# Most Overrated and Underrated Symphonies



## mahlernerd

As a sequel to the most over and underrated composers, I would like to ask what are the most over and underrated symphonies.

Overrated: Mozart 41
Underrated: Vaughan Williams 1


----------



## Becca

At least the RVW 1st has a toehold in the standard repertoire which is more than can be said for (e.g.) Bantock's Hebridean or Pagan
As to overrated, Schubert's Great (whichever number you wish to use for it)


----------



## mbhaub

Overrated: Schubert 9th
Underrated: Atterberg 6th


----------



## Art Rock

Overrated meaning that most people rate it much higher than I do?

Beethoven 9
Schubert 9*

Underrated (meaning that I rate it much higher than most people)?

Too many to list, including the complete Bax cycle.

* I typed this before seeing the recent replies - it's a bit of a pile on.


----------



## Rambler

I think Mozart 41 is correctly rated high, and RVW 1 is also rated about right - not one of his best in my book.

Here's two symphonies that I think are frequently thought to be the weakest symphonies from their respective composers:
Brahms 2
Beethoven 8.
Both these are particular favourites of mine.

As to overrated symphonies I'll be controversial and go with Dvorak 7. Dvorak trying to be Brahms? I prefer his eighth.


----------



## Jacck

Overrated: most Mozart symphonies
underrated: Glazunov, Braga Santos, Atterberg, Casella, Stenhammar, Dukas, Nielsen, Magnard, Schmidt, Scriabin, Fibich etc.


----------



## mahlernerd

Jacck said:


> Overrated: most Mozart symphonies
> underrated: Glazunov, Braga Santos, Atterberg, Casella, Stenhammar, Dukas, Nielsen, Magnard, Schmidt, Scriabin, Fibich etc.


Are there any specific works, or just their complete sets overall?


----------



## DaveM

There can be a big difference between what is overrated/underrated and what someone doesn’t like or likes. For instance, saying that Beethoven’s 9th or most Mozart symphonies are overrated seems rather hard to believe..


----------



## Jacck

mahlernerd said:


> Are there any specific works, or just their complete sets overall?


I was talking about sets, because some of them I did not hear for some time and do not really remember how I would rank them. But I can try to remember
Glazunov - all are good
Braga Santos - all are excellent, especially 3 and 4
Atterberg - most are great
Casella - symphony 2
Stenhammar - symphony 2
Dukas - just one symphony
Nielsen - all good
Magnard - 4
Schmidt - all, but especially the 4
Scriabin - all
Fibich - 3rd

PS: and I forgot Prokofiev. All symphonies excellent, and I especially like the 2nd, but I am in a minority here.


----------



## Bulldog

Overrated:

Schubert 9th
Hanson (all of them) and anything else the man wrote.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I agree about Schubert's proto-minimalist 9th. None of Schubert's orchestral works really "stands out" for that matter.
As for his masses, they're like weaker versions of Haydn's late 6.

4th symphony - weaker version of Beethoven's 5th and Haydn's Schopfung
5th symphony - weaker version of Mozart's 40th
6th symphony - Haydn's 100th
7th symphony - left in sketches
8th symphony - incomplete

He's the only "great composer" who doesn't get criticized for writing mind-numbing 600+ pieces in one genre. 
I mean fking 600+... Please don't tell me they're all unique and distinctive.
I mean look how Bach gets criticized for his cantatas and Vivaldi for his concertos..

Underrated compared to Schubert:
CPE Bach
Hummel
Haydn
Handel
J. A. Hasse
etc
(always ranked lower than Schubert at TC even though they're far more skilled as composers)

Let's face it. His music is full of vamps, padding, student-like figurations, I think he would have written 2~3 hour-long symphonies with them if he lived longer.
Interestingly Philip Glass has the same birthday as Schubert and admires him so much :lol:



hammeredklavier said:


> Among his last three masses, Et incarnatus est from Mass No. 4 in C major, D. 452 is notable, but again I can cite like 10 moments from Mozart and Haydn that are far more interesting in this regard.
> 
> 9:07~11:08
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While listening to the Trout Quintet and Op.100 Piano Trio, Winterreise, and the impromptus, I often ask, why is it always Mozart and Haydn who get bashed for having written "tafelmusik" and "trivialities"? Schubert's 5th symphony is modelled after Mozart's 40th, but I don't hear in the Schubert piece the elements of "good things of Romanticism" some people always attribute to Schubert at the expense of Mozart and Haydn.


I think there's a good reason why Rossini completely disregarded Schubert when he said this: "The Germans have always been at every time the greatest harmonists and the Italians the greatest melodists. But from the moment that the North produced a Mozart, we of the South were beaten on our own ground, because this man rises above both nations, uniting in himself all the charms of Italian melody and all the profundity of German harmony"

underrated compared to Schubert's orchestral works:









btw, I still remember Jacck's desperate defense of Schubert (which the mods deleted along with eugeneonagain's critique) in one of the old threads about Schubert's D960. :lol:


----------



## Heck148

Over-rated:
Rachmaninoff sym #2 - the standard cuts are nowhere near extensive enough.
Tchaikovsky #s 4 & 5

Under-rated: 
Schuman #3
Hanson #3
Shostakovich #1

Schubert's #9, in the right hands, is a very fine symphony....Try Toscanini or Reiner....magnificent....too slow, logy, plodding = awful


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I sure do love Schubert, but I gotta say - the 8th and 9th Symphonies get a heck of a lot of unwarranted praise IMO. Great music but they would hardly make my top 30 symphonies. Orchestral music was definitely not his strong suit.

From a cursory glance at the TC Top 100 Most Recommended Symphonies, a few others that stand out to me:

*Overrated* (defined as symphonies that I would place much lower than the list does):

Mozart 40 and 41
Berlioz Fantastique
Mendelssohn 4
Beethoven 7 (the one symphony of his that I'm sick of hearing)
Prokofiev 5 (like it, but not among the cream of the crop IMO)
Tchaikovsky 4, 5

*Underrated* (defined as symphonies that I would place much higher than the list does):

Franck
Elgar 1
Vaughan Williams 5
Brahms 3
Sibelius 7
Dvorak 5, 7
Glazunov, Berwald, Martinu, Schmidt, Ives, Myaskovsky, etc. and all the other "neglected from the concert hall" symphonists

Overall, I think Schubert and Mozart are the most egregiously overrated, but there are a lot more underrated symphonies that I am an ardent advocate for.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> There can be a big difference between what is overrated/underrated and what someone doesn't like or likes. For instance, saying that Beethoven's 9th or most Mozart symphonies are overrated seems rather hard to believe..





Jacck said:


> Purcell, Rameau, Charpentier, Schutz, Martinů, Suk, Holst, Gade, Scriabin, Szymanowski, Saint-Saens, Poulenc, Medtner, Raff, Hindemith, Villa-Lobos, Enescu, Salieri, Tanyev, Eben, Alkan, Ornstein, Busoni, Tchaikovsky, Liszt, Bloch
> 
> most overrated are Beethoven and Mozart


It's a continuation of the same argument: "Mozart and Beethoven are rated highly" = "all their works are rated highly". :lol:
So what evidence is there to suggest Mozart's 21th, 23rd, 26th for example, are rated highly? 
Have they ever been treated like Schubert's vampy, padded-out Quintet at TC for once? 
What is the greatest string quintet?


----------



## Bigbang

I have never thought Schubert to be "overrated" as but rather easy to propagate to the public. I have always thought he had the most potential if he had lived (like those in the previous posts) and continue to compose until age 60 or so. My understanding is Schubert is "self taught" and did not get any training or schooling in music, as, say Beethoven did with Haydn/Salieri. By all means correct me on this point. So I definitely think he is too long winded in his music but I do not think he would have wrote longer symphonies had he been afforded the opportunities to study with other teachers and read over scores of composers. Schubert is much too gifted to waste time if given the "know how" in constructing his works. I like his fantasia 4 hands, yet the work goes on for almost 20 minutes. One can sense that it is because he has not learned how to think on the problem but simply puts down what he has already composed or thought of without benefit of learning how to write in the sonata style that suits him. His sonata 960....first movement is 20 minutes...I get lost every time. 

This article is revealing but I am concerned about the "hostile" nature the author portrays Schubert. I am not up on Schubert's biography but it does seem extreme in how he see Schubert. Kind of like when scientists do not like a theory, attack the person who came up with the theory. 

So if Schubert had lived and wrote 20 more symphonies, his 8th and 9th would be his just starting to get his bearings and all that talk about "unfinished" is just that, not some perfect symphony as 2 movements.


----------



## Bigbang

AS far as over/underrated composers: I have never felt one way or another except in one respect. Name recognition on the streets by common people. If you go out and pick out strangers in the USA to ask them if they have heard these classical names, such as Beethoven, Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Bach, most will say they know the name even without knowing any of their music. The "name" is a meme that is passed around on TV, radio, and so forth. But Haydn is a giant in the classical world and I doubt most have heard his name. Schubert? Doubtful. Tchaikovsky? He seems to be name popular and therefore might be overrated in that sense where Haydn is underrated. Again, I do not really believe in over/underrated as it is being used in this context as we all have bias/preferences.


----------



## flamencosketches

hammeredklavier said:


> I agree about Schubert's proto-minimalist 9th. None of Schubert's orchestral works really "stands out" for that matter.
> As for his masses, they're like weaker versions of Haydn's late 6.
> 
> 4th symphony - weaker version of Beethoven's 5th and Haydn's Schopfung
> 5th symphony - weaker version of Mozart's 40th
> 6th symphony - Haydn's 100th
> 7th symphony - left in sketches
> 8th symphony - incomplete
> 
> He's the only "great composer" who doesn't get criticized for writing mind-numbing 600+ pieces in one genre.
> I mean fking 600+... Please don't tell me they're all unique and distinctive.
> I mean look how Bach gets criticized for his cantatas and Vivaldi for his concertos..
> 
> Underrated compared to Schubert:
> CPE Bach
> Hummel
> Haydn
> Handel
> J. A. Hasse
> etc
> (always ranked lower than Schubert at TC even though far more skilled as composers)
> 
> Let's face it. His music is full of vamps, padding, student-like figurations, I think he would have written 2~3 hour-long symphonies with them if he lived longer.
> Interestingly Philip Glass has the same birthday as Schubert and admires him so much :lol:
> 
> I think there's a good reason why Rossini completely disregarded Schubert when he said this: "The Germans have always been at every time the greatest harmonists and the Italians the greatest melodists. But from the moment that the North produced a Mozart, we of the South were beaten on our own ground, because this man rises above both nations, uniting in himself all the charms of Italian melody and all the profundity of German harmony"
> 
> underrated compared to Schubert's orchestral works:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> btw, I still remember Jacck's desperate defense of Schubert (which the mods deleted along with eugeneonagain's) in one of the old threads about Schubert's D960. :lol:


"Proto-minimalist"? Schubert...? Have you ever actually heard any minimalist music, or any Schubert for that matter?

Also... Bach gets criticized for his cantatas? Anyone who knows anything about music knows that Bach wrote hundreds of cantatas and all of them are "unique and distinctive", and brilliant. Vivaldi IS considered one of the great composers on the strength of his many concertos as well as his vocal works.


----------



## Bigbang

I spent a little time researching C F Wright. Apparently he has a track record of insulting composers and the like. For what it is worth I would completely disregard this article by Wright and do your own research on any composers if you feel the need to know more. From what I read so far my hunch was correct and the issue is not Schubert but the author himself. Very strange how this can be circulated like this but respect for Schubert remains high in many circles, this is obviously a fact.


----------



## hammeredklavier

flamencosketches said:


> Bach gets criticized for his cantatas? Anyone who knows anything about music knows that Bach wrote hundreds of cantatas and all of them are "unique and distinctive", and brilliant.


Take a look at this thread: Did J.S. Bach write works not worth listening to? .
None of the Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky works presented here as "overrated" have got this sort of treatment:









And I think some people are still not being able to distinguish between "I don't like something" vs "it is overrated".
I sense this thread is quickly turning into the same old whiny argument, "ban Mozart/Beethoven/Tchaikovsky for an year so that we can play V. Williams/Glazunov/Atterberg/Nielsen more in concert halls." I had already addressed a similar issue in the thread: "Ban Beethoven's Music in Year 2020" -Andrea Moore .






I've never been a fan of the 20th century with all those film-music-like gestures and effects; they always make me feel I'm in a cinema rather than a concert hall. But I don't create threads just for the purpose of dismissing them as overrated. 
To the OP: if your sole purpose is to create shitstorm rather than arguing something substantive, I see no point to keep participating in this meaningless exchange of people finger-pointing at each other "your favorite stuff is overrated" any further.


----------



## flamencosketches

Bigbang said:


> I spent a little time researching C F Wright. Apparently he has a track record of insulting composers and the like. For what it is worth I would completely disregard this article by Wright and do your own research on any composers if you feel the need to know more. From what I read so far my hunch was correct and the issue is not Schubert but the author himself. Very strange how this can be circulated like this but respect for Schubert remains high in many circles, this is obviously a fact.


Don't bother. Many times, folks have tried to challenge or at least call into question Mr. Hammered Klavier's deep devotion to his great master and ideological role model, David C.F. Wright, but he proves time and time again a faithful servant, unwavering in his devotion and unstoppable in his proselytization. It's true that Wright's essays (and HK's many posts parroting them) have nothing to do with Schubert, just an armchair musicologist and his agenda.


----------



## flamencosketches

hammeredklavier said:


> Take a look at this thread: Did J.S. Bach write works not worth listening to? .
> None of the Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky works presented here as "overrated" have got this sort of treatment:
> 
> View attachment 130739
> 
> 
> And I think some people are still not being able to distinguish between "I don't like something" vs "it is overrated".
> I sense this thread is quickly turning into the same old whiny argument, "ban Mozart/Beethoven/Tchaikovsky for an year so that we can play V. Williams/Glazunov/Atterberg/Nielsen more in concert halls." I had already addressed a similar issue in the thread: "Ban Beethoven's Music in Year 2020" -Andrea Moore .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never been a fan of the 20th century with all those film-music-like gestures and effects; they always make me feel I'm in a cinema rather than a concert hall. But I don't create threads just for the purpose of dismissing them as overrated.
> To the OP: if your sole purpose is to create shitstorm rather than arguing something substantive, I see no point to keep participating in this meaningless exchange of people finger-pointing at each other "your favorite stuff is overrated" any further.


No, I won't look at that thread. Even if I did, no comment that might be contained in this thread you mention would change the fact of the matter: that Bach's cantatas are universally recognized as a massive and towering collection of brilliant works, the beating heart of Bach. Why do you think there are so many people out there who listen to ALL of them, sometimes in order, sometimes multiple times?

To your point about the dominance of Schubert's String Quintet-have you heard it?! It's Schubert's greatest work and one of the greatest in its genre (which is not all that popular or widely composed in). The only real competition are the two Mozart quintets, which if you were to say deserved more votes, I would agree with you, and possibly the Brahms (I haven't heard them). But this is no different than a poll which shows Beethoven's 9th towering above all competition.


----------



## DaveM

flamencosketches said:


> Anyone who knows anything about music knows that Bach wrote hundreds of cantatas and all of them are "unique and distinctive", and brilliant...


So one of the criteria for someone knowing anything about music is that they believe every single one of Bach's hundreds of cantatas is 'unique, distinctive and brilliant'? Seriously?


----------



## flamencosketches

DaveM said:


> So one of the criteria for someone knowing anything about music is that they believe every single one of Bach's hundreds of cantatas is 'unique, distinctive and brilliant'? Seriously?


