# 3 Consecutive Symphonies



## Chi_townPhilly

As I was recently listening to Tchaikovsky's Symphony #4, I remembered this passage from Peter Gammond's _Harmony Illustrated Encyclopedia of Classical Music_: "With the Fourth, Tchaikovsky embarked on a trilogy of symphonies worthy to stand alongside any in the Austro-German tradition, in terms of form, development, weight and impact." I then thought... is there any other prominent composer whose most renowned symphonies were obviously consecutive? Perhaps only one- Mozart (39-40-41).

I next queried "what trio of consecutive symphonies do I prize the most?" I could only reply in three tiers-

Tier 1: Beethoven 7-8-9. Tier 2: Bruckner 7-8-9, Tchaikovsky 4-5-6. 
Tier 3 (and here, it gets hard for me. I'm going to use alphabetical order. I'd hate to have to rank any of the following): Brahms 2-3-4, Mahler 4-5-6, Mozart 39-40-41, Schubert 6*-8-9, Shostakovich 9-10-11. Anybody else care to opine on this topic?

Author's note: these tiers do not mean I "esteem" the composers in one tier more highly than the other tier(s). In fact, I'll say that, by limiting the span to three, it tends to deflate the overall value of a Mahler, whose achievement was more consistent, and inflate the value of a Shostakovich, whose body of work was less consistent.
I recognize that, according to taste, Haydn, Schumann, Dvořák, and Sibelius are also highly worthy of consideration.
*footnote: The "Schubert 7" exists only in draft form.


----------



## Gustav

does it have to be 3? alright.
Bruckner:
3,4,5
4,5,6
5,6,7
6,7,8 
7,8,9


----------



## EricIsAPolarBear

I rate the Tchaikovsky trio the highest, there are no other three successive symphonies that are so consistently dear to me, mahler 3,4, and 5 are cllose for me though (if the 4th was a bit more strong throughout)


----------



## ChamberNut

How about Beethoven's 5-6-7 or

Mendelssohn's 3-4-5


----------



## EricIsAPolarBear

i don't have beethoven's sixth symphony, a glaring absence in my collection


----------



## ChamberNut

I don't know how I could have forgotten to mention Dvorak's 7-8-9  That certainly has to rank near the top.


----------



## Gustav

well, i liked dvorak too, 1,2,3, 2,3,4, 3,4,5.... you get where i am going with this.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Let's have fun with numbers!

ChamberNut beat me to it, I would have to agree that these are great:


ChamberNut said:


> I don't know how I could have forgotten to mention Dvorak's 7-8-9.


Another interesting thought is *Sibelius 3-4-5*.

Not my 3 favourite Sibelius Symphonies, but in terms of consecutive works that are written in _completely different styles_, these take the cake.


----------



## Guest

At least we have the original fifth now to listen to, so the transition between 4 and 5 doesn't seem completely incomprehensible.

Still odd. The original fifth seems gawky and unsure which way it's going. The fourth seems completely perfect.

Oh, but that's not what this thread's about. Well, I think that practically any three consecutive symphonies could be put in a group, and people would go "hmmmm." But I got myself into this; I'd better play nice and then get out again, quickly and gracefully. 

OK, how about Rawsthorne's 1, 2, and 3? ...


----------



## alan sheffield

*Vaughan Williams*

VW 4 5 and 6 is my choice. Vaughan Williams cycle of 9 is one of the most varied of all in character. 4 5 6 epitomise his style in very different ways. Compare 4th movement each symphony. You'd hardly know they were written by the same composer.

Close behind:

Nielsen 4 5 6 again you get tremendous variation

Sibelius 4 5 6 ( although I would really go for 7 over 6)

Shostakovich 4 5 6 just to be consistent!

I think 4 5 6 is frequent because it takes most composers 3 goes to really get into their stride with some notable exceptions.


----------



## Rondo

alan sheffield said:


> Nielsen 4 5 6 again you get tremendous variation


Ehh...I would rather think *3*, 4, 5 for Nielsen.


