# What are the key pieces in the symphony literature?



## xuantu (Jul 23, 2009)

I am assuming no one would disagree that the symphony is the most important genre in classical music? Expensive grand music halls were built for it; talented players were gathered to play it; renowned conductors spent their entire lives revolving around it; and needless to say, flocks of listeners united in admiring it. But what do you think are the KEY works in this genre? I am seriously in need of some education. There was one time I refused to listen to any symphony not by Beethoven. Now, thanks to ... (you know who ), Brahms' four towering essays are on my shelf. Here on TC, I saw an impressive list of 150 titles assembled by emiellucifuge, and science is working on another recommendation list with all genres combined, both of which I am sure I will return to repeatedly. (Thanks to all those involved!) However, what if one wants to quickly sample through this over two centuries of wealth and not too fast plunge into more substantial cycles? Could you provide some choices (in small portions if possible) and share your knowledge (at least one sentence as to why it is or should be considerred a KEY piece)?

Here are some specific questions that I think might be interesting to have answered (they may sound naive to you):
1. What are the prototypes/key-models of Classical/Romantic symphonies? Do such pieces exsit?
2. What is the breakthough piece of a major symphonist? What pieces marked the turning points in the development of this genre?
3. What are the individual pieces that have in one way or another defined their era (reflecting the psyche of their peoples or being the natural products of their intellectual movements, for instance)? How about the works that have had the most profound influences on the music of their times or in the future?
4. From all those non Austro-German composers, which pieces have first put the voices/temperaments of their nations/tribes on the map?
5. Anything else you could think of.

Entries on modern symphonies (or even works of similar stature in post-symphony times (?)) are also welcome. But I do beg you to inject some objectivity to your posts whenever possible. This is not meant to be a thread about underrated symphonists or favorite symphonies. It is more about the symphonies that you might feel like to embrace or keep distance from, but have to admit their greatness.


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2012)

xuantu said:


> I am assuming no one would disagree that the symphony is the most important genre in classical music?


You would assume wrong.



xuantu said:


> However, what if one wants to quickly sample through this over two centuries of wealth and not too fast plunge into more substantial cycles?


Why would one want to do this? Music isn't for quick sampling but for slow and passionate involvement.



xuantu said:


> Could you provide some choices (in small portions if possible) and share your knowledge (at least one sentence as to why it is or should be considerred a KEY piece)?


What's key for me my might be "meh" for you, though. Don't you want the thrill of discovering what's key for you yourself? You want us to do your exploring for you? Where's the sport in that?:lol:

Anyway, your questions don't sound naive so much as academic (in a bad sense). Anyway, in spite of your request, I cannot imagine that this thread will ever be anything other than "underrated symphonists or favorite symphonies." (And I mean that in a good sense!)


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I'm so sorry that you had to endure that predictable response, xuantu - just ignore it. I'm sure the rest of us will not be so condescending and will provide you with some suggestions. I've got my thinking cap on as I speak.


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2012)

I'm equally sorry that you had to endure that equally predictable rejoiner.

Just ignore it! I'm sure that the majority of posters to this thread will be more than happy to give you suggestions, and to give them to you without needing to take potshots at me.

Anyway, I hope you didn't miss that I gave you a suggestion, too, which was to explore on your own and to do it leisurely.

That's good advice!


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Im a bit pressed for time, so a short response:

1. Haydn probably established the form of the symphony that largely held until about 100 years ago. His later symphonies 88-104 are all incredible.

2. The symphony tended to follow quite a gradual curve of progress without too many 'turning points'. Mozarts were a little more ambitious and 'romantic' than Haydn's and so Beethoven after him. Still, Beethovens 9th was the most ambitious and the first to use voices. 

4. 
Russia, Glinka is probably the first russian of note to compose symphonies, but the first truly great 'Russian' symphonies are those by Borodin, Balakirev and Rimsky-Korsakov. All members of the 'five'. Tchaikovsky is their near contemporary and probably wrote the greatest russian symphonies.

