece. I think the 6th of Tchaikovsky could be a work to be considered in this category but I enjoy quite a few compositions and recently heard the LA Phil play the Mahler 6th which might also be considered. There are a large number of possilbilities.


----------



## World Violist

I agree with shsherm about generalizing "the most beautiful"/"the most haunting" etc. My candidates:
-Tchaikovsky 6
-Brahms 1, 2, 4
-Sibelius 3, 7
-Hanson 2


----------



## Handel

I don't want to be rude, but this is a stupid question. There is no ONE most haunting and beautiful symphony of all time. All depend on point of view. My answer could be as right as anybody.


----------



## opus67

But this isn't the first time such a question has been posted on this, or any other classical music board.


----------



## dsunlin

I would call "haunting" something that stays with you...
...like gum on the bottom of your shoe, only more pleasant. 

Borodin's 2nd, expecially that third movement. Bliss!

Saint Saens' Organ Symphony.


----------



## CMStarke

David C Coleman said:


> What a load of over complicated nonsense from most of you here!!! Not everybody on this forum will have the same degree of knowledge and insight of music.
> 
> Bearing in mind that most composers wrote their music for the benefit and enjoyment of all who wanted to listen to it and not just for professional musicians and pompous, upper class individuals who only seem to listen to it today, and think that the common layman has no interest or even right to take an interest in it!!!
> 
> If you can't be botherd to lower yourselves and answer an innocent and and simple question like this, then I suggest you join a forum which is more suitable to your requirements


I couldn't agree more with David. I'm so sorry. I made an account on this forum because I was so appalled by some of these responses. I unfortunately cannot keep my thoughts to myself. I would have to say about half of the responses to the simple and innocent question the OP had, were rude, egotistical, conceited, and pretty insulting and hurtful to the OP and to even me. It seems a lot of people on this site are too caught up in themselves and flaunting their education when it comes to symphony or composer related topics. I would say, "no one cares what you know" but that's not true. I, unfortunately and with great and everlasting regret, do care. However, not in a positive way. Everyone of you that had nothing friendly or constructive to say should be ashamed if yourselves. The purpose of any and every forum is to share our knowledge and to discuss and answer the OP's question to the best of out ability. Not to insult them. Not to express your UNRELATED opinion. You may think because you expressed how much you despise subjects like this because... (Holding a glass of Brandy while smoking a pipe and twirling his mustache): "WELL this topic is just preposterous seeing as their is no ACTUAL MOST beautiful or MOST haunting seeing as it's clearly a matter of opinion..." I mean- REALLY!? You don't think the OP knew that? All I can say is if your heads weren't so far up your, you know where, you would have taken your negative feelings aside and responded with a simple and respectful answer. Yes, he/she wants your opinion. But nowhere does he /she ask for you to insult the post or the OP's intelligence. While no one said anything directly to insult their intelligence, your negligent, nasty and hurtful responses had it written all over it. Did any of you maybe consider that the OP isn't educated when it comes to symphony knowledge and was just looking for answers to their question? Maybe for educational purposes? Like me? I know JACK about any symphony whatsoever, however when Googling "haunting symphonies" this was one of the first options that came up. And it makes me sad to see so many of you hateful and conceited individuals answering on this innocent post. Did your mommy and daddy really forget to teach you, "if you don't have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all." It's a shame knowing that there are trolls like you on the internet with nothing better to do than to wave your glass of brandy, sitting cross legged in your velvet recliner and hurt people on the internet. Only because there's a barrier between you and them. I would love to see you answer the way that you did to the innocent individual if they approached you in person, seeking help and guidance, and asking, "Sir/Madam, in your opinion what is the most haunting and/or beautiful symphony you've ever heard?" No wall of technology to separate you. Just simply face-to-face. I know that if you answered me with that kind of heartlessness and poisonous tongue, I would end up in jail for the night for assault. More than likely slap you clean across the face and be sure my engagement ring was facing the opposite way. Get over yourselves.

I'm done ranting. With that said. In my opinion, Stravinsky's The Right of Spring is very beautiful and has a haunting twist to it. It actually caused a riot in Paris in the early 20th century. It was said the flat chord that was played continuously throughout the symphony drove the audience mad, causing the house to riot! There's a wonderful segment on NPR Radiolab on how sounds can effect different individuals. I really suggest you check it out.

"Radiolab believes your ears are a portal to another world. Where sound illuminates ideas, and the boundaries blur between science, philosophy, and human experience. Big questions are investigated, tinkered with, and encouraged to grow. Bring your curiosity, and we'll feed it with possibility. Hosted by Jad Abumrad and Robert Krulwich."