----------



## Handel

Haydn 93-104

The best three set in the twelve would be either 98-99-100 or 102-103-104


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

For breakfast today, I'm eating a portion of my hat...

_Of course_, Dvořák's 7-8-9 are every bit as worthy a trio as Tchaikovsky's concluding triptych. I should have recognized the obviousness of this much sooner. Thanks, *ChamberNut* & *Maestro K*!

AND (while the Maestro is fresh on my mind), I tried this listening test not long ago- 
I listened to Sibelius 3-4-5. Intently. And consecutively. I already had decent familiarity with 5 (like the female lead in Educating Rita, who said "you don't do Blake without doing _Innocence_ and _Experience_," I guess "you don't do Sibelius without doing _2_ and _5_)! Sibelius 3 made an immediate impression. It was enough to make me wonder why it doesn't join 2 and 5 in frequency of airings. 4 was a bigger challenge... I know I should give it another go or two. As for 5... I always thought it deserved a place on the short list of top symphonies of the last 100 years. (I'll no longer be able to make that statement in 2016, when it "ages out.")

I was wondering, though... in that "Sibelius dedicated" spot on the 'net, 3-4-5 are grouped in one discussion branch as "the 'classical' symphonies." Yet, we've already remarked on their variance before I added anything. Maybe it's a case of (to quote John Wilmot) "man differ[ing] more from man, than man from beast." [Seems I can't get poetry off my mind lately!] 

Finally, *Gustav*'s contribution made me think of the following- if we took the "3 consecutive symphonies" proviso and made it _random_, AND limited it to ordinal numbers, then Bruckner would be at the top of _my_ list, too! Consider... with Beethoven, one is guaranteed at least one even-numbered symphony. If it's 8, then okay. If not, well- (also, one might get _two_ even-numbered symphonies). With Mahler, I'd be risking 3 and 7. Nonetheless, as it pertains to _my_ (highly subjective) taste- with Bruckner I "cut the odds against me."


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

How nice that you noticed the groupings in the Sib forum, Chi_town.

First of all, it's mostly for convenience's sake, splitting the lot of them into 3 groups, rather than dumping them into one category or giving them each categories of their own.

There is a definite break in style between 2 and 3, Sibelius really turned the corner there. As for the rest, one could make a case for grouping them 3-4 // 5-6-7, or perhaps even differently... the choice was somewhat arbitrary and also took the composition dates into consideration, as the last two (6-7) are written considerably later than the fifth.

The label "Classical" for 3-4-5 is only a label, more to show their divergeance from numbers 1 and 2 than anything else.


----------



## World Violist

I think Sibelius 5-6-7 are my favorite (I had to fit in the 7th somewhere... ). Beethoven 7-8-9 are ingenious, though I've not heard the 8th very much. Mahler: either 4-5-6 or 5-6-7.

I'm really making the holes in my symphonic knowledge glaringly obvious here...

But forget those sequences... Dvorak's and Tchaikovsky's are the ultimate three consecutive symphonies... I dare say ever written. Please, please feel free to prove me wrong and suggest more symphonies to me.


----------



## David C Coleman

This is my lot!!!

Mozart 39, 40 & 41
Beethoven 7, 8 & 9
Schubert 6, 8 & 9
Mendelsohn 3, 4 & 5
Brahms 2, 3 & 4
Bruckner 7, 8 & 9
Mahler 7, 8 & 9
Sibelius 3, 4 & 5


Bruckner 7,8 & 9


----------



## anon2k2

Bruckner 7,8,9
Mahler 2,3,4,5,6 (yes, that's cheating I know)
Beethoven 3,4,5
Hanson 1,2,3
Sibelius 2,3,4

It is interesting how it usually takes composers a little while to "find themselves." If I'm not mistaken, Brahms took forever to get Symphony No. 1 accomplished, but moved fairly rapidly from there.


