# Top 100 Symphonies - predict the results



## GraemeG

OK, so Australia's ABC-FM radio station is continuing its series of 'Top-100' listener polls. They started this back in 2002 with a "Classic Top 100", being a listener survey of the piece of classical music you 'couldn't live without'. That poll was topped by Mozart's Clarinet concerto, followed by VW's Lark Ascending, then Beethoven's 9th. In subsequent years, they've done a top 100 Piano, 100 Opera moments, 100 Concerto, 100 Chamber music etc.
Anyway, this year they're doing a Top 100 symphony. The voting closed yesterday, and they allowed you three (equally weighted) votes. Some time in September they'll spend a weekend playing the whole list, countdown style, with bits of the top 10 broadcast live in concert by the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra.

So, the exercise in this thread is to predict what you think the Top 10 will be, in sequence. (NOT your personal favourites, but what you think the masses will vote for). Previous survey results are here: www.abc.net.au/classic/classic100/previous.htm if you want to get a flavour for the peculiarities of ABC-FM listeners!

Here's my countdown for how I think the voting will go:
10. Schubert 8
9. Beethoven 7
8. Saint-Saens 3
7. Beethoven 3
6. Tchaikovsky 5
5. Beethoven 6
4. Mozart 40
3. Beethoven 9
2. Dvorak 9
1. Beethoven 5

What's yours?
cheers,
Graeme


----------



## Air

I think Beethoven's 9th will likely rank higher than the 5th, as there are two movements all the stations' "classical listeners" are familiar with in the 9th compared to 1 in the 5th.  Expect Dvorak's 9th and Beethoven's 6th to fight for the top spot too.

My station, which I never listen to, had a similar countdown too and this is how the list went:

10 Schubert 9
9 Mendelssohn 4
8 Beethoven 3
7 Rachmaninoff 2
6 Mozart 41
5 Beethoven 5
4 Dvorak 9
3 Beethoven 7
2 Beethoven 6
1 Beethoven 9

Oh, and this was extracted from the KDFC Classical All-Stars 2009 (what a great name) in which Pachelbel Canon ranked 11th. Yes, 11th.


----------



## Tapkaara

airad2 said:


> Oh, and this was extracted from the KDFC Classical All-Stars 2009 (what a great name) in which Pachelbel Canon ranked 11th. Yes, 11th.


Oy vey....


----------



## GraemeG

At least in the original Australian Top 100, the Pachelbel only came in at 30-something! In that original list, there were exactly 10 symphonies in the 100 pieces. With their position no., they were:
3: Beethoven 9
6: Beethoven 6
40: Beethoven 3
42: Beethoven 5
43: Mahler 5
45: Saint-Saëns 3
52: Dvorak 9
62: Mahler 2
76: Mahler 8
80: Beethoven 7

There's no guarantee that the order will be like that in this new survey. Interestingly, despite the Mozat clarinet concerto winning the overall Top 100, when they ran a separate 100 Concertos in 2006 it was beaten by a number of others (Emperor & Rach 2 coming in first & second).

At least in favour of Australian listeners is that the Top 100 Chamber music failed to place Eine Kleine Nachtmusic _anywhere_!
cheers,
Graeme


----------



## bassClef

Odd that Mozart 40 gets in there - I by far prefer 39 and 41


----------



## starry

Isn't Brahms 4 a famous one? Or is it considered too serious? Brahms should have given it a name might have become more famous.  Called it 'The Tragic' or something.

Tchaikovsky 6 I would assume would be near the top 10, seems famous enough. Having a name helps it.

Not sure how famous the Berlioz Fantastique symphony is....but I would guess it would top 20 at least.

I agree Schubert 8th would probably be included, more famous than the 9th.

Mahler / Rachmaninov I think are so famous due to fashionability more than anything. I mean...3 Mahler symphonies in the top 10?!

