# The great symphony trilogies



## Subutai (Feb 28, 2021)

Anyone else chime in with three straight great symphonies, thus making a trilogy of great symphonies? Not so much your favourite works, but generally agreed to be a great trilogy. I can think of 3 Composers straight off

Mozart 39-41
Tchaikovsky 4-6
Nieslen 3-5

Thanks in advance


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Beethoven 5-7 would be a generally agreed trilogy. Not sure whether that can be said about the Nielsen though (sadly).


----------



## ansfelden (Jan 11, 2022)

Bruckner 0-2, 3-5, 6-8


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

ansfelden said:


> Bruckner 0-2, 3-5, 6-8



Generally agreed? Don't think so, not even close. Bruckner 7-9 would be a candidate.


----------



## ansfelden (Jan 11, 2022)

Art Rock said:


> Generally agreed? Don't think so, not even close. Bruckner 7-9 would be a candidate.


as a Brucknerian, it is "generally agreed" for me!


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Mahler 5-7
While it is stretching things some, Josef Suk - Asrael, Ripening, Epilog


----------



## Subutai (Feb 28, 2021)

ansfelden said:


> Bruckner 0-2, 3-5, 6-8


Not your preferred but generally agreed upon. For Bruckner I'd say 7-9 (generally agreed masterworks)


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Haydn 6-8 ("Le matin", "Le midi", "Le soir")


----------



## ansfelden (Jan 11, 2022)

Subutai said:


> Not your preferred but generally agreed upon. For Bruckner I'd say 7-9 (generally agreed masterworks)


 ok, ok...

Brahms 2-4


----------



## Ludwig Schon (10 mo ago)

Pettersson 6-9
Norholm 2-4
Norgard 3-5


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Ludwig Schon said:


> Pettersson 6-9
> Norholm 2-4
> Norgard 3-5


I am not very good in maths, however, Petterssson 6-9 seem to be four sinfonies in my humble calculation ... is one number missing in his list, as with Mozart #37?

What is the common aspect in Norgard 3-5 which amalgamates them to a trilogy? As I like Norgard 1-3 very much but still have problems with 4/5, I am interested in this question ... thx for clarification!


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

I´d say all these are great trilogies:

Sibelius 1-3
Sibelius 2-4
Sibelius 3-5
Sibelius 4-6
Sibelius 5-7


----------



## ansfelden (Jan 11, 2022)

Waehnen said:


> I´d say all these are great trilogies:
> 
> Sibelius 1-3
> Sibelius 2-4
> ...


but they are not "generally agreed"...


----------



## Ludwig Schon (10 mo ago)

Philidor said:


> I am not very good in maths, however, Petterssson 6-9 seem to be four sinfonies in my humble calculation ... is one number missing in his list, as with Mozart #37?
> 
> What is the common aspect in Norgard 3-5 which amalgamates them to a trilogy? As I like Norgard 1-3 very much but still have problems with 4/5, I am interested in this question ... thx for clarification!


Pettersson should be 7-9
Norgard 3-5 are just personal favourites, and work more as a distinct triptych, being from three distinct periods, early 70s, early 80s, late 80s, and distinct forms, choral, tone poem, etc…


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

ansfelden said:


> but they are not "generally agreed"...


I think Sibelius symphonies are "generally agreed" to be great. So to what fact are you referring saying they are not?


----------



## KevinJS (Sep 24, 2021)

Mahler 1/4/8 works well for me.

Beethoven? 7/3/5. 6 is standalone for me, as is 9.

Edit: Not sure I should have posted these, since they are not "straight" but hey, I like to cherry-pick.


----------



## ansfelden (Jan 11, 2022)

see Bruckner above


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

The only "trilogies" mentioned so far are Mozart's last 3 and Haydn's "times of the day" (in fact the latter might be the only real trilogy). And maybe the Suk Symphonic poems. Most of the others are 3 consecutive symphonies of one composer considered great but they were not conceived of as "trilogies", with gaps of many years and often different projects in between.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Let us have ourselves a definition of a trilogy here first, OK?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Philidor said:


> Haydn 6-8 ("Le matin", "Le midi", "Le soir")


Howabout J. Haydn 102nd, 103rd, 104th?
M. Haydn 27th, 28th, 29th (all in 3 movements, composed in 1784)




Slovak Chamber Orchestra conducted by Bohdan Warchal for the 27th and 28th.




Capella Savaria conducted by Pàl Németh for the 29th.