:lol: It's a figure of speech.


----------



## Woodduck

It's a little surprising to me that so many here find Schubert's 9th to be overrated. I've always felt exactly the same way about it. But if enough people think a work is overrated, then it isn't really overrated, is it?

I disliked the piece on first hearing, but gradually came to terms with it. Actually, it's a strking, original symphony deserving of performance by major orchestras. But it would be silly to take all the repeats, which would make it about an hour long. The work's main fault is that the "perpetuum mobile" of the fourth movement isn't expressively weighty enough to justify the prolonged repetition of its rhythm and its trivial tune. Omit the repeats, and I can get through it with my sanity intact.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

^Exactly how I feel. The finale is a really weak effort that I've never been able to sit through without losing patience. It is a symphony that I like, but only under a really good baton - Szell, Marriner, Furtwangler, Davis do it right. As for the 8th, I think it gives us a valuable glimpse into Schubert's gradually maturing compositional voice that never got a chance to fully flower. I like it better than the 9th but still wouldn't consider it a top-tier symphony. And it is my opinion that one should never take repeats in Schubert.


----------



## SONNET CLV

*Most Overrated and Underrated Symphonies*

I was rather taken aback upon opening this thread by how many apparently find the Schubert "Great" 9th to be "overrated." That same symphony was my own first thought upon reading the title to this thread. But with a caveat.

The Schubert 9th remains a symphony I have never been able to cuddle up to. In other words, it ranks as not a favorite of mine. (Whereas I greatly admire the Fifth and the "Unfinished".) And over the years I have read so many articles and seen references to in reviews and critical papers about how great the Schubert 9th is. I re-listen to it always hoping it will finally "pop" for me, but so far it hasn't. (I'll have to schedule another visit, soon.)

But I'm still hesitant to call it overrated. The fault may possibly lie with me and my tastes. Just because I don't hold dear a certain work of art has nothing at all to do with its inherent quality. I like some "garbage" art … just because … well, because I like it!

So I leave the jury out on Schubert's Ninth. Still, I was startled by the response to this work.

I haven't yet pondered the second part of the item -- underrated symphonies. (But my initial thought went to Ned Rorem's Third. But is that one really underrated? True, I don't read much about it or see it mentioned in any reviews or critical articles I peruse. It seems to have slipped by the wayside. But I find it fascinating and rank it high on my personal list of "favorite symphonies".)


----------



## SONNET CLV

Woodduck said:


> It's a little surprising to me that so many here find Schubert's 9th to be overrated. I've always felt exactly the same way about it. But if enough people think a work is overrated, then it isn't really overrated, is it?
> 
> ... The work's main fault is that the "perpetuum mobile" of the fourth movement isn't expressively weighty enough to justify the prolonged repetition of its rhythm and its trivial tune. ....





Allegro Con Brio said:


> ^Exactly how I feel. The finale is a really weak effort that I've never been able to sit through without losing patience. ...


Are you two suggesting that perhaps Schubert "unfinished" the wrong symphony?

I have long fantasized about how Schubert may have ended that sublime Eighth Symphony. Though I love the work as it is. Still, I would likely prefer two additional movements to the Eighth and one or two fewer to the Ninth. Alas ….


----------



## pjang23

Carl Nielsen's symphonies stand out as one of the most underrated cycles.


----------



## MarkW

To state slightly differently:

1) Symphonies that I seem to like less than many many other people.
Mozart 40
Beethoven 5
Brahms 3
Mahler 2, 3, 7
Bruckner 00 - 8
Franck
Bizet
Schubert 5

2) Symphonies that I seem to like a lot more than many many other people:

Tippett 2

Most others we seem to agree about within a standard deviation.


----------



## Woodduck

SONNET CLV said:


> Are you two suggesting that perhaps Schubert "unfinished" the wrong symphony?
> 
> I have long fantasized about how Schubert may have ended that sublime Eighth Symphony. Though I love the work as it is. Still, I would likely prefer two additional movements to the Eighth and one or two fewer to the Ninth. Alas ….


A musician friend used to speak of the "last movement problem" in symphonies, concertos and similar multi-movement works. After an ambitious sonata-form first movement, followed by an expressive slow movement and an energetic scherzo, what do you do for a finale that won't be an anticlimax? It wasn't such a problem for Classical period works in which a cheerful rondo was the norm, but following the original solutions created by Beethoven the need was felt to make a "significant" statement and make the final movement a destination and capstone, a consequence and a tying up of what had gone before, or a release of dramatic tensions built up in the preceding movements. Even the greatest composers sometimes had difficulty keeping their final movements from being something of a letdown. Schubert may have been stymied in trying to finish his 8th, and the 9th's finale may be taken to illustrate why the 8th gave him trouble. Bruckner was another composer who wrestled with the problem to the end of his life, with variable success.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I'm not that great a fan of Beethoven 9th symphony 4th movement, - I still remember the first time I heard it, at the time I thought it was very choppy with abrupt starts and stops. Aside from the awkward vocal writing, certain parts came off as ridiculous. I was like "oh, you got to be kidding me, Herr Beethoven.. lol". But at least I can recognize the "sense of direction and purpose" of the composition and the "cultural significance". (ie. impact on the later symphonists) Also I personally don't think having voices in a symphony a very good idea either. It feels like "mint chocolate" to me. The two forces (symphony and voices) feel like water and oil in concept in my view. But I can at least understand when people today talk of the work's significance and importance. - See how I distinguish "I don't like it" vs "it's overrated".









Schubert by comparison just doesn't "get anywhere". To be honest, he's not even "professional" in classical music composition to begin with. The melodies are great (such as the A minor Arpeggione Sonata). But that's about it. I think this is why musicologists don't make analysis or lecture videos on Schubert's large scale works. Because if they do, they'll inevitably talk of how much vamps and padding there are in his music with no real sense of development. They would probably go like "Finally, after 20 bars of vamps and padding..." "Eventually, after 30 bars of broken chords on the main theme..." I miss Eugeneonagain. He talked so much truth regarding this topic on this forum.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I find this pretty remarkable, especially the Presto section (6:48)





[ 1:58 ]


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm not that great a fan of Beethoven 9th symphony 4th movement, - I still remember the first time I heard the movement, I thought it was very choppy with abrupt starts and endings. Aside from the awkward vocal writing, certain parts came off as ridiculous. I was like "oh, you got to be kidding me, Herr Beethoven..". But at least I can recognize the "sense of direction and purpose" of the composition and the "significance". (ie. impact on the later symphonists) Also I personally don't think having voices in a symphony a very good idea either. It feels like "mint chocolate" to me. The two forces (symphony and voices) feel like water and oil in concept in my view. But I can at least understand when people today talk of the work's significance and importance. - See how I distinguish "I don't like it" vs "it's overrated".
> 
> Schubert by comparison just doesn't "get anywhere". To be honest, he's not even "professional" in classical music composition to begin with. The melodies are great (such as the A minor Arpeggione Sonata). But that's about it. I think this is why musicologists don't make analysis or lecture videos on Schubert's large scale works. Because if you do, you'll inevitably talk of how much vamps and padding there are in his music with no real sense of development. You would go like "Finally.. After 20 bars of vamps and padding..." "Eventually.. After 30 bars of broken chords on the main theme..." I miss Eugeneonagain. He talked so much truth regarding this topic on this forum.


You seem to have a rather limited sense of what constitutes a "good" composition. The logic of Beethoven's 9th does escape some people, I know, but is there anything inherently wrong with a series of variations - which is what the work's finale is - that contrast dramatically with each other and span an immense expressive range? Beethoven seems to have wanted to do what Mahler said a symphony should do: embrace the world. I think he sets up each variation arrestingly and perfectly. "Choppy," "abrupt," "awkward," "ridiculous" - none of these descriptions has ever occurred to me in fifty years of knowing the work. I've always found the finale insanely inspired - truly a divine madness.

You don't "get" Schubert either, but we know that. Man, do we _ever_ know that! You can't understand how a composer would choose not to engage in the sort of "professional" practices you value, why he wouldn't employ the kinds of counterpoint and development you consider the marks of "proper" composition. So Beethoven gives us one type of bad composition, and Schubert gives us another! Meanwhile, millions of people who are not ignorant or insensitive, including some of the greatest musicians in the world from composers like Schumann and Wagner to performers like Schnabel and Brendel, revere and love these works.

You say you're distinguishing "I don't like it" from "it's overrated," but what you're really doing - and so transparently - is looking for an excuse to pan music you don't get on with, and particularly to knock Schubert down again before he's even had time to struggle to his feet.


----------



## Swosh

This thread feels a little mean spirited. Why does most overrated have to be included haha.


----------



## Swosh

Liked for Fibich! I adore his 3rd


----------



## SONNET CLV

Woodduck said:


> ... The logic of Beethoven's 9th does escape some people, I know, ... "Choppy," "abrupt," "awkward," "ridiculous" - none of these descriptions has ever occurred to me in fifty years of knowing the work. I've always found the finale insanely inspired - truly a divine madness.
> 
> You don't "get" Schubert either, but we know that. Man, do we _ever_ know that! ….


The music that_ I_ really "get" is music I likely won't ever listen to again. The music that terrifies my artistic consciousness is that which I struggle to comprehend; it's music I return to again and again.

I've listened to Schubert murkily for decades. I never understood so much of the man's music, and I could not comprehend how one who died so young could have confounded me (and so many others) with thoughts that seem to have come from an infinitely long lifetime of experiences. I was well past the age when Schubert died before I began to have even an inkling of understanding of this miraculous music. I recall that many years ago, addressing a classroom of students, I remarked to them, following a playing of a Schubert sonata, that I did not understand Schubert's music and did not listen to much of it on a regular basis, saying that I was "saving" it for a later time in my life, when I would be older and more experienced and perhaps have a better focus on what the man was saying. I must admit that now, in my older age, I still listen to Schubert with much confoundment. But he is not the obscure mish-mash I once heard in the music. Rather, he is a light into that mystery of "what comes next", and perhaps one of the few such that affects me at all. And I now listen to Schubert regularly, ever attempting to probe deeper and deeper into the man's comprehension of the meaning of it all. When I understand Schubert fully, I won't need to listen to him any longer. I doubt I will ever reach such a point, and that is fine with me, too.

As for the finale of Beethoven's Ninth. Oh, what a joy to experience that anew with each listen. I fully agree with Woodduck's insightful comment: ""Choppy," "abrupt," "awkward," "ridiculous" - none of these descriptions has ever occurred to me in fifty years of knowing the work. I've always found the finale insanely inspired - truly a divine madness."

And who among us mere humans can ever fully comprehend divine madness?

Ah … the glory of it all.


----------



## Enthusiast

All this dislike of Schubert's 9th is almost enough to make me think I've joined the wrong forum! How can so many just not get how miraculously great it is? It is clearly a major statement and its uniqueness alone should suggest that it is an important work. And, of course, Schubert's late period included a large number of peerless masterpieces (of which the 9th is one). And Mozart's Jupiter? And then the lukewarm works - many of them attractive enough and with some merit - that are recommended to replace these. What madness!


----------



## NLAdriaan

Interesting discussion about Mozarts last 2 symphonies. I would like to nuance this as to the interpretation. I absolutely prefer Harnoncourts interpretations with the RCO. Yes, these recordings are from Harnoncourts extreme period. And I must admit that I don't listen to any others since, I am just not that into Mozart. These works became music for the millions, so you hear plenty of it in elevators and other public places. This causes some indifference too. 

When sticking to one composer, I would argue that Bruckner 8 seems overrated and Bruckner 5 seems underrated. Also the ride of the Valkyries is overrated (and abused for commercial reasons) as compared to the third act. And the 'Adagietto' is grossly overrated as to the rest of the fifth. Composer names seem superfluous in the last two examples.


----------



## Enthusiast

Sometimes or often overrated composers: Mendelssohn, certainly, and (this one is more personal) much of Berlioz, and Borodin, and others! I feel I can say this because they are all composers who have written quite a few works that I do enjoy quite a lot.


----------



## flamencosketches

Enthusiast said:


> All this dislike of Schubert's 9th is almost enough to make me think I've joined the wrong forum! How can so many just not get how miraculously great it is? It is clearly a major statement and its uniqueness alone should suggest that it is an important work. And, of course, Schubert's late period included a large number of peerless masterpieces (of which the 9th is one). And Mozart's Jupiter? And then the lukewarm works - many of them attractive enough and with some merit - that are recommended to replace these. What madness!


Couldn't agree more, though I confess to being among those who did not "get" Schubert's 9th on first listen, or on fifth. It's one of those works that took an "epiphany" for me to appreciate, but when that moment came, man, it all began to make perfect sense. I think I gained a lot of insight into the music of Bruckner, who appears to be driving at something similar in his symphonies, at that same time.

As for Schubert's 8th, the Unfinished, that is a work I loved on first listen, well before I ever got into classical music at large, and still one of my favorite symphonies. I would never call it overrated, nor underrated; I think it is well-deserving of its permanent status in the major repertoire.

I think that Camille Saint-Saëns' Symphony No.3 in C minor, the "Organ" symphony, is perhaps underrated. It's a phenomenal work, and one which I think any lover of classical music would find something to appreciate in. That slow movement alone is just magical. This is the kind of music that should be played for children (and open-minded young adults) to get them hooked on classical music. In this sense I put it in the same category as Schubert's Unfinished and warhorses like Beethoven's 5th.


----------



## jegreenwood

Heck148 said:


> Over-rated:
> Rachmaninoff sym #2 - the standard cuts are nowhere near extensive enough.
> Tchaikovsky #s 4 & 5
> 
> Under-rated:
> Schuman #3
> Hanson #3
> Shostakovich #1
> 
> Schubert's #9, in the right hands, is a very fine symphony....Try Toscanini or Reiner....magnificent....too slow, logy, plodding = awful


The first recording I heard of Schubert's 9th was Toscanini/Philadelphia. Wow! The Solti/VPO recording was one of the first three classical CDs I bought (admittedly at a time when choices were limited). By my count I have nine recordings in my library. I also treasure a live performance I saw with Gerard Schwarz conducting the New York Chamber Symphony. I never tire of the first two movements. The last two are OK as well.

p.s. I am writing this while sipping morning coffee and enjoying the Shaham/Sollscher album - "Schubert for Two."


----------



## larold

*Overrated* (or those I'll never again buy or pay to hear to in concert):
Most Mozart, almost all Mahler, most Beethoven, all Schubert, most Tchaikovsky, Brahms 1-3, all Rachmaninoff, Haydn "London" and later symphonies, all Schumann, Mendelssohn 3 and 4, Prokofiev 1-5 & 7, Sibelius 1, 2 and 5

*Underrated* (or those I would love to hear in concert):
Walton 1, Vaughan Williams 3 and 5, Hanson 2, Mendelssohn 2 and 5, Bruckner 1, 2 and 5, anything by Haydn below No. 91 except 88, Thomson Symphony On A Hymn Tune, Prokofiev 6, Elgar 1 and 2, Sibelius 3-4 and 6-7, Khachaturian all 3, Shostakovich 8 and 10.

