# The five symphonies that changed music--Do You Agree



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Here is the article (*click here*).

Here are the five symphonies that supposedly changed music:
*
Haydn, Symphony no. 22, 'The Philosopher' (1764)

Beethoven, Symphony no. 3, 'Eroica' (1804)

Tchaikovsky, Symphony no. 6, 'Pathétique' (1893)

Mahler, Symphony no. 9 (1909-10)

Shostakovich, Symphony no. 7, 'Leningrad' (1941)*

Your thoughts? What do you think the five symphonies that changed music should be? And why?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SixFootScowl said:


> Haydn, Symphony no. 22, 'The Philosopher' (1764)


Here are four more that supposedly changed music (Early Symphony) :


hammeredklavier said:


> Here are some "sizable" symphonies with or without minuets, written in the early 1760s. Total playing time (with some of the repeats taken) indicated inside brackets []:
> F.I. Beck (a different guy from F.I. Beecke) symphony Op.3 No.3 in G minor (1762) [18:05]
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

I'll have to cheat a bit and list seven instead of 5:

(1) Beethoven: Symphony No. 3 "Eroica" 
(A shot across the bow signaling the arrival of Beethoven, the heroic symphony and gigantism)

(2) Beethoven: Symphony No. 5 
(Early *and most influential {EDIT} *cyclical symphony, with the most famous symphonic movement)

(3) Beethoven: Symphony No. 6 "Pastoral" 
(A programmatic symphony leading to Berlioz, inspiring many other "pastoral symphonies")

(4) Beethoven: Symphony No. 9 
(Its choral finale, giant size, and recalling of past movements spawned countless imitators)

(5) Berlioz: Symphonie Fantastique 
(Full blown program symphony, ground-breaking orchestration, idee fixee expanded by Liszt and Wagner)

*(6) Franck: Symphony in D minor 
(Expansion of Beethoven's cyclical principle which lead to a revival of the symphony in France)*

(7) Sibelius: Symphony No. 7 
(A truly organic, yet fully symphonic, one-movement symphony which spawned countless imitators)

*{EDIT}*: Drop Franck for Mahler (Das Lied von Erde), Haydn (?), Mozart (No. 41) & Tchaikovsky (6th)

Shostakovich's 7th is more important for it's propaganda value during World War II than as a symphony per se, although I think it is also a very good symphony.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

I would have 1, maybe 2 Beethoven symphonies, a Sibelius, a Bruckner, and a Haydn for sure. If I limit myself to one Beethoven, though he deserves more than one for how important he was to the development of the form, I would probably include Brahms 4.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

1. Beethoven symphony no. 3
2. Beethoven symphony no. 5
3. Beethoven symphony no. 9
4. Berlioz Symphonie fantastique
5. Tchaikovsky symphony no. 6


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

christomacin said:


> Beethoven: Symphony No. 5 The earliest cyclical symphony


I don't know what you mean by that.



hammeredklavier said:


> "The third movement is a rondeau, Presto scherzante. Horns are in F, trumpets in D. The A theme could be seen as a metamorphosis of the first subject of the first movement."





hammeredklavier said:


> -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.





hammeredklavier said:


> No.29 in A, K.201: "The energetic last movement, another sonata-form movement in 6/8 time, connects back to the first movement with its octave drop in the main theme."
> No.30 in D, K.202: "The finale starts off with a falling dotted fanfare motif similar to the one that starts the opening movement. The answering phrase and the movement's second theme have a contradanse character."










+Haydn 31st


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

The first one that was widely imitated by other symphonists? His Pastoral Symphony wasn't the first pastoral themed piece either, but it's impact (as a symphony) on later music was huge. The first movement of his fifth symphony is one of the very few pieces of music (aside from "Happy Birthday to You") which is known by vast swathes of humanity, being is heard (The first 5 notes anyway) by them at least once in their life. Sort of like the two notes of Jaws, only for about 160 years longer.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Some through-composed symphonies by other composers (Beethoven knew Wranitzky in person and studied Knecht's organ works):

*Grand Symphony for the Peace with French Republic Op.31 (1797)* - P. Wranitzky
0:00 The Revolution
4:55 English March
8:32 March of the Austrians and Prussians 
11:19 The Fate and Death of Louis XVI 
14:23 Funeral March 
18:21 English March 
19:20 March of the Allies 
20:42 The Tumult of a Battle 
23:29 The Prospects of Peace 
25:28 Rejoicing at the Achievement of Peace