I apologize for resurrecting such an old post. And I tried so hard... but couldn't hold my tongue. To me, these negative posts are a perfect case of cyber bullying. Just a bunch of bully's who insult this forum poster and anyone who gave an honest opinion. Shame.


----------



## violadude

CMStarke said:


> I couldn't agree more with David. I'm so sorry. I made an account on this forum because I was so appalled by some of these responses. I unfortunately cannot keep my thoughts to myself. I would have to say about half of the responses to the simple and innocent question the OP had, were rude, egotistical, conceited, and pretty insulting and hurtful to the OP and to even me. It seems a lot of people on this site are too caught up in themselves and flaunting their education when it comes to symphony or composer related topics. I would say, "no one cares what you know" but that's not true. I, unfortunately and with great and everlasting regret, do care. However, not in a positive way. Everyone of you that had nothing friendly or constructive to say should be ashamed if yourselves. The purpose of any and every forum is to share our knowledge and to discuss and answer the OP's question to the best of out ability. Not to insult them. Not to express your UNRELATED opinion. You may think because you expressed how much you despise subjects like this because... (Holding a glass of Brandy while smoking a pipe and twirling his mustache): "WELL this topic is just preposterous seeing as their is no ACTUAL MOST beautiful or MOST haunting seeing as it's clearly a matter of opinion..." I mean- REALLY!? You don't think the OP knew that? All I can say is if your heads weren't so far up your, you know where, you would have taken your negative feelings aside and responded with a simple and respectful answer. Yes, he/she wants your opinion. But nowhere does he /she ask for you to insult the post or the OP's intelligence. While no one said anything directly to insult their intelligence, your negligent, nasty and hurtful responses had it written all over it. Did any of you maybe consider that the OP isn't educated when it comes to symphony knowledge and was just looking for answers to their question? Maybe for educational purposes? Like me? I know JACK about any symphony whatsoever, however when Googling "haunting symphonies" this was one of the first options that came up. And it makes me sad to see so many of you hateful and conceited individuals answering on this innocent post. Did your mommy and daddy really forget to teach you, "if you don't have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all." It's a shame knowing that there are trolls like you on the internet with nothing better to do than to wave your glass of brandy, sitting cross legged in your velvet recliner and hurt people on the internet. Only because there's a barrier between you and them. I would love to see you answer the way that you did to the innocent individual if they approached you in person, seeking help and guidance, and asking, "Sir/Madam, in your opinion what is the most haunting and/or beautiful symphony you've ever heard?" No wall of technology to separate you. Just simply face-to-face. I know that if you answered me with that kind of heartlessness and poisonous tongue, I would end up in jail for the night for assault. More than likely slap you clean across the face and be sure my engagement ring was facing the opposite way. Get over yourselves.
> 
> I'm done ranting. With that said. In my opinion, Stravinsky's The Right of Spring is very beautiful and has a haunting twist to it. It actually caused a riot in Paris in the early 20th century. It was said the flat chord that was played continuously throughout the symphony drove the audience mad, causing the house to riot! There's a wonderful segment on NPR Radiolab on how sounds can effect different individuals. I really suggest you check it out.
> 
> "Radiolab believes your ears are a portal to another world. Where sound illuminates ideas, and the boundaries blur between science, philosophy, and human experience. Big questions are investigated, tinkered with, and encouraged to grow. Bring your curiosity, and we'll feed it with possibility. Hosted by Jad Abumrad and Robert Krulwich."
> 
> I apologize for resurrecting such an old post. And I tried so hard... but couldn't hold my tongue. To me, these negative posts are a perfect case of cyber bullying. Just a bunch of bully's who insult this forum poster and anyone who gave an honest opinion. Shame.


Wow, that's a hell of a first post.

I didn't see any "cyber bullying". If you don't like discussions about the philosophy behind "MOST" this or that, or about if these type of threads are useful or not you don't have to participate.

I guess some people think this whole site should just be a series of lists that people can stare at.


----------



## Animato

I aggree with you, CMStarke , I thought the purpose of a Forum is to change ideas and to learn from each other. I’m participating also in a Forum about classical music/piano playing here in Germany. Sometimes we have the same problem: there are some members who consider themselves as kind of professor to correct others. Often they receive a lot of criticism from others, because here in Germany we don’t like snobbish lessons to be taught. There is a lot of humor in our discussions, too, and it is amazing with how much insight some very noble members know how to answer to stupid or naïve questions. 