To me this is more overexposed and underexposed than good and bad since they are all masterpieces.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I mainly feel some works are overrated/underrated (or better /lesser known) than they are within a composers output:

Mozart: underrated - Wind Quintet - overrated - Eine Kleine Nachtmusik
Brahms: underrated - Symphony 3, piano quintet; overrated - other symphonies, German Mass
Vaughan Williams: underrated - Symphony 4; overrated - Symphony 2
Shostakovich: underrated - Symphony 9, Quartet 15; overrated - Symphony 7, Quartet 8
Chopin: underrated - Scherzos; overrated - Nocturnes
Mahler: underrated - Symphony 7; overrated - Symphony 5, 9
Bruckner: underrated - Symphony 4; overrated - Symphony 8, 9


----------



## Ethereality

Although enviously popular, I wouldn't say Beethoven's symphonies are overrated. Properly-rated. Except the 6th which is underrated


----------



## Enthusiast

The worst thing about Schubert 9 is if I listen to it alone my cheeks are hurting by the end from my continual whistling. Schubert has the affect on me. No-one else does - not even Schoenberg.


----------



## Woodduck

flamencosketches said:


> I think that Camille Saint-Saëns' Symphony No.3 in C minor, the "Organ" symphony, is perhaps underrated... This is the kind of music that should be played for children (and open-minded young adults) to get them hooked on classical music.







and of course


----------



## DeepR

Siegmund von Hausegger's Nature Symphony is surely "underrated". Or, it simply deserves to be better known. 
Give it a chance, or better: ten chances. It's better than it seems.  Especially the second and fourth movements are fantastic.
I recognize it may not be first class material in some aspects, but it's still a magnificent symphony. That is, if you like this sort of late romantic extravagance.


----------



## DeepR

Nice to see Bruckner's 5th mentioned. Seems underrated indeed; a work with the greatest finale of all time™ shouldn't be underrated.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Underrated:

Rachmaninoff Symphony #1

Mendelssohn Symphony #1


----------



## Bigbang

Phil loves classical said:


> I mainly feel some works are overrated/underrated (or better /lesser known) than they are within a composers output:
> 
> Mozart: underrated - Wind Quintet - overrated - Eine Kleine Nachtmusik
> Brahms: underrated - Symphony 3, piano quintet; overrated - other symphonies, German Mass
> Vaughan Williams: underrated - Symphony 4; overrated - Symphony 2
> Shostakovich: underrated - Symphony 9, Quartet 15; overrated - Symphony 7, Quartet 8
> Chopin: underrated - Scherzos; overrated - Nocturnes
> Mahler: underrated - Symphony 7; overrated - Symphony 5, 9
> Bruckner: underrated - Symphony 4; overrated - Symphony 8, 9


Not sure I think K452 is underrated but I think Mozart may have been excited in stating that it was his best thing he had written thus far given what has already been written.

Mozart - Sinfonia Concertante for Four Winds in E flat, K. 297b---Now this is a underrated piece if just for the slow movement, and what a beautiful slow movement. If Mozart did not write it no matter it IS underrated. That slow movement needs to be heard.


----------



## DaveM

Bigbang said:


> Not sure I think K452 is underrated but I think Mozart may have been excited in stating that it was his best thing he had written thus far given what has already been written.
> 
> Mozart - Sinfonia Concertante for Four Winds in E flat, K. 297b---Now this is a underrated piece if just for the slow movement, and what a beautiful slow movement. If Mozart did not write it no matter it IS underrated. That slow movement needs to be heard.


Thanks for the K297b Adagio info. One of the few that has escaped me. Really beautiful stuff!


----------



## chu42

Underrated: All of Schumann's symphonies. They aren't as strong as Brahms or Tchaikovsky but the idea that there were poorly orchestrated has long been debunked.


----------



## chu42

flamencosketches said:


> Don't bother. Many times, folks have tried to challenge or at least call into question Mr. Hammered Klavier's deep devotion to his great master and ideological role model, David C.F. Wright, but he proves time and time again a faithful servant, unwavering in his devotion and unstoppable in his proselytization. It's true that Wright's essays (and HK's many posts parroting them) have nothing to do with Schubert, just an armchair musicologist and his agenda.


Youtube is full of people who do nothing but parrot nonsense. There is one channel called "Beethoven was not a good melodist" who writes massive articles on every Beethoven video imaginable about how Beethoven was an awful composer with no good ideas.

But the worst is a channel called "Czeyner la Mente Musicale" who actively finds Schumann, Liszt, and Chopin videos only to incessantly proclaim that Czerny was the greatest composer who ever lived- Czerny's Sonatas are better than Beethoven's, Czerny's etudes are better than Chopin's, and so forth.

It is good that we can ignore that kind of nonsense on Youtube like we ought to on this forum.


----------



## DaveM

chu42 said:


> Underrated: All of Schumann's symphonies. They aren't as strong as Brahms or Tchaikovsky but the idea that there were poorly orchestrated has long been debunked.


IMO, Schumann's 2nd is one of the great symphonies. It could have been named 'Tragic' given the opening movement. It was one of L. Bernstein's specialties and I've always preferred his recordings over any others.


----------



## Orfeo

Jacck said:


> Overrated: most Mozart symphonies
> underrated: Glazunov, Braga Santos, Atterberg, Casella, Stenhammar, Dukas, Nielsen, Magnard, Schmidt, Scriabin, Fibich etc.


I generally agree (esp. with the list you provided a short time later). I don't think that *Scriabin's Third Symphony* is quite as underrated as many would think. Due to the pioneering efforts of Muti, Ashkenazy, Svetlanov, Bychkov, et al., the symphony is kind of getting its dues. *Glazunov's Fifth* likewise (though much to my chagrin, not his *Sixth*, which I tend to rate higher).

As far as I'm concerned, the underrated symphonies include:

*Myaskovsky*: virtually all of them, including the ones that were quite popular during the composer's lifetime, like numbers VI and XXI.
*Melartin*: Again, virtually all of them.
*Madetoja*: Same as Melartin's.
*Merikanto*: Same as above.
*Skulte* (Latvia): virtually unknown, unfortunately.
*Ivanovs *(Latvia): same as above.
*Tubin*: virtually all of them (although, thanks to Jarvi, his Fourth has some life in the concert halls).
*Bruckner*: Symphony no. III (original 1873 version) and nos. II & VI. Even his Symphony in D "Die Nullte" deserves better.
*American Symphonies*: are generally under-performed and not well recorded, like those of Hanson (except no. II), Ives, Creston, Schuman, Piston, definitely Diamond, Bernstein (though no. II is likewise getting its dues), Barber, Still, Copland, Harris, Beach, and so on.
*Franck*: his Symphony in D was once a staple in the repertoire. But not anymore.
*Chausson*: More or less the same.
*Bax*: virtually all of them, including Spring Fire.
*Tchaikovsky*: Symphony no. II (original 1872 version).
*Balakirev*: both of them.
*Kalinnikov*: Symphony no. I to some extent, but definitely no. II.
*Rimsky-Korsakov*: All three of them.
*Khachaturian*: All three of them.
*Nina Makarova* (Khachaturian's wife): Her very accomplished, well-written Symphony in D (1938).
*Kancheli*: Not so well known outside Georgia.
*Boris Tchaikovsky*: Symphony no. II is woefully little known.
*Liszt*: Faust (to a certain extent), but definitely his Dante Symphony.
*Gliere*: his first two symphonies and to an extent, his Third
*Lyatoshynsky*: All of them, although well regarded in the Ukraine.
*Draeseke*: All of them, but especially his First.
*Gade*: All of them (esp. his First, to some extent).
*Berward*: All of them.
*Svendsen*: Both of them.
*Alfven*: All five of them.
*Dvorak*: His Third Symphony I feel.

I won't touch the overrated issue, for I tend to agree with what I've read so far. I do differ in regards to *Schubert's Ninth*, however. I don't see it as overrated. To me, it represents a pinnacle of early Romanticism, a continuation of what Beethoven left off and a springboard for later composers like Bruckner as far as thematic development is concerned.


----------



## Jacck

hammeredklavier said:


> btw, I still remember Jacck's desperate defense of Schubert (which the mods deleted along with eugeneonagain's critique) in one of the old threads about Schubert's D960. :lol:


you likely have me confused with someone. I never desperately defended Schubert. I like him, but I have no particular need to either bash him or zealously defend him from attacks. I have no issues when someone else does not like him or get him (like eugene), I am quite happy to enjoy his string quartets, piano sonatas and lieder


----------



## Bigbang

DaveM said:


> Thanks for the K297b Adagio info. One of the few that has escaped me. Really beautiful stuff!


I was not aware about it until reading some reviews a few years back on Amazon. I knew I had the music on cd and sure enough it was on 2 cd Karajan doing wind music. And I did not even listen to it until then. It is a very good version though I might give Bohm the best I have heard. I must have listen to to repeatedly off and on, until I was tired of it. I am now listening to Ormandy version (streaming).


----------



## Bigbang

chu42 said:


> Youtube is full of people who do nothing but parrot nonsense. There is one channel called "Beethoven was not a good melodist" who writes massive articles on every Beethoven video imaginable about how Beethoven was an awful composer with no good ideas.
> 
> But the worst is a channel called "Czeyner la Mente Musicale" who actively finds Schumann, Liszt, and Chopin videos only to incessantly proclaim that Czerny was the greatest composer who ever lived- Czerny's Sonatas are better than Beethoven's, Czerny's etudes are better than Chopin's, and so forth.
> 
> It is good that we can ignore that kind of nonsense on Youtube like we ought to on this forum.


I suspect this is Czerny reborn (reincarnated) and is pissed Beethoven got all the glory after death. Seriously, I am wondering now about his music as he was close to Beethoven, played his music so he must have created some work worth listening to. Will have to check this out---why did I not think of this before. I remember reading Beethoven saying to Czerny "we" will never write anything like Mozart concerto (either 20 or 24 performance). Oh Beethoven so humble.....lol


----------



## Swosh

Enthusiast said:


> Sometimes or often overrated composers: Mendelssohn, certainly, and (this one is more personal) much of Berlioz, and Borodin, and others! I feel I can say this because they are all composers who have written quite a few works that I do enjoy quite a lot.


Aw man... you're just totally wrong about Mendelssohn :lol:


----------



## chu42

Bigbang said:


> I suspect this is Czerny reborn (reincarnated) and is pissed Beethoven got all the glory after death. Seriously, I am wondering now about his music as he was close to Beethoven, played his music so he must have created some work worth listening to. Will have to check this out---why did I not think of this before. I remember reading Beethoven saying to Czerny "we" will never write anything like Mozart concerto (either 20 or 24 performance). Oh Beethoven so humble.....lol


Czerny was the student of Beethoven and was the teacher of Liszt, but he still defies all odds and gets the short end of the stick in terms of historical appreciation. Probably because of his many hundreds of musically airheaded etudes and his editions of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart that are all quite artistically tasteless.

Anyways, I have always felt that Nielsen's symphonies are underrated.


----------



## aleazk

I think the symphonic genre is overrated as a whole.


----------



## Swosh

I listen to orchestra and chamber music around the same amount, but I understand why you think that


----------



## Swosh

Well there's underrated and underappreciated. I can bring up dozens of underappreciated symphonies but I can't comment on overrated with my lack of expertise


----------



## aleazk

Swosh said:


> I listen to orchestra and chamber music around the same amount, but I understand why you think that


Oh, I like orchestra, and symphonies. But I prefer Piano Concertos to Symphonies.


----------



## Ethereality

Those of you who say x or y is overrated, you're just totally underrating it. It's a paradox, and like everything, probably a conspiracy.


----------



## Woodduck

Ethereality said:


> Those of you who say x or y is overrated, you're just totally underrating it. It's a paradox, and like everything, probably a conspiracy.


You made me think for a second. In this case thinking is overrated.


----------



## reinmar von zweter

Underrated? Myaskovsky's 10th!


----------



## MusicSybarite

I don't understand why Taneyev's 4th Symphony suffers of being underrated these days. This is an incredibly terrific work.


----------



## Josquin13

Overrated

--Edward Elgar, Symphonies 1 & 2
--Serge Rachmaninov, Symphonies 1, 2, 3
--Peter Tchaikovsky, Symphony 2, 3, Manfred Symphony
--Vaughan Williams, Symphony no. 1, "Sea Symphony"

Underrated

--Jean Sibelius, Symphony 7--IMO, the most underrated masterpiece in the whole symphonic repertory:









--Joonas Kokkonen, Symphonies 1-4
No 1: 



No. 2: 



No. 3: 



No. 4: 




--Dmitri Shostakovich, Symphony 1: 




--F.J. Haydn, Symphonies no. 49 "La Passione", and no. 99:









--W.A. Mozart, Symphonies no. 31 "Paris", no. 25, no. 36 "Linz", no. 38 "Prague" (when played on period instruments, & not in a late Romantic, Brahmsian style that Mozart wouldn't have recognized):

















--Franz Schubert, Symphonies 4, 8 "Unfinished", 9 "Great" (when played on period instruments, especially authentic Viennese horns, and not the modern instruments whose boring effects Schubert didn't intend):













--Vagn Holmboe, Symphonies no. 8 "Sinfonia Boreale", and no. 9:
https://www.allmusic.com/album/vagn-holmboe-symphonies-nos-8-9-mw0001827206
https://www.amazon.com/Symphonies-8-9-VAGN-HOLMBOE/dp/B000025USL

--Anton Bruckner, Symphonies 5, 6: 









--Vincent Persichetti, Symphony no. 9 "Janiculum": 




--Charles Koechlin, Symphonies nos. 1 & 2--there are still no commercial recordings of these works!!!, only radio broadcast tapes from notable conductors Constantin Silvestri & Manuel Rosenthal:
Symphony no. 2 (1944)--a modern masterpiece?: 



Symphony no. 1 (1926): 




--L.V. Beethoven, Symphonies nos. 1, 2













--Robert Schumann, Symphonies 1 "Spring", 2, 3 "Rhenish": 




--Serge Prokofiev, Symphonies nos. 3, 7: 




--Bohuslav Martinu, Symphonies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6:




No. 3: 



No. 4: 



No. 5: 



No. 6:


----------



## Xisten267

I think that *Beethoven's 8th* is underrated. It's form is perfect in my opinion (each movement has a different formal plan, but the work doesn't have those many repeats of the 7th symphony) and I love all it's movements, including the finale with those sudden and daring harmonic shifts that to me resemble neoclassical music before neoclassical music had been invented.

"Martin Geck has commented on the authenticity of the Eighth, noting that it contains 'all the relevant hallmarks, including motivic and thematic writing notable for its advanced planning, defiant counterpoint, furious cross-rhythms, sudden shifts from piano to forte, and idyllic and even hymnlike episodes.'" - Source.



Allegro Con Brio said:


> ^Exactly how I feel. The finale is a really weak effort that I've never been able to sit through without losing patience. It is a symphony that I like, but only under a really good baton - Szell, Marriner, Furtwangler, Davis do it right. As for the 8th, I think it gives us a valuable glimpse into Schubert's gradually maturing compositional voice that never got a chance to fully flower. I like it better than the 9th but still wouldn't consider it a top-tier symphony. *And it is my opinion that one should never take repeats in Schubert.*


Although I usually remove some repeats from some pieces, especially from those of the Classical period, I think that some of them are essential to the music. For instance, if the development section of a sonata form movement has a sense of culmination, like in the first movement of Beethoven's 5th or of Mahler's 6th, I think that it's exposition's repeat must be played. It's the case for example with the first movement of Schubert's 8th, and so I disagree with you.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Allerius said:


> Although I usually remove some repeats from some pieces, especially from that of the classical period, I think that some of them are essential to the music. For instance, if the development section of a sonata form movement has a sense of culmination, like in the first movement of Beethoven's 5th or Mahler's 6th, I think that it's exposition's repeat must be played. It's the case for example with the first movement of Schubert's 8th, and so I disagree with you.


