# Listening to Beethoven's 9 symphonies in a cycle



## gvn

Do you ever listen to Beethoven’s 9 symphonies in a cycle of home concerts? If so, in what sequence do you listen to them?

I fear my own listening habits have generally been rather lazy. I suspect some other members of this forum will have been much more imaginative!

Nowadays many CD sets seem to present the symphonies in simple numerical sequence, and when Nos. 5 and 6 share a disc, the Fifth is usually placed first. Yet I don’t think any of the classic Beethoven conductors ever presented them in that sequence. (In particular, they nearly always followed Beethoven’s own practice of playing No. 6 before No. 5.) See also my next post.


----------



## gvn

Complete inventories of Toscanini and Furtwängler concerts from 1935 onwards list only one complete Beethoven symphony cycle by each conductor (in 1939 and 1948 respectively), as far as I can see (as distinct from unconnected concerts subsequently packaged in sets by record companies).

*Toscanin*i's familiar 1939 Beethoven cycle was laid out in 6 concerts as follows:

Fidelio Overture + Symphonies 1 + 3.
Symphonies 2 + 4 + Leonore III.
Coriolan + Symphonies 6 + 5.
Egmont + Septet + Symphony 7.
Leonore I + Symphony 8 + Quartet Op 135 (Lento assai & Vivace) + Prometheus (No. 5) + Leonore II.
Choral Fantasy + Symphony 9.

*Furtwängler*'s 1948 Beethoven cycle (London) was laid out in 5 concerts as follows:

Egmont + Symphonies 6 + 5.
Leonore III + Symphonies 8 + 7.
Coriolan + Symphonies 4 + 3.
Symphonies 1 + 2 + Violin Concerto [Menuhin].
Symphony 9.

Only the Second survives from that cycle, but the sequence can be approximately reconstituted using other recordings of 1947-1951 (though their orchestral sound & even their style fluctuate considerably!).

During his final period (1953-1954), Furtwängler always programmed Beethoven symphonies in unconnected concerts, always ended the concerts with the odd-numbered symphonies, and always replaced Beethoven's Second with his own (!). The usual layout was as follows (inside the brackets, I cite concerts of the period that were recorded complete and in decent sound):

Furtwängler Symphony 2 + Beethoven Symphony 1 (1954-03-30, Stuttgart).
Egmont + Symphonies 4 + 3 (1953-09-04, Munich).
Symphonies 6 + 5 (1954-05-23, Berlin).
Symphony 8 + Grosse Fuge + Symphony 7 (1954-08-30, Salzburg).
Symphony 9 (1954-08-22, Lucerne).

I find that group of performances much more stylistically harmonious than the 1947-1951 group described above.

When *Karajan* presented complete Beethoven cycles in concert, he usually presented them in the following sequence:

Coriolan + Symphonies 6 + 5.
Symphonies 4 + 7.
Symphonies 1 + 3.
Symphonies 2 + 8 + Leonore III.
Symphony 9.

He deviated from the above sequence only when he wished to inroduce concerto soloists or to accommodate special circumstances.

I don't believe I've ever in my life started a Beethoven symphony cycle with the Sixth (as both Furtwängler and Karajan did). Have any of you tried that? And I don't think I've ever played Leonore III at the very end of any music session (as Toscanini, Furtwängler, and Karajan all sometimes did).

What about Bruno *Walter*? Did he ever perform the Beethoven symphonies in complete cycles? And if so, how did he group them?


----------



## Rogerx

> Do you ever listen to Beethoven's 9 symphonies in a cycle of home concerts? If so, in what sequence do you listen to them?


No never, one each day I can take , but that's it .


----------



## Merl

I don't think you have to ask me. Lol. I can take them whatever order they come when listening for pleasure. When I'm reviewing the cycles (the only time I ever listen to a full cycle in one sitting) I usually start with the 7th and go from there, as a decent 7th usually* means a decent cycle. As a preference I'd like to do my reviews starting with the 7th and 8th, then work backwards, leaving the 9th till last but it depends on how the recordings are paired and usually that isn't the easiest way to do it. 
If I sense I might be hearing a special cycle I'll listen to the 9th after the 7th, then the 5th, 3rd, 4th and 8th, Pastoral, 1st and 2nd but that rarely happens. As a personal preference I like the pairings below when listening for pleasure as they work best for me:

1&2. 3&8. 4&7. 5&6. 9

*_not always the case_


----------



## DavidA

I have never listened to a cycle as such. I don’t think any composer meant us to. I remember being at a concert Of Bach’s 48 Book 2 and half way through thinking JSB would have thought we were all nuts sitting listening to them like this!


