# The Great Symphonists



## Pete

As I have been binging on symphonies throughout the last two weeks or so, I came to wonder which composers others of you might regard as "top-tier" symphonists. Also, which symphonists come just short of this mark?

I have constructed my own list -- based purely on my own listening experiences of course -- using such criteria as expressive range, consistency of inspiration and quantity.

TOP TIER

Haydn
Mozart
Beethoven
Bruckner
Brahms
Dvorak
Mahler
Sibelius
Prokofiev
Shostakovich

CLOSE, BUT NOT QUITE...

Schumann
Berlioz (assuming we take him at his word that "Faust" and "Juliet" are symphonies as well)
Tchaikovsky
Martinu
Stravinsky
Hartmann

Certainly there are those I've neglected, due to ignorance, absent-mindedness or indifference.

How do you arrange them?


----------



## Daniel

I don't see Mendelssohn? 

Daniel


----------



## baroque flute

I would personally put Beethoven, Dvorak, Mozart, Haydn, Schubert, and Mendelssohn at the top of the list and Schumann, Tchaikovsky, Brahms, and Prokofiev next. 

I guess I dislike everything I have heard by Stravinsky, Berlioz, and Mahler.


----------



## Daniel

Hello,

Thanks for the Mendelssohn. 

Greetings,
Daniel


----------



## Gustav

THe greatest symphonist ever and most important LUdwig Van Beethoven
THe greatest symphonist after him Gustav Mahler
If you just study those two, you will likely become a great symphonic composer


----------



## jack_in_cincinnati

Pete--

I'm largely in agreement with your list (although I don't know any of Hartmann's work). I would add Schubert, Nielsen, Carlos Chavez, and Malcolm Arnold.

Jack


----------



## Chopinson

In my opinio,every symphonist is unique,so that they provide us a lovely and colorful world of music.It's hard to say.Beethoven has a view as if he is on the peak of the world.Brahms has the widest and deepest and most delicate interpretation of emotion.Haydon is like a nice and humorous gentlman.Mozart is SUN.Mendelssohn is spring.You can catch an impact of a painfully thinking man through the sensitive surface of Mahler's works.And,there is still numerous composers who should be remarked^^^^^^^^^


----------



## glezzery

Nielsen has to be up in the top Ten! I would even have Vagn Holmboe in the top twenty!
My List in no order except the first two.
Beethoven
Shostakovich
Sibelius
Mozart
Bruckner
Mahler
Nielsen
Prokofiev
Brahms
Dvorak
Vaughn-Williams
Holmboe
Walton- because Walton 1 is surpassed only by Beethoven 5 and 3
Tchaikovsky
Hindemith
Mendelssohn
As you can see, i am not a Haydn fan, but he probably deserves to be here so
HAYDN!


----------



## glezzery

Yeah! Malcolm Arnold! Let me add him! How about Tippet, and Simpson


----------



## Edward Elgar

baroque flute said:


> I would personally put Beethoven, Dvorak, Mozart, Haydn, Schubert, and Mendelssohn at the top of the list and Schumann, Tchaikovsky, Brahms, and Prokofiev next.
> 
> I guess I dislike everything I have heard by Stravinsky, Berlioz, and Mahler.


I disagree with Brahms being in a lower tier - His symphonies can be described no less than absolutely glorious! Brahms is one of the few symphonists who just takes you to another world.


----------



## Oblivion

I would personly put Glazunov there somewhere, his symphonies are excelent - especially his fifth.


----------



## Weltschmerz

Everyone seems so reluctant to exclude Schubert! As the man who debatably single-handedly took the baton (double meaning intended) from Beethoven and relayed the music world into full Romanticism, it is hard to not put him as one of the most important symphonists, even if he had more notable contributions in other areas of composition. Oh and I almost forgot - he composed (again debatably) the most celebrated piece of music in the history of Western music, the Unfinished Symphony, which (regardless of the debate over whether you consider it a true symphony or not) revolutionzed the approach to the symphony up to and including the great Gustav Mahler.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

glezzery said:


> Nielsen has to be up in the top Ten!


I think enough time has passed for a fair verdict to be laid upon Nielsen.