I’m sometimes missing humor in this present Forum. And I don’t think it is useful when you receive a list with all symphonies of music history, when someone is asking for symphonies with a special character. 

So my candidates for the most haunting symphonies are:

Rachmaninov 2nd symphony
Tschaikowsky Pathetique
Mahler 8th symphony


----------



## SONNET CLV

True, this thread's premise may have its weaknesses ....

But of the some thousand of symphonies I've heard over the years, the one I precisely remember as having struck me with an immediate sense of true "haunting beauty" at first hearing (and nearly every subsequent hearing since) is *the Symphony in F-sharp, Op.40 by Erich Wolfgang Korngold.*

I first heard this on the RCA recording ARL1-0443 featuring Rudolf Kempe conducting the Munich Philharmonic Orchestra. That remains my favorite of the recordings I have of this work.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

-Peter Tchaikovsky - Symphony No. 6 in B minor, 'Pathétique'
-Beethoven - Symphony No. 3 in E-Flat Major, 'Eroica' (especially in the 2nd and 4th movements)
-Brahms - Symphony No. 4 in E minor
-F. J. Haydn - Symphony No. 49 in F minor, 'La Passione'
-W. A. Mozart - Symphony No. 25 in G minor


----------



## Vivian

I would define haunting as a category of 'beautiful' (or maybe a separate quality), not as synonyms as some posts here seemed to be implying. To me, haunting suggests a certain otherworldly, maybe nostalgic, morbid or fantastic sort of mood. Bach and Mozart for example are often beautiful, but rarely haunting. Most of the examples of 'haunting' music I can think of are not symphonies. Rite of Spring, Arnold Bax's Tintagel, Rachmaninoff's Isle of the Dead . . . I think Mahler tends to have a very haunting sound as well, especially in his Symphony of a Thousand (the chorus in the finale!)


----------



## Cosmos

As others have said, these opinion questions are difficult for different reasons.

However, I'd say both Mahler's 2nd and Bruckner's 9th are hauntingly beautiful.


----------



## hpowders

Charles Ives Symphony No. 3.


----------



## 20centrfuge

David C Coleman said:


> If you can't be botherd to lower yourselves and answer an innocent and and simple question like this, then I suggest you join a forum which is more suitable to your requirements


I agree. Everyone knows that whatever anyone posts is just an expression of their opinion, and that they haven't sampled the complete catalogue of written music. Let's all chill out!

Most people who post these questions just want to get some ideas of music to check out!!!


----------



## 20centrfuge

*Sibelius 5
Prokofiev 6
Adams Harmonielehre*

Sibelius 5 is the result of years of revising from the composer - working with 'tiles dropped from Heaven' that he had to figure out how to arrange. --Possibly the greatest piece ever written IMHO









Prokofiev 6, written by a frustrated and disillusioned composer who needed an emotional outlet. This piece has some bitterness and despair, but also a tender and hopeful beauty.









Adams Harmonielehre has bold progressive and modern utterances in the first movement, bed-bound cries in the second, and dream-like assurances of peace in the third. I feel that it is the greatest work of the last fifty years.


----------



## science

It was an innocent question, even if naive. Surely we can lower our oh-so-intellectual selves to participate in a little good-natured bull shooting. Surely? Does everything have to be angsty intellectualism all the time? 

Ironically, the end of the matter is, the sort of person who can ask such an innocent question and hope for a good-natured bull shoot session is too good for our ultra-elite beyond the elite selves.

I really wish I didn't like classical music. I hate to be associated with this stuff.


----------



## MagneticGhost

science said:


> It was an innocent question, even if naive. Surely we can lower our oh-so-intellectual selves to participate in a little good-natured bull shooting. Surely? Does everything have to be angsty intellectualism all the time?
> 
> Ironically, the end of the matter is, the sort of person who can ask such an innocent question and hope for a good-natured bull shoot session is too good for our ultra-elite beyond the elite selves.
> 
> I really wish I didn't like classical music. I hate to be associated with this stuff.


Snobbishness and One-up-man-Ship exists in all areas of music.
I was criticised for calling myself a Billy Joel Fan whilst only owning his Greatest Hits.
I've seen people laughed at for not being a fan of a band right at the beginning.
'Call yourself a fan - I bought their first limited edition single on the day of it's release' 
'So - I saw them live before they even released that one'

Oh I see you've chosen one of their well known songs as your favourite.
My favourite track is this obscure B-side

Etc etc etc. 
And to be honest - I've heard more of that snobbishness in my pop life than in my Classical life.
And this is a Classical forum so you're bound to only see CM Snobs here.