France, Hector Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique is a very important work. Franck has his symphony in D. Saint-saens has his 3, of which the 3rd is probably best. The symphony didnt really become a major genre in france.

Czech, this is an easy one: Dvorak, 5-9 are all fantastic.

England, English music is a little lacking in the 19th century - when the symphony was gaining ground, though there are a few minor composers who wrote at the time. The first really noteworthy symphonies from England are found a little later in Elgar and Vaughan Williams.

Just as some fun, a symphony per decade, starting arbitrarily:

1780s, mozart 41
1790s haydn 94
1800s Beethoven 5
1810s Beethoven 7
1820s Beethoven 9
1830s Schubert 9 (cheating a bit, but it was discovered by Schumann in 1838), otherwise Mendelssohn 4
1840s Schumann 4
1850s LIszt faust
1860s Rimsky Korsakov 1
1870s Brahms 1
1880s Dvorak 7
1890s Tchaikovsky 6
1900s Mahler 9
1910s Prokofiev 1
1920s Myaskovsky 6
1930s Shostakovich 5
1940s Prokofiev 6
1950s Shostakovich 10

Ending arbitrarily


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

EDIT ADD: I've left repertoire previous to the 20th Century for others, as it is routine that others will provide. 
Most importantly -- on the 'good pedant' front:
if you do not have a goodly number of exemplar pieces which are not key from any given period, and do not become well familiar with them -- how on earth will you have any contextual background with which to grasp why any particular work is either innovative or outstanding? END ADD.

The 20th century saw many composers abandoning the old format and composing in another manner. One prevalent mode was that of 'neoclassicism' - more truly it should be called 'neobaroque,' for it is an aesthetic where composers reached back to the use of pre-classical era Baroque forms (in some cases forms favored in the Renaissance were also used), a use prior to the development of 'Symphony' as you are thinking of it, first having became 'set.'

From the 20th century, there are three outstanding symphonic essays which come to mind immediately. The first two are not, at all, within the tradition 'symphonic' format.

Olivier Messiaen ~ his widely known and recognized "Turangalila Symphony," a large-scale ten-movement piece for very large orchestra with piano and ondes Martinot. The work is alternately playful, joyous and ebullient, some movements lyric (and tender) 'love songs' - named as such by the composer. [There are precedents for these sprawling large 'symphonies' from the late romantic era, both from Bruckner, and Mahler with his symphonic structures in more than four movements....]
Here is one of the more ecstatic movements, a dance like romp, V. "Joie de sang des étoiles" (Joy of the blood of the stars.)




and one of the 'love-songs,' the 4th movement 'Canto d'amore 2' (part I)





Luciano Berio ~ Sinfonia. This four-movement work is more in the spirit of the form as titled, again more baroque than classical reference, 'Sinfonia' meaning most fundamentally, 'a sounding together.' The movements are not built upon the sonata allegro, etc. classical format.

The most famous of its three movements is indisputably the third movement, 









Stravinsky, in the more conservative use of the traditional format (but nonetheless no longer the old format) composed several.
The most 'impressive' of these is
Symphony of Psalms, a three-movement choral work in his 'neoclassical' mode.
It is monumental, widely known and highly regarded. The middle movement is a stunning inverted double fugue.





Other composers working very much in the traditional format while using more contemporary harmonic language were William Schuman, Walter Piston, and a few others.
William Schuman's Symphonies are quite strong, beautifully crafted, and 'modern' and very 'American' sounding. He was a helluva craftsman. Currently, they are fairly low-profile, most likely as simply not in fashion at the moment. That does not discount their strength or high quality.

The form, however 'broken' has not been wholly abandoned. Principles of the structure, its strengths, have been consistently used in works -- post 1900 -- in reworked context: while not at all strictly adhering to the exact format, one could safely 'generalize' that some remnant devices are in many contemporary concerti, for example. Other pieces still utilize the concepts from the Baroque. Composers do not wholly throw out good tools, and many of their newly invented tools - even from the most avant-garde of them, stilll owe much to the past.

