# "50 Greatest Symphonies" Series - Tom Service, Guardian



## DiesIraeCX

Any thoughts on Tom Service's newly finished "50 Greatest Symphonies Guide" for _The Guardian_? It of course has the predictable choices but he also chose some unexpected symphonies, overall a very good list and an informative accompanying article for each symphony.

- Any thoughts as to what symphonies that didn't make the list but should have made the cut? Or perhaps there some symphonies on the list that don't deserve to be there.

These are the symphonies in order of their publication, starting with the beginning. The series began on September 16, 2013. It ended today, September 9, 2014.
*Please note that these not in order of greatness.* They are merely in order of when their respective articles were published. The only thing that seems deliberate about the listing is Tom's choice to begin the series with Beethoven's 5th and end with Beethoven's 9th.

- Beethoven 5th 
- Shostakovich 15th 
- Mozart 38th 
- Elgar 2nd 
- Haydn 6th 
- P.M. Davies 1st 
- Schumann 2nd 
- L.Berio Sinfonia
- Mahler 1st 
- Rachmaninoff 3rd 
- Sibelius 6th 
- Bruckner 8th 
- Haydn 102nd 
- Webern Op.21 
- Dvorak 8th 
- Schubert 8th 
- Stravinsky S.of.Psalms 
- Tchaikovsky 1st 
- Mozart 31st 
- Beethoven 8th 
- Myaskovsky 10th 
- Saint-Saens 3rd 
- Nielsen 4th 
- John Adams Harmonielehre 
- Sibelius 7th 
- Brahms 1st 
- W. Walton 1st 
- E. Carter Sinfonia 
- JC Bach G Minor Symphony
- Copland 3rd 
- Franck D Minor 
- Mozart 29th 
- Brahms 4th 
- Janacek Sinfonietta 
- Mozart 41st 
- Bruckner 6th 
- Lutoslawski 3rd 
- Schubert 9th 
- Louise Farrenc 3rd 
- Liszt Faust S. 
- Knussen 3rd 
- Mahler 6th 
- Beethoven 6th 
- Mahler 9th 
- Beethoven 3rd 
- Vaughan Williams Pastoral 
- Berlioz S. Fantastique 
- Tchaikovsky 6th
- Dvorak's 9th
- Beethoven's 9th


----------



## csacks

May I ask if the way in which these are organized is ascending or descending?
Are there 49 symphonies better that LvB 9th?. Not a single symphony from Mendelssohn included in the list.? Is Dvorak 8th better that his 9th?
Sorry, I enjoyed Tom Service in The Guardian, but I can not share the criteria used to conform this list.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

csacks said:


> May I ask if the way in which these are organized is ascending or descending?
> Are there 49 symphonies better that LvB 9th?. Not a single symphony from Mendelssohn included in the list.? Is Dvorak 8th better that his 9th?
> Sorry, I enjoyed Tom Service in The Guardian, but I can not share the criteria used to conform this list.


From OP post, directly above the list of symphonies:


> These are the symphonies in order of their publication, starting with the beginning. The series began on September 16, 2013. It ended today, September 9, 2014.


Mr. Service's criteria to form this list was merely chronological. Not in order of greatness. I apologize if I didn't make it clear. I'll add another sentence to avoid further misunderstandings.

Let me add, chronological in the sense that the articles were published weekly, not chronologically according to the dates that the symphonies were completed.


----------



## Glenn Leero

I think it's impossible to organise them, it's too personal. But chose 50 simphonies without classify them should be good.


----------



## csacks

DiesIraeVIX said:


> From OP post, directly above the list of symphonies:
> 
> Mr. Service's criteria to form this list was merely chronological. Not in order of greatness. I apologize if I didn't make it clear. I'll add another sentence to avoid further misunderstandings.


Thanks for the answer. It is clear enough. I understand that they were published weekly, but I was wandering about the criteria used to publish them early or late during these 50 weeks. It is chronological, but not historically chronological, which could be more easy to understand.


----------



## joen_cph

I´d certainly replace the

J C Bach, Beethoven 8th and Mozart 29th 
with 
Martinu 6th, Pettersson 8th and Schnittke 1st.