----------



## Simplicissimus

Merl said:


> I don't think you have to ask me. Lol. I can take them whatever order they come when listening for pleasure. When I'm reviewing the cycles (the only time I ever listen to a full cycle in one sitting) I usually start with the 7th and go from there, as a decent 7th usually* means a decent cycle. As a preference I'd like to do my reviews starting with the 7th and 8th, then work backwards, leaving the 9th till last but it depends on how the recordings are paired and usually that isn't the easiest way to do it.
> If I sense I might be hearing a special cycle I'll listen to the 9th after the 7th, then the 5th, 3rd, 4th and 8th, Pastoral, 1st and 2nd but that rarely happens. As a personal preference I like the pairings below when listening for pleasure as they work best for me:
> 
> 1&2. 3&8. 4&7. 5&6. 9
> 
> *_not always the case_


I find it amazing that I gradually developed the same pairings, which I have been using for the past seven years! About once a year, I listen to the cycle in the course of a week, two symphonies per day, in this order: 4,7; 3,8; 5,6; 1,2; 9. I have all kinds of subjective and personal reasons for these pairings and this order. What a startling coincidence that my "system" is so similar to yours.


----------



## mbhaub

I listen to all nine - in order - annually. (I do the same with the symphony cycles of Mahler, Bax, Tchaikovsky, and Prokofiev.) Since all 9 fit on five disks it's not that much time. I usually listen with scores in one hand, a nice scotch in the other. That the symphonies are paired out of order doesn't make a whit of difference. Last summer it was the Paavo Jarvi set. Remember when Lorin Maazel did all nine consecutively in concert in one day? I can't recall if he used the same orchestra or multiple ones, but damn he must have had a lot of stamina to pull that off.


----------



## MarkW

Only did it once, as a teen, when I got the Victrola Toscanini box and listened straight through in whatever sequence was on the discs. I had "known" most of the symphonies from other recordings. The most memorable thing about it was it was the first time I actually "listened" to the Pastoral -- closely, intently, and with fresh ears (It also had the best sound). I was blown away.


----------



## Merl

Simplicissimus said:


> I find it amazing that I gradually developed the same pairings, which I have been using for the past seven years! About once a year, I listen to the cycle in the course of a week, two symphonies per day, in this order: 4,7; 3,8; 5,6; 1,2; 9. I have all kinds of subjective and personal reasons for these pairings and this order. What a startling coincidence that my "system" is so similar to yours.


I don't know what it is about those pairings that just seem 'right' but they do. Tbh, I'll have them in any order but those pairings are ones I feel just work well. 2&7 and 1&3 are a common pairing too.


----------



## Art Rock

No, but I do that sometimes for my favourite symphonists. Even then, it is usually spread over a few days.


----------



## gvn

Thanks for all the replies. I'm keen to diversify & enrich my somewhat mindless listening customs, so I'm keen to hear as diverse a range of responses as possible!



Art Rock said:


> I do that sometimes for my favourite symphonists.


This interests me. Which symphonists do you play in complete cycles? And when you do, how do you group their symphonies?



Art Rock said:


> Even then, it is usually spread over a few days.


Yes, I'm definitely talking about playing a cycle spread over a few days--NOT trying to do all 9 symphonies by Beethoven (or anyone else) in a single day, Maazel fashion!

Having said which, there's a DVD in which Hengelbrock conducts all 4 Brahms symphonies (in numerical sequence) in a single live concert. It sounds like a recipe for disaster, but I don't think it works as badly as one might expect.

I imagine Brahms definitely expected people to play 1+2 and 3+4 in pairs, and he wouldn't have thought it strange for those pairs to be played on successive evenings. So all four do "fit together" in a sense.


----------



## gvn

mbhaub said:


> I listen to all nine - in order - annually. (I do the same with the symphony cycles of Mahler, Bax, Tchaikovsky, and Prokofiev.)


I must try that--with Bax especially. I suspect it might add considerably to my understanding & appreciation of his symphonies if I followed them through in sequence.


