# Best Symphony Between Schumann 3 (1850) and Brahms 1 (1876)



## Ulfilas (Mar 5, 2020)

This seems to be a fallow period for the symphony, fascinating that there is this 25-year hole in the popular repertoire!

If you were to nominate a symphony to represent the 1860s, which would it be?

Trying to avoid the juvenilia of Tchaikovsky and Bruckner, the best candidate I can come up with is Raff's Symphony No. 3 (1869).

Any other suggestions?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I'm not a big Tchaikovsky fan, but I feel his Symphony no. 1 beats anything written by Raff.


----------



## Ulfilas (Mar 5, 2020)

Bulldog said:


> I'm not a big Tchaikovsky fan, but I feel his Symphony no. 1 beats anything written by Raff.


I agree 100% (on both counts) but I am looking for a mature work.

Raff was certainly popular in his day, so I suppose he represents the state of play in the 1860s quite well. Not as conservative at least as some of the others.

Tchaikovsky does produce some magical effects, but he gets bogged down so quickly.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Liszt, Faust Symphony (1854;1857); but I really like Bruckner and Tchaikovsky.

some others are Dvorak Symphony no.1 (1865, I didn't consider it that interesting, but hearing the Kosler recording somehow recently changed my mind), Rimsky-Korsakov 2 "Antar" (1868, but exoticism and rather suite-like).


----------



## gvn (Dec 14, 2019)

If confined to the 1860s, the three I play most often (in order of frequency) would be:

1. Rimsky-Korsakov's Antar
2. Raff's Third
3. Sullivan's Irish (1866)

If anything between 1850 and 1876 is allowed, then also Liszt's Faust, Gounod's two Symphonies (ca. 1855) and Bizet's Symphony (1855, definitely already a mature work in the sense in which Tchaikovsky's and Dvorak's Firsts are not!).

Afterthought: Oh, and I also have a soft spot for Rubinstein's delightfully bloated Ocean Symphony (1851, later expanded).


----------



## Ned Low (Jul 29, 2020)

I can only think of Liszt's Dante Symphony right now( finished in 1857).


----------



## gvn (Dec 14, 2019)

Certainly this does seem to have been a "fallow period for the symphony," when one thinks of the riches that preceded and followed it.

Maybe a bit like the present day? No new symphony has entered the popular repertoire since at least the 1970s, i.e., for about half a century.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

gvn said:


> Certainly this does seem to have been a "fallow period for the symphony," when one thinks of the riches that preceded and followed it.
> 
> Maybe a bit like the present day? No new symphony has entered the popular repertoire since at least the 1970s, i.e., for about half a century.


Gorecki's 3rd (1976) is quite popular, and a best-seller.

Tons of symphonies are being composed these days, and they are very varied. On the contrary, the problem of that 19th-century period is lack of innovation, especially in hindsight, that is, as seen from my perspective at least. 
Some contemporary symphonies get performed all over the globe, but admittedly not very frequently - say some by Lutoslawski (nos.3+4), Penderecki ('Christmas´etc.), Adés (chamber symphonies), etc. Those pieces aren't really that 'difficult' or 'intimidating'. There is plenty of attractive or interesting repertoire to choose from.


----------



## Ulfilas (Mar 5, 2020)

gvn said:


> Certainly this does seem to have been a "fallow period for the symphony," when one thinks of the riches that preceded and followed it.
> 
> Maybe a bit like the present day? No new symphony has entered the popular repertoire since at least the 1970s, i.e., for about half a century.


I think that depends on whether you consider John Adams' _Harmonielehre_ and _Naive and Sentimental Music_, as I do, symphonies in all but name.

I also think Lutoslawski's 3rd and 4th are masterpieces.

Other than that, I would nominate three great works for the 70s: Shostakovich 15, Schuman 10, and Dutilleux's _Timres, espace, mouvement_


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

No thanks to Wagner and Liszt, symphonies were unfashionable in the 1850s and 1860s. Thankfully Brahms knew better and understood the symphony is the apex form of musical expression. 