----------



## Lord Lance

MagneticGhost said:


> Snobbishness and One-up-man-Ship exists in all areas of music.
> I was criticised for calling myself a Billy Joel Fan whilst only owning his Greatest Hits.
> I've seen people laughed at for not being a fan of a band right at the beginning.
> 'Call yourself a fan - I bought their first limited edition single on the day of it's release'
> 'So - I saw them live before they even released that one'
> 
> Oh I see you've chosen one of their well known songs as your favourite.
> My favourite track is this obscure B-side
> 
> Etc etc etc.
> And to be honest - I've heard more of that snobbishness in my pop life than in my Classical life.
> And this is a Classical forum so you're bound to only see CM Snobs here.


Amen!

But, yeah, listening to greatest hits will make you receive flak in any walk of life. The other arguments were fluff and made me laugh a bit. Greatest hits are _always_ a bad choice. I've seen only terrible Greatest Hits. Very "superficially" selected. More on the popularity/sales than artistic merit. Pleasing to the masses, basically.


----------



## Nereffid

Lord Lance said:


> Greatest hits are _always_ a bad choice. I've seen only terrible Greatest Hits. Very "superficially" selected. More on the popularity/sales than artistic merit. Pleasing to the masses, basically.


... and we all know the masses are scum, don't we? 

My own problem with the OP is simply that I find words like "haunting" and "beautiful" can't describe an _entire_ symphony. Sure, the slow movements of Beethoven's 9th or Mahler's 6th are haunting and beautiful, but the rest of the music?

So this is the sort of innocent question I wish I could answer easily, but can't. I guess others can't answer it either, and some - I don't know - lash out in frustration at their own inadequacy? lol


----------



## MagneticGhost

Lord Lance said:


> Amen!
> 
> But, yeah, listening to greatest hits will make you receive flak in any walk of life. The other arguments were fluff and made me laugh a bit. Greatest hits are _always_ a bad choice. I've seen only terrible Greatest Hits. Very "superficially" selected. More on the popularity/sales than artistic merit. Pleasing to the masses, basically.


Yes the other points were fluff but I've heard them all used :lol:

And Greatest Hits are of course mostly commercial cash-ins. But you've got to start somewhere after all and GH packages are convenient entry points


----------



## science

MagneticGhost said:


> Snobbishness and One-up-man-Ship exists in all areas of music.
> I was criticised for calling myself a Billy Joel Fan whilst only owning his Greatest Hits.
> I've seen people laughed at for not being a fan of a band right at the beginning.
> 'Call yourself a fan - I bought their first limited edition single on the day of it's release'
> 'So - I saw them live before they even released that one'
> 
> Oh I see you've chosen one of their well known songs as your favourite.
> My favourite track is this obscure B-side
> 
> Etc etc etc.
> And to be honest - I've heard more of that snobbishness in my pop life than in my Classical life.
> And this is a Classical forum so you're bound to only see CM Snobs here.


Not being a big Billy Joel fan, that particular story doesn't bother me. I don't identify with the people who ridiculed you like that. But if I did, I would be as embarrassed by their behavior as I am by ours.

It seems that the idea behind arguments like this - we can find them in all sorts of areas - is that other people's bad behavior means our bad behavior isn't actually that bad. I'm not sure how that logic is supposed to work. "Everybody does it" doesn't make it ok.

I don't want to be as average as the average person. I hope we can agree to hold ourselves to higher standards.


----------



## hpowders

I find the Brahm's Fourth Symphony hauntingly beautiful-especially the mysterious second movement.


----------



## MagneticGhost

^^^^ Actually I was in no way trying to justify the behaviour. But your last sentence implied that you wish you didn't like CM so that you wouldn't be associated with the bad behaviour. I was just pointing out that just by being Human you are associating with this bad behaviour.



Edit: Point directed to science 2 up. Always get caught out when I use arrows to reply


----------



## MagneticGhost

OP: Rach 2 has more beauty and haunting moments than you can shake a stick at.


----------



## Blancrocher

I'll put in a vote for Sibelius' 4th.


----------



## EdwardBast

science said:


> It was an innocent question, even if naive. Surely we can lower our oh-so-intellectual selves to participate in a little good-natured bull shooting. Surely? Does everything have to be angsty intellectualism all the time?


This innocent question was asked seven years ago. Some of the answers that offend you were made by folks who no longer frequent this forum. Isn't there something more current to wring our hands over?


