# Greatest Century



## juliante

Simple question, but one I am quite interested to see what people think.


----------



## Dim7

1850-1950 is the best century.


----------



## GreenMamba

No other choices for greatest (as opposed to greater)?


----------



## juliante

GreenMamba said:


> No other choices for greatest (as opposed to greater)?


No - they are the only 2 viable choices for the greatest century for the symphony. :tiphat: #fact


----------



## Zhdanov

the 19th century for me.


----------



## joen_cph

If forced to choose, I´d take the 20th, Bruckner being the biggest loss.


----------



## helenora

but for me 18th for sure. why there is no 3rd option in a poll? why it's only 19th and 20th?


----------



## Pugg

Zhdanov said:


> the 19th century for me.





joen_cph said:


> I forced to choose, I´d take the 20th, Bruckner being the biggest loss.


Last post is almost right, but as we have to choose only one, I voted the 19 th


----------



## Zhdanov

can't think of a 20th century composer to stand comparison with his 19th century counterpart.


----------



## arpeggio

Another I don't know. There are so many great ones in both centuries.


----------



## Elizabeth de Brito

Zhdanov said:


> can't think of a 20th century composer to stand comparison with his 19th century counterpart.


philip Sparke, Nigel Hess, Jacob de Haan, Eric Whitacre, Alfred Reed to name a few composers from the 20th century. Not so much symphony orchestra as symphonic wind orchestra though, exquisite music nonetheless.


----------



## Ilarion

Dim7 said:


> 1850-1950 is the best century.


My highly esteemed forum colleague Dim7 read my mind exactly...:tiphat:


----------



## Blancrocher

Without too much thought I can confidently say the 20th Century--whoops there goes Schubert oh great life's not worth living now.


----------



## Guest

Why no 17th? Or 16th? Or 9th?


----------



## Dim7

dogen said:


> Why no 17th? Or 16th? Or 9th?


17th, 16th and 9th century symphonies were all just 4'33'' rip-offs. They don't count.


----------



## isorhythm

19th because of Beethoven and Brahms. But losing most of Mahler's symphonies is a bummer.


----------



## juliante

helenora said:


> but for me 18th for sure. why there is no 3rd option in a poll? why it's only 19th and 20th?


Well I am a bit of a newbie to cm, 5 years odd... I know Haydn put in a good shift and basically created the form and obviously Mozart 40 and 41 are truly great - but what else is there that would make 18th a genuine contender? Interested.


----------



## Nereffid

juliante said:


> Well I am a bit of a newbie to cm, 5 years odd... I know Haydn put in a good shift and basically created the form and obviously Mozart 40 and 41 are truly great - but what else is there that would make 18th a genuine contender? Interested.


The main thing that makes the 18th century a genuine contender is the fact that different people have different opinions about which is their preferred music!
Don't assume that what came after Haydn and Mozart was inherently better than Haydn and Mozart, or that everyone thinks that way.


----------



## bz3

juliante said:


> Well I am a bit of a newbie to cm, 5 years odd... I know Haydn put in a good shift and basically created the form and obviously Mozart 40 and 41 are truly great - but what else is there that would make 18th a genuine contender? Interested.


In a word, Bach. In a few words, Bach and Vivaldi and Handel and Mozart and most of Haydn. I've run out of words, but if I could choose 18th I would over 19th and 20th. Between the latter two only, 19th please.


----------



## KenOC

Best quarter century: 1803-1828.


----------



## Ilarion

Really,

I am very conflicted as to the greatest century. 1850-1950 saw the triumph of symphonic art but also saw the bloodiest conflicts in human history.


----------



## juliante

bz3 said:


> In a word, Bach. In a few words, Bach and Vivaldi and Handel and Mozart and most of Haydn. I've run out of words, but if I could choose 18th I would over 19th and 20th. Between the latter two only, 19th please.


Now I'm learning something - I did not know Bach, Handel or Vivaldi did any symphonies.


----------



## GreenMamba

juliante said:


> Now I'm learning something - I did not know Bach, Handel or Vivaldi did any symphonies.


Here ya go (though not the Bach you were thinking of)






But I think the point is, put 18th in the list, and no one votes for it, then fine.


----------



## bz3

juliante said:


> Now I'm learning something - I did not know Bach, Handel or Vivaldi did any symphonies.


Ah I did not see what was written in poll, just assumed it was orchestral works in general. Still, 18th century had some standouts. Even moreso if you include sinfonia concertante/concerto grosso genre. Those genres have much more in common with much of Mozart's and Haydn's earlier symphonies than the latter do with 19th century sonata form symphonies.