I would say it's one of these three:

Bizet Symphony no.1 C 1855 
Raff Symphony no. 3 1868
Borodin Symphony no. 2 (between 1869 and 1876)


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

The first 3 Tchaikovsky symphonies are quite wonderful, and very substantial. I much prefer them to the much overwrought, overplayed 4 and 5. R-K "Antar" sym #2 is a lovely work.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Heck148 said:


> The first 3 Tchaikovsky symphonies are quite wonderful, and very substantial. I much prefer them to the much overwrought, overplayed 4 and 5. R-K "Antar" sym #2 is a lovely work.


Ah yes, "The Little Russian". I do quite like that symphony myself.


----------



## gvn (Dec 14, 2019)

Ulfilas said:


> I think that depends on whether you consider John Adams' _Harmonielehre_ and _Naive and Sentimental Music_, as I do, symphonies in all but name.
> 
> I also think Lutoslawski's 3rd and 4th are masterpieces.
> 
> Other than that, I would nominate three great works for the 70s: Shostakovich 15, Schuman 10, and Dutilleux's _Timres, espace, mouvement_


I fully agree that symphonic _masterpieces_ are still being composed, but for some reason they're no longer entering the popular repertoire, in the way that, when I was young, the latest symphonies by Prokofiev and Shostakovich, and the newly understood symphonies of Mahler, did. For that, as you say, we have to go back to the 1970s or earlier.



> Originally posed by *joen_cph*
> Gorecki's 3rd (1976) is quite popular, and a best-seller.
> 
> Tons of symphonies are being composed these days, and they are very varied. On the contrary, the problem of that 19th-century period is lack of innovation, especially in hindsight, that is, as seen from my perspective at least.
> Some contemporary symphonies get performed all over the globe, but admittedly not very frequently - say some by Lutoslawski (nos.3+4), Penderecki ('Christmas´etc.), Adés (chamber symphonies), etc. Those pieces aren't really that 'difficult' or 'intimidating'. There is plenty of attractive or interesting repertoire to choose from.


A couple of years ago I did a survey on Bachtrack, and the last symphony being regularly performed (all over the globe, and--to me--surprisingly often, was Shostakovich's Fifteenth [1975]). I looked specifically at the Gorecki, and sadly it was no longer being performed anywhere. It had the career of a pop album--sprang up suddenly, was a popular hit for a couple of years, then gradually faded from the general public's minds, so that the sight of it on someone's shelves now tends to date that person to a particular period!

How I wish we could get Lutoslawski and Penderecki into the general repertoire! I don't understand why they (and quite a few others) haven't made it. To me they don't seem significantly different, in style & quality, from works that the concertgoing public _has_ taken to its heart.

So perhaps this is a different issue from the 1860s. At that time, perhaps the exciting new growth in music was happening in other fields, not very much in the symphony... until Brahms and Bruckner revived it, and then others followed in their wake.

If so, what we need today is not a new Brahms or Bruckner to stimulate new growth. Rather, the new growth is already there, and we simply need someone to bring it to the world's attention somehow.


----------



## Ned Low (Jul 29, 2020)

Heck148 said:


> The first 3 Tchaikovsky symphonies are quite wonderful, and very substantial. I much prefer them to the much overwrought, overplayed 4 and 5. R-K "Antar" sym #2 is a lovely work.


Couldn't agree more. My favourite Tchaikovsky symphonies are the first two. Simple but amazing. Fell in love with them the first time i listened to them. I don't like his last three symphonies really though i've listened to to them so many times.


----------



## Ned Low (Jul 29, 2020)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> No thanks to Wagner and Liszt, symphonies were unfashionable in the 1850s and 1860s. Thankfully Brahms knew better and understood the symphony is the apex form of musical expression.
> Wagner was in awe of Beethoven's symphonies and wrote some overtures under their influence. But then thought no one can achieve what Ludwig van achieved with symphonies.
> 
> "At this time I also wrote (as my third opus) an overture to Raupach's drama, Konig Enzio, in which again Beethoven's influence made itself even more strongly felt."
> ...


----------



## gvn (Dec 14, 2019)

I've also completely forgotten Gade, whose last three symphonies (6-8) belong to this period. I realize that I don't play Gade _nearly_ often enough.

That's part of the value of a thread like this: it invites one to brush the dust off unjustly neglected regions of one's shelves!