----------



## science

MagneticGhost said:


> ^^^^ Actually I was in no way trying to justify the behaviour. But your last sentence implied that you wish you didn't like CM so that you wouldn't be associated with the bad behaviour. I was just pointing out that just by being Human you are associating with this bad behaviour.
> 
> Edit: Point directed to science 2 up. Always get caught out when I use arrows to reply


I agree with this; I don't like humanity that much.

Unfortunately, in far too many ways, my actual performance fits right in. In some, I'm not even average.


----------



## science

EdwardBast said:


> This innocent question was asked seven years ago. Some of the answers that offend you were made by folks who no longer frequent this forum. Isn't there something more current to wring our hands over?


Well, hopefully we'll do better when it happens again....


----------



## Blancrocher

science said:


> I agree with this; I don't like humanity that much.


By comparison with most if not all animals, I think humans are the superior species. If there were a poll pitting us against naked mole rats, though, I'll admit it would at least be a tough vote for me.


----------



## Retired

I hope the nit picking posters here are not too large a % of the symphony audience...otherwise the symphony is doomed.

WOW!!!...some folks need to get out and get a life....


----------



## violadude

You know TC posters need more drama in their lives when they start complaining about 7 year old posts.


----------



## MagneticGhost

:lol: how Ironic 
Now we are getting Nitpicking about Nitpickers.


----------



## Blancrocher

violadude said:


> You know TC posters need more drama in their lives when they start complaining about 7 year old posts.


What surprises me is that everyone was able to preserve their calm for that length of time. But then I suppose that's why they call it "the seven year itch."


----------



## hpowders

Blancrocher said:


> By comparison with most if not all animals, I think humans are the superior species. If there were a poll pitting us against naked mole rats, though, I'll admit it would at least be a tough vote for me.


Go humans! go humans! We can commit a whole range of sins against our fellow man and go to church on Sunday and be absolved of all that crap. What a great species!! We've thought of everything!!!


----------



## Weston

I didn't wade through _all_ the tedious semantic antics to see if it was mentioned, but my current vote might still go to *Hugo Alfvén: Symphony No. 4 in C minor, "Fran Havsbandet," Op. 39, R93* as both haunting and beautiful.*

*Who really cares what I exactly specifically mean by that? Most people accept the fact that words are mere conveniences, inadequate symbols we have more or less agreed on to represent what we are trying to get across, and also that normal people (in other words not pedantic people) speak in hyperbole. So what? We should live in _this_ world. Just my two cents on this non-issue.


----------



## science

Blancrocher said:


> By comparison with most if not all animals, I think humans are the superior species. If there were a poll pitting us against naked mole rats, though, I'll admit it would at least be a tough vote for me.


Thinking about this just gave me an interesting idea for science fiction fans to consider: perhaps the intelligent a species is, the more complex its morality, and the more convincing its hypocrisy. In that case, we had better hope that we don't encounter a significantly more intelligent species out there in the world of interstellar travel, or else....

I don't know that it holds up - are bonobos equally intelligent to chimps? - but it's at least a fun premise for a sci-fi universe.


----------



## 20centrfuge

Weston said:


> I didn't wade through _all_ the tedious semantic antics to see if it was mentioned, but my current vote might still go to *Hugo Alfvén: Symphony No. 4 in C minor, "Fran Havsbandet," Op. 39, R93* as both haunting and beautiful.*
> 
> *Who really cares what I exactly specifically mean by that? Most people accept the fact that words are mere conveniences, inadequate symbols we have more or less agreed on to represent what we are trying to get across, and also that normal people (in other words not pedantic people) speak in hyperbole. So what? We should live in _this_ world. Just my two cents on this non-issue.


This is what I like about TC. I don't know this piece at all, and now I'm gonna go give it a listen!


----------



## Giordano

Blancrocher said:


> By comparison with most if not all animals, I think humans are the superior species. If there were a poll pitting us against naked mole rats, though, I'll admit it would at least be a tough vote for me.


As far as I can see, animals are (almost) always _fully what they are_. Humans are obscenely arrogant in their "superiority," yet do not even know that they do not know what they fully are, and keep being the grotesquely ignorant stupid arrogant "only intelligent life in the universe."


----------



## Guest

The phrase "haunting and beautiful", especially the "haunting" part seems to preclude most of my favorite symphonies. Certainly there are beautiful parts in all my favorites, but haunting parts are less frequent. But since you're asking for the "most haunting and beautiful" it seems that those adjectives should be the overwhelming description of the work as a whole. The only one that comes to mind is* Gorecki's Symphony No. 3*. Not a favorite of mine but definitely haunting and beautiful.

