# Which composers wrote the best Symphonies?



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes

There's a great variaty here, so which do you like?

I love Beethoven, Mendelssohn and Tchaikovsky the most, Beethoven is just basic, Mendelssohn and Tchaikovsky just feel the Romantic area vibe in the very positive way for me.

Oh, and check these out (I have the CD):


----------



## Littlephrase

At the top of my head, my conservative list of elite symphonists (outside of the three you mentioned) would be: 

Mahler
Sibelius
Bruckner
Shostakovich
Prokofiev 
Brahms
Nielsen
Dvorak
Schubert
And of couse, Papa Haydn

This is just the tip of the iceberg. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of exceptional symphonists out there to explore.


----------



## Art Rock

Depends (even from a subjective point of view) whether you are mainly looking at highlights in a composer's collected symphonies, or whether you also want to look at consistently high levels of quality.

For me, taking arbitrarily the best three as the highlights, the top 5 would be:

Highlights:
Brahms, Bruckner, Dvorak, Mahler, Shostakovich

Consistency:
Bax, Brahms, Mahler, Schmidt, Sibelius


----------



## Enthusiast

Best symphonies? Haydn, Mozart (why haven't these two been mentioned?), Beethoven, Brahms, Dvorak, Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Sibelius and Nielsen. Of the more recent composers many have written a decent symphony or two but I wouldn't really think of them as symphonists except perhaps Maxwell Davies. Shostakovich was a symphonist, I'm sure, and with a few great ones in his output ... but I don't rate half of his symphonies that highly (I would be happy with 1, 4, 5, 6, 10, 13 and 14).


----------



## Art Rock

Enthusiast said:


> Of the more recent composers many have written a decent symphony or two but I wouldn't really think of them as symphonists except perhaps Maxwell Davies.


Aho, Rautavaara, Sallinen, Norgard, to name a few.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Best, as in *favorite:* Brahms, Dvorak, Mahler, Sibelius.


----------



## Enthusiast

Art Rock said:


> Aho, Rautavaara, Sallinen, Norgard, to name a few.


I might have thought of Norgard as of interest in a thread on "the best symphonies" but the others have not been very consistent.


----------



## Art Rock

Enthusiast said:


> I might have thought of Norgard as of interest in a thread on "the best symphonies" but the others have not been very consistent.


As always, a matter of taste.


----------



## Guest

Ask the same person after 1, 5, 10, 20 ... years listening experience who are their favourite symphonists and the answers will probably be different each time, at least the order will be.

Currently, mine are Schumann, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Beethoven, Mozart, Sibelius.

On a more objective basis, there are several others who should be included: Haydn, Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Nielsen, Vaughan Williams. All these have been in my favourites list at one time or other, but not now.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Of course, identifying "the best symphonies" will remain a purely subjective endeavor, even, one thinks, if a set of objective criteria is established: strictest use of sonata form, most varied instrumentation, greatest contrast (within a relationship) of the dynamic and the lyrical themes …. (And the astute among you can already see that the "objective" criteria for those three categories alone is rather subjective. Must the sonata form be "strict"? Must instrumentation be "varied" -- can a solo organ symphony, as by Widor, qualify as a "best symphony"? Do the two themes have to be both related and yet contrasting? Cannot a three themed symphony, as one, say, by Bruckner, qualify as a "best symphony"?) So … it seems more productive to let this one lie and to, rather than postulate a list of "best symphonies", simply listen to a few symphonies and appreciate them on your own terms. (And we needn't get into whether a symphony is colored by its performers, the orchestra and the conductor, who may vary in levels of skill, judgment, and competency … as well as the hall venue or, in case of a recording, the engineering staff …. Much to consider.)

A symphony can be analyzed on paper to see how it works within the "rules" of music or of the form itself. (I recall being consulted by a young music student studying for her Masters who was given the task of analyzing a section of Mahler's Eighth Symphony in terms of thematic structural relationships ….) What one sees on paper may prove to be a rather substantial and well-defined "symphony", but it may not sound pleasing to one's sensibilities. And then, what _is_ pleasing to _one's_ sensibilities may not prove so to another's. And so on.

As a long-time enthusiast of the symphony as a form (and the forms vary greatly!), I can suggest to a new listener that the old tried-and-true familiar names (Beethoven, Brahms, Haydn, Mozart, Tchaikovsky …) are certainly worth exploring. Of course, is every one of even those composers' symphonies "the best"? How many Forum posts exist on this very site that speculate upon "the best Beethoven symphony" or the "best Brahms symphony" … ad infinitum.