----------



## gvn

Simplicissimus said:


> Originally Posted by *Merl*
> As a personal preference I like the pairings below when listening for pleasure as they work best for me:
> 
> 1&2. 3&8. 4&7. 5&6. 9
> 
> 
> 
> I find it amazing that I gradually developed the same pairings, which I have been using for the past seven years! About once a year, I listen to the cycle in the course of a week, two symphonies per day, in this order: 4,7; 3,8; 5,6; 1,2; 9. I have all kinds of subjective and personal reasons for these pairings and this order. What a startling coincidence that my "system" is so similar to yours.
Click to expand...

Interesting to see how many of us nowadays are willing to listen to 5 & 6 in that order--and even PREFER to do so. I can't recall ever hearing that sequence in my youth, nor can I find any record of such a concert by any (say) pre-1970 classic Beethoven conductor. In those days the sequence always had to be 6 & 5 (or play them in separate concerts).

Maybe in our postmodern society we're no longer convinced that a "lighter" symphony is inherently inferior to, or would sound anticlimactic after, a more "serious" one?


----------



## Art Rock

gvn said:


> This interests me. Which symphonists do you play in complete cycles? And when you do, how do you group their symphonies?


Mahler, Bruckner, Shostakovich, Sibelius, Brahms, Bax. Not always, but sometimes. I play them in numerical order (which except for Bruckner is of course also chronological order).


----------



## Enthusiast

Norrington's later set (from Stuttgart) has then in numerical order which followed what he did in the concerts the recordings were made from. I have just finished listening to them almost in that order - I say almost because I started with 9 and then (having loved it) went to 1 through to 8. It worked very well for me - some of the contrasts between the works were informative.


----------



## Guest

Yes, I have. Toscanini (NYP 1956, I think) and Barenboim (WEDO 2012) - the only complete series I have. And the order? 1-9!

I like doing it and have done it with Prokofiev and Sibelius too. I've found it more challenging with Mahler and Shostakovich as I don't like alll their symphonies, so would skip some.


----------



## realdealblues

In general when I am listening for fun I usually listen to an entire Beethoven cycle in numerical order, one right after the other for the next 6 hours or however long the cycle lasts. I pretty much do the same with Mahler, Brahms, etc.

When trying out a new cycle I usually start with Symphony 1 because it's so rarely done properly. Everyone either skips through the details and tries to breeze through it because they deem it less important than the later Symphonies or they add things that aren't there to try to spice it up. If I like what I hear, after that I usually go to the 5th to hear how they handle that one because it's usually next to be tinkered with, followed by the 9th. If it still has my interest then I go 7, 3, 2, 4, 6, 8. I'm sure I have a reason why but I couldn't tell you.


----------



## Itullian

i listen in order if it'e a new set.

For cycles i have heard it depends on my mood.


----------



## pianozach

How about you load all the movements of all nine symphonies into a single playlist . . .

And select _*"Shuffle"*_.


----------



## gvn

pianozach said:


> How about you load all the movements of all nine symphonies into a single playlist . . .
> 
> And select _*"Shuffle"*_.


With some conductors, one would scarcely notice!


----------



## ethan417

What a wonderful and helpful post.
I am just beginning my journey through the Beethoven Symphonies.
As many of you know, I have been researching which editions to acquire.
I never considered that there was an order other than chronological.
Thanks!!!


----------



## ORigel

I listen to Beethoven's string quartets in a cycle, but not the symphonies. Beethoven's symphonies are mostly middle works, so there isn't a clear progression.

I divide his symphonies into:

1. Classical: 1 and 2
2. Heroic: 3, 5, and 7
3. Pastoral: 6
4. Neoclassical: 4 and 8
5. Late: 9


----------



## TMHeimer

I've played all 9 symphonies in one day a couple of times in the '70s. With the Queens College Orchestra (NYC) at the Beethoven Playathon in our cafeteria. I called dibbs on playing first clarinet on the 3rd & 7th, my favourites. Man, a lot of non-orchestra clarinet players came out of the woodwork those days to try to grab parts. You could munch on "Beethovenburgers"....


----------



## SixFootScowl

I listen to a full LvB cycle always in chronological order: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9


----------



## bharbeke

I will either pick a favorite to sample first (5, 8, or 9), or I will listen in the order presented by the set.