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

Waehnen said:


> Let us have ourselves a definition of a trilogy here first, OK?


Yes, I think the OP should have used the word 'consecutive' rather than 'straight'.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Prodromides said:


> Yes, I think the OP should have used the word 'consecutive' rather than 'straight'.


Yes, I misunderstood the meaning of a trilogy here, in the OP.


----------



## Subutai (Feb 28, 2021)

Waehnen said:


> Let us have ourselves a definition of a trilogy here first, OK?


As I think I stated before, three straight (consecutive) numbered symphonies, regardless of time gap or anything else in between.

eg: Mozart 39-41 (3 straight masterworks) - There was no #38
Tchaikovsky 4-6 (3 straight masterworks) - Some may like Symphony 3, but a masterwork?
Dvorak 7-9 (3 straight masterworks)


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Subutai said:


> As I think I stated before, three straight numbered symphonies, regardless of time gap or anything else in between.


...Which is rather stretching the definition of the relationship in a trilogy.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I think it can actually be misleading. E.g. it could be argued that Beethoven's 5th and 6th symphonies form a "pair" because their composition process overlapped and at the premiere the numbers were the other way round which was "corrected" for publication. The claim that his 7th and 8th were a pair because composed right after each other seems already a bit of a stretch but still defensible. But to treat 5,6,7, or 7,8,9 as "trilogies" would be without rationale and would hide the grouping in pairs (although I would not make too much of this "pairs" either).


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

The issue of the 'official' numbering vs the actual composition order can't be ignored.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

Subutai said:


> Anyone else chime in with three straight great symphonies, thus making a trilogy of great symphonies? Not so much your favourite works, but generally agreed to be a great trilogy. I can think of 3 Composers straight off ......
> 
> Tchaikovsky 4-6
> .....



Agree with Tchaikovsky's great symphonies Nos. 4-6, which are magnificent works. However his symphonies Nos. 1-3 are equally great and are at the same artistic level as 4-6. You could consider all of them ( 1 - 6 ) to be a great symphonic sextet!

The only symphony he wrote that I find a bit wanting is Manfred, which has never clicked for me. Many people however like that symphony.


----------



## Subutai (Feb 28, 2021)

3


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

Subutai said:


> yes, but only the last 3 can be labelled Masterworks



IMHO all 6 numbered symphonies by Tchaikovsky are masterworks.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Subutai said:


> yes, but only the last 3 can be labelled Masterworks


That is opinion and not fact, and an opinion that not everyone shares.


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

Plus the composers who have written only 2 or 1 are being discriminated against. 
No trilogy for you, William Walton & Stefan Wolpe!


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

On Bruckner 7-9:

in all three symphonies, Bruckner used the Wagner tubas; in his other symphonies, he didn't
the first subject of the first movement of symphony No. 7 appears again in No. 8 and No. 9.


----------



## Skakner (Oct 8, 2020)

Definitely Bruckner 7-8-9
Maybe Mahler 5-6-7


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Becca said:


> That is opinion and not fact, and an opinion that not everyone shares.


Becca, why do you feel the need to repeat it all over again that everything is just opinions? Just curious because it is a constant. 

I think most of us realize that there is a lot to music that cannot be tested in a laboratory for an actual repeatable scientific factual phenomenon.

Music and culture are still much more than mere opinions and we should have the courage to discuss even matters that are not repeatable in a laboratory. Tendencies, values, aesthetics, theories… The human life and humanity are not just opinions.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Waehnen said:


> Becca, why do you feel the need to repeat it all over again that everything is just opinions? Just curious because it is a constant.
> 
> I think most of us realize that there is a lot to music that cannot be tested in a laboratory for an actual repeatable scientific factual phenomenon.
> 
> Music and culture are still much more than mere opinions and we should have the courage to discuss even matters that are not repeatable in a laboratory. Tendencies, values, aesthetics, theories… The human life and humanity are not just opinions.


If you have to ask then I am not going to waste my time by trying to explain.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Becca said:


> If you have to ask then I am not going to waste my time by trying to explain.


Please do explain! Because this habit of yours sometimes feels like you are trying to either diminish what other people are saying, or on purpose interpreting the sayings of others in a negative way, or you are trying to control what others can say. I am sure that is not your intention so I am interested in where this attitude of yours grows from, so that I can understand it better. Thanks. 