*Le Portrait musical de la nature ou Grande Symphonie (1783)* - J.H. Knecht
I. Allegretto - Andante pastorale - Allegretto - Villanella grazioso, un poco adagio : 00:00 
II. Tempo mederno (Allegretto) : 09:40 
III. Allegro molto : 12:44  
IV. Tempo mederno (Allegro molto) : 18:38 
V. L´inno con variazioni - Andantino -Coro : Allegro con brio - Andantino : 20:59

notice the "continuity":
12:30 , 18:30 , 20:50
and "recalling of themes" across movements in the symphony:
0:00 , 20:04 , 0:58 , 9:40



christomacin said:


> it's impact (as a symphony) on later music was huge.


I agree with you about Berlioz (ie. his keen interest in Beethoven).



christomacin said:


> The first one that was widely imitated by other symphonists?


We can't be sure who "imitated" whom (and how they did) unless there's concrete evidence though. Did Mendelssohn (violin concerto) "imitate" Mozart (G minor symphony) in opening a work with rustling accompaniments of the strings? Did Schumann (4th symphony) "imitate" Mozart (D minor piano concerto, 3rd movement)?


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

I'd have to pick three by Beethoven, Nos. 3, 6, & 9. I don't see any way around that. Then, Haydn's Symphony No. 6 in D major. And I'm left with only one more?  That's horrible. Okay, I'd pick Webern, Op. 21.

If we make it more reasonable, and name twenty, it's a little better picture. Then to the above I'd add C.P. E. Bach 1, Mozart 41, Haydn 104, Berlioz _Symphonie Fantastique_, Schubert 9, Saint-Saëns 3, Brahms 1, Dvořák 9, Tchaikovsky 6, Mahler 2, Schoenberg Chamber Symphony No. 1, Vaughan Williams 3, Shostakovich 7, Berio Sinfonia, Lutosławski 3.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

christomacin said:


> The first movement of his fifth symphony is one of the very few pieces of music (aside from "Happy Birthday to You") which is known by vast swathes of humanity, being is heard (The first 5 notes anyway) by them at least once in their life.


So is Fur Elise. So it's one of the "greatest" pieces Beethoven ever wrote.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

SixFootScowl said:


> Here is the article (*click here*).
> 
> Here are the five symphonies that supposedly changed music:
> *
> ...


I'd swap out dsch 7 for Symphonie Fantastique and try to find a w ay to squeeze in LvB 6 & 9


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

I think the 5th may be a bit better known still, but in any case Fur Elise isn't a symphonic movement, so isn't in the running for a discussion about symphonies. The historic importance of the entire work is more important than any one movement in any case, so I would partially agree with you up to a point. I also agree that Haydn, Mozart and probably Tchaikovsky and Mahler MUST be mentioned, so the problem is that five is too small a number for such a big subject. "A TOP TEN Symphonies that Changed Music" is a more reasonable discussion. Haydn and Beethoven between them pretty much have a lock on the Top 5 anyway so you kind of have to expand it to Top 10 if you don't want to "overbook" for New Year's Eve. I think the Berlioz Fantastique and the Sibelius 7th are also a "lock". Anyway, I come up with a Top 11 so of the ones I mentioned Franck is probably the most expendable in favor of Haydn, Mozart, Tchaikovsky and Mahler. I'd probably nominate the Mahler "Das Lied von Erde" even if it is arguably a song cycle and not a symphony. Tchaikovsky's spot would obviously be the 6th (the only one it possibly could be). Haydn's main contribution was for having weighty slow introductions to his first movements, so I assume one of his symphonies that did that best would be chosen. I assume Mozart's spot would be the "Jupiter" symphony, with it's weighting of the symphony towards the finale instead of the first movement.

NOTE: I have edited my initial post above to reflect my latest thoughts


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"During his studies with Weinlig he had tried to discover the secret of Mozart's fluency and lightness in solving difficult technical problems. In particular he tried to emulate the fugal finale of the great C major Symphony, 'magnificent, never surpassed', as he called it years later, and at eighteen he wrote a fugato as the finale of his C major Concert Overture, 'the very best that I could do, as I thought at the time, in honour of my new exemplar'." [ Wagner: A Biography ; Curt von Westernhagen ; P. 82 ]

Btw, I wouldn't object to people saying: "if we have to choose only one, it would be Beethoven's 9th".