For overall quality and affordability, I would choose the Barenboim/Staatskapelle Berlin or Vanska/Minnesota Orchestra cycles. The Skrowaczewski/Saarbrucken cycle is my favorite, but it is also twice as expensive as the other two I mentioned.


----------



## annaw

Merl said:


> I don't think you have to ask me. Lol. I can take them whatever order they come when listening for pleasure. When I'm reviewing the cycles (the only time I ever listen to a full cycle in one sitting) I usually start with the 7th and go from there, as a decent 7th usually* means a decent cycle. *As a preference I'd like to do my reviews starting with the 7th and 8th, then work backwards, leaving the 9th till last but it depends on how the recordings are paired and usually that isn't the easiest way to do it. *
> If I sense I might be hearing a special cycle I'll listen to the 9th after the 7th, then the 5th, 3rd, 4th and 8th, Pastoral, 1st and 2nd but that rarely happens. As a personal preference I like the pairings below when listening for pleasure as they work best for me:
> 
> 1&2. 3&8. 4&7. 5&6. 9
> 
> *_not always the case_


I've been listening to them in chronological order so far but I tried this suggestion and it seems to work much better for me!


----------



## gvn

*Schuricht* played Beethoven's symphonies in a cycle on one documented occasion, at the Festival de Lyon in June 1956, in four concerts neatly arranged as follows:

6+7
4+3
1+8+5
2+9.

This confirms the pattern noted above:

1. All the classic Beethoven conductors tended to end concerts with _odd-numbered_ symphonies. (As with all the others I've examined, whenever Schuricht played 6 and 5 on the same evening, _he always played 6 first_.)

2. Many of them tended to _start_ Beethoven cycles with 6--perhaps because it's the most "earthly" of the symphonies and therefore the most suitable as an entrance gateway into his universe.

During the last week I've been playing Schuricht's great 1957-1958 Beethoven cycle in the above sequence, and I like it so much that I think I'll pencil it into the CD booklet for future use. Try it, and see how you like it!

Incidentally I see that, like most of the other great conductors, Schuricht often _ended_ concerts with the Leonore No. 3 overture. On one occasion, he even played it after Brahms's Fourth Symphony! And on multiple occasions he played it after the Pastoral. Unfortunately we can't replicate that--not one of his many Leonore 3s seems to have been preserved on record.


----------



## pianozach

gvn said:


> *Schuricht* played Beethoven's symphonies in a cycle on one documented occasion, at the Festival de Lyon in June 1956, in four concerts neatly arranged as follows:
> 
> 6+7
> 4+3
> 1+8+5
> 2+9.
> 
> This confirms the pattern noted above:
> 
> 1. All the classic Beethoven conductors tended to end concerts with _odd-numbered_ symphonies. (As with all the others I've examined, whenever Schuricht played 6 and 5 on the same evening, _he always played 6 first_.)
> 
> 2. Many of them tended to _start_ Beethoven cycles with 6--perhaps because it's the most "earthly" of the symphonies and therefore the most suitable as an entrance gateway into his universe.
> 
> During the last week I've been playing Schuricht's great 1957-1958 Beethoven cycle in the above sequence, and I like it so much that I think I'll pencil it into the CD booklet for future use. Try it, and see how you like it!
> 
> Incidentally I see that, like most of the other great conductors, Schuricht often _ended_ concerts with the Leonore No. 3 overture. On one occasion, he even played it after Brahms's Fourth Symphony! And on multiple occasions he played it after the Pastoral. Unfortunately we can't replicate that--not one of his many Leonore 3s seems to have been preserved on record.


I have a 5 CD box set of all 9 Beethoven's symphonies.

*Hungarian Philharmonic Orchestra* with *Janos Ferencsik*.

5 & 4
3 & 8
6 & 2
7 & 1
9


----------



## SixFootScowl

gvn said:


> Do you ever listen to Beethoven's 9 symphonies in a cycle of home concerts? If so, in what sequence do you listen to them?
> 
> I fear my own listening habits have generally been rather lazy. I suspect some other members of this forum will have been much more imaginative!
> 
> Nowadays many CD sets seem to present the symphonies in simple numerical sequence, and when Nos. 5 and 6 share a disc, the Fifth is usually placed first. Yet I don't think any of the classic Beethoven conductors ever presented them in that sequence. (In particular, they nearly always followed Beethoven's own practice of playing No. 6 before No. 5.) See also my next post.