I would find it much more constructive if we encouraged each other to give arguments and define the basis of our thinking -- rather than repeating that everything is just opinions and nothing more. In this instance it could have been asked, on what basis is the concept formed that Tchaikovsky symphonies 1-3 would not be masterpieces and that symphonies 4-6 would be masterpieces. There must be some reasoning and musical value structures (represented by scholars and the classical music canon, perhaps) behind that kind of statements, right?


----------



## Markbridge (Sep 28, 2014)

I know the OP asked for “trilogies”, but it’s generally agreed that Mahler’s first four symphonies are connected by use of the music from the “Youth’s Magic Horn”. I think these four are really the best example of inter connectivity in Mahler’s symphonies. Although it’s true one could argue the middle symphonies are connected, but not by theme but from the fact that they don’t use any vocal in them. Ironically, the 4th & 5th are connected by the fact that the opening of the 5th is alluded to in the 4th’s first movement!


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Markbridge said:


> I know the OP asked for “trilogies”, but it’s generally agreed that Mahler’s first four symphonies are connected by use of the music from the “Youth’s Magic Horn”. I think these four are really the best example of inter connectivity in Mahler’s symphonies. Although it’s true one could argue the middle symphonies are connected, but not by theme but from the fact that they don’t use any vocal in them. Ironically, the 4th & 5th are connected by the fact that the opening of the 5th is alluded to in the 4th’s first movement!


...or that the last movement of the 4th was originally intended to be part of the 3rd!
...or that Mahler started composing the 7th immediately after finishing the 6th, which was not his normal practice.


----------



## Andrew Kenneth (Feb 17, 2018)

Gustav Mahler / 6 - 8 / (journey from darkness to light)


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Rachmaninoff 1-3; Prokofiev 3-5.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

Art Rock said:


> Beethoven 5-7 would be a generally agreed trilogy. Not sure whether that can be said about the Nielsen though (sadly).


Why? They have almost nothing in common when it comes to their individual character.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Beethoven 5/6 and 7/8 could be regarded as (somehow antigonal) pairs, as they have been composed (partially) in parallel.

5/6/7 as a trilogy? Why? What is the common point?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Waehnen said:


> Please do explain! Because this habit of yours sometimes feels like you are trying to either diminish what other people are saying, or on purpose interpreting the sayings of others in a negative way, or you are trying to control what others can say. I am sure that is not your intention so I am interested in where this attitude of yours grows from, so that I can understand it better. Thanks.
> 
> I would find it much more constructive if we encouraged each other to give arguments and define the basis of our thinking -- rather than repeating that everything is just opinions and nothing more. In this instance it could have been asked, on what basis is the concept formed that Tchaikovsky symphonies 1-3 would not be masterpieces and that symphonies 4-6 would be masterpieces. There must be some reasoning and musical value structures (represented by scholars and the classical music canon, perhaps) behind that kind of statements, right?


I think that you will find that the place of opinion in the evaluation of music and the arts has been discussed at great length and in enormous detail in probably dozens of threads now on TC, the latest being quite recent. And with determination but without rancor.

The Most Overrated and Underrated Composers in History -...


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> I think that you will find that the place of opinion in the evaluation of music and the arts has been discussed at great length and in enormous detail in probably dozens of threads now on TC, the latest being quite recent. And with determination but without rancor.
> 
> The Most Overrated and Underrated Composers in History -...


Thanks! I really do not understand the purpose of the term "overrated" so I have skipped that thread altogether. Good to know there is some serious discussion on the topic there.

My point though was to bring up a thought that repeating "that is just your opinion, this is just an opinion, that is not a fact" all over again is not constructive and not good for the discussion or the atmosphere on the forum. Quite the opposite. It is completely unnecessary and even somewhat irritating.

After all we all know this is not a laboratory where we run systematic tests in order to gain undisputed data of repeatable phenomenon of the natural world.

Instead we should talk more analytically about the establishment, the literature, the abundance of different theories and aesthetics, the reality of the musical life and concerts, the canons and the community and it´s values and how they are represented in our minds and the way we hear and appreciate music and perceive the musical field with all it´s agents.

It is not just "an opinion" to consider the 9th Symphony by Beethoven the objectively greater work of art when compared to "A Pentatonic Improvisation on the Black Keys of the Piano on a Sunday afternoon by a 5 year old".


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Open Book said:


> Why? They have almost nothing in common when it comes to their individual character.