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Beethoven's 3rd. It was the seismic shift that made it easier for everyone else. Even him.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Beethoven - 3, 5, 9
Berlioz - Sym Fant
Mahler - 9


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I'd say he only one from the OP list that belongs in this category is the Eroica. 

Beethoven's Fifth is not the first cyclic symphony.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

(1773)

Listen to these excerpts:
MH188/i: v80s4yjSdQM&t=3m23s K.466/i: hvaNnPhC0mM&t=1m12s
MH188/i: v80s4yjSdQM&t=7m57s K.551/iv: gAmw8ATln68&t=38m8s
MH188/ii: v80s4yjSdQM&t=10m18s K.345/ii: RtJEN3Z2Jpg&t=4m17s
MH188/iv: v80s4yjSdQM&t=23m26s K.425/iv: XDnXB7nGg4I&t=2m44s
MH188/i: v80s4yjSdQM&t=3m39s K.425/iv: XDnXB7nGg4I&t=2m54s
MH188/i: v80s4yjSdQM&t=3m15s K.345/iv: RtJEN3Z2Jpg&t=16m15s
isn't this guy the "father", from Mozart's, Weber's, Schubert's perspective?


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

Tchaikovsky's 4th and Franck's Symphony were influenced by Beethoven's 5th, not Michael Haydn. Berlioz wasn't the first composer to write a programmatic symphony, but he was one of the most influential.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Attack of the Band Junkie*

There is no way I can top any of the previous posts.

So, the band junkie shall subject you with band symphonies :trp:

Hindemith: _Symphony in Bb_
Persichetti: _Symphony Number Six for Band_ (Expanded use of percussion)
Gould: _West Point Symphony_
H. Owen Reed: _La Fiesta Mexicana_
Johan de Meij: _Symphony No. 1, The Lord of the Rings_-There is a website devoted to this work: http://symphony1-lordoftherings.com/


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

arpeggio said:


> There is no way I can top any of the previous posts.
> 
> So, the band junkie shall subject you with band symphonies :trp:
> 
> Hindemith: _Symphony in Bb_


Fantastic little work. I was just listening to it this afternoon, in fact:


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Absolutely *Beethoven 3rd "Eroica"*. No way around that.

Somehow I just can't shake the feeling that *Dvorak's 9th "New World"* deserves a spot on the list.

Fine.

*Mozart 41 "Jupiter"
*
*Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique*

and . . .

*Beethoven 9th*

*Honorable mentions:*

Shosty 5th
Gorecki 3rd "Sorrowful Songs"
Tchaikovsky 6th
Rocky 2nd
Bruckner 8th


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

The list "The Five Symphonies that CHANGED Music" is not necessarily the same list as "The Five Greatest Symphonies". For instance, I wouldn't even consider any Brahms for inclusion on the first list but would definitely consider the his 4th for inclusion on the second one. Likewise, I'm not sure in what way Dvorak's 9th "changed music" but it is a great symphony nonetheless. You can also change music in negative ways, so that's not always a compliment either.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I think there were only 3:

J. Haydn's 6th
Beethoven's 9th
Schnittke's 1st


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

christomacin said:


> The list "The Five Symphonies that CHANGED Music" is not necessarily the same list as "The Five Greatest Symphonies". For instance, I wouldn't even consider any Brahms for inclusion on the first list but would definitely consider the his 4th for inclusion on the second one. Likewise, I'm not sure in what way Dvorak's 9th "changed music" but it is a great symphony nonetheless. You can also change music in negative ways, so that's not always a compliment either.


And I think you're right.

The New World Symphony is great, but perhaps didn't really "change" how symphonies were done, at least not in a major way. It did more or less stretch the envelope, but it didn't rip any holes in it.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

It may be a distinction without a difference, but was it really Mahler's "symphonies" that changed music?—or Mahler's musical language? I mean, I can't think of any composers in the Second Viennese School, for example, who wrote symphonies "like" Mahler's. Shostakovitch's harmonic language is, according to some, influenced by Mahler, but not his symphonic conception (or so I read)...


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Mozart - 41
Beethoven - 3, 5, 9
Berlioz - Sym Fant


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

1) Beethoven "Eroica"
2) Beethoven "Eroica"
3) Beethoven "Eroica"
4) Beethoven "Eroica"
5) Beethoven "Eroica"


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I don't like the focus on symphonies. I wish the article had been on the five works that changed music.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

science said:


> I don't like the focus on symphonies. I wish the article had been on the five works that changed music.


