# Greatest Symphonist of All Time?



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

Who is the greatest symphonist of all time? I have some hunches but let's see who is the favorite on this board.

Sorry for posting yet another "greatest of" poll on this board!

Oops, how can I forget Dvorak?! To the mods, is there any way to insert Dvorak into the poll?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I put Dvořák in for you, and voted Mahler.

My next choices would be Shostakovich, Sibelius, Brahms, Bruckner, and Bax.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

As a composer Sibelius is not greater than Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, Brahms, Wagner or Tchaikovsky. But he is the greatest symphonist of them all. 

I feel kinda embarrassed to claim what I am claiming. But I honestly think that way -- and this is the first time I admit it, even to myself. His symphonies show the most imagination and they are all created in an unique style, a style that exists nowhere outside the specific symphony. The symphonies show great depth and skill in every musical aspect.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I think Haydn has an amazing track record of inventiveness throughout over 100 symphonies.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

For me, it's either Beethoven or Shostakovich. BTW, which Haydn are we talking about?


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

I'm not sure about "greatest" as none of us are in any position to make such a claim, but I voted for Mahler as he's my _favorite_ symphonist. After Mahler, my favorites would be Sibelius, Bruckner, Shostakovich, Tchaikovsky, Nielsen, and Vaughan Williams (he really put British composers on the symphonic map, IMHO).


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Neo Romanza said:


> I'm not sure about "greatest" as none of us are in any position to make such a claim...


Agreed, that's why I automatically translate the undefined "greatest" to the defined "favourite".


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Art Rock said:


> Agreed, that's why I automatically translate the undefined "greatest" to the defined "favourite".


Well, this doesn't translate that way for many people here. Some would actually argue why their choice is the only valid one.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Art Rock said:


> Agreed, that's why I automatically translate the undefined "greatest" to the defined "favourite".


As players of these forum polling games and as listeners of music, sure we are allowed to make some bold statements! Indeed we are in a position to make all kind of statements we like in a conversation like this. The bolder the claims and the better the argumentation is to back it up, the better the conversation.

Waehnen
_Proudly making bold statements since 2022_


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

^ I agree. And I think Beethoven is clearly superior than some of those listed. My New Year's resolution is to be bolder myself.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

1. Beethoven
2. Mahler
3. Brahms
4. Mozart
5. Sibelius


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> BTW, which Haydn are we talking about?


The happy one, of course, despite the bad marriage.


----------



## Tarneem (Jan 3, 2022)

poor Schubert... it's impossible for him to escape the shadow of Beethoven


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

1. Shostakovich
2. Mahler
3. Haydn

Beethoven already at 9? Looks rather odd - where's the recount?


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

I voted Beethoven

For me it's .....

1.Beethoven
2.Bruckner & Mahler
4.Sibelius
5.Dvorak & Tchaikovsky
7.DSCH
8.Mozart & Haydn

Then the trail goes cold ...............

Edit: Brahms isn't rated because he only wrote 4. He should have written more, I did warn him ...


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Even though Beethoven may be the greatest symphonist, so what?

Every composer on this list wrote at least one great symphony. If one is new to classical music every one of these composers are worthy.

The problem with 90% of the polls is that we know who the winner will be. Is anyone surprised that Beethoven is leading?


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther (Aug 6, 2021)

arpeggio said:


> Is anyone surprised that Beethoven is leading?


I am just here to read the competing claims.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

HenryPenfold said:


> Edit: Brahms isn't rated because he only wrote 4. He should have written more, I did warn him ...


Are you going to divulge the design of your time machine?


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Art Rock said:


> I put Dvořák in for you, and voted Mahler.
> 
> My next choices would be Shostakovich, Sibelius, Brahms, Bruckner, and Bax.


Glad you mentioned Bax. Very underrated symphonist. Another British Symphonist who should be mentioned is Vaughn Williams.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

haziz said:


> Are you going to divulge the design of your time machine?


reincarnation

I came back as an actor


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Waehnen said:


> As a composer Sibelius is not greater than Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, Brahms, Wagner or Tchaikovsky. But he is the greatest symphonist of them all.
> 
> I feel kinda embarrassed to claim what I am claiming. But I honestly think that way -- and this is the first time I admit it, even to myself. His symphonies show the most imagination and they are all created in an unique style, a style that exists nowhere outside the specific symphony. The symphonies show great depth and skill in every musical aspect.


I came on here to defend my vote for Sibelius, but cannot put it more clearly than Waehnen has done here. Though it was difficult not to vote for Beethoven on similar grounds!