I mostly listen to Beethoven's symphonies in full cycles and in numerical order. I do that with most composers' symphonies, but for some reason I don't with Mahler.


----------



## CnC Bartok

I did it once, but didn't inhale.

I did do the whole lot in one day, many moons ago, and to be honest it became a challenge more than a pleausre. But yes, when I do invest in a Beethoven cycle, I will try to listen to the whole lot in a shortish period of time - a week, say - with a tendency to hear my two favourite works, 4 and 7 first.


----------



## pianozach

CnC Bartok said:


> I did it once, but didn't inhale.
> 
> I did do the whole lot in one day, many moons ago, and to be honest it became a challenge more than a pleausre. But yes, when I do invest in a Beethoven cycle, I will try to listen to the whole lot in a shortish period of time - a week, say - with a tendency to hear my two favourite works, 4 and 7 first.


Nice to see the underdog symphonies have fans as well.


----------



## gvn

SixFootScowl said:


> I mostly listen to Beethoven's symphonies in full cycles and in numerical order. I do that with most composers' symphonies, but for some reason I don't with Mahler.


I find the same thing with Mahler. I often listen to 2+3+4 in sequence, sometimes to 5+6+7, but 8 doesn't seem to me in any way a suitable sequel to 7, nor 9 to 8. Tried it once or twice, but felt as if I'd been dragged forcibly off my feet first in one direction, then in another. Even 4→5 doesn't seem to me a comfortable transition.

With a composer like Beethoven, Bruckner, Dvořák, or Sibelius, I feel that the series of symphonies marks a progression. (I don't mean necessarily an advance, just a natural development.) With Mahler, I feel more as if the various symphonies are exploratory ventures in diverse directions.


----------



## gvn

CnC Bartok said:


> I did do the whole lot in one day, many moons ago.


There's a DVD on the market in which Hengelbrock plays all 4 _Brahms_ symphonies in a single concert. Even _that_ seems a bit much to me (and I suspect it was a bit much for some of the orchestra too!)


----------



## Bruckner Anton

Mine would just be in chronological order.


----------



## gvn

CnC Bartok said:


> I did do the whole lot in one day.





gvn said:


> There's a DVD on the market in which Hengelbrock plays all 4 _Brahms_ symphonies in a single concert. Even _that_ seems a bit much to me (and I suspect it was a bit much for some of the orchestra too!)


Delayed afterthought: I think if any orchestra ever did the complete Beethoven cycle in a single day, there would have to be a row of substitutes sitting on a reserves bench, waiting to take over whenever one of the 1st violins dropped from arthritis or exhaustion and was carried out on a stretcher.


----------



## elgar's ghost

I always listen to Beethoven's symphonies in order but as I factor them in with other works of his where everything is arranged on a chronological basis it takes a fair amount of days to get from one end to the other.


----------



## Ralfy

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1445661263120396290


> Jonathan Del Mar's Beethoven editions for Bärenreiter
> 
> Arguably no new musical edition has attracted such attention - not only in the music business, but also in the general press


----------



## Forster

Yes, more than once. Barenboim and the West-Eastern Divan; Toscanini and the NYP.

In numerical order.


----------



## Livly_Station

I've listened to the entire cycle at concert + the 3rd Piano Concerto (paired with the 1st symphony in the first day) around 10 years ago. The conductor was Lorin Maazel with the Orchestra Sinfônica Brasileira. At the time I was still in my first years of classical music, so I was still unfamiliar with most of B's symphonies, and I don't remember much of my opinions of the music or the playing, except that I cried a lot during the piano concerto. 

At home I believe I never programmed the entire cycle, but sometimes I do listen to some of them in a row if I'm feeling it.

I'm thinking of trying some cycles soon. Don't know which though.


----------



## SONNET CLV

mbhaub said:


> I listen to all nine - in order - annually. (I do the same with the symphony cycles of Mahler, Bax, Tchaikovsky, and Prokofiev.) Since all 9 fit on five disks it's not that much time. I usually listen with scores in one hand, a nice scotch in the other. That the symphonies are paired out of order doesn't make a whit of difference. Last summer it was the Paavo Jarvi set. Remember when Lorin Maazel did all nine consecutively in concert in one day? I can't recall if he used the same orchestra or multiple ones, *but damn he must have had a lot of stamina to pull that off.*


Perhaps he had a nice scotch in one hand (instead of a baton), and a nice scotch in the other!