Oh yes, a great deal of the time I agree with including the repeat, and I do concur that in Schubert's 8th, it is necessary. But in works like the String Quintet, 21st Sonata, 9th Symphony, and 15th Quartet - works that stretch the boundaries of formal tradition in favor of "heavenly length," I really do find that it becomes very tedious, and the repetition starts to become an annoyance.


----------



## Enthusiast

Honegger's are surely underrated symphonies.


----------



## DaveM

The early Bruckner symphonies, Nulltie, 2 & 3 are totally underrated. Never understand why they are rarely mentioned compared to #5 and above. Isn't this an opening to die for?


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

What do we think about the status of Berlioz's _Fantastique_ on the over/underrated spectrum? It is often treated as a top-10 symphony but seems to be quite polarizing. Though I acknowledge it as a pivotal work in music history (easily the most quintessentially Romantic work ever written up to that point), I find it dreadfully boring. I ought to compare some more interpretations, though - I've only heard Beecham (which I thought was too lightweight) and Davis/LSO.


----------



## Heck148

Allegro Con Brio said:


> What do we think about the status of Berlioz's _Fantastique_ on the over/underrated spectrum? It is often treated as a top-10 symphony but seems to be quite polarizing. Though I acknowledge it as a pivotal work in music history (easily the most quintessentially Romantic work ever written up to that point), I find it dreadfully boring. I ought to compare some more interpretations, though - I've only heard Beecham (which I thought was too lightweight) and Davis/LSO.


Berlioz- Sym Fantastic- mvts IV and V are outstanding...mvts II & III are ok...mvt I is, for me, kind of boring....IV & V are truly amazing, tho!!


----------



## Enthusiast

Allegro Con Brio said:


> What do we think about the status of Berlioz's _Fantastique_ on the over/underrated spectrum? It is often treated as a top-10 symphony but seems to be quite polarizing. Though I acknowledge it as a pivotal work in music history (easily the most quintessentially Romantic work ever written up to that point), I find it dreadfully boring. I ought to compare some more interpretations, though - I've only heard Beecham (which I thought was too lightweight) and Davis/LSO.


A top 10 symphony? Not for me but it is a top 50 symphony - which is pretty good! One sign of its greatness is the way it repays a variety of approaches to performance ... or I think it does. For me the Beecham is a great one (much of the work _is_ quite deliciously lightweight and should sparkle - why do we always look to Berlioz for only violent revolution?) but Davis, Munch, Roth, Markevitch and others have all shown us different aspects of it without making it less than it is.


----------



## Enthusiast

I've been trying to decide if the symphonies of Villa Lobos are underrated or whether it is just that I have a soft spot for his music. But I think some of them at least are undervalued. The language is a little old fashioned on the surface but these are not pastiche works. They do often seem inspired and are filled with telling detail and a sound world unique to Villa Lobos.


----------



## Xisten267

Allegro Con Brio said:


> What do we think about the status of Berlioz's _Fantastique_ on the over/underrated spectrum? It is often treated as a top-10 symphony but seems to be quite polarizing. Though I acknowledge it as a pivotal work in music history (easily the most quintessentially Romantic work ever written up to that point), I find it dreadfully boring. I ought to compare some more interpretations, though - I've only heard Beecham (which I thought was too lightweight) and Davis/LSO.


I think that the "Fanstatique" is the most original of all first symphonies ever composed - a great achievement for the 27 year old Berlioz. Yet, it's my opinion that it's popularity overshadows other great works by him, including symphonic works, what has been called "the Four Seasons effect" by another member if I recall correctly. I love Berlioz and would like that his symphonies No. 3 "Roméo et Juliette" and No. 4 "Funèbre et Triomphale" had a comparable status to that of his No. 1 for most people. For me, these two are severely underrated, while perhaps the "Fantastique" is slightly overrated, but don't take me wrong: I think that it's a great work!


----------



## Sad Al

Overrated: Beethoven, Sibelius, Mahler, Mozart
underrated: Schnittke's 6th, 7th and 8th, Silvestrov, Mendelssohn, Bruckner


----------



## Enthusiast

Allerius said:


> I think that the "Fanstatique" is the most original of all first symphonies ever composed - a great achievement for the 27 year old Berlioz. Yet, it's my opinion that it's popularity overshadows other great works by him, including symphonic works, what has been called "the Four Seasons effect" by another member if I recall correctly. I love Berlioz and would like that his symphonies No. 3 "Roméo et Juliette" and No. 4 "Funèbre et Triomphale" had a comparable status to that of his No. 1 for most people. For me, these two are severely underrated, while perhaps the "Fantastique" is slightly overrated, but don't take me wrong: I think that it's a great work!


Interesting. I have tried many times to really like most Berlioz but I always end up hearing wonderful things but too much "filler" (music that didn't seem so inspired). Fantastique is one of the few works that seem to me to be an unmitigated success, closely followed by The Damnation of Faust and less closely by Harold in Italy. But I can always try again thanks to you enthusiastic advocacy.


----------



## Bulldog

The Symphonie Fantastique is one of my top 3 symphonies along with Mahler's 4th and the Shostakovich 10th.

Concerning overrated symphonies, Mendelssohn's are at the top of my list. They are a little better than his solo piano works, but that's not saying much.


----------



## Xisten267

Enthusiast said:


> Interesting. I have tried many times to really like most Berlioz but I always end up hearing wonderful things but too much "filler" (music that didn't seem so inspired). Fantastique is one of the few works that seem to me to be an unmitigated success, closely followed by The Damnation of Faust and less closely by Harold in Italy. But I can always try again thanks to you enthusiastic advocacy.


I can agree with you that early Berlioz sometimes have some longueurs, but his most inspired moments more than compensate for this, at least for me. At first I also didn't like much of his music, but after listening to a recording of his _Te Deum_ with Abbado some years ago it "clicked" on me and I had my Berlioz epiphany. I've became in love with this composer's oeuvre since then, and now truly enjoy his music.

I don't have that much experience with recordings, but if you're going to listen to his 3rd and 4th symphonies I suggest the recording of Sir Colin Davis with the WPO for the former and Khalilov with the Central Military Band of the Russian Ministry of Defence for the latter. These are my favorite performances of these works.


----------



## Sad Al

I have wasted this day with Mahler's first (Lintu) and Bruckner's 7th (Herreweghe) and his 9th (Wand). Not much impression, I think Bach and early polyphonics and Hindustani and Carnatic classical have ruined my taste in music.


----------



## Xisten267

Sad Al said:


> I have wasted this day with Mahler's first (Lintu) and Bruckner's 7th (Herreweghe) and his 9th (Wand). Not much impression, I think Bach and early polyphonics and Hindustani and Carnatic classical have ruined my taste in music.


Complex music usually requires several listenings before showing it's charm to a person. Perhaps you may consider giving these symphonies other tries later, perhaps in other performances, before sending them to your personal musical trash can. It could be very rewarding.

I believe that it's better to listen attentively to a few pieces in a certain time spam than embracing the world and listening to many works in this same time but having only a superficial experience with them.


----------



## larold

I think Berlioz's Fantastic Symphony is one of the most original and revolutionary ever penned, on a par with Beethoven's Eroica. I don't think it has the same staying power, however. Its welcome can be worn with far fewer exposures since it is so high caloric. 

As to disliking Mahler and Bruckner, they are of a mind. I hear this comment a lot from Mozartphiles. Compared to his economy and genius, the other two wobble all over the place seemingly endlessly.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I don't personally find Mahler bad. A lot of times, (symphonies 1,2,4,5,6, & DLVDE) the general impression I get is that he has a keen sense to combine Wagnerian drama with Johann Strauss II-like late Romantic Viennese charm to keep his long music interesting. It is as all those nostalgic gestures are fused into intricate structure.


----------



## Bigbang

Allerius said:


> Complex music usually requires several listenings before showing it's charm to a person. Perhaps you may consider giving these symphonies other tries later, perhaps in other performances, before sending them to your personal musical trash can. It could be very rewarding.
> 
> I believe that it's better to listen attentively to a few pieces in a certain time spam than embracing the world and listening to many works in this same time but having only a superficial experience with them.


Good advice. However, I have noticed that there appears to be this "frantic" frenzy at grabbing at this and that music as if the world will end soon. But with all this music, all available at all times, seems to put more pressure on a person psyche so to speak. Classical music will not save the day. It will not rescue you from tragedy. Will not free your mind from dark shadows--it is a form of enjoyment and enrichment. Personally I would take it a little slower as in the old days when music was "spoon fed" to us due to the limited availability of when something was released.


----------



## Xisten267

Bigbang said:


> Good advice. However, I have noticed that there appears to be this "frantic" frenzy at grabbing at this and that music as if the world will end soon. But with all this music, all available at all times, seems to put more pressure on a person psyche so to speak. *Classical music will not save the day. It will not rescue you from tragedy. Will not free your mind from dark shadows*--it is a form of enjoyment and enrichment. Personally I would take it a little slower as in the old days when music was "spoon fed" to us due to the limited availability of when something was released.


I think I understand your point, and I agree that there's no need for hurry while delving into deeper waters of musical art. It's not uncommon for me to not want to listen to any music at a certain moment, sometimes an entire day, and I believe that we should not force ourselves to do so in those moments, even considering how much music there's in the world and that it's probably impossible to know it all. I think that sometimes giving our search a break is needed to renew our desire to explore new things, and that relative silence can be revelatory.

I disagree with what's in bold though. In some dark moments, the right piece can yes save my day, and that's why I try to reserve certain works that I regard very highly to special days - "special" in this case not necessarily having a positive connotation. Music can be more than enjoyment and enrichment in my opinion. It can be a passion.


----------



## Bigbang

No disagreement on your point. I was leaning more towards the idea of searching for this or that interpretation of celebrated works and doing so at (in my way of thinking) breakneck speed. It is as though in search of some elusive goal, and after acquiring roughly-1000 Cds I am still wondering why I bought all of them. Most of my buying cds were done in stores and later buying cds donated to thrift stores and libraries. 

For example, I read comments such as "I love this work." And again over and over. Sure I have my recordings I like and will always return to but the language is not the same. So it is with this topic I am referring to....there are various aspects to what music does for us, and what it does not do for us but I cannot put in writing what this means.


----------



## damian101

Kalinnikov, Lyapunov and Atterberg are the first composers that come to my mind whose symphonies are heavily underappreciated in my opinion.


----------



## Ned Low

When i listen to these, i cant help but wonder why they're not popular or appreciated enough 
Bruckner 3,5 and 6
Sibelius 3
Hans Rott 1
Schubert 1-3
Dvorak 1,3 and 4
Richard Wetz 1-3
Liszt Dante and Faust symphonies
Weber 1and 2
Tchaikovsky 1 and 2


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Overrated:

Beethoven 7

Underrated:

Sibelius 1


----------



## consuono

I can think of some that are overplayed, maybe -- e.g. Beethoven's except 1, 2, 4 and 8 -- but not many that are "overrated". I think maybe Beethoven's 4th and 8th, Brahms' 2nd and Mahler's 7th are a little underrated.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

I'm not going to use the words "overrated" and "underrated" but I've always thought of Beethoven's 7th as being...just OK. Which is just my opinion, Beethoven is Beethoven and I'm just some bozo on an internet forum.


----------



## Barbebleu

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I'm just some bozo on an internet forum.


Aren't we all?:lol:


----------



## HerbertNorman

This thread again, shows me how pointless it is to discuss tastes, they will differ and everyone will "defend" his or her tastes vigorously while this will not change that of the so called "adversary"... 
I have read through this thread and I would be the one defending the Schubert Ninth ... because I love this composer's music 

I think Kalinnikov, Bax Symphonies or Dvorak's early ones are underrated ... but I will shy away from the overrated question, because I don't like that label... overplayed maybe , but there it stops for me...

I used to dislike certain classical music , which I now have learnt to enjoy... (give Schubert's ninth another listen I would say  )


----------



## Aries

It is not about composer, so just comparisons inside composers:

Bruckner:
overrated: 7th symphony
underrated: 2nd symphony

They are equally good.

Shostakovic:
overrated: 9th symphony
underrated: 3rd, 12th symphony

13, 14, 15 are maybe overrated too.

Furtwängler:
overrated: 3rd symphony
underrated: 1st symphony

The first is on a level with the second. Don't know why the third is played more instead.

Haydn:
overrated: symphonies 93-104
underrated: 39th, 45th, 49th, 59th symphony

The "sturm und drang" symphonies are overall more interessting than the London symphonies.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Aries said:


> The "sturm und drang" symphonies are overall more interessting than the London symphonies.


I sort of see this as a 4-movement "sturm und drang" symphony as well:
7:05 , 11:15 , 15:35


----------



## Dimace

Ned Low said:


> When i listen to these, i cant help but wonder why they're not popular or appreciated enough
> Bruckner 3,5 and 6
> Sibelius 3
> Hans Rott 1
> Schubert 1-3
> Dvorak 1,3 and 4
> Richard Wetz 1-3
> Liszt Dante and* Faust *symphonies
> Weber 1and 2
> Tchaikovsky 1 and 2


Faust Symphony is masterpiece. Dante's is good but nothing special. Dvorak's 1st is the weakest of the composer. Not fish, not meat. Good list.


----------



## leonsm

I will not talk about the overrated one, maybe because I would regreate myself in the future.


Underrated one are easy


Alwyn: 1 e 4
Atterberg: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 e 8
Bax: 2 e 4
Bloch: Israel e C-Sharp Minor
Dupré: in G minor
Liszt: Dante e Faust
Madetoja: 3
Maslanka: 4
Merikanto: 2
Mignoni: Sinfonia Tropical
Part: 3 
Pettersson: 6 e 7
Respighi: Drammatica
Sallinen: 7
Say: 2 (Mesopotamia)
Tchaikovsky, Boris: 3 (Sevastopol)
Villa-Lobos: 3 e 10
Yoshimatsu: 3 e 5


----------



## Ethereality

Heck148 said:


> Over-rated:
> Tchaikovsky #s 4 & 5


You are insane :lol:


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Aries said:


> It is not about composer, so just comparisons inside composers:
> 
> Bruckner:
> overrated: 7th symphony
> underrated: 2nd symphony
> 
> They are equally good.


Now that is a *bold* opinion! You're gonna have a hard time getting even some of the most die-hard Brucknerians to agree with that. I like Bruckner 2 (I think the first movement is particularly brilliant) but I still think of it as a period where he was still getting his bearings.



Dimace said:


> Dvorak's 1st is the weakest of the composer. Not fish, not meat. Good list.


I always felt Dvorak's 1st gets looked down on a lot and was never sure why. I actually even enjoy it more than some of his later symphonies. I find it to be very a very rich and charismatic piece.


----------



## Ned Low

Dimace said:


> Faust Symphony is masterpiece. Dante's is good but nothing special. Dvorak's 1st is the weakest of the composer. Not fish, not meat. Good list.


Faust's great. I personally have an affinity with Dante symphony as it reminds me of Dante's poem which i read 3 years ago.
Dvorak's early symphonies have great melodies and moments thats why i mentioned them. I know they're not so good as the his last four symphonies.


----------



## Ned Low

Aries said:


> It is not about composer, so just comparisons inside composers:
> 
> Bruckner:
> overrated: 7th symphony
> underrated: 2nd symphony
> 
> They are equally good.


Bruckner's 7th is his greatest achievement. Never composed a better symphony than the 7th. I even disagree with Bruckner himself when he said the 8th is his best work.