I do advocate listening to classical music and to symphonies, and I advocate listening to as many and as much as one can do so, especially if one enjoys such a pursuit. I certainly do, and I've heard at least a thousand symphonies, many of them interesting and satisfying works. I try to judge the quality of a piece _outside_ of its actual performance (which may be flawed), but that is not always easy to do. Again, analyzing the score is somewhat different than actually listening to the work unfold in a real sound scape. But a lot of factors affect one's appreciation at any given moment, including one's mood at the time. Is one always in the mood for the great 6th symphony by Tchaikovsky? Or will that work sound better some days than others? Much to consider.

And because there is so much to consider, and because I consider the prospect of picking "best symphonies" (which is something aside from even "best symphony composers") an absurdity, I will have nothing to say on this matter. Sorry.


----------



## Xisten267

Clouds Weep Snowflakes said:


> There's a great variaty here, so which do you like?
> 
> I love Beethoven, Mendelssohn and Tchaikovsky the most, *Beethoven is just basic*, Mendelssohn and Tchaikovsky just feel the Romantic area vibe in the very positive way for me.
> 
> Oh, and check these out (I have the CD):


What makes you think of Beethoven as "basic?" Beethoven's symphonies were highly innovative and complex for the time when they were composed, and are amongst the most influential in the repertoire. He's one of the most famous symphonists, not unlike composers such as Mahler, Bruckner, Sibelius, Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Dvorak, Mozart, Haydn, Schubert, Vaughan Williams and Shostakovich.


----------



## Bulldog

SONNET CLV said:


> And because there is so much to consider, and because I consider the prospect of picking "best symphonies" (which is something aside from even "best symphony composers") an absurdity, I will have nothing to say on this matter. Sorry.


None of this is absurd if you focus on the thread question, which you did not do.

Anyways, my favorite composers of symphonies are Mahler, Shostakovich, Beethoven, Brahms, Haydn and Prokofiev.


----------



## cyberstudio

If profundity of change to the course of music history is the measure, it has to be Beethoven and Mahler.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Enthusiast said:


> I might have thought of Norgard as of interest in a thread on "the best symphonies" but the others have not been very consistent.


I think Aulis Sallinen has been pretty consistent as a symphonist as well, but of course it's a matter of taste indeed....


----------



## CnC Bartok

Allerius said:


> What makes you think of Beethoven as "basic?" Beethoven's symphonies were highly innovative and complex for the time when they were composed, and are amongst the most influential in the repertoire. He's one of the most famous symphonists, not unlike composers such as Mahler, Bruckner, Sibelius, Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Dvorak, Mozart, Haydn, Schubert, Vaughan Williams and Shostakovich.


I think our OP meant something like "fundamental" for "basic"; that's how I interpreted it.....

Back in the day, Pelican published a history of the symphony in two volumes from Haydn to the modern, under the editorship of Robert Simpson. Worth getting hold of if possible, although not too hot on Today's composers, especially considering they are generally not too complimentary about the thirteen symphonies Shostakovich had written by that stage!


----------



## Olias

If by "best" you mean:

Perfect in formal structure - Haydn's 12 London Symphonies and Mozart's last 3
Groundbreaking - Beethoven
Evolved - Brahms
National Identity - Dvorak
Transcendental - Mahler
Self-confessional - Shostakovich


Just my opinion of course.


----------



## Roger Knox

Composers who wrote the best symphonies:

Beethoven
Mahler
Mozart
Shostakovich
Vaughan Williams


----------



## SONNET CLV

Bulldog said:


> None of this is absurd if you focus on the thread question, which you did not do.
> 
> Anyways, my favorite composers of symphonies are Mahler, Shostakovich, Beethoven, Brahms, Haydn and Prokofiev.


The question is: *Which composers wrote the best Symphonies?*

This remains an absurdity. In order to answer this with any credibility, one must determine what the "best Symphonies" are, which remains a purely subjective assumption. Only when the "best Symphonies" are chosen can they be matched to composers, which, seemingly, will answer the question. However, the word "best" implies a single item that stands at the top of the heap, which makes picking multiple bests (as in "best symphonies") illogical. Any way you look at this, it makes little sense for any reasonable answer of any reasonable merit. Your own response concerning your "favorite composers of symphonies" is exactly the kind of response that _does_ make sense. One can certainly identify one's _favorite composers_ or _favorite symphonies_ or _favorite whatevers_. The question here is _not_ asking such a logical question (one which, nonetheless, produces a subjective, though valid, answer). I continue to wish that posters would ask for "favorites" rather than "bests". The one is simple and reasonable to respond to, the other remains absurd!