I´d probably prefer a lot of other choices too, squeezing in say Hindemith´s Harmonie der Welt, Prokofiev´s 6th and Ives´ 4th etc. etc., but overall it´s a nice list, due to its relative variation.

I wouldn´t include Sinfonietta and Harmonielehre and concentrate on symphonies by name.


----------



## Xaltotun

It's a very interesting and varied list, without being too subjective.


----------



## Guest

I have thoroughly enjoyed the series, and hope the Guardian will continue the project. Some of the newspaper's readers are asking for "the concerto" to receive a similar treatment by Mr Service.


----------



## Itullian

No Schumann? :scold:
And no Brahms 2 or 3? :scold:
Ridiculous


----------



## Vaneyes

I would definitely not use the following in a "50 Greatest" list--Shosty 15, Elgar 2, Haydn 6, PM Davies 1, Rachy 3, Webern Op. 21, Stravinsky Symphony of Psalms, Tchaik 1, Mozart 31, Myaskovsky 10, Adams Harmonielehre, Walton 1, JC Bach G minor Symphony, Copland 3, Farrenc 3. 

I'd hafta think on a few others, but wouldn't immediately rule them out.

So, Service was 70% decent.


----------



## joen_cph

Schumann´s 2nd is there.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Itullian said:


> No Schumann? :scold:
> And no Brahms 2 or 3? :scold:
> Ridiculous


So ALL four of Brahms symphonies should be there?


----------



## Itullian

DiesIraeVIX said:


> So ALL four of Brahms symphonies should be there?


Of course. ..............


----------



## Alypius

joen_cph said:


> ... I wouldn´t include Sinfonietta and Harmonielehre and concentrate on symphonies by name.


Concerning Adams' _Harmonielehre_, Service says the following:



> *Headline:* _It might not be called a symphony, but Adams's 1985 work is one of the late 20th century's most significant and sophisticated examples of the form_.
> 
> *Text:* It's not even called a symphony, I hear you cry! Well, maybe, but John Adams's Harmonielehre is, as I will now attempt to argue, one of the most significant and sophisticated commentaries on and embodiments of symphonic thinking of the late 20th century. For a start, it's cast in three large movements, it includes references and reimaginations of Mahler, Sibelius, and Wagner, and for all its diversity of soundworld and musical material, it creates a single musical and dramatic arc in its 40 minutes that is definitively symphonic. And just because something isn't called a "symphony" doesn't mean it isn't one!


Full passage here: http://www.theguardian.com/music/tomserviceblog/2014/mar/11/symphony-guide-john-adams-harmonielehre-tom-service

Overall, I consider the series masterful. I don't care that he doesn't have what I would take to be the "50 Greatest." He does an important double-duty: he covers essentials; he stretches boundaries and encourages people -- even knowledgeable people -- to listen to things that are new to them. He picks interesting alternatives of famous composers (e.g. Haydn's 6th; Shostakovich's 15th; Mahler's 1st). And then there are the obscure that maybe shouldn't be obscure: e.g. Louise Farrenc 3rd; Berio's Sinfonia. Such mildly quirky choices are great. He deliberately spans the ages, from the classical to the contemporary. It's great pedagogy. He's doing a great service (pun intentional).


----------



## hpowders

Where's Ives' Second? Schuman's Sixth? Mennin's Seventh? Mahler's Second? Haydn's 104th?

I don't pay much attention to lists. Thankfully, I don't have to.


----------



## hpowders

Shostakovich's 15th on the list, but not his Fifth, Eighth or Tenth? How can anyone take such a list seriously?


----------



## KenOC

hpowders said:


> Shostakovich's 15th on the list, but not his Fifth, Eighth or Tenth? How can anyone take such a list seriously?


Well, if there's only going to be one DSCH symphony, #15 is probably a minority choice. But not a bad one!


----------



## hpowders

KenOC said:


> Well, if there's only going to be one DSCH symphony, #15 is probably a minority choice. But not a bad one!


The 8th and 10th are profound works. The 15th is not.


----------



## KenOC

hpowders said:


> The 8th and 10th are profound works. The 15th is not.


The 15th scores quite high on my profund-o-meter (patent pending).