----------



## Heck148

Ethereality said:


> You are insane :lol:


Not insane, more like " over-exposed"...lol!!


----------



## Heck148

Ned Low said:


> Bruckner's 7th is his greatest achievement. Never composed a better symphony than the 7th. I even disagree with Bruckner himself when he said the 8th is his best work.


Yes, I agree..B7 is his best.


----------



## Dimace

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> Now that is a *bold* opinion! You're gonna have a hard time getting even some of the most die-hard Brucknerians to agree with that. I like Bruckner 2 (I think the first movement is particularly brilliant) but I still think of it as a period where he was still getting his bearings.
> 
> I always felt *Dvorak's 1st* gets looked down on a lot and was never sure why. I actually even enjoy it more than some of his later symphonies. I find it to be very a very rich and charismatic piece.


It is a GOOD symphony. No doubt. In comparison to the other Dvorak's symphonies is the weakest in character. It lacks Dvorak's feeling and aroma.


----------



## Jacck

Dimace said:


> It is a GOOD symphony. No doubt. In comparison to the other Dvorak's symphonies is the weakest in character. It lacks Dvorak's feeling and aroma.


I quite like the 1st symphony, more so than the 2nd and 3rd. But it is just purely subjective, I have no musicology education to make an expert analysis.


----------



## Aries

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> Now that is a *bold* opinion! You're gonna have a hard time getting even some of the most die-hard Brucknerians to agree with that. I like Bruckner 2 (I think the first movement is particularly brilliant) but I still think of it as a period where he was still getting his bearings.





Ned Low said:


> Bruckner's 7th is his greatest achievement. Never composed a better symphony than the 7th. I even disagree with Bruckner himself when he said the 8th is his best work.


The 7th has really great sections like the end of the second movement, begin of the coda of the first movement or the coda of fourth movement, but also some shortcomings. The finale is overall rather weak, and things don't really fit together at the end of both the codas of the first and fourth movement.

For example: What the trumpets are playing after letter Z in the first movement should be a massive confirmation of the harmony but it has an unfitting disrupting aspect practically. And the theme of the other brass is then cut in half shortly before the end what don't seem to be the perfect solution. I get the great idea of this ending, but the implementation isn't honed. Bruckner probably would have sorted out these things if he had revised the work. But the work was instantly successful so some refinement that other symphonies got wasn't done. Changing the position of the Adagio and the Scherzo would have been a good idea too probably.

Bruckner has done great things with the main theme of the symphony in the development and the coda, but it doesn't appeal to me as much in the exposition. Bruckner said someone else had whistled this theme to him while he sleeped. And I think this theme in its main form is indeed less brucknerian than the main themes of his other symphonies. And I also think, that this is the reason, why the symphony is rather successful among people, who are not the biggest Bruckner fans otherwise.

I often thought that the middle section of the Adagio is a bit too long. Its great overall especially at the end but Bruckner has a very constant high level in his adagios.

Maybe the 7th has a slight edge for me compared to the 2nd in movements 1-3. But then The 2nd has a much better finale.

This is not the common opinion of course. But that is why I post it in this thread.


----------



## Ned Low

Aries said:


> The 7th has really great sections like the end of the second movement, begin of the coda of the first movement or the coda of fourth movement, but also some shortcomings. The finale is overall rather weak, and things don't really fit together at the end of both the codas of the first and fourth movement.
> 
> For example: What the trumpets are playing after letter Z in the first movement should be a massive confirmation of the harmony but it has an unfitting disrupting aspect practically. And the theme of the other brass is then cut in half shortly before the end what don't seem to be the perfect solution. I get the great idea of this ending, but the implementation isn't honed. Bruckner probably would have sorted out these things if he had revised the work. But the work was instantly successful so some refinement that other symphonies got wasn't done. Changing the position of the Adagio and the Scherzo would have been a good idea too probably.
> 
> Bruckner has done great things with the main theme of the symphony in the development and the coda, but it doesn't appeal to me as much in the exposition. Bruckner said someone else had whistled this theme to him while he sleeped. And I think this theme in its main form is indeed less brucknerian than the main themes of his other symphonies. And I also think, that this is the reason, why the symphony is rather successful among people, who are not the biggest Bruckner fans otherwise.
> 
> I often thought that the middle section of the Adagio is a bit too long. Its great overall especially at the end but Bruckner has a very constant high level in his adagios.
> 
> Maybe the 7th has a slight edge for me compared to the 2nd in movements 1-3. But then The 2nd has a much better finale.
> 
> This is not the common opinion of course. But that is why I post it in this thread.


In his dream, Bruckner finds one of his friends playing the famous, lyrical theme of the first movement. This is one of wonders of nature. Why should we disregard the beauty of this theme? And who says this symphony doesn't appeal to Brucknarians? Can you even say you love Bruckner when you dont like his 7th symphony? After all Bruckner's true art lies in his last three symphonies. Most of us know Bruckner by his 7th, 8th and 9th symphonies. It's like saying i love Wagner but i dont like one of his last operas( for instance Meistersinger) as much as i like his earlier works.

The adagios of the 5th and 7th symphonies are the best he made. What's better than the tragic adagio of the 5th symphony or, as my friend Granate put it better than i can, the " Wagner Requiem" adagio of the 7th? How he builds up to the climax is unbelievable. You can reach an orgasm at the climax. To be honest with you, i was a bit disappointed with adagio of the 8th . I expected more from him after listening to the adagio of 7th. And it's not long compared to the adagio of the 8th which lasts around 27 minutes. Please listen to Haitink's recording of the 7th symphony( Royal Concertgebouw). It might change your mind.

Regarding the finale, compared to the finales of 5th and 8th it's not great but i personally love it every time I listen to it.


----------



## Aries

Ned Low said:


> In his dream, Bruckner finds one of his friends playing the famous, lyrical theme of the first movement. This is one of wonders of nature. Why should we disregard the beauty of this theme?


I am not disregarding the beauty of this theme. I really like it in the recapitulation and escpecially in the coda. But there is something missing for me in its unprcoessed form at the beginning of the movement.

Bruckner maybe composed differently in his dreams and when he was awake.



Ned Low said:


> And who says this symphony doesn't appeal to Brucknarians?


I didn't said that. But I think for Brucknerians it is rather on great symphony among many. But I got the impression that for Non-Brucknerians it is the favourite Bruckner symphony along with the 4th.



Ned Low said:


> Can you even say you love Bruckner when you dont like his 7th symphony?


I like the 7th symphony.



Ned Low said:


> After all Bruckner's true art lies in his last three symphonies.


Nah, rather his last eight symphonies. After the 5th something changed. The 6th is a bit weaker than his standard, the 8th is the best and the 7th in between.



Ned Low said:


> It's like saying i love Wagner but i dont like one of his last operas( for instance Meistersinger) as much as i like his earlier works.


I don't like the Lohengrin Ouvertüre as much as his other Ouvertüres.



Ned Low said:


> The adagios of the 5th and 7th symphonies are the best he made.


I like the adagio of the 8th the most. The 5th is maybe second. Then it is really close: 7th is great, 9th great, 3rd great, 4th great, 2nd great. The adagio of the sixth is great too, maybe just a little bit behind.


----------



## Heck148

Ned Low said:


> .....And who says this symphony doesn't appeal to Brucknarians? Can you even say you love Bruckner when you dont like his 7th symphony?


I love Bruckner - from #3 on [tho 5 doesn't really click with me]...#7 is the ultimate...."highly distilled"...Bruckner in his purest form - every movement is a winner - tho #9 is right up there, too..


> , as my friend Granate put it better than i can, the " Wagner Requiem" adagio of the 7th? How he builds up to the climax is unbelievable. You can reach an orgasm at the climax.


Yes,m #7/II is one of the greatest Adagios....beautifully built climax, tension and release...a great slow movement.



> Please listen to Haitink's recording of the 7th symphony( Royal Concertgebouw). It might change your mind


For 7/II - try Solti/CSO - probably the greatest, imo, tho Walter and von Matacic do it very well...for the actual climax itself - Tennstedt/CSO live from 5/84 is unbelievable!! I think Solti does an overall better job of building to the climax, Tennstedt is good, tho - and when the moment of orgasm arrives, it's totally cosmic...somehow the Herseth-led CSO trumpets find a whole other, extra level of dynamic energy - the ensuing crescendo is stunning, never heard anything like it...this was live, so I don't think there was any gain-riding, knob-twiddling going on - just sheer human power....
Tennstedt's whole performance is really excellent - tho he does some weird slowing down in the second part of the Scherzo A section, both times....it's OK, I just don't see the need for it....
For the gorgeous opening of this symphony - von Matacic/CzPO is tough to beat, let alone match....lovely long cello/horn line spins forth gloriously...
For the scherzo - Barenboim/CSO on DG - wonderful, beautifully recorded, great balance amongst the brass...the low brass having a wonderful time rolling out the descending scale lines, and everyone generally having a rollicking good time of it!!


----------



## Heck148

Aries said:


> I don't like the Lohengrin Ouvertüre as much as his other Ouvertüres.


Try Toscanini/NBC, or Reiner /CSO - both exquisite....quite magical - the NBC string _divisi_ are superb....


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Ned Low said:


> When i listen to these, i cant help but wonder why they're not popular or appreciated enough
> Bruckner 3,5 and 6
> Sibelius 3
> Hans Rott 1
> Schubert 1-3
> Dvorak 1,3 and 4
> Richard Wetz 1-3
> Liszt Dante and Faust symphonies
> Weber 1and 2
> Tchaikovsky 1 and 2


Very much agree re. Sibelius 3. For me, it's the first one in which he found his own 'voice'.


----------



## Ned Low

Pat Fairlea said:


> Very much agree re. Sibelius 3. For me, it's the first one in which he found his own 'voice'.


Once tears filled my ears whilst listening to the second movement of Sibelius 3rd . It's so beautiful


----------



## Agamenon

Oh my God, this again...

*Overrated:*

-Beethoven 8
-Schubert 9
-Tchaikovsky 4 and 5.
-Dvorak 9
-Mahler 4, 6 and 8
-Bruckner 5

*Underrated:*

+Brahms 3
+Dvorak 7
+Bruckner 7
+Shostakovich 4 and 15 (both, vastly underrated)


----------



## Aries

Heck148 said:


> I love Bruckner - from #3 on [tho 5 doesn't really click with me]...#7 is the ultimate...."highly distilled"...Bruckner in his purest form - every movement is a winner


Hm, well "overrated" seems to be a wrong term for the 7th. Bruckner is my favourite composer and I really like the 7th too. But I just don't share this opinion that the 7th sticks out at the top and the 2nd doesn't belong to his great symphonies.

The second is just missing a big fortissimo main theme (a bit like the 7th). But it has this fortissimo rhythm and lovely motives. This stuff comes very often into my mind when I am in the nature.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I consider myself a Brucknerian and my ranking is:

8
5
7
9
6
4
3
2
0
1
00

The 7th is the most lyrical symphony, and represents Bruckner at his most approachable. But the 8th and 5th are, IMO, his dual magnum opus, with the 8th being my all-time favorite symphony. I don’t like 9 and 4 as much as many seem to, but they’re still fantastic.


----------



## Aries

I think this is my Bruckner ranking:
8
4/3/9/5
2/7
6
0
00/1


----------



## Heck148

Aries said:


> Hm, well "overrated" seems to be a wrong term for the 7th. Bruckner is my favourite composer and I really like the 7th too. But I just don't share this opinion that the 7th sticks out at the top and the 2nd doesn't belong to his great symphonies.
> 
> The second is just missing a big fortissimo main theme (a bit like the 7th). But it has this fortissimo rhythm and lovely motives. This stuff comes very often into my mind when I am in the nature.


I don't know B2 very well...heard it a few times...I'll have to re-visit...


----------



## consuono

There's probably a lot of "underratedness" among Mozart's first 34, or Haydn's first 70 or so, or Schubert's 1-7. I certainly don't know as much about them as I should. Also probably Sibelius' first, third and fourth; Bruckner's before the 4th; most of Dvorak's, most of Nielsen's, and Prokofiev's. And I still think Schumann's four are a little underrated, but that's just me. To each his own and all.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> There's probably a lot of "underratedness" among Mozart's first 34 ...
> I still think Schumann's four are a little underrated, but that's just me.


I like the melodies of K.134/ii (21th), K.181 (23th), K.202 (30th), but I would say K.183 (25th), K.184/ii (26th), K.201 (29th), K.297 (31th), K.338 (34th) are ones that "stand out" from the rest.
K.183, K.184/ii were written in 1773; they lack the maturity of later Mozart, but (like his other works of the year, K.167, K.173, K.174 ), the harmonies still make them unique from the works of his contemporaries, who all also wrote "10-minute symphonies" during their time.








 (this seems to anticipate K.477, which would be written 12 years later).
K.201 (1774): the first movements of K.183 and K.201 were featured in the movie Amadeus, and the last movement of K.201 seems rigorously written, in terms of part-writing, to me. 




K.297 contains interesting harmonic "surprises" (Mozart probably considered it important; he re-wrote the slow movement), -I would say its his "first" mature symphony.









I tend to rate K.385 (35th) lower than its "neighbors", K.338 (34th) and K.425 (36th), (I heard you saying once K.385 is one of your favorite Mozart symphonies). To me, K.385 seems to be a bit too much about jokes, (like Joseph Haydn's, but I think Mozart is quite different from Joseph in use of jokes ** ) and its slow movement lacks the qualities of K.338/ii and K.425/ii. I like how K.425/ii contains "darker colors" in its extensive development, and K.338/ii is so serene, as if it's the "Lohengrin prelude of the late 18th century".
I agree with you about Schumann's.

**


hammeredklavier said:


> Overall, I think Joseph Haydn is rather obsessed with monothematicism in the sonata form. He often focuses on timber, phrase structure and dynamics (for sudden shock effects) in the "jokes" he makes. Mozart often does his with harmony or counterpoint (in a rather "hey-look-what-I-can-do" sort of attitude).


----------



## Dimace

Jacck said:


> I quite like the 1st symphony, more so than the 2nd and 3rd. But it is just purely subjective, I have no musicology education to make an expert analysis.


Exactly like Tchaikovsky's 1st. I like it a lot, but, as a structure (technically speaking) is weak. (in comparison, Brahms 1st is technically SUPER. It is clear the the German knew the form of the classical symphony) Details, to make conversation, after all. All these symphonies are masterpieces of very big composers.


----------



## Ned Low

consuono said:


> There's probably a lot of "underratedness" among Mozart's first 34, or Haydn's first 70 or so, or Schubert's 1-7. I certainly don't know as much about them as I should. Also probably Sibelius' first, third and fourth; Bruckner's before the 4th; most of Dvorak's, most of Nielsen's, and Prokofiev's. And I still think Schumann's four are a little underrated, but that's just me. To each his own and all.


Everything Schubert did is underrated.


----------



## Dimace

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I consider myself a Brucknerian and my ranking is:
> 
> 8
> 5
> 7
> 9
> 6
> 4
> 3
> 2
> 0
> 1
> 00
> 
> The 7th is the most lyrical symphony, and represents Bruckner at his most approachable. But the 8th and 5th are, IMO, his dual magnum opus, with the 8th being my all-time favorite symphony. I don't like 9 and 4 as much as many seem to, *but they're still fantastic.*


This is the correct way to write down our opinion. ''I don't like something, but is great.'' (I don't especially like Das Lied von der Erde! Blasphemy, but is true. The greatest Mahler's work. A masterpiece for the centuries.)


----------



## larold

I think it likely if you have heard of a symphony it is not overrated.