While Nielsen may justifyably be someone's favourite composer, I don't think it is possible to rank him with the greatests symphonists of all time.

While Nielsen is by all means an extremely skilled and original composer, his music has a highly esoteric quality about it that simply does not communicate something universal to most listeners and musicians alike. That does not mean that it is bad music, that does not mean that it is not good music. Certainly, Nielsen's music is good. But to put him up along with Beethoven and Brahms in the grand scheme of things is not warranted.


----------



## linz

Its absurd trying to figure out who is the greatest of the symphonist, for starters the symphony has meant different things at different times. Trying to compare Haydn with Mahler is down right disrespectful to both parties, and besides, if you were to rank any of the truely mighty masters of the form at the primes of their creativity, chances are that they would compose equally brilliant works, but in highly different styles. This is more a fact then an oppinion!


----------



## Hexameron

I agree, linz. You have to separate by period: Baroque, Classical, Romantic (even late Romantic) and Twentieth Century. It's like saying, who's the best string quartet writer? How can you look at Haydn's and Schubert's with the same scope? Or Mozart's and Brahms'? You can't. It has all gone through an evolution. Just look at the Scherzo form alone. Mozart's was a joke (not an insult, as Scherzo means "joke" in Italian), Beethoven's was a musical escapade, Chopin's was a virtuosic concert piece. Can you ask who was the best "Scherzoist" from that?


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

I agree with *linz* in that it is absurd to try to figure out who is the one greatest symphonist or the three greatest symphonists... it is absurd of the reasons that *Hexameron* states, that there are so many factors to consider, that one simply cannot arrive at a _quantitative_ and _scientific_ conclusion.

*BUT...*

To make comparisons between artists who are in essence engaging in the same creative process is natural and unavoidable. Especially when we consider the fact that the these composers were not only influenced by the aesthetic of their time, *but were influenced by one another!*

Beethoven was very aware of Mozart's and Haydn's work, and wrote his symphonies _in the context of that awareness_. Later, everyone was aware of Beethoven's symphonies. Composers like Brahms and Schumann wrote their symphonies with great respect for the tradition that Beethoven was continuing, and others either heeded that continuation or deliberately went against it for the sake of originality.

The point is that composers did not compose in an artistic vaccuum, influenced only by the spirit of their time. Composer composed within a tradition, with great awareness of those who came before them. This fact naturally breeds the ground for comparisons and through them, the odd verdict and top 10 list.


----------



## 4/4player

Wow! Well said, Kurkikohtaus!

You seem know a lot of things in the music world!(Whats your secret?,lol)

4/4player


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

My secret is that I actually hate classical music and engage in this kind of debate as a form of masochistic self-torture.


----------



## Topaz

Well, I'm only here for the do-nuts.

I agree with Kurhikohtaus up to a point. However, I do reckon it's possible to form an intelligent opinion on who was the greatest symphonist of all time by a simple market-oriented test.

You ask yourself this hypothetical question: suppose all existing recorded symphonic material was confiscated; suppose there were to be a competition among music publishers/concert event managers for the monopoly rights to sell recorded material/ concert tickets for symphonies, over a defined future period. The composer for whose works the highest bid was received would be the best symphonist.

It's only a guess but I reckon the order would be Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms. I'm not too sure after that. I bet Haydn wouldn't get a look-in. Possibles are Tchaikovsky, Sibelius, Shostakovich. In the UK, RVW would get in. In the USA, no doubt Ives. In France, Berlioz. In Germany, Schumann. Clearly, in Finland, Sibelius.

Anyway, conceptually, that's how it's done from the viewpoint of economics. No doubt, from a purely musicological viewpoint, you might get a different result.

If this idea sounds too complex, it isn't really. Just think how you might rank great painters (Rembrandt etc). Exactly the same arguments that Linz used would apply on the difficulties of comparison. But here is very simple procedure: just put a market value on their works (estimates if necesarry). Would anyone really disagree with the ranking that this result would produce? If not, that's all I have done with symphonists; it's the same analysis but applied to a slightly different scenario.

The procedure outlined takes account of all that matters in valuing virtually anything: supply and demand.

Topaz


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Topaz said:


> In the UK, RVW would get in. In the USA, no doubt Ives. In France, Berlioz. In Germany, Schumann. Clearly, in Finland, Sibelius.