Probably Mozart's Jupiter over the 40th? Last pieces are often made famous, the name helps too. But the music in the 40th might be more famous.

Haydn's last symphony known as the 'London' might be quite high in a list of famous symphonies. Maybe the 'Surprise' might be quite famous too?


----------



## Tapkaara

I would be highly skeptical of this list. It's interesting to see how the public's opinion will affect what makes the cut, but if it's a serious attempt to classify the greatest symphonies, it will fall flat on its face. (We all know that's an impossible task, anyway!)

Saint-Saens no. 3? Come on.

But I guess this sort of exercise is more for fun than anything, and what's wrong with a little fun every now ang again?


----------



## GraemeG

Tapkaara said:


> I would be highly skeptical of this list. It's interesting to see how the public's opinion will affect what makes the cut, but if it's a serious attempt to classify the greatest symphonies, it will fall flat on its face. (We all know that's an impossible task, anyway!)


No, it's not a serious attempt at anything, it is just a listener survey of "your three favourite symphonies", of no more value than that. There are no attempts to rank anything other than by number of votes cast, no rules about 'best' or 'most famous' or anything like that.
And you can't vote for the same symphony three times, either - I tried! Even given that it's a listener-only poll, I wouldn't be surprised to see Gorecki's 3rd somewhere in the top 20 either. Anyway, my first post was just what I think will fill the top 10, as the public will vote.
It was interesting to see how little my (predicted) list differed from the actual one that the Californian radio station came up with using an obviously similar approach. In that one I was surprised to see Rachmaninov 2 & Mendelssohn 4 ahead of anything by Tchaikovsky. You live and learn...

Anyway, you've all got a couple of months to work out what you think it will be...
cheers,
Graeme


----------



## Tapkaara

I wouldn't even want to try to predict what will make this list. No doubt, there would be one or two wacky entries that I would never have predicted in a million years. Something like the 3rd Symphony of Saint-Saens, for example.

Either Beethoven's 5th or 9th will make number one, and both will certainly be on the list.


----------



## Toccata

Tapkaara said:


> I wouldn't even want to try to predict what will make this list. No doubt, there would be one or two wacky entries that I would never have predicted in a million years. Something like the 3rd Symphony of Saint-Saens, for example.
> 
> Either Beethoven's 5th or 9th will make number one, and both will certainly be on the list.


Saint-Saens 3rd Symphony came in as the third favourite symphony in this year's "Classic FM" poll. CFM is the UK's nationwide very popular classical music station, and its annual poll of listeners' favourites appears to be conducted along similar lines to the Australian radio poll, except that it covers all classical music works. I agree that it's a ridiculous result but that's what tends to happen (ie distorted results) when you get radio stations playing only parts of symphonies, as happens quite a lot of the time on CFM. I hasten to add that I never listen to CFM, although I have to admit that it's not a bad place to go for anyone new to classical music and if all they want is a crash course in what's what.


----------



## Tapkaara

Toccata said:


> Saint-Saens 3rd Symphony came in as the third favourite symphony in this year's "Classic FM" poll. CFM is the UK's nationwide very popular classical music station, and its annual poll of listeners' favourites appears to be conducted along similar lines to the Australian radio poll, except that it covers all classical music works. I agree that it's a ridiculous result but that's what tends to happen (ie distorted results) when you get radio stations playing only parts of symphonies, as happens quite a lot of the time on CFM. I hasten to add that I never listen to CFM, although I have to admit that it's not a bad place to go for anyone new to classical music and if all they want is a crash course in what's what.


Although I do not live in the UK, I am aware of Classic FM and their penchant for playing snippets from works instead on whole works. This an effort to cater to the "grab and go" culture we now live in, and no doubt, a great deal of those who listen to Classic FM do so at work to "smooth out their day," because, after all, classical music is nothing more than relaxation music.

So, with this types of polls, one must consider who is contributing to them. (Many think they are voting for their favorite classical "song!") Thus the results that leave us scratching our heads.