----------



## Axter

May I instead of 1 overrated, just mention 2 underrated?

Vaughan Williams symphony 8.
Bruckner’s “Nullte” symohony 0.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> There's probably a lot of "underratedness" among Mozart's first 34, or Haydn's first 70 or so


One thing I would like to comment about Mozart and J. Haydn's output of symphonies:
in many of Mozart's symphonies, the length is considerably shorter and more overture-like, 
and, the 2nd, 3rd, 11th, 37th have been proven to be written by other composers; so Mozart wrote less than 40 "authentic" symphonies. (The same can be said about "Mozart's 22 operas"; about 6 of them are works written in collaboration with other composers (ex. K.592a), or incidental music (ex. K.345), or short operas (ex. K.486), incomplete operas (ex. K.344), etc).
Whereas in J. Haydn, it's much harder to find an "overture-like symphony", especially in his middle and late years.
I think Mozart follows the example of C.P.E Bach, J.C. Bach, M. Haydn more in this regard.
So even though we often say "Mozart's 40 symphonies and J. Haydn's 100 symphonies"; in fact on the average, many of those 40 symphonies of Mozart don't have the same "weight" as those of J. Haydn.












> "There are also several "unnumbered" symphonies from this time period. Many of them were given numbers past 41 (but not in chronological order) in an older collection of Mozart's works (Mozart-Werke, 1877-1910, referred to as "GA"), but newer collections refer to them only by their entries in the Köchel catalogue. Many of these cannot be definitively established as having been written by Mozart."


----------



## Pianomaniac

Mahler 7 for sure. Listen to Solti conducting it right now and suddenly realize what gorgeous music it is. Really blown away. I know that others know already, but I didn’t. Will have to check out more of it in the very near future.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Becca said:


> At least the RVW 1st has a toehold in the standard repertoire which is more than can be said for (e.g.) Bantock's Hebridean or Pagan
> As to overrated, Schubert's Great (whichever number you wish to use for it)


I think it was in response to a post from you (about my dipping a toe into Parry and Stanford) that I also started to listen to Bantock.

What I have been surprised by with all of these is how their symphonies are not heavy, turgid (Victorian) offerings, but are (to my ears) often frothy and delicately orchestrated. So thank you.

And, they are all underrated.


----------



## hammeredklavier




----------



## consuono

Dimace said:


> This is the correct way to write down our opinion. ''I don't like something, but is great.'' (I don't especially like Das Lied von der Erde! Blasphemy, but is true. The greatest Mahler's work. A masterpiece for the centuries.)


You know, I'm not crazy about Das Lied either, at least not as much as I was way back when. There are loads of interesting things musically in it, but overall it just seems "wallowy" or something, as Mahler can often be. I still wouldn't call it "overrated".


hammeredklavier said:


> One thing I would like to comment about Mozart and J. Haydn's output of symphonies:
> in many of Mozart's symphonies, the length is considerably shorter and more overture-like,
> and, the 2nd, 3rd, 11th, 37th have been proven to be written by other composers; so Mozart wrote less than 40 "authentic" symphonies.


Well I'll take your word for it, but still there may be some things there worth hearing that are ignored. Anyway I'm finding that's the case with his earlier piano concertos that I maybe "undervalued" out of ignorance.


----------



## ArtMusic

*Joseph Martin Kraus* (20 June 1756 - 15 December 1792)


----------



## learner

please help me learn! what is Fibich - 3rd and Magnard -4.....


----------



## Art Rock

learner said:


> please help me learn! what is Fibich - 3rd and Magnard -4.....


Fibich - Symphony No.3 and Magnard - Symphony No. 4.


----------



## Dimace

Art Rock said:


> *Fibich* - Symphony No.3 and Magnard - Symphony No. 4.


Listen (not you personally, my dear Art, but all our friends) the 2nd movement of his 2nd. MASSIVE! Love pure. Fibich is BIG composer.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Ned Low said:


> When i listen to these, i cant help but wonder why they're not popular or appreciated enough
> Bruckner 3,5 and 6


I'd have thought that the 5th was about #4 in popular appreciation (after 4,7,8) and maybe higher among aficionados, which seems an o.k. rating. 
I tend to agree with the 3rd which even as a newbie and in its rather truncated common version I preferred to #4. I think the 6th is by now mostly rated appropriately (middle of the pack). For me #4 and #8 are overrated but this popularity is quite understandable.



> Hans Rott 1


This was the great dark horse in the 1990s when I first got into international fora discussing classical music. While it has deserved the recognition and (re)discovery, I think by now it might be closer to being overrated (as Proto-Mahler etc.) 



> Schubert 1-3


Maybe a bit, compared to #5 (overrated, my favs of 1-6 are 2 and 3), overall I think early Schubert symphonies are rated o.k. or even overrated. There is hardly any body of work by such a young composer that has comparably many high level recordings and performances, not even close (cf. e.g. Mendelssohn's string symphonies or #1 all of which are quite obscure). Because of their charm and technical fluency this is understandable, of course.



> Weber 1and 2
> Tchaikovsky 1 and 2


The Weber symphonies are worth once in a while but with the expecations a listener might have formed from his late great opera ouvertures, they are bound to disappoint.
The most underrated Tchaikovsky seems #3 to me as it appears to be less popular than 1+2.


----------



## HerbertNorman

Ned Low said:


> Everything Schubert did is underrated.


agreed ... In my case, all the technical stuff and the orchestration aside, his music speaks to me directly ... I don't care about the music being challenging for the listener or more importantly the performer,... This was a very young man creating works of art , some of them unsurpassed in my opinion.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

underrated>>>>

Haydn: Symphony 38 "Echo"
Schubert: Symphony 5
Beethoven: Symphony 2
Sibelius: Symphony 6

overrated>>>>

Mozart: Symphony 40
Schumann: Symphony 4
Vaughan Williams: Symphony 4
Shostakovich: Symphony 10


----------



## Kreisler jr

Allerius said:


> I think that the "Fanstatique" is the most original of all first symphonies ever composed - a great achievement for the 27 year old Berlioz. Yet, it's my opinion that it's popularity overshadows other great works by him, including symphonic works, what has been called "the Four Seasons effect" by another member if I recall correctly. I love Berlioz and would like that his symphonies No. 3 "Roméo et Juliette" and No. 4 "Funèbre et Triomphale" had a comparable status to that of his No. 1 for most people. For me, these two are severely underrated, while perhaps the "Fantastique" is slightly overrated, but don't take me wrong: I think that it's a great work!


TBH I have probably never heard the "Funèbre et Triomphale" but it certainly seems underrated as it is very obscure and rarely played or recorded. As for R&J I think that it has some of Berlioz' best instrumental music (I think the Dance at Capulet is better than "un bal" and the love scene is better than the slow mvmt. of the Fantastique and the "Mab" scherzo far superior to marche or finale of SF - my overall favorite Berlioz is La Damnation but I know the choral music and Les troyens only superficially and the other operas not at all). But the hybrid thing of 90 min with choirs but no singing rôles for the protagonists is such a strange beast that its mixed success is understandable. However, I have the impression that earlier, up until the 1970s or so, a 4-5 mvtm. orchestral suite from R&J was more popular and played/recorded somewhat frequently. This practice might boost R&J a bit but has fallen out of favor.


----------



## hammeredklavier

These passages are just gorgeous:




 ( 8:56 , 10:13  )




 ( 13:38  )


----------



## Coach G

I think that _Symphony #19 "Vishnu"_ by Alan Hovhaness is underrated. A short excerpt from it was used in the original _Cosmos_ TV series with Carl Sagan back in the 1980s. As far as I know only one recording of it exists conducted by the composer; and the sound technology on that recording is a bit murky. _Vishnu_ is a sound-spectacular, a half hour of blaring horns, whirling strings, and celestial percussion; on an Armenian-flavored cosmic journey. It certainly deserves as much attention as Khachaturian's _Symphony #2_, also Armenian-flavored and in one movement. So if you're reading this, Gustavo Dudamel, please take notice.


----------



## Jacck

I listened to the Suk first symphony lately, and I really enjoyed it. Many people know the Asrael symphony, so that one is probably not underrated, but the first symphony is much less known. I think it is quite melodious.


----------



## Jacck

Julius Bittner (1874-1939 ) : Symphony Nº1 in F minor (1923)





a symphony that is not only underrated, but practically unknown. Bittner was an Austrian composer, a contemporary and close friend of Mahler. Personally, I like this symphony more than any from Mahler. I think it is both pretty melodious and musically original


----------



## TC2

Overrated (i.e. I like less than most people):

Mahler 9: The inner movements are great. The outer movements have some powerful moments but are Mahler at his least disciplined and long-winded. He needed a good editor.

Mahler 2: Like Mahler 9, good inner movements, undisciplined outer movements. Plus he doesn’t handle the chorus very well in the last movement, which pales next to Beethoven 9. Sure, that’s a high standard, but that’s what he was aiming for. He missed.

Bruckner 4: I’ve heard this called his most accessible. Not even close. That would be the 7th. The 4th bored me to death when I was a beginner. It still does.

Bruckner 8: I admit that I need to give this a few more chances to try to assimilate it fully, but as of right now, I find it too long-winded and undisciplined.

Shostakovich 7: Shostakovich at his most Mahlerian, which is to say his least disciplined. Interminable.

Brahms 1: Stodgy. Nowhere as good as 3 or 4.

Franck D minor: Not rated very highly to start with, but still overrated. Just awful.

Dvorak 7: Not bad, but too derivative of Brahms. 8 and 9 actually sound like Dvorak.

Haydn 103 (Drum Roll): I am a Haydn junkie, but I don’t understand how this gets more attention than some of the other London symphonies. Not bad, but not one of the better of the set. I’ll take 93, 95, 99, and 102 over this every time.


Underrated:

Martinu 4: People sometimes complain that Martinu’s symphonies (except 3) all sound similar. Well, the 4th is where he got that sound-world just right. Powerful stuff. Not just his best, but one of the 20th century’s best, in my opinion.

Bizet: Often admired, but also labeled as youthfully lightweight. I disagree with that label.

Berwald 3 (Singulière): So pleasant!

Milhaud 1: So pleasant!

Honegger 4: So pleasant! But with some depth too.

Walton 1: The best British symphony? Certainly much superior to the Elgar symphonies.

Mozart 39: Only slightly underrated, but undeservedly overshadowed by its contemporaries, 40 and 41. I listen to it more than both of those. There’s something noble about it.

Shostakovich 9: Often dismissed as lightweight by the Mahlerians who see Shostakovich as Mahler’s heir. Less praised than its neoclassical peer, Prokofiev 1. However, it’s at least as good as the latter, and shows that Shostakovich knew how to be disciplined when he wanted to.

Shostakovich Symphony for Strings (op. 118a, from quartet #10): Shostakovich’s friend Rudolf Barshai arranged (with the composer’s approval) several of Shostakovich’s quartets for full orchestral strings. Some of them don’t work as well with full strings. (E.g. the orchestration of quartet #8.) This one does work. Big time.


----------



## haziz

Ned Low said:


> When i listen to these, i cant help but wonder why they're not popular or appreciated enough
> Bruckner 3,5 and 6
> Sibelius 3
> Hans Rott 1
> Schubert 1-3
> Dvorak 1,3 and 4
> Richard Wetz 1-3
> Liszt Dante and Faust symphonies
> Weber 1and 2
> Tchaikovsky 1 and 2


As someone who has wrestled with Bruckner over the years, and who may have finally moved his Symphony No. 4 from my personal "instrument of torture" column to my "listenable" column recently, but it is still far from my "enjoyable" column. The remaining symphonies remain as methods of torture as far as I am concerned. I do think Bruckner's entire symphonic output is overrated, judging by the adulation he receives on this forum as well as the number of complete cycles of his symphonies available on the marketplace.

I totally agree with you about Tchaikovsky, but would also include his symphony No. 3 as underrated. I find all of his numbered symphonies, 1 through 6 to be magnificent. Somehow, I have never warmed up to Manfred.


----------



## larold

I think if you know and listen to a symphony it is probably not overrated or underrated. I think some are or were overplayed or lost fashion. Some of those might be:

-- Mendelssohn "Italian" which I think charming but with none of the passion of either his Lobgesang or Fifth symphonies.

-- Just about any Mahler symphony not No. 5. They all have some kind of problem either with editions, content, duration or ending. Yet they are the world's most popular symphonies right now.

-- Great romantic symphonies popular a half-century ago, like the Schbert Great C major and Franck in D, are no longer played in concert much...or ever.

-- Even though there are a number of whole sets of his symphonies Haydn's "London" symphonies are still overplayed and everything before No. 88 underplayed.


----------



## Kreisler jr

TC2 said:


> Mahler 2: Like Mahler 9, good inner movements, undisciplined outer movements. Plus he doesn't handle the chorus very well in the last movement, which pales next to Beethoven 9. Sure, that's a high standard, but that's what he was aiming for. He missed.


The last movement was already a problem in Mahler's 1st but more excusable in a youthful work and still not quite as long and pretentious. I like the first movement quite bit though and don't find it overlong (although it also pales vs. Beethoven's 9th but again this seems an unfair standard).



> Bruckner 4: I've heard this called his most accessible. Not even close. That would be the 7th. The 4th bored me to death when I was a beginner. It still does.
> 
> Bruckner 8: I admit that I need to give this a few more chances to try to assimilate it fully, but as of right now, I find it too long-winded and undisciplined.


I also find the 7th the best Bruckner for beginners and never quite understood the fondness people had for the 4th (I got the 3rd and 4th at the same time on CD in my late teens and preferred #3 from the beginning), and the 8th is very good but I find it slightly overrated compared to 5,7,9.



> Shostakovich 7: Shostakovich at his most Mahlerian, which is to say his least disciplined. Interminable.


I would not call it Mahlerian, but it would be my candidate for the most overrated (almost) standard rep symphony. Without the tragic war story this piece would collect dust in the archives like is 2nd or 3rd.



> Dvorak 7: Not bad, but too derivative of Brahms. 8 and 9 actually sound like Dvorak.


It's more derivative of Brahms but I do not think this a bad thing and it still sounds sufficiently like Dvorak for me. 



> Haydn 103 (Drum Roll): I am a Haydn junkie, but I don't understand how this gets more attention than some of the other London symphonies. Not bad, but not one of the better of the set. I'll take 93, 95, 99, and 102 over this every time.


Disagree, the weakest of the first London set is 96 and the weakest of the second one is #100. I agree that 99 and 102 should be better known but 103 is deservedly famous. Quite unique first movement and finale and the picturesque "gypsy funeral march" is also highly original.



> Mozart 39: Only slightly underrated, but undeservedly overshadowed by its contemporaries, 40 and 41.


It's dragged down a bit my the rather light and conventional movements 3 and 4 (but it was apparently quite popular even in the early 19th century when it was sometimes called "Swansong"). Its first movement is probably my favorite first movement among his last three. My favorite Mozart symphony is #38 K 504, though. For slightly underrated I'd probably nominate his 33 K 319 and 34 K 338.


----------



## TC2

Kreisler jr said:


> Disagree, the weakest of the first London set is 96 and the weakest of the second one is #100. I agree that 99 and 102 should be better known but 103 is deservedly famous. Quite unique first movement and finale and the picturesque "gypsy funeral march" is also highly original.


Agreed that 96 and 100 probably also belong on the overrated list.