Edit: I just realized how old this thread was. And all the snobbery and judgmental banter shows some things never change.


----------



## Orfeo

I'll nominate:

Errki Melartin's Fourth Symphony.
Alexander Glazunov's Third Symphony.
Granville Bantock's Celtic Symphony.
Jean Sibelius' Sixth Symphony.
Sir Arnold Bax's Third & Seventh Symphonies.
Nikolay Myaskovsky's Fifth Symphony.
Ralph Vaughan-Williams' Third & Fifth Symphonies.
Ernest Moeran's Symphony.
Eduard Tubin's Fourth "Sinfonia Lyrica."
Artur Kapp's First Symphony.
Janis Ivanovs' Symphonies nos. 6 & 14 "Sinfonia da camera."
Kalervo Tuukkanen's Symphony no. III "The Sea."
Charles Ives' Third.
Valentin Silvestrov's Fifth (like watching a plant unfolds into its fuller self under the sun).

--->And there's more I'm sure. I just can't think of them for now


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Haunting and beautiful don't always go hand in hand, so:

Haunting: Bruckner's 9th

Beautiful: Beethoven's 6th


----------



## Blancrocher

Schnittke's 2nd Symphony would meet my definition of a haunting (and, perhaps, haunted) and beautiful symphony. Bruckner would have been proud, I'm sure.


----------



## hpowders

Prokofiev's Symphony No. 1 Haunting, beautiful. One of the composer's most beguiling works.


----------



## Guest

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Haunting and beautiful don't always go hand in hand, so:
> 
> Haunting: Bruckner's 9th
> 
> Beautiful: Beethoven's 6th


Extremely Haunting, Not As Conventionally Beautiful: Pettersson's 6th

Extremely Haunting, Probably Not Meant To Be "Beautiful" At All: Ustvolskaya Symphonies


----------



## hpowders

I have a whole Liszt of haunting, beautiful symphonies. One can't pick the "MOST". That's impossible.

The Mahler Eighth Symphony has some of the most haunting, indescribably beautiful passages ever written.


----------



## jmaloney

Hindemith Mathis der Mahler, on the strength of its first movement.

some runners up

Haydn Trauersymphonie (no.44)
Rubbra 6th 
Dvorak 5th
Vaughan Williams 5th


----------



## Azol

Orfeo said:


> I'll nominate:
> 
> Errki Melartin's Fourth Symphony.
> Alexander Glazunov's Third Symphony.
> Granville Bantock's Celtic Symphony.
> Jean Sibelius' Sixth Symphony.
> Sir Arnold Bax's Third & Seventh Symphonies.
> Nikolay Myaskovsky's Fifth Symphony.
> Ralph Vaughan-Williams' Third & Fifth Symphonies.
> Ernest Moeran's Symphony.
> Eduard Tubin's Fourth "Sinfonia Lyrica."
> Artur Kapp's First Symphony.
> Janis Ivanovs' Symphonies nos. 6 & 14 "Sinfonia da camera."
> Kalervo Tuukkanen's Symphony no. III "The Sea."
> Charles Ives' Third.
> Valentin Silvestrov's Fifth (like watching a plant unfolds into its fuller self under the sun).
> 
> --->And there's more I'm sure. I just can't think of them for now


Great that someone resurrected the thread so I discovered this awesome list! Very impressive! There are definitely several works that should be on my radar.


----------



## Orfeo

Azol said:


> Great that someone resurrected the thread so I discovered this awesome list! Very impressive! There are definitely several works that should be on my radar.


Thank you Azol. Please do enjoy what you're discovering, for there are wonders abound in these works.
DH
:tiphat:


----------



## Heliogabo

yajiu said:


> Hi there, I would like to know what the members of this site feel is the most haunting and beautiful symphony of all time. What do you think?


Mahler's 9th to my taste.


----------



## helenora

Haunting and beautiful* Bruckner 8*
first thought about *Mahler's 8* as well


----------



## Ilarion

Mahler's 8th or Das Lied von Der Erde


----------



## gardibolt

While I can probably put my finger on beautiful, haunting is much tougher. Too many symphonies have one haunting movement then resolve to something more positive.

If you're talking single movement then my vote is Beethoven's Fifth, second movement. Unutterably beautiful and haunting, and then there's that glorious moment a few bars from the end where the sun comes out.