I of course have done the Beethoven cycle thing, listening to the works in numerical order, a number of times. (And once even on my exercise bike -- a cycle cycle _that_ was!) In fact, in this 250th Beethoven birth year (which began last Dec. 16th) I have been surveying a Beethoven cycle each month. This is October, and this month I'm revisiting the nine in the box set of recordings by the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by René Leibowitz (Chesky Records - CH-2009). This is a favorite set of mine, and perhaps I'm due to give it one last listen before retiring it along with several hundred other discs I have on hand: currently too many.









I actually have enough Beethoven complete symphony cycles to manage for a couple more years, but my 250th year birthday regimen has been rigorous, and I may take a Beethoven break next year. Unless something startling comes up (as it did this year with the release of the Teodor Currentzis/Musicaeterna recording of the Beethoven Symphony No. 7 In A Major Op.92 (Sony Classical - 19439743772). I would be interested in hearing a complete cycle from Currentzis and the Musicaeterna.









Too, I'm awaiting a complete cycle of the Beethoven symphonies from Manfred Honeck and the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra. The SACD featuring the Fifth and Seventh is astounding (I was in the audience at Heinz Hall when these two were recorded), and the Ninth is currently available, too. (I wasn't in attendance for that particular concert, but I have heard the Ninth in Pittsburgh at least twice before.)









So ... keep them cycles comin'.


----------



## Merl

Livly_Station said:


> I'm thinking of trying some cycles soon. Don't know which though.


Do a search of this site (but don't use the site search button). There are a million and one opinions (including my own). Lol


----------



## Kreisler jr

I think Maazel did this several times. I seem to recall an interview where he pointed out that it was quite tough, but that several standard repertoire operas were as long as LvB symphonies 1-8 played in a row (ca. 4.5 hours). Even all 9 (with 3 intermissions or so) are not that much longer than Götterdämmerung with intermissions.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Kreisler jr said:


> *I think Maazel did this several times. *....


Of course, you can "duplicate" the Maazel experience should you avail yourself of the Lorin Maazel / Cleveland Orchestra set _Beethoven Symphonies No. 1-9_ on CBS Masterworks - M5K 45532:









How long does it take to hear 5 CDs? (Approximately one hour per disc.) And, if you cut out the two included overtures -- _Fidelio_ and _Egmont_ -- you save several more minutes.

I know he wasn't everyone's favorite conductor, but I'm glad I had opportunity to hear Maazel conduct in Pittsburgh while he was music director in the late 1980's and early 1990's. One of his concerts I attended featured two Beethoven symphonies, the Fifth and the Seventh. A memorable concert that was.


----------



## Michael122

For myself, have always enjoyed listening to LVB's symphonies in chronological order {1 - 9} and do this 2 or 3 times a year, always in the same day. My enjoyment of this order is observing the development he applies to both the symphonic art as well as his personal progression.
My favorites are 3, 5, & 6, not necessarily in that order.
Appears he flexes all his musical muscles when he composed a symphony and therefore it could be deduced this was his favorite genre.
This may have been stated in somebody's biography on Louis.
However, after perusing this thread, looking forward to mixing up the order.
Have multiple CDs of all these and my favorite is Bernstein's baton waving with the Vienna Phil.
This surprised me a little as Mr. Bernstein seems, in my opinion, to be somewhat over-rated.


----------



## pianozach

If you're worried about the time, you could listen to all nine Symphonies simultaneously.






*Berliner Philharmoniker, Herbert von Karajan*


----------



## Livly_Station

pianozach said:


> If you're worried about the time, you could listen to all nine Symphonies simultaneously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Berliner Philharmoniker, Herbert von Karajan*


Masterpiece!!!!!!!!


----------



## Heck148

gvn said:


> Delayed afterthought: I think if any orchestra ever did the complete Beethoven cycle in a single day, there would have to be a row of substitutes sitting on a reserves bench, waiting to take over whenever one of the 1st violins dropped from arthritis or exhaustion and was carried out on a stretcher.


LOL!! the woodwind players would be dead as well....if they managed to last thru Sym #8 by some extraordinary effort, Sym #9 would kill them off...LvB 9 is the extreme test for endurance [standard repertoire] - esp the first 3 mvts - non-stop playing, tons of solos, soli, exposed parts....