----------



## Skakner (Oct 8, 2020)

top-3 favorites
Beethoven
Mahler
Bruckner
-------------
the rest favorites
Brahms
Shostakovich
Dvorak
Sibelius

I voted for *Mahler*.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

As if there is any question about this.

The better question is who is second best? I'd vote for someone not listed: Sibelius.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

larold said:


> As if there is any question about this.


Most voters have not selected him.


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

As an objective matter of fact, Beethoven of course. His symphonies have become the foundation of the symphonic repertoire, and there's no other composer who has as much influence on other symphonists in the 19th and 20th centuries.

If i am to interpret the poll as "which one do you love most", it would probably be Bruckner, followed by Mahler, Brahms and Sibelius.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Pat Fairlea said:


> I came on here to defend my vote for Sibelius, ...


No one needs to defend their vote for anyone.

This is not a competition like the World Cup.


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

I'm not sure why Glazunov is listed and not Schumann. Anyway, I voted for Beethoven. I do think Sibelius is the greatest symphonist since Brahms, although opinions may vary on that point, as he does get some competition from Mahler and Shostakovich.


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

arpeggio said:


> Glad you mentioned Bax. Very underrated symphonist. Another British Symphonist who should be mentioned is Vaughn Williams.


Interestingly, Sibelius thought very highly of Bax, at one point calling him "My son in music!" I really enjoy his first four symphonies, especially the 1st and 3rd. Sadly, however, I just can't get on board with his last three symphonies (5-7), or indeed much of anything he wrote after the 1920s save maybe some of his chamber music. I know his 6th Symphony is highly ballyhooed, but its greatness has eluded me despite many attempts and several different recordings. He remains a fascinating but highly uneven and occasionally un-inspired composer (mainly in his later works). When he was cooking though (as he was in the late teens and 20s) he could be a pretty great composer. Vaughan Williams cycle is a bit uneven as well, but I think he was the greatest British symphonist, since Elgar only wrote two. I don't think ANY British symphonic cycle is among the greatest ever, however.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

A tie between Beethoven and Mahler. Today, I chose Mahler because he is newer to me and I prefer some of his symphonies to even Beethoven's with the exception of the Choral. Also, he is the underdog compared to Beethoven and I want to boost Mahler against Bruckner and Sibelius (I predicted they would be competitors for second place.)

I also love Bruckner's symphonies but they are too similar to one another, unlike Mahler's and Beethoven's, for me to consider Bruckner the greatest symphonist.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

arpeggio said:


> If one is new to classical music every one of these composers are worthy.


I wouldn't recommend Mahler, Haydn, Bruckner, or Brahms to the complete novice. Well, not to a ten-year-old me, anyway.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

The most conspicuous absences are those of Schumann and Nielsen.


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> 1. Shostakovich
> 2. Mahler
> 3. Haydn
> 
> Beethoven already at 9? Looks rather odd - where's the recount?


The My Pillow Guy will be presenting his evidence of voting fraud at a 72-hour cyber symposium


----------



## Ravn (Jan 6, 2020)

1. Bruckner
2. Mahler
3. Sibelius
4. Shostakovich
5. Pettersson


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Undecided between a lot of names. Just chose lazily this time, whoops; too late to change.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Picked Beethoven for the 9th!


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

My opinion is that Beethoven, Bruckner and Mahler are the greatest. I picked Beethoven in the poll.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I didn't vote, but I would opt for Beethoven as my favorite. The list includes composers who have all created at least 2 symphonies I love, and of course, some have created many more. Of those not on the list, Prokofiev, Schumann, and Nielsen also wrote 2 symphonies I love.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

larold said:


> As if there is any question about this.
> 
> The better question is who is second best? I'd vote for someone not listed: Sibelius.


Without defining what 'greatest' means then, yes, there certainly is a question - but the answer only renders 'greatest as 'favourite'.

Why must this be repeatedly pointed out?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Waehnen said:


> the better the argumentation is to back it up, the better the conversation.


Which is why these polls are fruitless - there is rarely any 'argumentation' to back up people's choices.

The best (only?) I could find so far is this...



RobertJTh said:


> As an objective matter of fact, Beethoven of course. His symphonies have become the foundation of the symphonic repertoire, and there's no other composer who has as much influence on other symphonists in the 19th and 20th centuries.


These two statements may be true - it would be easy enough, for example, to show that most concert halls schedule more Beethoven than any other composer, and fill in the gaps with the lesser.

But these are only two criteria on which to make a judgement about 'greatest': there are others which may be just as valid.