----------



## hpowders

KenOC said:


> The 15th scores quite high on my profund-o-meter (patent pending).


He shoulda quit after 14. Now THERE's another great symphony!!


----------



## hpowders

I believe this particular list is intended for novices to get them hooked on CM. Nothing wrong with that.

Those of us who are just above novice-level can write our own lists.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

hpowders said:


> I believe this particular list is intended for novices to get them hooked on CM. Nothing wrong with that.
> 
> Those of us who are just above novice-level *can write our own lists*.


Oh please no .... not another 'Best 50 Threads' .... PLEASE ..... *PLEASE*!!!


----------



## Headphone Hermit

I had been worrying that Hector's finest (well, most famous) might have been left out, but he made it in the 11th hour - phew!


----------



## Mahlerian

Headphone Hermit said:


> Oh please no .... not another 'Best 50 Threads' .... PLEASE ..... *PLEASE*!!!


How about a thread dedicated to the 50 best "50 Best" threads?


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Mahlerian said:


> How about a thread dedicated to the 50 best "50 Best" threads?


aaaaaaaaargh!!!!!


----------



## Chronochromie

Was hoping La Mer would be in there at some point. Oh well, at least it was mentioned here http://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2014/sep/09/50-essential-symphonies-blog-what-have-we-missed-from-our-list


----------



## hpowders

But La Mer isn't a symphony.


----------



## Chronochromie

hpowders said:


> But La Mer isn't a symphony.


Just because good ol' Claude didn't like the name with its germano-romantic connotations. Or so I've read.


----------



## PetrB

Headphone Hermit said:


> Oh please no .... not another 'Best 50 Threads' .... PLEASE ..... *PLEASE*!!!


There ought to be an "OCD and Control Freak Corner" for this sort of activity, LOL.


----------



## PetrB

Der Leiermann said:


> Just because good ol' Claude didn't like the name with its germano-romantic connotations. Or so I've read.


The title is a Red Herring, Debussy wanting to distance himself very far from the Germanic hegemony / aesthetic of his time.
_La Mer_ is a symphony in all but name, analyzes neatly enough as a symphony (no, I'll leave that to someone else if that proof is really necessary). What it is not is a casual or arbitrarily strung together three movements or series of picturesque musical 'sketches,' Lol.


----------



## PetrB

Service's list is more than serviceable.

His intent, recall, is to list symphonic works which _were very influential to others working in the form_, and those also the great ones.

I have some questions or druthers about some of his selections, but compared to TC's list of 150 of the greatest symphonies, Service's list is a model of well-thought out pedagogy, with intent to invite, inform and educate, and as that it functions I think very much as he intends.

The _"Squawk, no name of piece_ mentality" is what has the TC list having these serious boils near bursting on its body -- nearly all or all nine of the Mahler symphonies, (Oh, No! Where's Das Lied von der Erde?), _all_ of Beethoven's; over half of Bruckner's; a ridiculous number of the Mozart Symphonies; far too many of Sibelius -- each of those in number far greater than just well representing the composers, and put on the list without any such thought to educate, well inform, of the big historic time line of the Symphony -- where a more conscious approach to introduce and educate a curious listener is to do exactly what Service has done -- winnow those down to the pieces which were milestones of development in the line of the composer's style and the history of the form. (While you're at it, try making an intelligent job of it and holding the number of cited pieces down to fifty!")

So agree with it or not, as to Mr. Service's list, at least it is intelligent and effective as per its intent :tiphat:

But hey, they're all _*Just Lists.*_


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Nicely put, PetrB.

I didn't really see this thread as "another 50 greatest/favorite poll or thread. There's a lot of useful information in Service's list as well as lesser known symphonies and composers that more people should know of. It wasn't just a list for me, it was a spring board to music I never knew even existed. Plus, the 50 full-length articles that each symphony was afforded.


----------



## Lord Lance

No Raff. What a shame! Very predictable.


----------



## Skilmarilion

It is the highly informative content of Service's articles on each symphony that is important, and well worth reading. If he wanted to list a Top 50 he would have done, and would have saved himself a year's worth of weekly blog posts.

I've also enjoyed his presenting for the Proms this summer -- he has a certain quirkiness which is somewhat strange yet kind of appealing at the same time.