----------



## Bulldog

Whenever I see "best" on a TC thread I immediately change it in my head to "favorite" - problem solved.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Bulldog said:


> Whenever I see "best" on a TC thread I immediately change it in my head to "favorite" - problem solved.


I wish _posters_ would make the distinction with the realization that "best" and "favorite" are not necessarily (or, perhaps, even _usually_) synonymous. "Best" suggests objective criteria for its basis while "favorite" proves totally subjective.I hesitate to name a "best piece of music", for I believe such is an absurdity. However, I do recognize that some works have more influence than do others (Beethoven's Third Symphony, for instance; or Wagner's _Tristan_, Debussy's _Afternoon of a Faun_, Schoenberg's _Pierrot Lunaire_, Stravinsky's _Rite_ ….), and often these are "good" pieces -- interesting to hear, fascinating to play or study, popular with general audiences, popular with musical academics. But the importance or influence or "greatness" of a work does not establish its favoritism.

To reference only the Beethoven Third …. It remains, to my thinking, one of Beethoven's most powerful compositions -- perhaps his "greatest symphony" in terms of influence. It is not my _favorite_ Beethoven symphony, and I would argue that it is not the most publicly popular of Beethoven's symphonies, but if I had to preserve only one Beethoven symphony, though it would be a tough and saddening call, I likely would opt for the Third. It remains highly representative of Beethoven's art and of the movement in music from the "classical period" to the "romantic era", something for which Beethoven is substantially to be credited. (And sure, I would kick myself every day for not having chosen the Fifth, or the Ninth, or the Sixth, or the Seventh symphonies for preservation. And tomorrow if you ask me, I might just have another choice!) But the overt quality of a work of art does not necessarily equate with its popularity or favoritism.

In the "Non-classical Music" threads of this Forum there is a constant debate over which is "the best rock band", as if that is a solvable issue. There are bands more skilled than others, bands more talented as performers or songwriters than others, bands with more stage presence than others (a somewhat more subjective calling than maybe is "skill" or "talent"), bands with more top chart hits, bands with more songs, more recordings, more awards, more press, more fans …. In the end, though, the "best" band cannot be determined, but one's _favorite_ band certainly can be. At least at any given moment.

"Best" and "favorite" remain nonsynonymous.


----------



## 13hm13

Barber.
He wrote only two. And those two are my fave symphs of any composer.


----------



## Swosh

No love for Raff yet, so here you go haha


----------



## Fabulin




----------



## Enthusiast

Art Rock said:


> As always, a matter of taste.


That's all I can express - did you expect something else? - but if you disagree and think some of the others you mentioned (Aho, Rautavaara, Sallinen) were consistently excellent symphonists then why not have a go at persuading me (perhaps with examples)? The best of all three are pretty good but I have found many of their symphonies to be less interesting.


----------



## gellio

Poor Franz Schubert - he is still so under-rated.


----------



## Larkenfield

Swosh said:


> No love for Raff yet, so here you go haha


Raff's obituary in the Musical Times of London in 1882:
http://www.raff.org/life/critics/obits/obit_2.htm
At one time he had a big reputation.


----------



## starthrower

Littlephrase1913 said:


> At the top of my head, my conservative list of elite symphonists (outside of the three you mentioned) would be:
> 
> Mahler
> Sibelius
> Bruckner
> Shostakovich
> Prokofiev
> Brahms
> Nielsen
> Dvorak
> Schubert
> And of couse, Papa Haydn
> 
> This is just the tip of the iceberg. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of exceptional symphonists out there to explore.


Good list! Others I find significant and find myself returning to are Honegger, Schnittke, Toch, Lajtha, Lutoslawski, Szymanowski 2-4.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Another vote for Littlephrase1913's list plus Honegger and Lutoslawski. But a down vote for Schnittke as far as symphonies are concerned.


----------



## chu42

1. Beethoven
2. Mahler
3. Sibelius
4. Bruckner
5. Haydn
6. Tchaikovsky
7. Brahms
8. Mozart
9. Dvořák
10. Shostakovich

Nielsen, Schubert, Mendelssohn and Vaughan Williams get honorable mentions.


----------



## Swosh

I will endeavor to get Raff on everyone's top 10 lists!!


----------



## Sloe

Bruckner
Beethoven
Sibelius


----------



## DeepR

Sloe said:


> Bruckner
> Beethoven
> Sibelius


Yes, you got it right.


----------