"Sibelius 7th Symphony is the symphony reduced to its purest form, and therefore, the greatest."

"Mahler's symphonies are about the whole world, all embracing."

"Segerstam shows how variegated a symphony can be."

"Haydn's 104 perfected the classical symphony."

etc


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Forster said:


> Which is why these polls are fruitless - there is rarely any 'argumentation' to back up people's choices.
> 
> The best (only?) I could find so far is this...
> 
> ...


Yes, but in my opinion the statement that "nothing can be said of music other than subjective evaluation" is also incorrect. It applies to all human sciences: we are not dealing with repeatable scientific facts of the natural physics, but still there are strong correlations and tendencies.

BBC had 4-5 questions in its survey on the greatest composers ever. Hundred of composers were interviewed.

If you want, I can write my own arguments why Sibelius is in my opinion the greatest symphonist.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Waehnen said:


> Yes, but in my opinion the statement that "nothing can be said of music other than subjective evaluation" is also incorrect.


I didn't say that. I simply suggest that unless some criteria can be established to help define 'greatest', all argumentation is equal.



Waehnen said:


> If you want, I can write my own arguments why Sibelius is in my opinion the greatest symphonist.


Well, you were the one who said the more argumentation, the better, so, yes please.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Forster said:


> I didn't say that. I simply suggest that unless some criteria can be established to help define 'greatest', all argumentation is equal.


You most certainly did not say that. It was a straw man statement constructed by no other than me, myself and I.



> Well, you were the one who said the more argumentation, the better, so, yes please.


I will start my argumentation by putting up some criteria for the evaluation work. Hopefully later tonight or tomorrow morning.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

This forum is not a seminar of musicology so I will have to stop myself from laying out a path for the most objective truth possible on the matter.

I will just say on what criteria I am stating that Sibelius is the greatest symphonist of all time. As an homage to the great 7 symphonies, I will only stick to 7 points for now. (I will continue if needed.)

1. Master of tonality: Strong harmonic tendencies, strong and expressive chord sequences, use of clusters, chromatism, modality and other scales. In my opinion only Bach, Wagner and Chopin are as capable in the field of tonality as Sibelius. Not even Beethoven or Brahms come as far, great though they are. Mahler, Bruckner and Shostakovich are far behind.

2. Master of melodies: Sibelius Symphonies are full of melodies which are both intellectually stimulating, expressive, emotional and beautiful in their own right. Only Schubert, Tchaikovsky, Chopin and Wagner rival Sibelius is this. There is something meaningfully singable in every movement. Without being a master melodist, Sibelius would not been as great a symphonist.

3. Master of the grand scale and architecture: Sibelius’ symphonies are known to be complex and rich entities which are also able to create the sense of unity and balance. There is great unity in the great complex diversity. This resulted in new symphonic forms and structures. No one is quite at Sibelius’ level in this prospect.

4. Master of thematic and motific metamorphoses. Sibelius adabted this principle from Beethoven and Brahms and is an equal of them in coherence yet surpasses both in the abundance of the directions and details gained despite the strict symphonic logic.

5. Stimulus of both intellect and emotion is always present in all Sibelius. This is one of the key features in Immanuel Kant’s aesthetics: A strong artistic experience is formed when a strong emotional feeling comes together with intellectual conception of the form. This balance is strong in Sibelius in an unique way.


6. Nobody can deny the expressive powers of the Sibelius symphonies. In that way Sibelius applies the Tolstoi principle: art must always express something. Sibelius’ music communicates strongly. Every symphony expresses different things. There is nature, there is sense of home, there is patriotism, feeling of getting old, there is nostalgia, there is nocturnal atmospheres, there is the expression of suffering, there is landscape, humanism, cosmic aspects, sorrow and joy... Only Beethoven and Mahler come close to Sibelius in the variety of expressive symphonic powers. Sibelius’ music carries so much MEANING through the musical language he was able to create based on the previous generations and his own genius imagination.


7. Sibelius Symphonies are extremely diverse. You could easily take almost whatever Mahler movement and put it into another one of his symphonies and maybe change the key and with some other minor modifications make it work. Same with Brahms and Bruckner: it is always the same voice, strong though they are. The 1st Symphony of Sibelius couldn’t be farther away from the 7th. Only Beethoven rivals Sibelius in this prospect but if we include programmatic Symphonic Poems by Sibelius, Sibelius surpasses even Beethoven.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Again, I do not feel that a person has to defend his choice if it is not Beethoven.