The OP asked for three straight great symphonies , which are considered great. Not necessarily having something in common. Later further clarified by the OP as "As I think I stated before, three straight (consecutive) numbered symphonies, regardless of time gap or anything else in between. " 
Beethoven 5-7 fits that description.

The use of the word trilogy for this is somewhat unfortunate, as was discussed already.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

One question though: what would be the added value of having a Great Symphonic Trilogy instead of a bunch of many great symphonies?

Is the number 3 somehow more magical than, say, 4? Would The Ring of Nibelungen somehow be a better Opera Cycle if it had 3 parts instead of 4 and it could be called The Great Opera Trilogy? Would Brahms be even more appreciated as a symphonist if he had composed The Magnificent Symphonic Trilogy instead of 4 great symphonies?

Is there some great mythological value especially in trilogies? Is finding Mythological Trilogies the aim of this thread?

(I love the number 3 in music because it is often very balanced but there sure are other values, too.)


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

Prokofiev 2-3-4 (neoclassical) and 5-6-7 (soviet style)
Shostakovich "War" trilogy 7-8-9 and late symphony trilogy 13-14-15
And then basically all composers who wrote 3 symphonies: Borodin, Wetz, Furtwängler, Glière, Scriabin etc.



Art Rock said:


> Beethoven 5-7 would be a generally agreed trilogy. Not sure whether that can be said about the Nielsen though (sadly).


In the case of Beethoven it's more a case of closely connected diptychs, rather: 5-6 and 7-8. If you want a Beethoven trilogy, I'd go for the "heroic/tragic" odd numbers 3-5-7, or the happy/classical 4-6-8.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^@Waehnen: Two points. I have enjoyed TC a lot for two reasons--A) exposure to different opinions and different ways of expressing them, and B) the opportunity to actually argue/discuss important topics, as I enjoy often arguing with people about certain fundamental issues in esthetics. One of my pet enthusiasms is the conviction--shared with others--that all evaluation in music and the arts is opinion and just opinion, pure and simple, Individual opinions or clusters of opinions. One can therefore hold that Beethoven's 9th (it's always Beethoven and his 9th) is better than your Improvisation counterexample, or the opposite (bizarre as that may seem), and it is still an opinion either way--a large cluster of opinions versus a small, a very small cluster of one (or two). 

Each of us individually has opinions on just about everything--what art objects I think great are likely to not be entirely the set of things you think are great. It is fine and good to discuss what we hold is good or bad in the arts, but not accurate to ascribe the art objects themselves with inherent goodness or badness--which of the elements on the periodic table are good, and why? Which bad? We can only assess such in terms of human experience though we can know a vast amount of verifiable information about each element. 

Same with art objects--they just are and we bring to them our own personal (or shared) net of expectations and reactions, and thus ascribe value to them. It really is all about opinion, though we can assert with confidence many facts about art objects--their color, weight, size, shape, duration (if applicable), when created and by whom, odor (if applicable), temperature, etc. But not if they are great (not in the sense of size but of intrinsic value). This position in no way threatens our ability to find enormous pleasure in the arts, and individual or group-shared opinions/values. But it frees us from holding the awkward notion that--objectively--things in the arts are inherently endowed with value properties that are independent of the perceiver. In that sense, it is indeed all a matter of opinion.


----------



## golfer72 (Jan 27, 2018)

Can we get Elgar in here even though his 3rd was not completed by him? I think his first two are so good they carry the 3rd


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

golfer72 said:


> Can we get Elgar in here even though his 3rd was not completed by him? I think his first two are so good they carry the 3rd


Nope, it doesn't count, it's not canon, it's garbage and it will soon be forgotten just like Beethoven's 10th.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^@Waehnen: Two points. I have enjoyed TC a lot for two reasons--A) exposure to different opinions and different ways of expressing them, and B) the opportunity to actually argue/discuss important topics, as I enjoy often arguing with people about certain fundamental issues in esthetics. One of my pet enthusiasms is the conviction--shared with others--that all evaluation in music and the arts is opinion and just opinion, pure and simple, Individual opinions or clusters of opinions. One can therefore hold that Beethoven's 9th (it's always Beethoven and his 9th) is better than your Improvisation counterexample, or the opposite (bizarre as that may seem), and it is still an opinion either way--a large cluster of opinions versus a small, a very small cluster of one (or two).
> 
> Each of us individually has opinions on just about everything--what art objects I think great are likely to not be entirely the set of things you think are great. It is fine and good to discuss what we hold is good or bad in the arts, but not accurate to ascribe the art objects themselves with inherent goodness or badness--which of the elements on the periodic table are good, and why? Which bad? We can only assess such in terms of human experience though we can know a vast amount of verifiable information about each element.
> 
> Same with art objects--they just are and we bring to them our own personal (or shared) net of expectations and reactions, and thus ascribe value to them. It really is all about opinion, though we can assert with confidence many facts about art objects--their color, weight, size, shape, duration (if applicable), when created and by whom, odor (if applicable), temperature, etc. But not if they are great (not in the sense of size but of intrinsic value). This position in no way threatens our ability to find enormous pleasure in the arts, and individual or group-shared opinions/values. But it frees us from holding the awkward notion that--objectively--things in the arts are inherently endowed with value properties that are independent of the perceiver. In that sense, it is indeed all a matter of opinion.