----------



## Avey

Skils beat me to the comment:

All this talk about what is on the list. Why not just read the content? 'Eff the order it is in.


----------



## techniquest

> The 8th and 10th are profound works. The 15th is not.


Yes it is - it's just that you don't hear it.
We all have our favourites, of course, but I find it hard to understand how, in a list of "greatest" symphonies, Knussen's 3rd gets in when Mahler's 2nd and the whole symphonic output of Prokofiev doesn't.


----------



## MagneticGhost

Itullian said:


> No Schumann? :scold:
> And no Brahms 2 or 3? :scold:
> Ridiculous


In defence, cos I adore Brahms 2, he only had room for 50 and he chose 1+4 from Brahms which some might say is already over representation.
I thought it was a good mix of old war horses and left field choices.

Edit - Ok - I've read the whole thread and others have defended Mr Service far more eloquently than me. PetrB sums is up perfectly.


----------



## arpeggio

Lists like this are OK for people who are new to classical music.


----------



## Guest

Worth reading the introductory article that sets out the purpose and the criteria.



> Starting next week, I will be telling the story of how orchestral music's most famous form has shaped musical history by curating a non-chronological, entirely personal (and therefore doubtlessly controversial!) canon of the 50 symphonies that I think are responsible for telling us most about how the form has changed the musical world, and the world outside the concert hall too.


http://www.theguardian.com/music/to.../10/50-greatest-symphonies-tom-service-series


----------



## DiesIraeCX

arpeggio said:


> Lists like this are OK for people who are new to classical music.


I would call it a guide more than a list, there's a _wealth _of information in each of those full-length articles for each symphony. I doubt that the more experienced listeners knew every fact, detail, and musical insight to every single symphony presented in the guide. This guide is for everyone, not just for novices. A list/guide like this that includes the likes Berio, Adams, Knussen, Lutoslawksi, Farrenc is to be commended and celebrated. We need more endeavors like this dedicated to Classical. It shouldn't be shrugged off as for beginners only.


----------



## maestro267

A thoroughly enjoyable series which I've followed over the year. A good mix of works from right back in the Symphony's beginnings right up to near-enough our present day.


----------



## SONNET CLV

I too believe the nomer "Greatest" is misplaced, considering some of the inclusions and absences. But though I'm not familiar with these particular articles by Service, I suspect his job was to comment on a "symphony" each issue or so, and what he seems to have accomplished is to familiarize his readers with a variety of works, from great old warhorses to lesser known (possible) masterpieces. One might imagine a person reading about Berio's Sinfonia, having his interest piqued, seeking out the music, and then either liking it (and looking around for more Berio to hear) or not liking it (and moving on to other music). In any case, mission accomplished.

In any list of 50 symphonies one has to choose to write about, there will be something critical missing ... and one might easily choose a work of "interest" with lesser known popularity than another warhorse by a composer who has already had a number of pieces represented on the list. I don't see Ned Rorem's Third on the list, but I'd certainly enjoy commenting on it as a "great" symphony ... or at least one that folks should be familiar with.

Bottom line -- Tom Service has a great job, writing about music. He's getting paid to do what we here do for free!


----------



## PetrB

Ludwig van Beethoven said:


> No Raff. What a shame! Very predictable.


When its down to fifty, and you've already got still individual sounding while being second tier composers enough, the Raffs of the world will just have to be discovered by listener's on their own.


----------



## Lord Lance

PetrB said:


> *When its down to fifty, and you've already got still individual sounding while being second tier composers enough*, the Raffs of the world will just have to be discovered by listener's on their own.


I don't quite understand. What are you trying to say?


----------



## 20centrfuge

The fact that there are no symphonies by Prokofiev leaves me scratching my head. Symphony 5 at least!


----------



## KenOC

tknowlton said:


> The fact that there are no symphonies by Prokofiev leaves me scratching my head. Symphony 5 at least!


Or 1? Or especially 6???


----------



## Oscarf

This will be an endless discussion based on each one`s likes and dislikes. Personally I would remove the P.M.Davies, Berio, Farrenc, and Knussen and replace them by Prokofiev#5, Ives#2, Mendehlsson#5 and Enescu#3


----------