For a symphony that's four movements of haunting, plus beautiful, then I think I have to go with Tchaikovsky's Sixth. Painful and haunting, even when it's slightly chipper.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Górecki's Third is very beautiful, and quite haunting.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Dvorak's Eighth


----------



## Richard8655

This thread is 9 years old and OP likely long gone! Who resurrected it? No matter, it's still a good topic. Mine is Mahler 9 - very haunting (and beautiful) to my ears.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Richard8655 said:


> This thread is 9 years old and OP likely long gone! Who resurrected it? No matter, it's still a good topic. Mine is Mahler 9 - very haunting (and beautiful) to my ears.


I re-opened it (above) after it was previously re-opened about a year and a half ago. ...and your choice of the Mahler Ninth is a very good one.


----------



## pcnog11

yajiu said:


> Hi there, I would like to know what the members of this site feel is the most haunting and beautiful symphony of all time. What do you think?


Every piece is different, maybe such a piece has not been written yet. 
Tchaikovsky no. 6 is the one for now.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Richard8655 said:


> This thread is 9 years old and OP likely long gone! Who resurrected it? No matter, it's still a good topic. Mine is Mahler 9 - very haunting (and beautiful) to my ears.


Yup, Mahler's 9th and Vaughan Williams 5th, as somebody else mentioned. Those can fit the "beautiful" and "haunting" adjectives well I think.


----------



## Pugg

Mahler's 9th can be haunting indeed , just like 8th.


----------



## Art Rock

Bruckner 9* ahead of Schubert 8* and Mahler 4. Unless we count Das Lied von der Erde as a symphony, in which case it takes top spot.

* in the unfinished versions


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Phil loves classical said:


> Yup, Mahler's 9th and Vaughan Williams 5th, as somebody else mentioned. Those can fit the "beautiful" and "haunting" adjectives well I think.


I hadn't thought of RVW's 5th. But now you mention it his 5th and 3rd should be in the running. The last movement of 3rd is quite heartbreaking.


----------



## Sloe

Either Bruckner's sixth or Bruckner's eighth symphony.


----------



## Judith

I can't think of a whole symphony but I can say 2nd movement of Beethovens 7th symphony. It can be really haunting!!


----------



## Nevum

Eroica.... Beethoven 3

by far


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Phil loves classical said:


> Yup, Mahler's 9th and Vaughan Williams 5th, as somebody else mentioned. Those can fit the "beautiful" and "haunting" adjectives well I think.


Despite my first choice (above), I can't help but agree respecting the Vaughan Williams 5th and Mahler 9th. I would also absolutely add the VW 3rd.


----------



## Bettina

Brahms 4. It's a deeply nostalgic work, with its frequent references to older musical styles (modal inflections in the 2nd movement, Baroque passacaglia form in the finale, etc). There's something haunting, even uncanny, in the juxtaposition of these archaic elements with a 19th-century harmonic language. The resulting effect strikes me as sounding chronologically displaced, alienated, in a way that I find strangely beautiful and moving.


----------



## hpowders

Charles Ives Symphony No. 3. Hauntingly beautiful, nostalgic evocation of a New England Sunday scene, long gone.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Pat Fairlea said:


> I hadn't thought of RVW's 5th. But now you mention it his 5th and 3rd should be in the running. The last movement of 3rd is quite heartbreaking.


Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. I was immediately drawn to the Third the first time I heard it. That and his Fifth are among my favorite pieces in the entire symphonic literature.


----------



## hpowders

Bettina said:


> Brahms 4. It's a deeply nostalgic work, with its frequent references to older musical styles (modal inflections in the 2nd movement, Baroque passacaglia form in the finale, etc). There's something haunting, even uncanny, in the juxtaposition of these archaic elements with a 19th-century harmonic language. The resulting effect strikes me as sounding chronologically displaced, alienated, in a way that I find strangely beautiful and moving.


Yes. That's why many musicians of the time hated Brahms. His crime was not getting with the "new" music, like that of Wagner and Liszt. He was seen as a throwback rather than a progressive. CD sales prove that those critics were dead wrong.


----------



## Tchaikov6

I don't know if anyone has mentioned Mahler's fourth? The innocence of the first movement, followed by the lyrical/dance-like second, and then we hit the slow movement- surely one of Mahler's greatest movements. The last movement is perfect as well. Whenever I listen to it I get shivers up my spines at its beauty. And it is haunting as well- a children's thoughts of heaven? Innocence combined with irony? It is one of the greatest symphonies of all time.


----------



## chill782002

For me, a tie between Sibelius' 7th and Piston's 2nd.