From your position, I would only caution you as to thinking of the classical through late romantic symphonic form as being 'the most important.' The form is unarguably 'important' only that it dominated, really, a relatively sizeable but nonetheless Brief period of thought in the time line of what is all classical music. (Bach and Rameau lived quite comfortably without it and are still high on Parnassus in the tomes  Your word choice regarding 'symphony' could be taken as a sort of dictum saying the only truly right and acceptable way of holding a larger-scale piece of music together is by that one format. I appreciate your relatively new appreciation of the strengths of this one form / format. I would hope it would not blinder you to other music 'that works' just because it is outside of that format.

Hope you enjoy some of the above music.

ADD P.s. The only of your numbered questions I would consider 'academically worth pursuing' is the first,
"1. What are the prototypes/key-models of Classical/Romantic symphonies? Do such pieces exist?"
For that, you need to look into the delightful earliest essays in that direction, and Wiki is (somewhat) reliable here. Look at symphony, history of, and especially the Mannheim School...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannheim_school#Composers
Why Wiki omits the two Bach fils, Carl Philipp Emanuel and Johann Christian as part of this turn of style change is the kind of omission which makes me constantly think of Wikipedia as 'Wikidubiouspedia.' Caveat emptor (or reader, in this case!)

For the others, if you think you can better 'slot' and define what several generations of musicologists, musicians and critics, with collective lifetimes of expertise, have so far been unable to slot, well, you may be the first. Go for it


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Xuantu, ignore the haters. You'll never, ever, ever, ever be good enough for them. If they don't find fault with you for one thing, they will for another. You don't know Brahms!? Oh my God! You have to know Brahms. You don't know Berio!? Oh my God! You have to know Berio. You know know Boyce!? Oh my God, you have to know Boyce. You don't know Berwald!? Oh my God, you have to know Berwald. You don't know Bax!? Oh my God, you have to know Bax. You listen to Bax? Oh my God, Bax is horrible. Rather rip my arm off than listen to that. You listen to Berwald? At best a minor figure, you really ought to stick with folks like Brahms....

It will _never, ever, ever, ever, ever_ stop. All they want is their superiority. They're here to assert it, and assert it they will. I figure, best bet is to let them have it, and then try to make them angry enough to leave you alone.

My own symphony starter kit recommendations, based roughly on the popularity/fame of the works:

[List deleted because of an error; it is corrected and reposted below.]

I don't have the expertise to do better than that. But the people who do, aren't sharing. So we bottom-dwellers get along as well as we can.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Oh, how did I leave this off? "You want to know which of Bax's symphonies and which of Berwald's symphonies to seek out first? Must be performance anxiety. Not only are you incompetent as a listener, you are even impotent."

That's why you can't ask questions.

And this site has been, at least until recently, the _least_ pretentious I've found.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Well, I think there is a lot to digest here already, so I won't add much. What I will say is that I personally find it fascinating to follow the routes of programme music via the Big Four programme symphonies, which should not be left off anyone's symphony list:

*Beethoven*: Symphony No. 6, the harbinger of later programme works, though not as extensively programmatic as others.
*Berlioz*: Symphonie Fantastique, a work I have never liked but which is nonetheless important.
*Tchaikovsky*: Manfred Symphony, a work I tirelessly advocate - one of my absolute favourites of any genre - which is the match of its Byronic counterpart.
*Strauss*: Ein Alpeinsinfonie; I struggle to get past sunrise, but it's compelling anyway!


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Way too much work, so I'll pass.

View attachment 3825


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Odd that Berlioz is not on my list. Must be some mistake.... 