Please copy that text to start a new thread! I will continue there and leave this thread for The Mythological Symphonic Trilogies (the undisputed pinnacle of human art).


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Waehnen said:


> Please copy that text to start a new thread! I will continue there and leave this thread for The Mythological Symphonic Trilogies (the undisputed pinnacle of human art).


I think not. As I indicated, the subject of the role of opinion in esthetics has been thrashed over by me and by scores of other members on numerous occasions and many threads--I referenced a recent such. I would suggest as an alternative that you skim through that thread on over- and underestimating composers. If you chose, you could look at my posts for additional input from me. If, as likely, you have other views than those aired there, you could start a thread yourself, but don't be surprised if there seems a lot of eye-rolling as the dead horse is beaten yet again--though I will be happy to discuss the issues with you there.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> I think not. As I indicated, the subject of the role of opinion in esthetics has been thrashed over by me and by scores of other members on numerous occasions and many threads--I referenced a recent such. I would suggest as an alternative that you skim through that thread on over- and underestimating composers. If you chose, you could look at my posts for additional input from me. If, as likely, you have other views than those aired there, you could start a thread yourself, but don't be surprised if there seems a lot of eye-rolling as the dead horse is beaten yet again--though I will be happy to discuss the issues with you there.


OK. May I quote your lengthy post above as a starting point for my commenting if I start a thread?


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

Humphrey Searle's final 3 out of his 5 symphonies:

-) Symphony No. 3 (1960)
-) Symphony No. 4 (1962)
-) Symphony No. 5 (1964)

Each have a runtime duration of approximately 17 minutes. All hail from the 1st half of the 1960s ... plus each were completed within an even-numbered year. They are 12-tone and Webern-like.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Waehnen said:


> OK. May I quote your lengthy post above as a starting point for my commenting if I start a thread?


 Feel free to quote my posts anytime and anywhere.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Beethoven 5-7 is great, as are all of Beethoven's symphonies.
3-5 is better though since 3=7 and 4>6.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Subutai said:


> As I think I stated before, three straight (consecutive) numbered symphonies, regardless of time gap or anything else in between.
> 
> eg: Mozart 39-41 (3 straight masterworks) - There was no #38


Am I misunderstanding or have a missed out on some scholarship that shows that Mozart's Prague Symphony was not by Mozart or should not be #38?

The argument for the last three Mozart symphonies being a single whole piece, as advanced by Harnoncourt and Savall, is a technical one that is beyond my musical understanding but it is something to do with the key progressions between the three works, I think.


----------



## golfer72 (Jan 27, 2018)

I kind of alluded to the fact that the 3rd wasnt nearly as good in my post and hence needed to be carried by the first two.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Five or Martinu's symphonies seem to belong together. The 6th perhaps doesn't belong with them in quite the same way.

On the other hand some single symphonies seem split in two. Stravinsky's Symphony in C has two movements that were written before he emigrated to USA and two that were written after he arrived. The two halves seem to belong to different worlds.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Enthusiast said:


> The argument for the last three Mozart symphonies being a single whole piece, as advanced by Harnoncourt and Savall, is a technical one that is beyond my musical understanding but it is something to do with the key progressions between the three works, I think.


I don't think they are "one piece" but they were composed basically at the same time and apparently with the purpose of presenting three strongly contrasting symphonies. So they are very plausibly thought of as a trilogy. Whereas Beethoven's 5,6,7 or 3,4,5 or whatever were not composed as a trilogy.