----------



## Rondo

Upon listening to Shostakovich's late symphonies more often, I have come to the conclusion that the 10-11-12 trio actually stand out from all of his other symphonies. As a matter of fact, I can hear some similarities between the 10th and 12th. They both use some of the same rhythms, which I find to be interesting.


----------



## BAWIG05

I disagree with Mendelssohn 3-4-5, because musically 5 is such a dud unless really well played.

You could make the case for

Creston 1-3
Brahms 1-4
Mahler 1-9
Bruckner 4-9


----------



## Elgarian

Well, I know I'm really cheating, but I can't resist offering this tremendous sequence

Elgar: 1, 2, and .... 3!

But if you won't let me have those, then (without suggesting anything about their qualities other than the sheer heartwarming pleasure I get from them), I might choose

Parry: 2, 3, and 4

However, it would probably be more sensible of me to go for

Brahms: 2, 3, 4
Sibelius: 1, 2, 3


----------



## Zombo

Witold Lutosławski 2-3-4, although I like the 1 very much as well.


----------



## Atabey

I think Brahms 1-2-3 trio as good as 2-3-4 trio.Beethoven's best three consecutive symphonies would be 5-6-7 in my opinion.Mahler may go like 1-2-3,2-3-4,3-4-5,etc.Same with Bruckner only by starting with the 3rd.


----------



## World Violist

If you count Mahler's _Das Lied von der Erde_ as a symphony, here's my favorite three consecutive symphonies: Mahler's 8th, Das Lied, 9th... although 7-8-9 or 8-9-10 work just fine as well, to be perfectly honest.

Rubbra: 2-3-4, 5-6-7, 9-10-11


----------



## starry

I don't think anyone mentioned...

Schubert 8-9-10


----------



## JAKE WYB

SIBELIUS

4-5-6

i find theseconsecuive works particulryl gripping - the bright arousing 5th being the perfect satisfying symphonic experience framed by the magic unity of the sound worlds of 4 and 6

the coldness of symphonies 4 and 6th offset the warm blast of 5 - the harsh bleak bare world of 4 and then the ethereal, pure beauty of 6 - I think these 3 would make the perfect mini cyle in themselves as the ending of 6 is the most enchanting and definative fading away yet left open - very thought provoking leaves me witha lump in my throat each time - it would perhaps be an amaxing experience to hear these three back to back for a giant symhphonic journey - im sure that would leave true sibelians in the right atmosphere very affected indeed


----------



## bdelykleon

Haydn has several:
6, 7, 8; 
43, 44, 45, 
92 93, 94
82, 83, 84, 85 (four!)
98, 99, 100, 
102, 103, 104


----------



## starry

bdelykleon said:


> Haydn has several:
> 6, 7, 8;
> 43, 44, 45,
> 92 93, 94
> 82, 83, 84, 85 (four!)
> 98, 99, 100,
> 102, 103, 104


Someone else mentioned 98-100, but I must admit I don't like 97 getting ignored.


----------



## TresPicos

Dvorak 7-8-9 

I really can't see what could top that. Not even Dvorak 6-7-8.


----------



## BuddhaBandit

Many of mine have been mentioned... but here are a few that (I think) deserve a nod:

Ives 2-3-4
Diamond 2-3-4
Gernsheim 1-2-3
Ries 4-5-6
Thomson 1-2-3

Out of the "famous" sets of three, my top choices would be Brahms' 2-4 and Haydn's 102-104.


----------



## Conor71

Sibelius - 5,6,7
Mahler - 1,2,3
Beethoven - 5,6,7
Vaughan Williams - 1,2,3
Tchaikovsky - 4,5,6


----------



## emiellucifuge

Pettersson 8, 9 , 10
Berwald 2, 3, 4
Blomdahl 1 ,2, 3
Copland 1,2,3
Czerny 2, 3,4
Fibich 1,2,3
Glazunov 4, 5 ,6 
Miaskovsky 25, 26 , 27
Holmboe 5, 6 ,,7
Langgaard 9, 10, 11

none are famous though


----------



## JAKE WYB

emiellucifuge said:


> none are famous though


aagh but are any of them good?