----------



## Ulfilas (Mar 5, 2020)

Ned Low said:


> Incidentally, we know that Wagner,after finishing Parsifal, wanted to write symphonies. He didn't and i don't know why. That's almost a tragedy for someone like me who loves Wagner.


He didn't need to, Mahler did it for him!

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3252122

It's not far from the forest of Wagner's Parsifal to that of Mahler's Das Klagende Lied.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Well, if you can extend the time line, probably the best after the Schumann Third, is the Schumann Fourth (even though the first version actually preceded the Third.


----------



## Ulfilas (Mar 5, 2020)

MarkW said:


> Well, if you can extend the time line, probably the best after the Schumann Third, is the Schumann Fourth (even though the first version actually preceded the Third.


Yeah, I was actually meaning Schumann's 3rd as his final symphony! Let's say post-Schumann, and pre-Brahms.

I realize Bizet's Symphony in C is a gem, but I guess I'm looking at the 1860s. Berlioz's tragic last decade didn't produce any symphonic works, and I suppose the leading figures were Wagner and Verdi.


----------



## Alfacharger (Dec 6, 2013)

George Bernard Shaw thought that the symphony by Goetz (1873) was greater than anything by Brahms.


----------



## Ulfilas (Mar 5, 2020)

Alfacharger said:


> George Bernard Shaw thought that the symphony by Goetz (1873) was greater than anything by Brahms.


Well, he didn't like Mendelssohn or Brahms very much.


----------



## Axter (Jan 15, 2020)

Bruckner’s “0” Null (1869) is a great symphony that I would like to nominate.
Don’t know why Bruckner didn’t like it himself. Its a great piece of art in my opinion, a great symphony.


----------



## Simplicissimus (Feb 3, 2020)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> No thanks to Wagner and Liszt, symphonies were unfashionable in the 1850s and 1860s. Thankfully Brahms knew better and understood the symphony is the apex form of musical expression.
> 
> I would say it's one of these three:
> 
> ...


I'd go with Borodin No. 2 as well. I find it melodically captivating with fascinating orchestral colors. Interesting to note here the positive comments on Tchaikovsky's Symphonies 1-3, which seem to be dismissed as trivial by a lot of people around here. I like the popular 4-6 symphonies, but I find the early ones charming and engaging. Bruckner's "Nullte," on the other hand, I just have no time for; to me, it's his least interesting work.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

During the 1850's Europe was recovering from the revolutions of 1848 and 1849, which were much more serious affairs than many of us North Americans realize. Recently I noticed a 12-year gap in significant French composers born in 1923 (Lalo) to 1835 (Saint-Saëns). They might have suffered effects of the revolutions in their early years. Nevertheless, the first four symphonies of Saint-Saëns (Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5) were composed in the 1850's. I like the last one -- "Urbs Roma." Also I value Bizet's Symphony No. 2 "Roma" much more than most people (not too long ago Muti conducted it with the Chicago Symphony). From other countries, on the light side there is Goldmark's "Rustic Wedding" Symphony No. 1 (1875). Friedrich Gernsheim's Symphony No. 1 dates from the same year. OK, these weren't heavyweights, but neither do I see 1850-1876 as a hole in the repertoire.


----------



## Andante Largo (Apr 23, 2020)

My favorite symphonies from this specific period are:

Saint-Saëns - Symphony in F major "Urbs Roma" (1856)
Rheinberger - Symphony No. 1 in D minor, Op. 10 "Wallenstein" (1866-68)
Gernsheim - Symphony No.1 in G minor, Op. 32 (1874)
Noskowski - Symphony No. 1 in A major (1874-75)
Rheinberger - Symphony No. 2 in F major, Op. 87 "Florentine Symphony" (1875)


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

gvn said:


> Certainly this does seem to have been a "fallow period for the symphony," when one thinks of the riches that preceded and followed it.
> 
> Maybe a bit like the present day? *No new symphony has entered the popular repertoire since at least the 1970s*, i.e., for about half a century.


That hasn't been for a lack of symphonies being written.

But no, none are in the "popular repertoire".

There's likely a handful worthy for every decade starting in 1970.

I'll take a stab at it.