----------



## Bernamej (Feb 24, 2014)

I'll read the comments later but I'm shocked to see Mahler as the second !! I'm honestly really shiocked. Like ok he has some good tricks, but really ? Ahead of Dvorak, Tchauikovsky, Brahms and many others...
Mahler is catchy and neurotic, it's not really profound
I voted for the great Bruckner to give him a boost.


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

Bernamej said:


> I'll read the comments later but I'm shocked to see Mahler as the second !! I'm honestly really shiocked. Like ok he has some good tricks, but really ? Ahead of Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Brahms and many others...
> Mahler is catchy and neurotic, it's not really profound.


I'd put Haydn, Mozart, and Brahms (along with Beethoven) ahead of Mahler, personally. I'd maybe even put Sibelius in front of Mahler too when I'm feeling in a Nordic mood. Sibelius (like Brahms) had no duds, so that's a mark in his favor. Mahler's 8th is the only one I consider a dud (sacrilege?). Mahler's 3rd is an unwieldy beast which I very much enjoy movement by movement but don't really buy as a symphony. I think his 7th is superior to either of those. Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, and Dvorak I'd probably put behind Mahler, partly because their first couple of symphonies fall short of being masterpieces. Bruckner only got cooking with his 3rd (5th actually) and Dvorak with his 5th. I'm not sure who I'd put in the number ten spot... Shostakovich, perhaps? I don't know, the symphonies 2, 3, 4, 12, and 14 really drag down his cycle for me. Still that leaves 10 very good to great symphonies, which is more than Mendelssohn or Schumann or Nielsen had. So I guess it has to be Shosty.

To recap my Top 10:

01) Beethoven
02) Haydn
03) Mozart
04) Brahms
05) Sibelius (I'm feeling Nordic today)
06) Mahler
07) Bruckner
08) Tchaikovsky
09) Dvorak
10) Shostakovich

(in the waiting room: Nielsen, Schumann, Mendelssohn*, Schubert)
*he composed SEVENTEEN symphonies, by the way.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

arpeggio said:


> Again, I do not feel that a person has to defend his choice if it is not Beethoven.


If it was a question of who is your favourite, there would be no need to defend. But if you state someone is greatest in some aspect of music, there sure is room and need for further discussion.

I challenge you to create similar lists of argumentation that I did in the case of Sibelius. The points of evaluation of course do not need to be similar. Everyone is free to place the kind of arguments they think are valid and enough for a bold statement. I am interested in whether this thread could be other than "my favourite" thread.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

arpeggio said:


> Again, I do not feel that a person has to defend his choice if it is not Beethoven.


But they do have to defend their choice if it _is _Beethoven! :devil:


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

Favorite symphonists: Brahms and Sibelius


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Waehnen said:


> If it was a question of who is your favourite, there would be no need to defend. But if you state someone is greatest in some aspect of music, there sure is room and need for further discussion.
> 
> I challenge you to create similar lists of argumentation that I did in the case of Sibelius. The points of evaluation of course do not need to be similar. Everyone is free to place the kind of arguments they think are valid and enough for a bold statement. I am interested in whether this thread could be other than "my favourite" thread.


I was a music education major in college. In spite of this I really do not have the wherewithal to provide a definitive answer to the question.

I have performed symphonies of Beethoven, Mahler, Sibelius and Brahms. It would be very difficult for me to choose any one of them over the other. If I had to pick one, it would be Beethoven. That is just my opinion. But if I had a few shots of vodka, I might pick Shostakovich.

I like your comments concerning Sibelius.


----------



## Subutai (Feb 28, 2021)

I pretty much get most classical satisfaction from symphonies. I have in the past gone Batsh1t over Beethoven, Bruckner, Nielsen, Sibelius, Tchaikovsky and anything Russian in between..
Yet as push comes to shove I'll have to say Mahler as my first love in all things symphonic and perhaps it's because of him I'm still on this never ending quest.


----------



## FrankinUsa (Aug 3, 2021)

Is there not a thread for Classical Music Discussion POLLS? Actually I just looked at that thread and it’s games. Maybe the thread should be renamed “GAMES”
Should this poll as created in the OP result in the answer as ONE SINGLE COMPOSER. 
I think that the GREATEST composer could be objectively named. 
My vote would be Beethoven as the greatest composer. His impact on Classical Music is immeasurable.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

FrankinUsa said:


> Is there not a thread for Classical Music Discussion POLLS? Actually I just looked at that thread and it's games. Maybe the thread should be renamed "GAMES"
> Should this poll as created in the OP result in the answer as ONE SINGLE COMPOSER.
> *I think that the GREATEST composer could be objectively named*.
> My vote would be Beethoven as the greatest composer. His impact on Classical Music is immeasurable.