Ive become saturated with my current symphonic repertiore - and i need to broaden - are any of the above - apart from glazunov and copland which i severely dislike - worth perusing especially?


----------



## bdelykleon

JAKE WYB said:


> aagh but are any of them good?
> 
> Ive become saturated with my current symphonic repertiore - and i need to broaden - are any of the above - apart from glazunov and copland which i severely dislike - worth perusing especially?


I must say I like very much Fibich. But Czerny? Oh my God, I can't even hear his name, several hours badly spent with him, lol...


----------



## emiellucifuge

Agreed Fibich is great, but so are Copland, Glazunov and Czerny!

You should definitely check out any of Miaskovsky symphonies, hes one of my favorite composers - genrally considered the father of soviet symphony and writing 27(!!) in total.


They're all good, but it falls down to general preference moreso than say the symphonies of Beethoven, with which no one has any choice but to adore.


----------



## altiste

*Prokofiev*

I quite like Prokofiev 3,4 & 5 particularly no.3


----------



## Conservationist

BAWIG05 said:


> You could make the case for
> 
> Brahms 1-4
> Bruckner 4-9


And Beethoven 1-9

Three may be too few for the real masters of the art!


----------



## pokemonman

I don't know how you can do a Shostakovich trio without including the Fifth. Beethoven trios almost MUST include either the Fifth or Ninth. Dvorak and Schubert trios each have to include the Ninth. There are staple symphonies that just simply HAVE to be present for any one composer. Mine is probably Dvorak's 7th, 8th, and 9th; Bruckner's 0th (does that count as consecutive?), 1st, and 2nd; Beethoven's 4th, 5th, and 6th OR 7th, 8th, and 9th; or Tchaikovsky's 4th, 5th, and 6th.


----------



## pokemonman

bdelykleon said:


> I must say I like very much Fibich. But Czerny? Oh my God, I can't even hear his name, several hours badly spent with him, lol...


Czerny's not bad, actually. Although I can not say I have heard any symphonies by him, I can vouch for his "Die Kunst der Fingerfertigkeit" (Op. 740), which is in fact rather challenging for me.


----------



## World Violist

pokemonman said:


> I don't know how you can do a Shostakovich trio without including the Fifth.


I can't see why. I always vastly preferred the tenth anyway. Besides, one could do 13-14-15 as his sort of "death-obsessed" series...


----------



## Rondo

Tchaikovsky's fourth, fifth and sixth seem like a no brainer to me (as do Nielsen's third, fourth and fifth...but no need to start that again  )


----------



## emiellucifuge

After further listening and consideration, I have decided that I love Fibich 1-2-3 even more than I did before.


----------



## Jules141

Prokofiev's 5th, 6th and 7th work great to me!

And Elgar's three, if you consider the 3rd based on sketches.


----------



## JAKE WYB

I would include *prokofiev 3 & 5* but not 4 so much - 6 is better

I would mention *BAX 2 & 3 *as a duo but 1 & 4 arent so great all way through to make a worthy trio


----------



## Alexandre F

More unusual would be 8-9-10 of Robert Simpson or 10-11-12 of Kalevi Aho.


----------



## Alexandre F

JAKE WYB said:


> I would include *prokofiev 3 & 5* but not 4 so much - 6 is better


I suggest you listen to revised version of no.4 which may help you to change your mind.


----------



## JAKE WYB

I never knew the original till recently - thats particularly an unpleasant work - the new version has a pretty good ending however which is what Prkofiev does well - unlike

*MARTINU *- though ive just become belatdly familiar with his symponies - though 1 & 6 are a slight cut above the others at first - 1,2,3 or 4,5,6 either set - MAGIC ..... except theres no particularly effective endings in any which is always a particular annoyance for me when such wonders can be done as Prokofievs 5th shows


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

Gustav said:


> does it have to be 3? alright.
> Bruckner:
> 3,4,5
> 4,5,6
> 5,6,7
> 6,7,8
> 7,8,9


I agree.....