Kreisler jr said:


> It's dragged down a bit my the rather light and conventional movements 3 and 4 (but it was apparently quite popular even in the early 19th century when it was sometimes called "Swansong"). Its first movement is probably my favorite first movement among his last three. My favorite Mozart symphony is #38 K 504, though. For slightly underrated I'd probably nominate his 33 K 319 and 34 K 338.


For the 4th movement, try Kubelik's Bavarian RSO recording. He brings out the nobility in it.

For the 3rd movement, it needs to be taken 1-to-a-bar without being _too_ fast. (Mackerras rushes it, which is why his Prague 39 is one of my least favorite of that set. Kubelik, on the other hand, is too slow.) I admit that I am still looking for my perfect recording of this movement, but I have it in my head.


----------



## Ned Low

haziz said:


> As someone who has wrestled with Bruckner over the years, and who may have finally moved his Symphony No. 4 from my personal "instrument of torture" column to my "listenable" column recently, but it is still far from my "enjoyable" column. The remaining symphonies remain as methods of torture as far as I am concerned. I do think Bruckner's entire symphonic output is overrated, judging by the adulation he receives on this forum as well as the number of complete cycles of his symphonies available on the marketplace.


Well, in my humble opinion, of all mainstream composers, Bruckner is the one i don't see quite often recorded or performed. For instance, it would take you years to listen to most of Ludwig van's symphony cycles. Mahler symphonies are performed quite often all around the word. Not to mention thenumber of recorded ones. Yet how many Bruckner symphonies are being recorded at the moment? Thielemann's set with Vienna will be out in 2024. Andris Nelsons has recorded symphonies 2,3,4,6,7,8, and 9. He's yet to do the first and the fifth. I don 't know when he will precisely finish his cycle with Gewandhaus given that he's too preoccupied with Shostokovich and others. But that's just two as far as i know.


----------



## haziz

Ned Low said:


> Well, in my humble opinion, of all mainstream composers, Bruckner is the one i don't see quite often recorded or performed. For instance, it would take you years to listen to most of Ludwig van's symphony cycles. Mahler symphonies are performed quite often all around the word. Not to mention thenumber of recorded ones. Yet how many Bruckner symphonies are being recorded at the moment? Thielemann's set with Vienna will be out in 2024. Andris Nelsons has recorded symphonies 2,3,4,6,7,8, and 9. He's yet to do the first and the fifth. I don 't know when he will precisely finish his cycle with Gewandhaus given that he's too preoccupied with Shostokovich and others. But that's just two as far as i know.


Well I have recently bought the Wand, Chailly, and *both* Jochum cycles. I already own Karajan's cycle (actually 2 copies of it - my Karajan cycle got duplicated when I bought Karajan's Symphonies box a few years ago), and I have barely scratched the surface of what's available in the marketplace. I also have largely shifted to streaming services, but these are actual purchases of physical discs. This is for a composer whose music I dislike! I am not sure I understand my own thinking, either!


----------



## amfortas

haziz said:


> I am not sure I understand my own thinking, either!


Don't feel bad; you're not alone. No one else understands your thinking.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Just one pair for now:

Overrated: Rachmaninov 2
Underrated: Sibelius 3


----------



## hammeredklavier

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Overrated: Rachmaninov 2


Whatabout Rachmaninoff 5?


----------



## amfortas

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Just one pair for now:
> 
> Overrated: Rachmaninov 2
> Underrated: Sibelius 3


Sibelius 3! :guitar:

(Not to be confused with Lars-Erik Larsson's Pastoral Suite, whose opening movement always strikes me as a blatant ripoff of the Sibelius. But maybe that's just me.) :scold:


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

hammeredklavier said:


> Whatabout Rachmaninoff 5?


Unfortunately, he didn't live long enough for that.


----------



## hammeredklavier

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Unfortunately, he didn't live long enough for that.


I was just joking about


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

hammeredklavier said:


> I was just joking about


I didn't know about this.


----------



## Heck148

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Just one pair for now:
> 
> Overrated: Rachmaninov 2
> ........


Absolutely!! Way over-rated, over- programmed....


----------



## haziz

Heck148 said:


> Absolutely!! Way over-rated, over- programmed....


I am assuming you are being sarcastic. When was the last time you saw Rachmaninoff's second symphony on a program?

Oops .... Not sure if TwoFlutesOneTrumpet meant the symphony or the piano concerto?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

haziz said:


> I am assuming you are being sarcastic. When was the last time you saw Rachmaninoff's second symphony on a program?
> 
> Oops .... Not sure if TwoFluetsOneTrumpet meant the symphony or the piano concerto?


I think by programmed he meant included in a performance and I meant the symphony; after all, this is a thread about symphonies.


----------



## Heck148

haziz said:


> I am assuming you are being sarcastic. When was the last time you saw Rachmaninoff's second symphony on a program?


Way too often...every new conductor always had to run it out....I've played that #@&#=÷×><!! piece so many times..


----------



## Heck148

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I think by programmed he meant included in a performance and I meant the symphony; after all, this is a thread about symphonies.


Right, tho i can do without the concerti as well...


----------



## haziz

Heck148 said:


> Way too often...every new conductor always had to run it out....I've played that #@&#=÷×><!! piece so many times..


I wish my local regional orchestra here in Western Massachusetts, or for that matter the BSO did program the Rachmaninoff second symphony more often (as opposed to never)! The concerto would also be welcome. Indeed an all Rachmaninoff concert with both compositions would be about perfect, but then I am a big fan of the composer!


----------



## Neo Romanza

A few off the top of my head:

Overrated: Bruckner _Symphony No. 4 in E-flat major, WAB 104_
Underrated: Bruckner _Symphony No. 6 in A major, WAB 106_

-----------------------------------------

Overrated: Shostakovich _Symphony No. 5 in D minor, Op. 47_
Underrated: Shostakovich _Symphony No. 4 in C minor, Op. 43_

-----------------------------------------

Overrated: Sibelius _Symphony No. 5 in E-flat major, Op. 82_
Underrated: Sibelius _Symphony No. 4 in A minor, Op. 63_

-----------------------------------------

Overrated: Mahler _Symphony No. 4 in G major_
Underrated: Mahler _Symphony No. 3 in D Minor_

-----------------------------------------

Overrated: Nielsen _Symphony No. 4, Op. 29, FS 76, "The Inextinguishable"_
Underrated: Nielsen _Symphony No. 6 , FS 116, "Sinfonia semplice"_

-----------------------------------------

Overrated: Dvořák _Symphony No. 9 in E minor, "From the New World", Op. 95, B. 178_
Underrated: Dvořák _Symphony No. 4 in D minor, Op. 13, B. 41_

*A special note* My reasoning for my own choices is to illustrate a point that great symphonies are neglected as much as they are overplayed, but just because a work is overplayed doesn't mean it's _bad_ or doesn't hold value for the listener.


----------



## Torkelburger

Shosty 4 underrated? I thought it was one of his most popular. IMO, people underrate the 6th and the 9th. It's rare to come across anyone who has even heard the 6th and if so, they probably think it's boring. And the 9th isn't "serious" enough. I love them both, especially the 6th. I don't mind the extremely long first movement and to me it is some of the most expressive, passionate, and musical music the man ever wrote (or anyone in the 20th century).


----------



## Neo Romanza

Torkelburger said:


> Shosty 4 underrated? I thought it was one of his most popular. IMO, people underrate the 6th and the 9th. It's rare to come across anyone who has even heard the 6th and if so, they probably think it's boring. And the 9th isn't "serious" enough. I love them both, especially the 6th. I don't mind the extremely long first movement and to me it is some of the most expressive, passionate, and musical music the man ever wrote (or anyone in the 20th century).


Ask someone who goes to a good many classical concerts what they think of Shostakovich's 4th and I'm sure you'll be greeted with a dumbfounded expression. I'm not thinking about listeners like _us_, but more about listeners like _them_. I love the 6th and 9th, too. Hell, I love most of them with the exception of perhaps the 3rd and 12th.


----------



## Heck148

haziz said:


> I wish my local regional orchestra here in Western Massachusetts, or for that matter the BSO did program the Rachmaninoff second symphony more often (as opposed to never)!


Sorry, i find Rach-y to be about a 4th string composer....don't listen to it, really dislike playing it, but to each his own....enjoy....


----------



## Heck148

Torkelburger said:


> .......IMO, people underrate the 6th and the 9th. It's rare to come across anyone who has even heard the 6th and if so, they probably think it's boring. And the 9th isn't "serious" enough. I love them both, especially the 6th..


Both Shost 6 and 9 are terrific works....how can a bassoonist not like #9!! lol!!


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Neo Romanza said:


> A few off the top of my head:
> 
> Overrated: Bruckner _Symphony No. 4 in E-flat major, WAB 104_
> Underrated: Bruckner _Symphony No. 6 in A major, WAB 106_
> 
> -----------------------------------------
> 
> Overrated: Shostakovich _Symphony No. 5 in D minor, Op. 47_
> Underrated: Shostakovich _Symphony No. 4 in C minor, Op. 43_
> 
> -----------------------------------------
> 
> Overrated: Sibelius _Symphony No. 5 in E-flat major, Op. 82_
> Underrated: Sibelius _Symphony No. 4 in A minor, Op. 63_
> 
> -----------------------------------------
> 
> Overrated: Mahler _Symphony No. 4 in G major_
> Underrated: Mahler _Symphony No. 3 in D Minor_
> 
> -----------------------------------------
> 
> Overrated: Nielsen _Symphony No. 4, Op. 29, FS 76, "The Inextinguishable"_
> Underrated: Nielsen _Symphony No. 6 , FS 116, "Sinfonia semplice"_
> 
> -----------------------------------------
> 
> Overrated: Dvořák _Symphony No. 9 in E minor, "From the New World", Op. 95, B. 178_
> Underrated: Dvořák _Symphony No. 4 in D minor, Op. 13, B. 41_
> 
> *A special note* My reasoning for my own choices is to illustrate a point that great symphonies are neglected as much as they are overplayed, but just because a work is overplayed doesn't mean it's _bad_ or doesn't hold value for the listener.


Agree with all of your underrated choices but only with Mahler 4th in the overrated section.


----------



## jacobbler

Underrated:
Tchaikovsky 2
Nielsen 2
Bruckner 5
Elgar 2

Overrated:
Mozart 39
Shostakovich 15
Beethoven 3 (still outstanding though! Just maybe not greatest of all time like I often hear)


----------



## techniquest

Overrated: Sibelius 5
Underrated: Sibelius 3 

Overrated: Tchaikovsky 5
Underrated: Tchaikovsky Manfred

Overrated: Mahler 5
Underrated: Mahler 7

Overrated: Vaughan Williams Sea Symphony
Underrated: Vaughan Williams Sinfonia Antartica

Overrated: Vaughan Williams' symphonic output
Underrated: Malcolm Arnold's symphonic output

Overrated: Rachmaninov 2
Underrated: Rachmaninov 1

Overrated: Prokofiev 6
Underrated: Prokofiev 2

But I like them all anyway


----------



## chipia

Although there is a lot I like about Beethoven's 5th symphony, the 2nd movement seems very overrated to me. I think Glenn Gould was right when he called out its banality.


----------



## Kreisler jr

On the contrary, I think this is an underrated movement. 
The way it holds up the overall tension with the passages prefiguring the triumph but "collapsing" into silence again and the overall mood between repose, hope, fear and "call to action" makes it quite extraordinary. Movements 2-4 in Beethoven's 5th have to be listened to in the context of the whole, otherwise the finale might appear even more "banal" than the Andante.


----------



## David Phillips

Overrated:
Mahler
R. Strauss
Stravinsky
Shostakovich

Underrated:
Bax
F. Schmidt
E.J.Moeran
Roussel


----------



## mmsbls

I'm not sure any music is actually overrated. In my view music that has a great reputation has that reputation for good reasons. There's likely lots of underrated music simply because people can't or don't listen to all the wonderful music out there. 

For underrated I would mention Tallis's Spem in alium. It's considered a wonderful piece, but I think it's a bit better than that. In general Renaissance music may be strongly underrated. 

I think TC overall rates Mozart's Symphony No. 41 reasonably correctly, but based on this thread, I think that symphony is grossly underrated.


----------



## JohnP

Underrated: Magnard 4
Overrated: Franck


----------



## Ethereality

jacobbler said:


> Beethoven 3 (still outstanding though! Just maybe not greatest of all time like I often hear)


I have to wholeheartedly disagree that that is nonsense. The 3rd and the 6th are the greatest symphonies ever created. It's the 9th that is overrated.


----------



## Xisten267

I don't know about overrated, but I do think that Alfvén's no. 4, Nepomuceno's in G minor and Hovhaness' no. 50 are surely great works that deserved to be played more often. Beethoven's _Choral_ is correctly rated as one the most groundbreaking and influential symphonies of all times in my opinion, although I may agree that it's overplayed.


----------



## hammeredklavier

also interesting are certain "resemblances" between the movements: 
-mov.1 seems to share this motif [2:43] with mov.2 [6:38], and mov.4 ("inverted" horizontally) [15:57].
-the contrapuntal passages of mov.1 [2:09 (2:27)] and mov.4 [19:17 (19:30)].
mov.3 ends with a coda (rather than a da capo), kind of like Beethoven's scherzos.





2:37 (2:44)













6:48


----------



## Kreisler jr

Ethereality said:


> I have to wholeheartedly disagree that that is nonsense. The 3rd and the 6th are the greatest symphonies ever created. It's the 9th that is overrated.


In which way do you think are Beethoven's 3rd or 6th better/greater than the 9th?


----------



## hammeredklavier

the use of inner voices





 the harmonies at 7:31, 7:36




 the melodic charm


----------



## 59540

,.....,.............,deleted....


----------



## 59540

Beethoven's 4th and 8th, and Mahler's 7th. Underrated, I mean.


----------



## qfcbv

Overrated: Mozart 41, Beethoven 9, Haydn 104, Haydn 94 (94 is actually pretty good, but there are way better Haydn symphonies)
Underrated: A lot of Boccherini symphonies, Haydn 6, Haydn 49, Haydn 93 (sorry because I was having a music-binge on Haydn last year)


----------



## hammeredklavier

qfcbv said:


> Underrated: A lot of Boccherini symphonies


I'm not sure if they're really underrated, but the way this symphony is "cyclic" (the outer movements' slow intros) grabs my attention:


----------



## Oortone

It was interesting to see that so many people think *Schubert's 9th* is overrated. I seldom see it listed in collections of "Greatest symphonies of all time e.t.c..." so is it really overrated?

Myself I think it's top ten of all time though and since I seldom see it in listings of the greatest *I will call it underrated*.
Yes, he was not a completely mature symphonic composer (from a post Viennese classical point of view) at the time but it's so full of genius that it is still enough. I love it above all from a contrapunctual point of view. It's lke a dense fabric of melodies, that are endlessly related over the course of the whole work and all boils down to the four straight unison quarter notes repeated four times in the final movement. I saw someone (negatively) compared him with Philip Glass, but that has some truth in it. Repetition is central to the piece. But then, I often like Philip Glass too... But I know it's common to think all repetition is trivial, I think not.

*Overrated. Brahms' symphines*. To me his music screams "look how able I am, I'm almost Beethoven". It's craftmanship, not art. Conductors love Brahms for precisely that reason, they like the craftmanship.


----------



## Oortone

chipia said:


> Although there is a lot I like about Beethoven's 5th symphony, the 2nd movement seems very overrated to me. I think Glenn Gould was right when he called out its banality.


No, the first and second movements are absolutely fabulous and Glenn Gould couldn't play Beethoven anyway. He didn't understand Beethoven.