*Elliott Carter - A Symphony of Three Orchestras (1977)
Lutoslawski - Symphony No. 3 (1981-83)
Schnittke - Symphony no. 8 (1994)
*
2000s? - Um, how about a cello concerto? *Saariaho- Notes on Light (2006)
*
*Astor Piazzolla - Sinfonía Buenos Aires (2019)
*
:tiphat:

Gawd, that was far more difficult than I thought it would be.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

It's a quarter-century of nothing terribly much, true. Makes you realise the pressure Brahms was under, and reminds you what an achievement his op68 actually was. And as far as the mainstream orchestral repertoire goes, that gap really remains to this day.
I've been reading Swafford's Brahms biography and it's not unreasonable to conclude that Brahms was indeed somewhat intimidated by Wagner when it came to writing opera. Clearly anything Brahms wrote would have to be first rate, and he knew it would be compared to Wagner. And he never seemed to find the libretto to get a project under way.
And for all Wagner's slagging off of Brahms, I reckon he'd have been intimidated taking on Brahms in the fields he'd already proclaimed dead (symphonic, chamber), which Brahms had proved were still viable, if you were good enough.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

pianozach said:


> That hasn't been for a lack of symphonies being written.
> 
> But no, none are in the "popular repertoire".
> 
> ...


If no new symphony has entered the repertoire since the 1970's, what does that suggest? With COVID-19 so much is uncertain, so let's consider the years 1970-2019. A lot of composers don't write orchestral music, and a lot of orchestral composers don't write symphonies. Since the 1980's I haven't followed new music as much as I did in my early days. Even then it seemed like only traditionally-minded composers wrote symphonies. Maybe we should we consider changing our orchestral focus from the symphony. I wonder if anyone's been tracking its course over the past 50 years.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Roger Knox said:


> If no new symphony has entered the repertoire since the 1970's, what does that suggest? With COVID-19 so much is uncertain, so let's consider the years 1970-2019. A lot of composers don't write orchestral music, and a lot of orchestral composers don't write symphonies. Since the 1980's I haven't followed new music as much as I did in my early days. Even then it seemed like only traditionally-minded composers wrote symphonies. Maybe we should we consider changing our orchestral focus from the symphony. I wonder if anyone's been tracking its course over the past 50 years.


I'm thinking that there aren't that many symphonies over the centuries that instantly become "standard" repertoire.

For instance, a random work, The Rite Of Spring, debuted to scathing reviews in 1913 (although that was probably more a reaction to the dancing than the music).  The first "revival" wasn't until 1920.

It (the ballet) debuted in the US in 1930, and was brought out of mothballs about once every 10 years. Now it's standard repertoire.

Yeah, I know, anecdotal, and just one work, which is not a "representative sample".


----------



## MusicInTheAir (Apr 21, 2007)

If we're talking about between 1850 and 1876, then I would choose Dvorak's Fifth Symphony which was written in 1875. I'd add two other symphonies which have already been mentioned, namely Borodin's Second Symphony and Bizet's Symphony.


----------



## kyjo (Jan 1, 2018)

Definitely Raff's nos. 2-5, with the 5th _Lenore_ being a significant near-masterpiece IMO.

I hold Dvorak's nos. 3-5 in almost as high regard as his later ones, they're really wonderful and imaginative works that deserve more credit.

Johan Svendsen's two symphonies (1865-67, 1874) are delightful, tuneful wonders of invention. Ditto Gounod's two.

As others have mentioned, there were some very fine symphonies coming out of Russia during this period. Some have mentioned Borodin's 2nd but not his 1st, which I think is nearly as good. Balakirev's expansive 1st Symphony (1864-66) certainly deserves mention as well.

One of the greatest mid-19th century symphonies IMO dates from 5 years before this period - Berwald's 3rd _Singuliere_ (1845).


----------



## MrMeatScience (Feb 15, 2015)

Agree with the comments about Borodin, Bizet, Gounod, etc. I'm a big fan of all of Raff's symphonies, of which the first seven fall into this window. Lalo's _Symphonie espagnole_, if you want to call it a symphony, was composed in 1874. There's also the Grieg _Symphony in C minor_ in 1864, which I like although it's not highly regarded in general. This period is widely acknowledged as being a low point for the symphonic genre, but there were other things going on musically at the time. It doesn't always have to be about the symphony!


----------