----------



## hpowders

I voted for 20th because of Mahler and Shostakovich.

Mahler Symphonies 5-9 in the 20th century.


----------



## Bayreuth

In a way, I can't help but reducing this question to a simpler one:

Beethoven and Bruckner vs Mahler and Shostakovich

I voted 19th because I feel that, somehow, Mahler's triumph wouldn't exist without Beethoven and (especially) Bruckner. Maybe it is pure prejudice towards whatever is newer, but I don't feel that contemporary classical music has ever achieved the greatness of the 150 years between 1800 and 1950, getting somehow lost in modernity and innovation. That, I believe, is 20th Century's classical biggest flaw, and that is why I voted 19th.


----------



## joen_cph

Bayreuth said:


> In a way, I can't help but reducing this question to a simpler one:
> 
> Beethoven and Bruckner vs Mahler and Shostakovich
> 
> I voted 19th because I feel that, somehow, Mahler's triumph wouldn't exist without Beethoven and (especially) Bruckner. Maybe it is pure prejudice towards whatever is newer, but I don't feel that contemporary classical music has ever achieved the greatness of the 150 years between 1800 and 1950, getting somehow lost in modernity and innovation. That, I believe, is 20th Century's classical biggest flaw, and that is why I voted 19th.


20th-century symphonism is far, far richer than those two, and it contains stylistic and formal variations way beyond those of the 19th, as well as plenty of post-1950 symphonists with comprehensive series.


----------



## Avey

Time is relative.


----------



## Arsakes

From Symphony No. 3 in E-flat major (1804)

~ 

To Symphony No. 9 in E minor (1893)

^ Best epoch for symphonies.

Plus "Antar" symphony, The very first symphonies of Sibelius, Mahler, Nielsen and Rachmaninoff, Bruckner's 9th and "the Pathetique" in 1890s.

They make 19th century the winner. In 20th century excluding a several symphonies, only the first 3 decades have the appeal.


----------



## Morimur

Meh, they're all terrible and full of misery.


----------



## kanishknishar

juliante said:


> No - they are the only 2 viable choices for the greatest century for the symphony. :tiphat: #fact


You can't be serious. Are you?


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Favorite century: 20th
Favorite century for symphonies: 19th


----------



## juliante

Herrenvolk said:


> You can't be serious. Are you?


Admittedly I should have given the 18th century as an option. Would you argue 18th is greatest century for the symphony? I just can't see it.


----------



## Enthusiast

Haydn survived into the 19th Century but his symphonies are all of the 18th Century. And Mozart's symphonies were also of the 18th Century. Given this, I would have been very tempted to vote for that century if it had been offered. But the 19th Century has the flowering of the work that they started with the symphony while the 20th Century was surely the century that saw the decline of the symphony as the orchestral form for expressing big ideas - the names that stand out as great symphonists of that century were composers who had one foot in the 19th Century - Sibelius, Rachmaninov, (later) Mahler, Shostakovich, Elgar. But ff the question had been about concertos I probably would have chosen 20th Century.


----------



## kanishknishar

juliante said:


> Admittedly I should have given the 18th century as an option. Would you argue 18th is greatest century for the symphony? I just can't see it.


In that case, even 21st Century has given us plenty of masterpieces. And since the Earth isn't yet done for, maybe wait till Judgement Day for pronouncements like "Greatest". We don't know what the next 83 years got in store for us!


----------



## arpeggio

Traditionalist's rejoice. It appears they won one.


----------



## hpowders

Seriously, regarding my music listening, the 20th must be first; then the 18th.

The 20th had the greatest and most astonishing parade of great composers ever-an embarrassment of riches.

The 18th had Bach. Simple as that.


----------



## Enthusiast

hpowders said:


> Seriously, regarding my music listening, the 20th must be first; then the 18th.
> 
> The 20th had the greatest and most astonishing parade of great composers ever-an embarrassment of riches.
> 
> The 18th had Bach. Simple as that.


But was the symphony really where they excelled? Not for me.


----------



## Ondine

Late 19th and early 20th are the greatest but being forced to choose one I voted the 19th


----------



## Avey

Zhdanov said:


> can't think of a 20th century composer to stand comparison with his 19th century counterpart.