Time for a new thread. Forget the article. It gets left in the dust anyway.


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

MarkW said:


> 1) Beethoven "Eroica"
> 2) Beethoven "Eroica"
> 3) Beethoven "Eroica"
> 4) Beethoven "Eroica"
> 5) Beethoven "Eroica"


He almost wrote that many Fidelio/Leonore Overtures for real.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

I would say:

One of Haydn's symphonies

Beethoven Symphonies nos. 3, 5 & 9

Schubert Symphony no. 9 "Great" (A precursor to Bruckner's symphonies)

Berlioz's Symphonie Fantasitique

Liszt's A Faust Symphony

A Mahler Symphony (no. 9 works)

Symphonies that didn't change music:

Shostakovich's Leningrad Symphony. I don't know why anyone would pick that symphony. It was not groundbreaking, even for Shosty himself.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SixFootScowl said:


> Haydn, Symphony no. 22, 'The Philosopher' (1764)


"Nobody up to that time had thought of starting a symphony with a noble slow movement, as he does in this piece..." (from the article)




(1760)

Oops, wrong work....






















Sorry, I couldn't help it; couldn't resist the urge to color the 'extroardinary colors' of this 'earth-shattering masterpiece'.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

ORigel said:


> Shostakovich's Leningrad Symphony. I don't know why anyone would pick that symphony. It was not groundbreaking, even for Shosty himself.


Did you look at the article? Because the author gives his reasons, including this:

"On some level, to me, the work is a hymn not just to the inner strength of its creator, but the strength of all people living under the yoke of totalitarian suppression. At the very end of the symphony, the elegy that forms much of the last movement seems superficially to climax in victory, but as Shostakovich always said, those who listen properly would understand that there is no real victory. Until the last note, it's as if the fate of the Russian people is crying out to be heard. The melody the symphony sings carries right through to the end, with the tears pouring down the faces of the entire nation. No symphony mattered as much to a people, to a cause, as the Leningrad Symphony, and no symphony may ever again carry the same gigantic emotional and political power."

I recently watched a documentary on Shostakovich's "wartime symphonies", Nos. 4-7, and the point was made how important were these works to the Russian people during that period. The 7th symphony might be more of a cultural/historical significance than specifically musical, although they would seem to go hand-in-hand.

I think it would be hard to overestimate the importance of Shostakovich's symphonies for his country, people and other composers living under the Soviet rule.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

What do mean by “changed”? Mahler 9 went generally unappreciated for about 6 decades. Shostakovich 7? Really? Over any Mozart or Brahms Symphony? Or the Symphonies Fantastique of Berlioz, tha usher in the whole Romantic Movement? Or the Schubert Unfinished, or Mendelssohn Italian, Schumann Rhenish or any Sibelius?


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> Did you look at the article? Because the author gives his reasons, including this:
> 
> "On some level, to me, the work is a hymn not just to the inner strength of its creator, but the strength of all people living under the yoke of totalitarian suppression. At the very end of the symphony, the elegy that forms much of the last movement seems superficially to climax in victory, but as Shostakovich always said, those who listen properly would understand that there is no real victory. Until the last note, it's as if the fate of the Russian people is crying out to be heard. The melody the symphony sings carries right through to the end, with the tears pouring down the faces of the entire nation. No symphony mattered as much to a people, to a cause, as the Leningrad Symphony, and no symphony may ever again carry the same gigantic emotional and political power."
> 
> ...


Shostakovich "Wartime" Symphonies 4-7? 4 ,5, 6 were composed before the start of the War in Europe.. 4 wasn't even played until after Stalin croaked. His wartime symphonies were 7-9, the last written by the authorities demand for a "celebratory" work (which it of course, is not). As for the rest of verbiage that the Seventh "represents the cry of the Russian people" that could apply to virtually every Shostakovich Symphony. Fwiw, people were reported to be openly weeping during the premiere of the 5th. During the premiere of 7 they were probably to busy inspecting the ground in front of them for a morsel of food (a million Leningraders died of starvation during the siege and cannibalism was widespread).
At least the Seventh inspired Bartok to write a famous musical joke that lampoons it


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

hammeredklavier said:


> "Nobody up to that time had thought of starting a symphony with a noble slow movement, as he does in this piece..." (from the article)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's also the only symphony of the classical, romantic period, and beyond, that features 2 English horns....