----------



## Oortone

hammeredklavier said:


> ...
> 
> He's the only "great composer" who doesn't get criticized for writing mind-numbing 600+ pieces in one genre.
> I mean fking 600+... Please don't tell me they're all unique and distinctive.
> I mean look how Bach gets criticized for his cantatas and Vivaldi for his concertos..
> ...


Not that i know where Bach get's critizied for his cantatas but why does all 600 have to be great? I haven't even listened to 100 of them but found a lot of the songs absolutely amazing, they go straight to the heart. And I don't even like the piano/song-genre very much.

Are really all 600 of his songs performed regulary? If not then it's hardly correct to say they are all overrated.


----------



## SearsPoncho

*Underrated*:

Bizet - Symphony in C. Stokowski made a great recording of this. I believe it was his last recording.

Shostakovich - Symphony #11. Semyon Bychkov made a great recording of this with the Berlin Phil.. I've attended a few Bychkov Shostakovich concerts, and he was an excellent advocate for DSCH.

Lutoslawski - Symphony #3. Esa-Pekka Salonen and the L.A. Philharmonic made an extremely exciting recording. Well-known to people who follow modern music, however, the average classical audience knows little to nothing of the composer, which is why I would include it as underrated (Although it's hard to rate something if one has never heard it. Ah, I'm sticking to my guns and including it anyway.). Of the music I know, it's the greatest symphony of the last 40 years, but it's Lutoslawski. Not likely to be played at your average orchestra's subscription concerts.


----------



## Kreisler jr

SearsPoncho said:


> *Underrated*:
> Bizet - Symphony in C. Stokowski made a great recording of this. I believe it was his last recording.


The Bizet symphony is probably the most recorded and popular symphony of a composer otherwise famous for (mostly one) opera or maybe even the most popular French symphony after Berlioz' Fantastique; I don't think it is underrated at all.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Oortone said:


> Are really all 600 of his songs performed regulary? If not then it's hardly correct to say they are all overrated.


Please ignore my ravings in that post. At the time, I must have been ticked off by



Jacck said:


> Overrated: most Mozart symphonies


as I did in other threads, eg. https://www.talkclassical.com/64844-bruckner-genius-dunce-both-20.html#post1783006.
(Although, now that he's no longer with us, I actually wish I had respected his views more). 
But I still wonder who actually overrates stuff like:


hammeredklavier said:


> Isn't the bit at 1:00, for instance, nostalgic? - something Tchaikovsky might have meant by "caressing properties".


----------



## Botschaft

Oortone said:


> *Overrated. Brahms' symphines*. To me his music screams "look how able I am, I'm almost Beethoven". It's craftmanship, not art. Conductors love Brahms for precisely that reason, they like the craftmanship.


----------



## SearsPoncho

Kreisler jr said:


> The Bizet symphony is probably the most recorded and popular symphony of a composer otherwise famous for (mostly one) opera or maybe even the most popular French symphony after Berlioz' Fantastique; I don't think it is underrated at all.


I respectfully disagree with all your points, especially the assertion that it's "the most popular French symphony after Berlioz' Fantastique." I do respect and value your opinion, and if that's what you believe, so be it.


----------



## Kreisler jr

That's not really a personal opinion, it's just counting recordings and performances. There might be a case made for Saint Saens organ symphony, or some people will count Franck as French, and they are probably both slightly ahead of the Bizet in popularity, but that does not not change the point. It is a hugely popular piece that has been recorded dozens of times.
(Of course the point with the "opera composer" is not so easy to check; I am not even sure about other candidates, besides Cherubini and Wagner, whose symphonies are rather obscure.)
Admittedly, a bit before someone called Schubert's C major underrated, so you were outdone in abusing the term "underrated" 
OTOH I have hardly ever read a negative comment about the Bizet symphony whereas the Schubert has had its share of criticism, often misunderstanding Schumann's comments about the "heavenly length" of the piece.


----------



## SearsPoncho

Kreiser jr,

Are we really going to get into semantics...

You said, "That's not really a personal opinion," after informing us that "[you] don't think..." Furthermore, this entire thread asks us our what our opinions are.

"There might be a case made for Saint-Saens organ symphony..." Ya think? And if Franck is included it's probably _slightly_ ahead of the Bizet in popularity. Ya think? :lol:

I didn't want to really get into this because I truly do respect your opinions and enjoy reading your posts on the Weekly String Quartet thread, but I disagree with your entire analysis. Again, this is opinion, and I hope you will respect mine as I respect yours. This is about rating a work of art, which, in my mind, is a subjective exercise, and involves the quality of the work rather than how popular a piece is, or how many recordings have been made of it. Sometimes there's a correlation, sometimes there isn't one. Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture is frequently recorded and insanely popular, however, many classical music fans, possibly most, consider it fluff to be played at Pops concerts and on programs featuring crossover music. In other words, despite it's huge popularity, it doesn't "rate" very highly among the serious, long-haired critics of classical music, including Frasier and Niles Crane (extra points if you know that scene). Now, there might be a gentleman who believes it's a great, serious piece of orchestral music, up there with Beethoven, Brahms, Haydn, Mahler, Ravel, Bruckner and Tchaikovsky himself. If he believes it's underrated, that is his opinion, and is as real to him as your opinion is to you.

As for your assertions re: the popularity of Bizet's Symphony in C, I have been to hundreds of concerts and never seen it programmed. On the other hand, the Saint-Saens and Franck (if you want to count that) have been programmed in the second half of concerts I've attended, which is usually the spot for the big, meaty, serious, great stuff.

Let's just agree to disagree, ok? We have different opinions on the matter, as well as what the question even means.


----------



## adinfinitum

One symphony that is surely underrated is Bizet's other symphony in C, the 'Roma' symphony, which for some reason almost never gets mentioned even though it's a fine work, and in my opinion a more refined and enjoyable piece than Bizet's early effort in the genre.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Oortone said:


> To me his music screams "look how able I am, I'm almost Beethoven".


To me his music screams


----------



## hammeredklavier

Not sure if it's underrated, but worth a listen;


----------



## SanAntone

There are no overrated or underrated symphonies, these determinations are subjective and remain outside a comparative review. 

There are only well-known and lesser/unknown symphonies.


----------



## Heck148

SearsPoncho said:


> *Underrated*:
> 
> Shostakovich - Symphony #11. Semyon Bychkov made a great recording of this with the Berlin Phil.. I've attended a few Bychkov Shostakovich concerts, and he was an excellent advocate for DSCH.


I have that recording...it is good....I'll include it in my review of Symphony #11 in <<Powerhouse Shostakovich>> thread.

I heard Bychkov conduct Shost #8 in Chicago a few years back, he also did Bruckner 8 in the same visit....he is very good...


----------



## SearsPoncho

Heck148 said:


> I have that recording...it is good....I'll include it in my review of Symphony #11 in <<Powerhouse Shostakovich>> thread.
> 
> I heard Bychkov conduct Shost #8 in Chicago a few years back, he also did Bruckner 8 in the same visit....he is very good...


I attended a performance of Shostakovich's 10th by Bychkov and the Orchestre de Paris in 1991(?). It was the first time I ever heard that masterwork, and the performance was so powerful (and loud!) that the building shook. I've come to expect that from a good Shostakovich performance - the building must actually shake.


----------



## Heck148

SearsPoncho said:


> I attended a performance of Shostakovich's 10th by Bychkov and the Orchestre de Paris in 1991(?). It was the first time I ever heard that masterwork, and the performance was so powerful (and loud!) that the building shook. I've come to expect that from a good Shostakovich performance - the building must actually shake.


I agree!! that's why I require full throttle for Shostakovich performances, where needed.....85% is simply not good enough....

I've heard Boston Symphony Hall shake a couple of times:
Solti/CSO - Shost Sym #8
Masur/NYPO Shost Sym #5

I've played Shost #7 two different times...on one of the performances a section mate brought a decibel meter onstage - at the very end, with everything going full blast, extra brass, percussion, etc, his meter read 118db!! Yeh, it was loud!!:lol::tiphat:


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> There are no overrated or underrated symphonies, these determinations are subjective and remain outside a comparative review. There are only well-known and lesser/unknown symphonies.


I can understand what you're saying, but it's a bit troubling when the well-known "subjectivists" on this forum seem to use the "subjectivist argument" only when it suits them. Other times they betray their own precious philosophy by saying, for example, "lol, no wonder why this poll is so lopsided!" (in a poll on certain two brother composers), or "Critic A is right in saying only composers B, C, D were great in their time". If one believes in the theory that "everything is 100% subjective", I think he should consistently have the attitude in all topics, if he wants to be taken seriously by others.


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> I can understand what you're saying, but it's a bit troubling when the well-known "subjectivists" on this forum seem to use the "subjectivist argument" only when it suites them. Other times they betray their own precious philosophy by saying, for example, "lol, no wonder why this poll is so lopsided!" (in a poll on certain two brother composers), or "Critic A is right in saying only composers B, C, D were important in Era E". If one believes in the theory that everything is 100% subjective, I think he should consistently have the attitude in all topics, if he wants to be taken seriously by others.


You have me confused with a 100% subjectivist.  I just recently posted, in the last few days how I separate lists in my own mind of my favorite composers and those I consider great or those who have the potential to be great. Of course how we define "greatness" is somewhat subjective. I generally use the "test of time" as well as perceived impact or influence.

But I just don't enjoy threads/discussions about under- and over-rated composers or works. It strikes me as unkind as well as objectifying the composers, which I see as a by-product of the obsession of CD collecting.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> You have me confused with a 100% subjectivist.  I just recently posted, in the last few days how I separate lists in my own mind of my favorite composers and those I consider great or those who have the potential to be great. Of course how we define "greatness" is somewhat subjective. I generally use the "test of time" as well as perceived impact or influence.


But only people who believe in the existence of objectivity in various topics can say things like "lol, no wonder why this poll is so lopsided!" (in a poll "between A and B; who is greater?"), right? It is just another way of saying "there is _objective truth_ as to why people regard A greater than B".


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> But only people who believe in the existence of objectivity in various topics can say things like "lol, no wonder why this poll is so lopsided!" (in a poll "between A and B; who is greater?"), right? It is just another way of saying "there is _objective truth_ as to why people regard A greater than B".


I don't keep track of how people respond to poll questions, I only take a superficial interest in them unless the composers are of interest to me. And I don't much care if people think the result is lop-sided no matter the reason. I also don't much care about debates on objectivity vs subjective assessment of art or music.

What I think is that most lovers of Classical music have a blended subjective/quasi-objective approach to thinking about composers and works. Our appreciation of composers such as Mozart and Beethoven has been colored by the historical judgment (quasi-objective), made centuries ago. It is hard for us to have a clean-slate assessment, and to the extent someone might feel that they are over-rated it could be a rebellion against the saturation our culture has had with their music and genius labeling.


----------



## Kreisler jr

The "subjectivist" tend to believe that the common opinion that is connected to the rating and frequency of performances of pieces is also subjective at bottom. 
If this is true, there should be no problem comparing two values, both subjective. Namely a personal opinion (Dave H.) or group opinion (say typical late 20th century US East coast socialized music reviewers, or 1900 Viennese critics or whatever) is compared with an overall poll or performance statistics (which is subjective in the end because based on subjective personal opinions, or the vagaries of socio-musical history or whatever, not physics or a similar paragon of objective knowledge). So the ratio of Dave H's opinion on some early Haydn symphony and the average opinion or performance stats of Haydn's symphony #35 shows that this is underrated.

The objectivists also believe that we can make a reliable objective opinion poll or performance statistics but they also believe we can reasonably defend some notion of objective aesthetic quality (or musicohistorical relevance or whatever), so two objective values are compared. So in historical hindsight we could probably say that 1900-10 Viennese critics rather underrated Mahler's symphonies.

Both ways seem to me perfectly understandable and quite reasonable ways of speaking.


----------



## Heck148

One standard for over/underrated symphonies might be frequency of performance on orchestral programs...that's what I tend to use....
How much programming time are certain works given, as compared to other very worthwhile works??
For me, 3 symphonies receive vastly more programming time than they really merit....other very fine works are neglected, and the music-loving public denied a chance to hear them - Tchaikovsky Syms 4 and 5, and Rachm'noff Sym #2. to me, are way over-programmed. There are so many other works deserving of public presentation that are left out, because these warhorses are always given concert time...I consider these works "over-rated" based on programming time granted them.

I realize that there may be some concert-goers who would be perfectly happy to hear these three works, plus Dvorak 9, some Beethoven, Brahms, etc, over and over, in unending repetition....but to me, there are many under-rated works that are thus neglected on concert programs...
Of course, this is based on my own long orchestral experience....every time a new conductor, new hall, new orchestra, whatever, was initiated, the three warhorses soon made their programming appearance....every time, iirc...


----------



## HerbertNorman

In a few weeks, I am going to a concert where Brahms and Mendelssohn symphonies will be played... Works that I have heard countless times and which I enjoy thoroughly...
Before that there is RVW second symphony playing nearby... a concert that I would like to attend... This is a work that I have only heard live twice. I am looking forward to this more as it would be only the third time that I have heard this symphony played live! Is it underrated because it hasn't been played live that much (in my city or nearby)? I don't believe so. I know concerts are scheduled and organised and yes, often the pieces played are those that people (who are maybe not into classical that much) recognise or have heard of more , that are more "mainstream". The concert halls want to get people going to the concerts... I too was first drawn to classical music by pieces that are famous and mainstream (Eine Kleine Nachtmusik , etc...)

Overrated , underrated all very subjective in my opinion... I try not to get too fussed about it ... I want to discover and I am open to new experiences. admittedly my experience with RVW symphonies in concert has been quite good and I have been listening to classical music for over 3 decades...

I am not a professional musician and I haven't got a degree in musicology , yet the few people I know that are say that the commercial aspect is often decisive. This is unfortunate for some works , but I think the people who want to get to know a composer will find his/her works on a concert line-up somewhere . 
I have to admit , living near a big city helps...


----------



## Shea82821

The most overrated? Likely Schubert's 8th. I love the work, let it be said, but I feel it's obtained a certain kind of supraharmonic ethos that has only served to pollute it. Least to me it does. Same thing for Prokofiev's 6th, and Shostakovich's 15th.

Now as to underrated works, well on that camp I could name dozens. Hundreds even. But I'll be lazy and just go with what I'm listening to right now: Douglas Lilburn's Symphony no.2. An absolutely lovely work from a composer who's almost entirely ignored, outside of New Zealand. And even there he seems quite neglected.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Shea82821 said:


> The most overrated? Likely Schubert's 8th..


Which "8th" The b minor fragment or the "Great" C major?


----------



## Shea82821

The B minor of course, just as what most mean by when they speak of Schubert's 8th. Well, these days that is. I can understand the reputation the 9th (D.944) has obtained a lot more, and as such wouldn't refer to it here as overrated. A bit overhyped but not overrated.


----------



## Roger Knox

I think rating is overrated! To me it's more gratifying to develop one's tastes. For example, let's say you don't like one of Mozart's late symphonies, No. 39 in Eb major. And then, someone points out what the woodwinds are doing. If you happen to be interested in woodwinds that may be a way into developing a taste for Mozart's late symphonies. Or it can work the opposite way: some listeners early on develop a love for Tchaikovsky's orchestral music, but later pull back because they lose the taste for his kind of emotionalism. That happened to me with his _Francesca da Rimini_ and _Romeo and Juliet. _It's more enjoyable for me to say I prefer this and don't care for that, than to feel I have to go into raptures about one piece and denigrate another.


----------