----------



## Sid James

Chavez:

_Symphony No. 1 "Sinfonia de Antigona"_ - a dark, tragic symphony, in Doric mode, with some orchestral effects anticipating things done thirty years later.
_Symphony No. 2 "Sinfonia India"_ - a folksy, upbeat work (some say mundane compared to the others), use of indigenous Mexican percussion instruments mirrors influence of Villa-Lobos.
_Symphony No. 3_ - perhaps the most experimental symphony of his cycle of six. Some interesting methods of thematic development here, but as with all of Chavez, it's all connected...


----------



## TWhite

Whoo--three consecutive. Difficult. 

Okay, Brahms 2,3,4 if pressed to the wall. Generally speaking, my favorite Brahms symphony happens to be which ever one is being performed. 

Dvorak: A little easier. 6,7 and 8. I like 9, but the other three are equally as strong, IMO, and I have a REAL affinity for #6. 

Tchiakovsky: I'm going to go different here. I much prefer 2,3 and 4 to 5 and 6. I've never been a big #5 fan, and #6 doesn't really do much for me except for the third movement.

Rachmaninov: Easy. 1,2 and 3. He only wrote 3 and I like 'em all. 

Vaughn-Williams: 2,3 and 4 with an emphasis on #4.

Beethoven: 5,6 and 7 with a DEFINITE emphasis on #7.

Mahler: 1,2 and 3. 

Shostakovitch: Can't do it--sorry. Have to go UN-consecutive: 1, 5 and 11. Okay, I cheated.

Tom


----------



## World Violist

If one counts Das Lied von der Erde as being a symphony, my top choice for 3 consecutive Mahler symphonies has to be Das Lied-9-10. They just fit really well.

For Rubbra, 5-6-7 and 9-10-11 are easy choices. Maybe 1-2-3 as well... je ne sais pas.


----------



## Falstaft

World Violist said:


> If one counts Das Lied von der Erde as being a symphony, my top choice for 3 consecutive Mahler symphonies has to be Das Lied-9-10. They just fit really well.


I'm going to go with you World Violist. Mahler: Das Lied - 9 - 10. Even incomplete, 10 is a wrenching piece of music. Perverse, maybe, but the Cooke completion may be my favorite Mahler symphony. And you're right, they all do fit together snugly, as one huge expression of farewell and resignation.

Don't know if I have much new to contribute.

Vaughan Williams: 4-5-6 always seemed like a unit to me. alan_sheffield, I'm with you ; what better trio to demonstrate the breadth of RVW's creative imagination. I also tend to group RVW's 1-2-3 and 7-8-9 together, the first trio firmly national and the last three firmly...odd.

Tchaik: 4-5-6 & Dvorak: 7-8-9 obvi 
Beet 5-6-7 
Bruck: 7-8-9
Prok: 3-4-5
Sib: 4-5-6
Rautavaara: 5-6-7
Rimsky-K, Borodin: 1-2-3 
Berlioz: Symphony Fantastique - Harold - Romeo et Juliette (hey, they're all astounding in their own ways, and definitely symphonies in all but name).
Liszt: Faust-Dante (same deal, but with two)



emiellucifuge said:


> After further listening and consideration, I have decided that I love Fibich 1-2-3 even more than I did before.


Wow, I think I really need to expand my Fibich library! Anyone have strong feelings about Tippett? Like a lot of 20th century symphonists, my knowledge of him is a lot more piecemeal.


----------



## afterpostjack

Haydn 22-23-24 perhaps.


----------



## Vaneyes

Mahler, and it's easy as 1, 2, 3.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

I second the Dvorak 7,8,9 trio!

Something less known, but quite recommendable: Glazunov 3,4,5.


----------