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

"changed music" for me means something different than being important for the Russian or Soviet identity. I hesitate to consider even Mahler's 9th as really important in the history of the genre because it is so late. How did any Mahler symphony or later "change "music" even close to the way Beethoven's or Berlioz' did?
Sure, there were symphonies written all over the 20th century but many of the more important pieces in 20th century music were not symphonies (and the ones that were, like Stravinsky Psalms or in 3 movements were inspired by older music than late romantic or early 20th century.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

SixFootScowl said:


> Here is the article (*click here*).
> 
> Here are the five symphonies that supposedly changed music:
> *
> ...


I can buy Elder's arguments with respect to the Haydn and the Beethoven - both works mark a revolution that their composers (and all who followed them) built on. I think I would have added a late Mozart symphony to the list.

But, although Elder's Tchaikovsky and Mahler choices were certainly strikingly new and different to anything that had gone before, did they really "change music"? I would have thought that Mahler had done that earlier, perhaps with his 2nd? And I'm not sure the symphonies of Tchaikovsky (much as I love them) had that much influence, did they? Perhaps Sibelius - his 4th or 5th symphonies - would have been a better choice. Or maybe a Schumann symphony - more or less successful as symphonies but with a much looser and more poetic structure? But I am also quite convinced about the claim for the Schubert Great (9th).

And, although the Shostakovich choice is of a work that was (is?) important, it was so for socio-political reasons rather than musical ones. Stravinsky's Symphony in 3 Movements should replace it.

It is lucky that many of the truly seminal composers of the 20th Century were not symphonists or five would not have been enough. OK, there is the Webern symphony but there is nothing from Debussy, Bartok or Schoenberg let alone Messiaen or Boulez.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> I can buy Elder's arguments with respect to the Haydn and the Beethoven - both works mark a revolution that their composers (and all who followed them) built on.


Sure.. (although it might depend on what is exactly meant by "revolution"). With one of the works though, I can't help but be reminded of of the arguments over "whether or not it was Cage who wrote the first silent music" or "which is the correct ordering of the movements of Mahler's 6th".


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Btw, a real treat for those who agree with Elder on "... nor had anybody ever thought of the extraordinary sound that the symphony begins with: a chorale played by two horns and two cor anglais against an incessant pattern of notes in the strings. It all gives this movement a strange, unexpected beauty. ...":


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> Did you look at the article? Because the author gives his reasons, including this:
> 
> "On some level, to me, the work is a hymn not just to the inner strength of its creator, but the strength of all people living under the yoke of totalitarian suppression. At the very end of the symphony, the elegy that forms much of the last movement seems superficially to climax in victory, but as Shostakovich always said, those who listen properly would understand that there is no real victory. Until the last note, it's as if the fate of the Russian people is crying out to be heard. The melody the symphony sings carries right through to the end, with the tears pouring down the faces of the entire nation. No symphony mattered as much to a people, to a cause, as the Leningrad Symphony, and no symphony may ever again carry the same gigantic emotional and political power."
> 
> ...


I was talking from a musical perspective, not a cultural one. I am not even saying that the Leningrad isn't a great or very good symphony.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

ORigel said:


> I was talking from a musical perspective, not a cultural one. I am not even saying that the Leningrad isn't a great or very good symphony.


This is the context for the article as given by the publisher: "Ahead of a new four-part series exploring how the symphony has shaped our history and identity, Mark Elder choses the form's five key works."

I doubt Elder chose the headline, which is usually done by an editor, but may have been given the guidance as reflected in that sub-title which does cite works which have "shaped our history and identity" - i.e. other than a strictly musical perspective.

I found the article interesting containing, as it did, Elder's ideas about why he thought these particular symphonies were impactful, both from a musical, as well as, a cultural or sociological perspective.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> This is the context for the article as given by the publisher: "Ahead of a new four-part series exploring how the symphony has shaped our history and identity, Mark Elder choses the form's five key works."
> 
> I doubt Elder chose the headline, which is usually done by an editor, but may have been given the guidance as reflected in that sub-title which does cite works which have "shaped our history and identity" - i.e. other than a strictly musical perspective.
> 
> I found the article interesting containing, as it did, Elder's ideas about why he thought these particular symphonies were impactful, both from a musical, as well as, a cultural or sociological perspective.


Personally, I think his list is only slightly more relevant than my own list, if only because I included the New World symphony.

As this thread has just proven, as 5 different people, get 5 different lists.