And in the Czech Republic, *Dvorak* - just for the sake of completing the list.


----------



## Topaz

*Kurkikohtaus.*

One could continue:

Austria: Haydn, Mozart
Belgium: Franck
Denmark: Nielsen (I agree not as good as Sibelius)
Hungary: Liszt​
To be provocative, here's my guess at a (economically-derived**) Top 11*** symphonists list on a world scale:

1. Ludwig Van Beethoven - 1770-1827
2. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - 1756-1791
3. Johannes Brahms - 1833-1897
4. Franz Schubert - 1797-1828
5. Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky - 1840-1893
6. Joseph Haydn - 1732-1809
7. Robert Schumann - 1810-1856
8. Felix Mendelssohn - 1809-1847
9. Gustav Mahler - 1860-1911
10. Antonin Dvorak - 1841-1904
11. Jean Sibelius - 1865-1957​
** See my previous post for what I mean. I stress it's only a guess, but this is the pecking order that I reckon a competiitve tender would generate in terms of the price paid for the sole rights to market this material. I'm pretty sure of the first two positions. The ranking of the rest is debateable. I know Shosty is not there, nor Bruckner but I don't reckon they have much buying "clout". Remember we are only discussing symphonies.

*** Sorry, just spotted I had two No. 8's in original. So have extended list to top 11.

Any other views? It might provide a bit of fun for the weekend! If anyone disagrees, can they say why.

Topaz


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Judging from the Romantic bias that most larger orchestras program their seasons with, I think you may have Haydn too high up on the list.

I would also put Mahler and Dvorak above Schubert and Mendelssohn, in terms of their supply/demand "clout". Every large orchestra will certainly play a Mahler symphony almost every season, but although Schubert Unfinished and Mendelssohn Italian are "all-time favourites", Dvorak 7-8-9 (combined) and Mahler 1-2-4-5-8 (also combined) get a lot more performances in total (guessing), while Schubert's "Great" and Mendelssohn's "Scotch" and "Reformation" are played rarely.

Let me sum up that confusing paragraph this way:
--- --- --- --- --- --- ---
While Mendelssohn and Schubert have only one symphony each that is played with regularity, Dvorak and Mahler have several, resulting in *more total performances* of Dvorak and Mahler symphonies, thus my rationale in bumping them higher in the list, in my opinion even above Schumann.
--- --- --- --- --- --- ---
I have no hard-concrete evidence to support this guess, but I browse literally *hundreds and hundreds* of orchestra's seasons on the net every year to get programming ideas and also a sense of what people "want to hear", which is sort of what your list is attempting to guess, right?

Maybe in preparation for 2007-08 I will actually keep a table of how many times the "big pieces" appear. Given that I actually do look at about 300 different orchestra seasons, I think such a table would be quite telling. That said, I'm not going back to do it again for 2006-07. We'll have to wait for the summer of 2007 when orchestras have their seasons online!


----------



## Topaz

*K..*

You have the right general idea, but I wasn't concentrating solely on concert performances. I was mindful, too, of CDs that people might buy if somehow they had to start over from scratch. I know it's a very artificial concept but at least it gets people thinking along the right lines from an economic perspective of "greatest symphonists". You are right to take account of the actual number of symphonies of each composer that actually get played in concerts (or purchased on Cds). It's not a matter of how many symphonies they wrote in the slightest.

If I may summarise your view, I think you are saying something more like:

K. LIST

1. Ludwig Van Beethoven - 1770-1827
2. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - 1756-1791
3. Johannes Brahms - 1833-1897
4. Gustav Mahler - 1860-1911
5. Antonin Dvorak - 1841-1904
6. Franz Schubert - 1797-1828
7. Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky - 1840-1893
8. Robert Schumann - 1810-1856
9. Felix Mendelssohn - 1809-1847
10. Jean Sibelius - 1865-1957
11. Joseph Haydn - 1732-1809​
Topaz


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

I don't dare go beyond #3 in a precise estimation of ordering.

However, as you are including CD's, then I may have to retract my entire last post, because certainly Schubert's Unfinished and Mendelssohn Italian is heavily, heavily in demand on recording.