I don't mean to assume what you mean by "counterpart," but if I take the obvious meaning: Who actually had a counterpart? Do you mean someone who _sounded like_ them from the previous century? I started writing an assumption here -- i.e., X is the presumed counterpart of Y -- but then I stopped, erased violently several sentences because I realized how absurd it was. I could not compare two composers. No one.

Please, if you reconsider this post: I would love to understand what you meant. Every 20th Century composer that comes to mind -- that person's _symphonies_ are incomparable. Wholly novel stuff. Just as the previous century's composers were. And the one before that. And the one after, and so on.



Enthusiast said:


> But was the symphony really where they [20th Century composers] excelled? Not for me.


...so, where did "they" excel? For real, excellence in one form or the other is pretty much irrelevant to whether one prefers 19th v. 20th Century symphonies.


----------



## hpowders

Enthusiast said:


> But was the symphony really where they excelled? Not for me.


Mahler, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Ives, Schuman, Mennin?


----------



## Enthusiast

hpowders said:


> Mahler, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Ives, Schuman, Mennin?


Mahler OK, agreed but he came out of the 19th Century and is not a pure example of a truly 20th Century symphonist. Similarly, it is difficult to think of Sibelius (one of the greatest symphonists of all to me) as belonging to the 20th Century. Shostakovich was probably The symphonist who fully belonged to C20 but musically he was a little backward looking - he did new things with the symphony but didn't greatly push forward the boundaries.

Was Prokofiev really a great symphonist? Many of his symphonies reworked material he had produced for the theatre (ballet and opera) which is where his greatest orchestral music comes from. I love a few of his symphonies but they don't make me think of his as a great symphonist. I'm afraid I don't greatly like Ives' music and don't know Schuman's or Mennin's music that well ... but is there contribution really so big that it lifts the century to the level of being The Symphony Century.

Symphonies were not that important within the output of most of the greatest composers of the first half of C20 - think of Bartok, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern. By the second half of C20 few composers of note wrote symphonies at all - they were an important part of Peter Maxwell Davies' output and, of course, of Pettersson's but many others saw little potential in the form - I'm thinking of Carter, Ligeti, Birtwistle, Boulez, Kurtag.


----------



## mstar

dogen said:


> Why no 17th? Or 16th? Or 9th?


Seconded - I vote 9th.


----------



## Mahlerian

Enthusiast said:


> Symphonies were not that important within the output of most of the greatest composers of the first half of C20 - think of Bartok, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern. By the second half of C20 few composers of note wrote symphonies at all - they were an important part of Peter Maxwell Davies' output and, of course, of Pettersson's but many others saw little potential in the form - I'm thinking of *Carter*, Ligeti, Birtwistle, Boulez, Kurtag.


His largest orchestral work is Symphonia, and there was an earlier Symphony from his Neoclassical period as well.


----------



## Woodduck

The 19th century symphony:

Clementi, Mehul, Beethoven, Ries, Wilms, Czerny, Vorisek, Cherubini, Arriaga, Schubert, Weber, Spohr, Mendelssohn, Weyse, Gade, Berwald, Berlioz, Schumann, Liszt, Raff, Brahms, Bruckner, Bruch, Gernsheim, Goetz, Saint-Saens, Gounod, Bizet, Franck, D'Indy, Chausson, Magnard, Dukas, Parry, Stanford, Grieg, Svendsen, Sinding, Balakirev, Borodin, Rubinstein, Rimsky-Korsakov, Tchaikovsky, Taneyev, Glazunov, Kalinnikov, Gretchaninov, Fibich, Dvorak, Martucci, Strauss, Rott, Mahler (#1 through #3), Sibelius (#1 and _Kullervo_), Nielsen (#1), Rachmaninoff (#1), Scriabin (#1), Schmidt (#1), Chadwick, Beach... Elgar and Vaughan Williams miss by only a few years, as do major works of Mahler and Sibelius.

Not all of these are major symphonists, and many minor names are missing, but it's a pretty good sampling of the growth, variety and imaginative scope of the Romantic symphony. Many (the majority?) of the greatest and most-loved symphonies are here, along with some hidden treasures.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

There's Beethoven


Beethoven with melody (Schubert)
Beethoven with counterpoint (Schumann-Brahms)
Beethoven with harmony (Bruckner)
Beethoven with melody and counterpoint and harmony and orchestration (Mahler).


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

The 19th in my opinion was the best you had all of Beethoven, Brahms, Dvorak in that century.


----------



## Pugg

The 19th leads by far still.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

In the BBC magazine poll, 17 of the 20 symphonies were written in the 19th century.


----------