The issue is that there are so many from which to choose, all valid by the subjective reasons given.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

SixFootScowl said:


> Here is the article (*click here*).
> 
> Here are the five symphonies that supposedly changed music:
> *
> ...


I think that's a good lineup.

I like Sir Mark. I heard him once live in concert, and he took care to briefly explain each piece before it was played. This was a youth orchestra concert where a large part of the audience where first-timers.

I think he's spot on with Haydn and Beethoven. Indeed, Haydn's contribution to the symphony was so immense that it's hard to single out one symphony - and some of his divertimenti can be just as sophisticated as his symphonies. _The Philosopher_ is considered a breakthrough piece, so its probably as good as any.

I think that Tchaikovsky's place is justified on the list, partly because he was one of those composers who starts that shift away from the symphonic tradition being centred around Austria and Germany. He influenced a fair amount of composers too, not only in Russia but also others like Sibelius.

Mahler's inclusion sort of goes without saying. He casts a shadow over the 20th century as Beethoven did over the 19th. A whole lot of major composers where indebted to him, e.g. the Second Viennese guys, Shostakovich, Britten, Bernstein.

As for the Shostakovich 7th, its a pivotal work of the 20th century in the genre. Its the last time a new piece of classical music would get the attention of a global audience. For those interested, Ed Vulliamy did great in-depth chapter on it in his book _Louder than Bombs: A life with music, war and peace_. As far as the core performance repertoire is concerned, Shostakovich's cycle rounds off the symphonic tradition. To my way of thinking, that makes him indispensable.

I think that Elder had to choose between equally strong options to whittle down his list to five. Mozart's last three symphonies could have been there, but they probably gave way to Haydn. Schubert's 8th or 9th where strong contenders (however, they received premieres long after his death). I guess Berlioz gave way to Tchaikovsky, as Sibelius did for Mahler.

I think that Dvorak's 9th was significant, at least in the USA. Dvorak's encouragement for the foundation of an American national school based on native and folk music started an important trend there. Some, like Ives, admired his music and paid attention to what he said.

Including Berio (or perhaps Schnittke) would bring us into the postmodern era. The symphony was already subjected to a sort of fragmentation, especially with the tendency of some composers to quote their own music and that of others (e.g. Bruckner, Mahler, Ives, Shostakovich). Postmodernism sees this sense of the disintegration of the symphony continue.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

the harmonies in the slow movement-




MH62 (1763)

+ Also, the slow movement of this www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfF_W3KIZ4&t=9m2s has woodwinds accompanied by incessant pattern of notes in the strings. This work can be thought to have been "composed earlier than 1764", since the movements are extracted from the MH68 serenade.

Did it "change music"? I dunno.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Btw, this removes the element Elder and some others are so offended and disturbed by ("Nobody up to that time had thought of starting a symphony with a noble slow movement, as he does in this piece..."):


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

pianozach said:


> Personally, I think his list is only slightly more relevant than my own list, if only because I included the New World symphony.
> 
> As this thread has just proven, as 5 different people, get 5 different lists.
> 
> The issue is that there are so many from which to choose, all valid by the subjective reasons given.


I suppose you could come to that conclusion. However, Mark Elder is a conductor with significant experience with these works, as well as the entire symphonic literature, and presumably his criteria is less subjective than ours, or any fan. IMO, a possibly more productive conversation that might result from this article would be to discuss his selections, his rationale, and looking for common ground, maybe even learn something. As opposed to carping about his selections which leads the discussion nowhere.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I remember that my music history professor had picked four symphonies that effected music history.

One of the Haydn Symphonies. I can not remember which one.

Beethoven Third

Beethoven Ninth

Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique

I do not recall a fifth one.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> I suppose you could come to that conclusion. However, Mark Elder is a conductor with significant experience with these works, as well as the entire symphonic literature, and presumably his criteria is less subjective than ours, or any fan.


So whenever we ponder topics about "greatness" (of works, composers, or performers), for instance, we can always rely on individuals like him as absolute authorities and their views as unquestionable answers to the topics. Who do you think has the most "objective" view, btw? Can similar things be said about André Rieu (or other 'professionals' you appear to have no respect for), for instance? (He knows "objectivity" better than anyone when it comes to certain orchestral works?).