----------



## Melodic Mind

David C Coleman said:


> What a load of over complicated nonsense from most of you here!!! Not everybody on this forum will have the same degree of knowledge and insight of music.
> 
> Bearing in mind that most composers wrote their music for the benefit and enjoyment of all who wanted to listen to it and not just for professional musicians and pompous, upper class individuals who only seem to listen to it today, and think that the common layman has no interest or even right to take an interest in it!!!
> 
> If you can't be botherd to lower yourselves and answer an innocent and and simple question like this, then I suggest you join a forum which is more suitable to your requirements


This was written almost 10 years ago, but I had to reply, since I absolutely agree with what you wrote. I was thinking the same thing as I was reading some comments. "Over-complicated nonsense" it is.


----------



## Botschaft

Bettina said:


> Brahms 4. It's a deeply nostalgic work, with its frequent references to older musical styles (modal inflections in the 2nd movement, Baroque passacaglia form in the finale, etc). There's something haunting, even uncanny, in the juxtaposition of these archaic elements with a 19th-century harmonic language. The resulting effect strikes me as sounding chronologically displaced, alienated, in a way that I find strangely beautiful and moving.


Well, you beat me to it. Brahms really gave his detractors the middle finger with that one. Too bad they were (and are) too stupid to understand it. Hugo Wolf even likened Brahms to God Almighty, creating "something out of nothing", as if that constituted an insult. The divinity of Brahms however could hardly be questioned.

My favorite rendition of the second movement:


----------



## Omicron9

anon2k2 said:


> I've noticed a lot of these "of all time" and "in the world" threads. I find it really difficult to answer these questions in any real way. A friend and I are trying to coax a mutual other friend into the world of classical music. Our "newbie" friend asked for a list (orally) of
> 20th century composers that he should know about, we were able to rattle off a list of 50 or so in two minutes flat. Actual thinking would have provided hundreds.
> 
> So of all the thousands and thousands of symphonies ever written, which one is the most beautiful? Who knows, and while I have a few dozen favorites, mine are going to emotionally be very different than any one elses.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This.


----------



## Guest

Improbus said:


> Well, you beat me to it. Brahms really gave his detractors the middle finger with that one. Too bad they were (and are) too stupid to understand it. Hugo Wolf even likened Brahms to God Almighty, creating "something out of nothing", as if that constituted an insult. The divinity of Brahms however could hardly be questioned.
> 
> My favorite rendition of the second movement:


One of my favorite movements in all of serious music, a masterpiece. Well, the whole thing is a masterpiece.


----------



## jegreenwood

I just rely on my hyperbole to English translating dictionary which say that “best of all time ” means ”my favorite.”

Thus the most haunting and beautiful symphony of all time is Schubert’s Unfiished Symphony. Brahms’s third and fourth are up there, though.

(The same dictionary says that “the difference is night and day” means “I like one more than the other.”)


----------



## regenmusic

I like getting suggestions. I don't think you have to be so literal and take it so seriously. Hopefully, the authorities won't catch on to any of these "world's greatest" thread and throw the book at us.


----------



## Flavius

This poses an interesting question, not that an answer is really expected, but because it asks you to consider, consider, and reconsider. For me the most beautiful symphonic movement is the Adagio from Beethoven's Ninth. The entire symphony, all things considered, still seems the ultimate. As for 'haunting', in the sense of something that keeps on recurring after the fact, such as a theme from one of Beethoven's last quartets, I should go along with choosing Schubert's Unfinished, or Brahms' Fourth. Perhaps it is a question of which composer wrote the most memorable themes or melodic phrases. Then perhaps Tchaikovsky should be considered. If a simple answer is given, however, my choice is the Beethoven Ninth Symphony en Ré mineur, op. 125.


----------



## LezLee

jegreenwood said:


> I just rely on my hyperbole to English translating dictionary which say that "best of all time " means "my favorite."
> 
> Thus the most haunting and beautiful symphony of all time is Schubert's Unfiished Symphony. Brahms's third and fourth are up there, though.
> 
> (The same dictionary says that "the difference is night and day" means "I like one more than the other.")


Nice typo..... Are you confusing Schubert's Unfiished with his Trout ? :lol:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I can only really apply this category to single movements:

Bruckner 8 - mov. 3
Mahler 9 - mov. 4
Mahler 5 - mov. 4
Beethoven 3 - mov. 2
Rachmaninoff 2 - mov. 3
Brahms 3 - mov. 3
Schumann 4 - mov. 2
Tchaikovsky 6 - mov. 4

There are others that are beautiful but not quite as haunting.


----------



## Strange Magic

While I deeply love the Brahms 4, the Brahms 2 I find also quite beautiful, as are the Rachmaninoff 2 and the Sibelius 2, too.


----------