----------



## dko22 (Jun 22, 2021)

Kreisler jr said:


> The only "trilogies" mentioned so far are Mozart's last 3 and Haydn's "times of the day" (in fact the latter might be the only real trilogy). And maybe the Suk Symphonic poems. Most of the others are 3 consecutive symphonies of one composer considered great but they were not conceived of as "trilogies", with gaps of many years and often different projects in between.


yes, most of the "trilogies" listed here are anything but. Suk is mostly regarded as a tetralogy including _Letni Pohadka_ (Summers Tale) , though there are dissenters. Likewise a good case can be made for Mahler 1-4 as a single Wunderhorn cycle. And yes, 5-7 as a trilogy is also defendable. But I would definitely say that Weinberg 17-19 is a genuine War trilogy though with Shostakovich 7-9, the connection is weaker as I'm not sure the latter's was really planned as a group whereas Weinberg's almost certainly was. 

Pettersson 6-9 are often regarded as a group but mainly because they --at least 6-8 -- contain the best known and arguably best music of the cycle. But I'm not aware they were planned as a group.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

RobertJTh said:


> Nope, it doesn't count, it's not canon, it's garbage and it will soon be forgotten just like Beethoven's 10th.


Yes, I agree. How do we come to those conclusions? 

And tell Strange Magic. (just joking..)


----------



## dko22 (Jun 22, 2021)

Art Rock said:


> The OP asked for three straight great symphonies , which are considered great. Not necessarily having something in common. Later further clarified by the OP as "As I think I stated before, three straight (consecutive) numbered symphonies, regardless of time gap or anything else in between. "
> Beethoven 5-7 fits that description.
> 
> The use of the word trilogy for this is somewhat unfortunate, as was discussed already.


OK, I admit that I focussed on the word "trilogy" and not on the idea of three consecutive symphonies which I rather missed when originally looking at this thread. The latter seems a somewhat pointless concept as you could almost choose any three mature works in a row from any of the greatest symphonists. Of course there are the odd weaker works in one or two of the cycles but that wouldn't change the picture dramatically.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Beethoven 
3-5
Haydn
102-104
92-94


----------



## Andante Largo (Apr 23, 2020)

Bruch 1-3
Fuchs 1-3
Maliszewski 1-3
Noskowski 1-3
Reinecke 1-3


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

a World War II trilogy

*Alexandre Tansman*

Symphony No. 4 (1939)
Symphony No. 5 (1942)
Symphony No. 6 (1944)

Chandos Records grouped these 3 symphonies together on a single-disc Volume #1 in their Tansman series.










a _Post_ - WWII trilogy

*Vagn Holmboe*

Symphony No. 6 (1947)
Symphony No. 7 (1950)
Symphony No. 8 (1952)

#s 6 & 8 are perhaps the finest specimens of Holmboe's 'metamorphosis' approach.
[His 9th symphony was not completed until over 15 years later in 1968]

a 1960s dodecaphonic trilogy

*Egon Wellesz* began utilizing 12-tone techniques in his '55/'56 Symphony no. 5, but did not produce his late-in-life symphonies until around 10 years later ...

Symphony No. 6 (1965)
Symphony No. 7 (1968)
Symphony No. 8 (1969)


----------



## John O (Jan 16, 2021)

dko22 said:


> yes, most of the "trilogies" listed here are anything but. Suk is mostly regarded as a tetralogy including _Letni Pohadka_ (Summers Tale) , though there are dissenters. Likewise a good case can be made for Mahler 1-4 as a single Wunderhorn cycle. And yes, 5-7 as a trilogy is also defendable. But I would definitely say that Weinberg 17-19 is a genuine War trilogy though with Shostakovich 7-9, the connection is weaker as I'm not sure the latter's was really planned as a group whereas Weinberg's almost certainly was.
> 
> Pettersson 6-9 are often regarded as a group but mainly because they --at least 6-8 -- contain the best known and arguably best music of the cycle. But I'm not aware they were planned as a group.


I have seen Mahler symphonies described as 3 trilogies (+ numbers 1 and 8)

2-4 Wunderhorn (1 is being based on Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen rather Wunderhorn songs though related)
5-7 Ruckert
Das Lied von der Erde,9,10


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Karl-Birger Blomdahl's three symphonies make for a great trilogy. Composed between 1943 and 1950, the first two are three movement works (trilogies within the trilogy?) and the third, the single movement 'Facetter', one of my favorite symphonies, sums up Blomdahl's orchestral music in a definitive manner. I suspect the composer knew that someday someone would want a trilogic listing of great symphonies, and thus entered these into the oeuvre of symphonies for consideration.


----------