We have station like this in San Diego, unfortunately. So, I do most of my classical radio listening online, most KUSC in Los Angeles. If only San Diego could have a station as good as this.


----------



## Sid James

This is probably of some interest for people just getting acquainted with classical, but I'm over it. I mean, we've all listened to Beethoven's 5th about a million times...


----------



## Mirror Image

Andre said:


> This is probably of some interest for people just getting acquainted with classical, but I'm over it. I mean, we've all listened to Beethoven's 5th about a million times...


Thankfully I haven't, because I'm not big into composers that other people always talk about. How many times are we even going to hear about Beethoven. I'm tired of hearing about him, so you won't hear me hardly ever talking about him except in this post.


----------



## Sid James

Well I don't mind Beethoven's _Eroica_ but I can't stand the 5th & I'm not heavily into the others either...I enjoy Haydn's symphonies more for some reason...As for Saint-Saens' _Organ Symphony_, I thought it was fabulous when I was a teenager (it was one of the first works I saw performed live), but now I think that it is very dull...

& i think that Dvorak's 9th is not his best, I like the 8th much better...

Anyway, I'm not a big fan of the standard symphonic repertoire, as you can see. Give me Messiaen's _Turangalila Symphony _any day instead of those listed above...


----------



## Tapkaara

Well, I can take some standard repertory with my more "off the beaten path" composers...why not have the best of both worlds? But I will admit, much of the standard rep is of less interest to me than other music.

Having ssaid that, I love Beethoven and I love his 5th...I don't care how cliche it is!


----------



## Dim7

Beethoven's fifth is pretty good, though there's quite a lot of unnecessary stuff in that symphony. Personally, I just listen to 6 second clip of that duh-duh-duh-duuuuh motif over and over again. Music has to be stripped down to its essentials.


----------



## Tapkaara

Cmaj7 said:


> Beethoven's fifth is pretty good, though there's quite a lot of unnecessary stuff in that symphony. Personally, I just listen to 6 second clip of that duh-duh-duh-duuuuh motif over and over again. Music has to be stripped down to its essentials.


This is obviously a joke...!


----------



## Weston

Andre said:


> & i think that Dvorak's 9th is not his best, I like the 8th much better...


One of the saddest things about being a classical fan to me is losing interest in pieces I used to love. I know the Dvorak 9th is filled with wonders in every phrase, but I can scarcely stand to listen to it any more.

That other big name composer whom I won't discuss (today) in honor of Mirror Image has never had this overplayed effect on me however.

Okay, I'll take a stab at guessing the numbers, but it will look a lot like everyone else's
10. Haydn, No. 100
9. Bruckner No. 7
8. Brahms No. 4
7. Brahms No. 1
6. Beethoven No. 3
5. Dvorak No. 9
4. Schubert (whatever no. the "Unfinished" is called this year)
3. Beethoven No. 5
2. Mozart No. 40
1. Beethoven No. 9


----------



## Weston

Tapkaara said:


> This is obviously a joke...!


Especially considering the duh-duh-duh-duuuuh motif runs through _every_ movement, whether it's obvious or not. So it got a chuckle from me.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Cmaj7 said:


> Beethoven's fifth is pretty good, though there's quite a lot of unnecessary stuff in that symphony. Personally, I just listen to 6 second clip of that duh-duh-duh-duuuuh motif over and over again. Music has to be stripped down to its essentials.


I remove most of the unnecessary duhs, you only need one so when i listen it sounds like this:

duh duuuh


----------



## bdelykleon

What is the problem with the standart repertoire? I have my quest for unknown composers, but the real joy and the real pleasure I find in the great ones: Haydn, Mozart, beethoven, Brahms. The others are good for the novelty, or for some particular quality, but I'm still to find a symphony by a minor composer better crafted than Beethoven's Fifth. The most important reason is that usually all future symphonies were created having Beeghoven as a model, and therefore they lack the freshness and the cohesiveness of Beethoven.