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Certainly, one of these deserves a spot, on the basis that they were totally new in their time:
Franz Ignaz Beck (1734 - 1809) - Symphony in G minor op.3 no.3 (Callen 15, *published in 1762*)
1. Allegro con spirito 00:00 ~ 05:07 / 2. Andante poco adagio 05:07 ~ 09:51 / 3. Minuetto 09:51 ~ 13:51 / 4. Presto 13:51 ~ 18:05 



Franz Ignaz Beck - Symphony in D Minor, Op. 3, No. 5, Callen 17 (*1762*)
Mov.I: Allegro moderato 00:00 ~ 5:29 / Mov.II: Andantino 5:29 ~ 9:26 / Mov.III: Menuett I-II 9:26 ~ 13:00 / Mov.IV: Presto 13:00 ~ 16:53 






arpeggio said:


> One of the Haydn Symphonies.





christomacin said:


> Haydn and Beethoven between them pretty much have a lock on the Top 5 anyway





bz3 said:


> a Haydn for sure.





ORigel said:


> One of Haydn's symphonies


People keep saying these things, but which Haydn symphony? Maybe one of the highly acclaimed Sturm-und-drangs from the early 1770s, such as


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

I am not that familiar with the particular Haydn symphony, but will give him the nod as the recognized father of the symphony. I would also take out the Mahler, and put in Beethoven's fifth or ninth instead.

So for me:

*Haydn*, vague general nod as the father of the symphony as we know it today (I am more familiar with his later symphonies, particularly the London symphonies)
*
Beethoven 3 'Eroica'*

*Beethoven 9th 'Choral'*
*
Tchaikovsky 6th 'Pathetique'*

*Shostakovich 7th 'Leningrad' *(probably would not have picked it myself without prompting, but I will give it's unusual genesis it's fair due).


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> (1773)


+




 (although this particular style of rhythm and dissonance gets more pronounced in the first two movements of the 28th,)









 (7:58; delays resolution to heighten up tension in the coda)




 (12:00; the harmonies)



hammeredklavier said:


> Take note of the harmonies at 4:10 (I feel 'pain' at 5:00 and 'consolation' at 5:27). The slow movement in a major key is so sad; the harmonies at 9:20, and the interplay of wind solos at 10:45. The contrapuntal acrobatics (17:30) in the third, final movement are also dazzling. I think he's especially good at this sort of stuff (as an organist); building up with contrapuntal dissonance and climaxing with a pedal - kind of reminds me of the Domine jesu from Mozart's Requiem.
> Btw, a real earworm in the third, final movement (16:30),
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> So whenever we ponder topics about "greatness" (of works, composers, or performers), for instance, we can always rely on individuals like him as absolute authorities and their views as unquestionable answers to the topics. Who do you think has the most "objective" view, btw? Can similar things be said about André Rieu (or other 'professionals' you appear to have no respect for), for instance? (He knows "objectivity" better than anyone when it comes to certain orchestral works?).


I am not an "all or nothing" person, so your exaggerated characterization of my post does not reflect my view, which I stated clearly and requires no further elucidation.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I will keep defending the overall importance of Joseph Haydn and his symphonies, but for once I am in agreement with hammeredklavier inasmuch I find it quite ridiculous to single out #22 as a particularly important Haydn symphony that "changed music".


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> I am not an "all or nothing" person, so your exaggerated characterization of my post does not reflect my view, which I stated clearly and requires no further elucidation.


I'm still curious; is Elder genuinely interested in examining the real historical context of the music he has chosen to discuss, or is he just a skilled performing tradesman whose sole intention is to please his audiences by saying the same old clichés about the usual popular composers.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

I agree in regards to *Beethoven's Third and Fifth Symphony*, the latter that served as a template in composing symphonies from sturm und drang to triumph and in the key of C minor.

But why *Tchaikovsky's Sixth Symphony* and not, say, *Elgar's First*, which took the English musical scene by storm and ushered in a new era in British music, post Renaissance. How did Tchaikovsky's Sixth changed music in any significant way beyond Russia in comparison to not only Elgar's, but, say, the symphonies of Bruckner, Sibelius, even Mendelssohn?

As for Mahler, Shostakovich, and Haydn, I will have to think about that. For instance, a Shostakovich symphony (the Fifth in particular) may have changed the course of music (at least in Soviet Russia), but in any way more significantly than, say, a symphony of Myaskovsky? Myaskovsky was highly influential and his music had strong currencies in Europe (esp. Germany) and the United States during the 1920s through the 1940s.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Orfeo said:


> How did Tchaikovsky's Sixth changed music in any significant way beyond Russia in comparison to not only Elgar's, but, say, the symphonies of Bruckner, Sibelius, even Mendelssohn?