Nonsense, you are dealing with individual opinions about artistic matters so there is no such thing as objective greatest.


----------



## FrankinUsa (Aug 3, 2021)

Becca said:


> Nonsense, you are dealing with individual opinions about artistic matters so there is no such thing as objective greatest.


I think if you look at Beethoven's impact on Classical Music as a "HISTORIAN" it would minimize or even eliminate theissue of the artistry of Beethoven If you look at as a historian,you are not looking at it as an artist or artistically.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

FrankinUsa said:


> I think if you look at Beethoven's impact on Classical Music as a "HISTORIAN" it would minimize or even eliminate theissue of the artistry of Beethoven If you look at as a historian,you are not looking at it as an artist or artistically.


So you are saying that it is objectively true that Beethoven is greater than Bach or Mozart or ... ? Good luck with that.


----------



## FrankinUsa (Aug 3, 2021)

Becca said:


> So you are saying that it is objectively true that Beethoven is greater than Bach or Mozart or ... ? Good luck with that.


I am saying that the IMPACT that Beethoven had on the state of Classical Music in the period that he lived and his impact continued through the rest of the 20th Century.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

So your argument has evolved from 'greatest composer' to 'composer with the greatest impact' ... ooooook


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

FrankinUsa said:


> the IMPACT


Lots of composers had IMPACT throughout history, but whether or not the IMPACT was objectively positive/valuable is a different matter entirely. For instance, the Rise of Romanticism opened doors to a whole new world of musical possibilities, but it was also a Pandora's box that eventually led to modernism, which many people (even on this forum) constantly express disapproval for.


----------



## FrankinUsa (Aug 3, 2021)

Becca said:


> So your argument has evolved from 'greatest composer' to 'composer with the greatest impact' ... ooooook


Go back to the OP


----------



## FrankinUsa (Aug 3, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Lots of composers had IMPACT throughout history, but whether or not the IMPACT was objectively positive/valuable is a different matter entirely. For instance, the Rise of Romanticism opened doors to a whole new world of musical possibilities, but it was also a Pandora's box that eventually led to modernism, which many people (even on this forum) constantly express disapproval for.


We are talking about Beethoven Not "lots of composers."


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

I voted for Sibelius because he is one of my favorite symphonists and I most likely voted for Haydn, Mozart, or Brahms in previous polls asking the same question or a very similar question. It was simply Sibelius's turn. On the next Greatest Symphonist poll I'll probably vote for Prokofiev.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

FrankinUsa said:


> Go back to the OP


So what? The OP asked about the 'greatest symphonist', you were the one who brought up the idea of an objective 'greatest composer', then changed your argument when challenged on it.


----------



## HerbertNorman (Jan 9, 2020)

I voted Shostakovich because he is one of my favourite symphonists , but I love Sibelius, Beethoven , Brahms,... and other composers' symphonies too...

This is such a difficult question isn't it ...


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Becca said:


> Nonsense, you are dealing with individual opinions about artistic matters so there is no such thing as objective greatest.


Becca, what do you think of my arguments on post #43?

In no way do I think to have objectively proven anything absolute, but then again I think I have expressed more than just an opinion in the sense that there is something people can comment on and even argue against.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Waehnen said:


> Becca, what do you think of my arguments on post #43?
> 
> In no way do I think to have objectively proven anything absolute, but then again I think I have expressed more than just an opinion in the sense that there is something people can comment on and even argue against.


While they are detailed reasons, they are still totally individual opinions. I am sure that many will agree with (many of) them but they are still subject to comment and argumentation.

P.S. The 'Master of...' part strikes me as being somewhat presumptuous.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Becca said:


> While they are detailed reasons, they are still totally individual opinions. I am sure that many will agree with (many of) them but they are still subject to comment and argumentation.
> 
> P.S. The 'Master of...' part strikes me as being somewhat presumptuous.


Yes.

I would argue that if a large enough and a representative group of people makes similar arguments on criteria agreed upon beforehand, and based on those arguments give points to symphonists on the different categories, the results of the vote would be the closest we can get to some objectivity -- claiming the symphonist with the greatest score to be the greatest symphonist.

Arrangement of such voting would face many challenges. How to create an objectively representative voter group? There cannot be, for example, just musicians, conductors and composers voting. They would vote Mahler and Stravinsky on top of every poll because master musicians like master musicians and want to see them thrive.


----------