----------



## Topaz

*Kurkikohtaus*

Thanks. It's only a bit of fun as you are clearly aware. I accept full blame for causing any confusion. What I'm saying may well sound odd unless one is familiar with some economics, especially in the way I first set it out as a competitive tender etc.

At the simplest level (with some sacifice in accuracy) I'm saying that one way of ranking the greatest symphonists is to put a monetary value on the sale of concert tickets and CD sales, the latter assuming all existing recorded material was somehow confiscated so that people would have to buy afresh.

I fully realise that concerts are most often mixed events so it would very difficult to unravel the contribution of individual composers. But this is a mere detail, that doesn't affect the basic point

My main point is that it is possible for markets to rank the greatness of different artists' works, whether they are painters, composers etc and regardless of the age in which they lived. The easiest example is perhaps painters. As I said, all you do is estimate the value of their works. If all Rembrandts cost more than all "Jo Bloggs" then Rembrandt is a greater painter than Bloggs, even though their styles and periods may be miles apart. Who says so? Answer the market. Why should we trust the market? Answer: competitive markets generally place accurate values on scarce resources to reflect the whole of society's preferences.

This is not to say that other criteria are not valid. Take an example of a classic car (say an "E Type" Jaguar). There is a market price. There is also a price for another type of classic car (a Triumph "Stag"), which may be lower. The E Type would be the "greater" car of the two, but this is not deny that on some other single criterion (say "design of brake system") the E type may not be the best. But overall, given the way motoring enthusiasts value all these factors, the E Type is the "greater" if its market value is higher.

I wish I'd never started this. You're right Linz. I take it all back!!! Next topic ...

Topaz


----------



## 4/4player

I'll have to agree....Beethoven certainly derserves to be #1. He was a master and bridged the "gap" between the classical and romantic period in music....Ever since seeing my local orchestra play his ninth symphony..I fell in love....hehe
4/4player


----------



## sinfonia espansiva

Like most of you (if not everyone  ), I have not a sufficient knowledge to give you a ranking.

I love symphonies and I love all these symphonists:
CPE Bach
Haydn
Mozart
Witt
Beethoven
Schubert
Berlioz
Schumann
Liszt
Franck
Bruckner
Borodin
Saint-Saens
Dvorak
Rott
Mahler
R.Strauss
Elgar
Nielsen
Sibelius
Rachmaninov
Ives
Shostakovich
Petersson
Britten

They're all great

PS : There should be no great symphonists lists without Bruckner


----------



## terotero

Please let me add Brahms to Gustav's short list


----------



## Handel

For those I know

1st tier

Joseph Haydn
Beethoven
Mozart

1.5 

Schubert

2nd tier

Vanhal
Kraus
Dittersdorf

3rd tier

JC Bach
Michael Haydn


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

I thought this thread was dead and buried. But since *terotero* has dug it up, I feel I have to respond, so that it doesn't simply end with *Handel's* post.

*Handel*, I mean no disrespect and I accept your bias towards pre-romantic music as your area of expertise and passion.

That said, I really feel the need to say that Vanhal, Kraus, Dittersdorf, JC Bach and Michael Haydn simply do not belong on a list of Great Symphonists at the expense of the names you've left off.

If this is your personal ranking of the "ones you know", I can accept that, but certainly this is not a universal perspective.


----------



## Handel

I do not pretend to be absolutely right. However, considering my listening experience, that is the list I sincerely give. And of course Dittersdorf, Vanhal & co. are not on the same level as Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert, but they were considered as great symphonists for their era.

I specified "from those I know". If I knew Brahms, Mahler, etc. symphonic output, I would maybe add them, but I don't.


----------



## ChamberNut

My *personal *favorite symphonists (in approx. order):

1 - Beethoven
2 - Bruckner
3 - Brahms
4 - Schumann
5 - Mendelssohn
6 - Dvorak
7 - Mozart *
8 - Schubert *

*I anticipate over time that both Mozart and Schubert will move up in my favorites as I experience more of their symphonies.


----------



## Handel

Did you listened to Schubert's 9th symphony? I think it is too much overlooked like if after the famous 8th, there was nothing.