----------



## 96 Keys

Not all 9 in one day! When I buy a cycle, I listen to one per day.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I just listened to the Bohm/VPO all the way through and still find it one of the most consistent cycles out there. The two main issues are a slow basic tempo for the 5th and the finale of the 9th. But 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 are all top notch examples of the European tradition in excellent sound with glorious playing from the VPO. 4 may well be the reference version of this symphony next to Karajan ‘62.


----------



## Olias

pianozach said:


> If you're worried about the time, you could listen to all nine Symphonies simultaneously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Berliner Philharmoniker, Herbert von Karajan*


What's funny is that people would still complain about the conductor's interpretation of the music.


----------



## FrankE

I have done a few times over the years and 1 to 9 seemed the obvious logical way to do it.


----------



## Merl

I _think_ I've listened to them in every possible order imaginable over the years. Maybe not.


----------



## pianozach

Symphony 1: I
Symphony 2: II
Symphony 3: III
Symphony 4: IV

Symphony 5: I
Symphony 6: II
Symphony 7: III
Symphony 8: IV

Symphony 9: I
Symphony 1: II
Symphony 2: III
Symphony 3: IV

Etc.


----------



## golfer72

Its funny how several posters thought the original post said listening to all in one day when he never said that at all. Interesting


----------



## bluto32

Merl said:


> I _think_ I've listened to them in every possible order imaginable over the years. Maybe not.


With 9! possible orders, and assuming (i) a very conservative 5 hours playing time for the complete cycle, and (ii) you listened to them non-stop even in your sleep, it would take you over 207 years... I don't believe you.


----------



## Knorf

Also, Merl owns and has reviewed dozens of different cycles. Gotta factor that In!
:lol:


----------



## fbjim

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I just listened to the Bohm/VPO all the way through and still find it one of the most consistent cycles out there. The two main issues are a slow basic tempo for the 5th and the finale of the 9th. But 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 are all top notch examples of the European tradition in excellent sound with glorious playing from the VPO. 4 may well be the reference version of this symphony next to Karajan '62.


This must have been incredibly widely printed - I see the Bohm Beethoven box all the time in record shops. At least of the ones on vinyl, I have that and the Kletzki Czech Phil - both wonderful quality.


----------



## Knorf

Whenever I've listened to all nine, whether in one day or spread over a couple, I've listened to them in numerical order. I think here's an order I'll try next time:

1 & 5 (C major then C minor but ending in C major).
3 & 8 (E-flat major then F major).
6 & 4 (F major then B-flat major).
2 & 7 (D major then A major).
9 in D minor as usual all by its lonesome self.


----------



## wkasimer

Knorf said:


> Whenever I've listened to all nine, whether in one day or spread over a couple, I've listened to them in numerical order. I think here's an order I'll try next time:
> 
> 1 & 5 (C major then C minor but ending in C major).
> 3 & 8 (E-flat major then F major).
> 6 & 4 (F major then B-flat major).
> 2 & 7 (D major then A major).
> 9 in D minor as usual all by its lonesome self.


Isn't this the way that the Paavo Jarvi cycle is divided?


----------



## Kreisler jr

I wonder if there is a good order with closest harmonic relations (dominant, subdominant, parallel/relative minor/major) between neighbors.

7-2-9-8-1-6-4-3-5 would be one such option A-D-d-F-C-F-B-Eb-c


----------



## Knorf

Kreisler jr said:


> I wonder if there is a good order with closest harmonic relations (dominant, subdominant, parallel/relative minor/major) between neighbors.
> 
> 7-2-9-8-1-6-4-3-5 would be one such option A-D-d-F-C-F-B-Eb-c


Pretty good, but I'd make it:

7-2-9-8-1-5-6-4-3 for A-D-d-F-C-c-F-Bflat-Eflat. A journey of a tri-tone!


----------



## Knorf

Or, how about this, all third or wholestep relations:

F-A-C-D-Bflat-d-F-Eflat-c

8-7-1-2-4-9-6-3-5


----------



## SixFootScowl

Maybe I should listen in order of least favorite to most favorite, except that I am not sure of my ordering of the symphonies in that regard, but this might work for least to most favorite for me: 7,8,2,4,1,6,5,3,9


----------