Indeed there was, it's there, but I cut it out somehow: 

Beethoven: Symphony #5
Beethoven: Symphony #9
Dvorak: Symphony #9
Mozart: Symphony #40
Brahms: Symphony #4
Mahler: Symphony #2
Mozart: Symphony #41
Schubert: Symphony #8
Beethoven: Symphony #6
Schubert: Symphony #9
Tchaikovsky: Symphony #6
Brahms: Symphony #1
Beethoven: Symphony #7
Shostakovich: Symphony #10
Mahler: Symphony #9
Haydn: Symphony #104
Gorecki: Symphony #3
Saint-Saëns: Symphony #3
Mahler: Symphony #5
Shostakovich: Symphony #5
Berlioz: Symphonie Fantastique
Mendelssohn: Symphony #4
Bruckner: Symphony #9
Mahler: Symphony #4
Bruckner: Symphony #8
Brahms: Symphony #3
Sibelius: Symphony #2
Nielsen: Symphony #5
Bruckner: Symphony #5
Prokofiev: Symphony #5
Dvorak: Symphony #7
Bruckner: Symphony #7
Sibelius: Symphony #5
Stravinsky: Symphony of Psalms 
Tchaikovsky: Symphony #5
Mahler: Symphony #1
Mahler: Symphony #6
Mahler: Symphony #8
Tchaikovsky: Symphony #4
Dvorak: Symphony #8
Mahler: Symphony #3
Bruckner: Symphony #3
Bruckner: Symphony #6
Beethoven: Symphony #4
Honegger: Symphony #3

There are probably more mistakes. Hopefully no one will find them.


----------



## MJongo (Aug 6, 2011)

I've listened to a lot of symphonies, and these are the few I consider "great" in the most profound sense of the word so far:
Beethoven 9
Schubert 9
Mahler Das Lied von der Erde (if that counts as a symphony)
Mahler 9
Ives 4
Messiaen Turangalîla-symphonie


----------



## xuantu (Jul 23, 2009)

science said:


> Oh, how did I leave this off? "You want to know which of Bax's symphonies and which of Berwald's symphonies to seek out first? Must be performance anxiety. Not only are you incompetent as a listener, you are even impotent."


Did someone really say THAT? I don't understand the psychology here. If these offenders (supposedly experienced listeners) only served to repel new listeners, not to gain their support, wouldn't they be commiting a crime against classical music or something, I mean, attempting to bring classical music to its doom? Is that what they want?

I am glad that in this thread, so far so good! Not a hater in sight. (I know some guy likes to take people's words a little too literally and from time to time dish out some clownish comments, but he is no threat to a healthy community! :lol

I like everything that people have said in this thread. emiellucifuge gave us an outline of symphony's development over time and places and provided one symphony per decade. PetrB focused on the 20th century and clarified my misconceptions about the term and the genre's place in classical music. I particularly like his detailed characherization of the works he suggested and the links. Polednice put forth four programme symphonies for consideration, which would certainly give us newbies something other than music to relate to. And science brought out his/er starter kit list with great care. Even the new comer MJongo has norminated 6 works that best fit his/er idea of a "great" symphony. I thank you all for your participation. I will first start my symphony journey from: Haydn 94/104, Schubert 9, Tchaikovsky 6/Manfred, Mahler 2, Berlioz SF, Dvorak 7 and Stravinsky SoP. The last one I actually have it in a box, but tend to ignore it before now.

New posts are welcome (if you don't mind a bit of work)!


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

A brilliant late romantic symphony that has not been mentioned yet is Suk's stunning Asrael symphony.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Polednice said:


> I'm so sorry that you had to endure that predictable response, xuantu - just ignore it. I'm sure the rest of us will not be so condescending and will provide you with some suggestions. I've got my thinking cap on as I speak.


Cacophonic crap music listeners tend to be self-defensive with cacophonic crap advice. The cacophonic correlation is constant. What other cacophonic cards can they play? Recommend symphonic chainsaws?

*xuantu*, do also try something relatively early but certainly important, say the _Six Hamburg Symphonies_ (Wq.182: 1 to 6) by CPE Bach. You might be surprised by its early pre-Romantic moods, _Sturm und Drang_.


----------



## xuantu (Jul 23, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> *xuantu*, do also try something relatively early but certainly important, say the _Six Hamburg Symphonies_ (Wq.182: 1 to 6) by CPE Bach. You might be surprised by its early pre-Romantic moods, _Sturm und Drang_.


Interesting... interesting...


----------