----------



## ChamberNut

Handel said:


> Did you listened to Schubert's 9th symphony? I think it is too much overlooked like if after the famous 8th, there was nothing.


Yes, I have. They are both fantastic symphonies. Yet, these and a few mvts. from the 5th symphony are the only ones from Schubert I've listened to thus far.


----------



## Handel

Someone, can't remember who, said me that the only worthy symphonies by Schubert were 5, 8 and 9. Maybe there some truth but the remaining one can be interesting too...


----------



## opus67

Kurkikohtaus said:


> but certainly this is not a universal perspective.


Could there ever be a truly universal perspective on these things? I think not.


----------



## socksband101

*Tchaikovsky*

I can not believe a stronger case wasn't made for Tchaikovsky. Although argueably his ballets, concertos, and incidental music are greater than his symphonies, no one can argue that symphonies 4-6 are pure genius. I haven't heard 1-3 yet, but if they are anything like the powerhouse 4th. Or the witty 5th. And come on! The 6th might have the most emotional finale of any symphony. Historically he was very influencial as well. He combined Western music with Russian and is probably one of the most known composers of all time. To say that someone like Schubert or Mendelson is better than Tchaikovsky is just plain ignorance. Sure, they are geniuses in their own right. But few composers have hit the world on a scale like Tchaikovsky.


----------



## ChamberNut

socksband101 said:


> To say that someone like Schubert or Mendelson is better than Tchaikovsky is just plain ignorance. Sure, they are geniuses in their own right. But few composers have hit the world on a scale like Tchaikovsky.


Hmm, that is your opinion. Perhaps Mendelssohn, but Schubert?


----------



## opus67

If it comes down to symphonies, I would choose Tchaikovsky over Schubert.


----------



## ChamberNut

opus67 said:


> If it comes down to symphonies, I would choose Tchaikovsky over Schubert.


OK, yes. If that is what sockbands101 was comparing the two towards, then I can accept that.

Some would even say Tchaikovsky wasn't the greatest Russian overall, or greatest symphonist, for that matter. Not I, but some highly regard Shostakovich and Prokofiev.


----------



## opus67

ChamberNut said:


> Some would even say Tchaikovsky wasn't the greates Russian overall, or greatest symphonist, for that matter. Not I, but some highly regard Shostakovich and Prokofiev.


Now _that_ requires a whole new thread.


----------



## Rondo

Beethoven, Schumann, Brahms, Sibelius, Tchaikovsky are hard for me to omit as favorite "classic" symphonists. For, well _more_ contemporary types, Shostakovich and Prokofiev are also great (Shostakovich's 10th and 11th, and Prokofiev's 5th and 7th, alone, make them notable symphonists in my view)


----------



## Vaneyes

Why choose, when the symphony may be over.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/31/the-symphony-unfinished


----------



## haydnfan

That was an awesome article, makes me excited to relisten to those symphonies! Especially Simpson, the great symphonist that goes nearly without recognition.


----------



## Skilmarilion

Vaneyes said:


> Why choose, when the symphony may be over.
> 
> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/31/the-symphony-unfinished


Thanks, Van. :tiphat:


----------



## PeterF

Here are my favorites in order.
Beethoven
Mozart
Brahms
Haydn
Dvorak
Schumann
Tchaikovsky
Schubert
Mendelssohn
Sibelius


----------



## Scififan

Y


Pete said:


> As I have been binging on symphonies throughout the last two weeks or so, I came to wonder which composers others of you might regard as "top-tier" symphonists. Also, which symphonists come just short of this mark?
> 
> I have constructed my own list -- based purely on my own listening experiences of course -- using such criteria as expressive range, consistency of inspiration and quantity.
> 
> TOP TIER
> 
> Haydn
> Mozart
> Beethoven
> Bruckner
> Brahms
> Dvorak
> Mahler
> Sibelius
> Prokofiev
> Shostakovich
> 
> CLOSE, BUT NOT QUITE...
> 
> Schumann
> Berlioz (assuming we take him at his word that "Faust" and "Juliet" are symphonies as well)
> Tchaikovsky
> Martinu
> Stravinsky
> Hartmann
> 
> I like that arrangement. The only significant change I would make is to reverse the placements of Tchaikovsky and Prokofiev.


----------