According to Copland in his book "What to Listen for in Music", the second movement of the _Pathétique_ symphony was an important predecessor, and source of influence, to Stravinsky in his rhythmic innovations in _The Rite of Spring_. In this sense I think that it could be said that it changed the course of music, even if indirectly.


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

I thought the use of a slow movement finale (a tragic one, to boot) and perhaps the subjective, overwrought emotionalism of the Pathétique was deemed a key influence on Mahler - his 9th, for instance., and later the Shostakovich 8th. That was my impression I got from commentators over the years, anyway.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

arpeggio said:


> I remember that my music history professor had picked four symphonies that effected music history.
> One of the Haydn Symphonies. I can not remember which one.
> Beethoven Third
> Beethoven Ninth
> ...


I was just thinking this very thing. With the 9th and Fantastique building on Haydn & Eroica you pretty much have the basis for all that followed.
I don't think there's anything much composed afterwards that has the influence of those works (not judging quality, just significance).

Although I give a special prize to Brahms 1, not because it was groundbreaking in itself, but because it revived a genre that Wagner & Liszt had pronounced moribund and irrelevant. To this day there's a quarter century gap in the mainstream symphonic repertoire between Schumann 3 (1850) and Brahms 1 (1876).


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

One of the problems I have with these types of threads is that they ignore many obscure composers who composed many fine symphonies.

One example was Joachim Raff, who composed ten symphonies between 1859 and 1879.

While they may not have been groundbreaking, they are still excellent.

Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Tchaikovsky were not the only composers that were writing symphonies during the 19th century.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

But a symphony that changed music (title of the thread) is hardly likely to have been composed by an obscure composer...


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

GraemeG said:


> But a symphony that changed music (title of the thread) is hardly likely to have been composed by an obscure composer...


I apologize for my post.

Many times, in discussions like this, people will make the statement that between this date and that the only composers that were writing symphonies were Jackson and Johnson.

I was responding to comments like that.

Who knows? Maybe there are some obscure composers who have made a significant contribution to the symphonic canon.


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

arpeggio said:


> One of the problems I have with these types of threads is that they ignore many obscure composers who composed many fine symphonies.
> 
> One example was Joachim Raff, who composed ten symphonies between 1859 and 1879.
> 
> ...


Not mentioning a composer on this particular thread is not to say they weren't an excellent composer. However we have to consider the criteria being asked for (CHANGING music) and make our lists on that basis. That is a very specific, and by definition rare, set of criteria very few symphonies hold. No one is putting Schumann on this list either... surely a greater composer than Raff. I personally wouldn't for one second consider putting Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique on a list of the top five (or even top ten) GREATEST symphonies ever written, but it makes the top 5 (or maybe 6 or 7) most IMPORTANT (that changed music) ever written easily.

P.S. Raff, and Spohr, too, were excellent composers when at their best. Don't forget Franz Berwald. His telescoping of symphonic form may well have influenced Sibelius.. or maybe not. In addition, Berwald's symphonic poems were written before the more famous ones by Fran Liszt, but let's leave that for a discussion about the tone poem.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

SixFootScowl said:


> Time for a new thread. Forget the article. It gets left in the dust anyway.


Watch the programme instead...


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> (7:58; delays resolution to heighten up tension in the coda)


Compare it with 



.
Considering all the comparisons I've done (such as the ones in Post#17) it may be, from Mozart's perspective at least, the most important symphony (by another composer) that preceded his major period of maturity.



GraemeG said:


> But a symphony that changed music (title of the thread) is hardly likely to have been composed by an obscure composer.


depends on what you mean by "obscure". Obscure at what time, to whom? It may be worth asking the question: (to a certain extent) the "dividing line" between the so-called "great" (a.k.a. the "Chosen Ones", destined to NOT become obscure today by some divine will or whatever) and the "obscure" might be an "illusion" we've created in our minds today? (I'm just suggesting). Here's something for us to think about: 



 "One critic shaped how we look at a half-century of painting. If Pollock was overrated, Clement Greenberg was the one doing it. We just followed his lead. So what is the correction here? It's not to discount Jackson Pollock. It's to give more attention to those other abstract expressionists as well. And to know the critic who decided which names we'd learn."



> a symphony that changed music (title of the thread)


What are your criteria for determining such a work?


----------