----------



## Sid James

bdelykleon said:


> ...I'm still to find a symphony by a minor composer better crafted than Beethoven's Fifth. The most important reason is that usually all future symphonies were created having Beeghoven as a model, and therefore they lack the freshness and the cohesiveness of Beethoven.


That's true, the journey that Beethoven takes us on in that symphony, from darkness to light, was quite original at the time (even though I dare say there were precedents in Haydn & Mozart). But over the years, the idea was copied ad nauseum. I suppose a symphony which takes us on a similar journey, like Shostakovich's 5th or 10th, can still be good, but I suppose I prefer more ambigious expressions of the human condition (now that sounds really arty-farty!), for want of a better expression...


----------



## JAKE WYB

mm i deman subtlety and personal experience from a symphony (or any work ataully) as long as its honest

I refuse to have these radio polls within my radar and if you mention classic fm to me I burn up like a vampire - I physically cant justify predicting the results of poll of such an malnourished audience when there arent at least 5 sibelius symponies in the top 20. his has the freshness of beethoven but the subtlty and personal honestyof NOBody prrrrfft


----------



## GraemeG

To their credit, ABC-FM are broadcasting all 100 symphones complete - a week's programming from 9am - midnight, Saturday to Saturday.
Here's the website:

http://www.abc.net.au/classic/classic100/

Too many great works are too far down the list - Bruckner 8 is being played as no 52 as I type, but at least it's there!
I'll post the final results on Monday for your interest!
cheers,
Graeme


----------



## GraemeG

OK, so that's a solid week of listening over!
Just clearing up confusion; ABC-FM are the classical arm of Australia's national radio broadcaster (ie. non-commercial, equiv of NPR in the US, BBC in Britain)
As mentioned, this was just a 'favourites' survey of listeners; not a serious quest to find 'the best' symphony; and ABC-FM devoted 8 days' programming, 9am-5pm, then 8pm -midnight, to get through 100 symphonies, complete. They also chose carefully the performances, covering pretty well all the greatest conductors & orchestras from the last half-century.
It was good to see things I'd never expected would show up, albeit right at the tail end; the two Nielsens, Shostakovich 4 for instance, but I guess 100 symphonies is a lot, and it would have been surprising if there were more than the 5 Haydns and 7 Mozarts which eventually got through. But Sibelius had a full house, Mahler only dropped the 7th, and Shostakovich & Vaughan Williams had 5 each.

The accompanying message board was badly (and infrequently) moderated, and I eventually gave up attempts to broaden - just a little - the minds of those who found Mahler and Shostakovich 'cacophonous'; some goose did an analysis at some point of classical/romantic/late-romantic, etc, and announced that 9 symphonies were 'moderns'. Well, at that time (somehere in the 40s) they'd played about 3 symphonies by living composers (2 aussies + Glass), so I was forced to conclude he was counting works written from 1920-1950 as 'modern'. Excluding Rachmaninoff, presumably.

Anyway, here's the list. The top is pretty predictable; 3 months ago I'd picked 7 of the top 10, and 17 of the top 20; when the radio was playing Mahler 3 (no 39 during the countdown) I sat down, and correctly picked the remaining 38 works! Moreover, across those 38 pieces, I averaged a 'place error' of only 6. Brahms 2 was my worst error; I had that at no 20, whereas it came in at 35...!
Why Tchaikovsky 4 is so popular defeats me, I gott say.
cheers,
Graeme

1 DVOŘÁK	Symphony No. 9 in E minor, Op 95, From the New World
2 BEETHOVEN Symphony No. 9 in D minor, Op 125, Choral
3 BEETHOVEN Symphony No. 6 in F, Op 68, Pastoral
4 SAINT-SAËNS Symphony No. 3 in C minor, Op 78, Organ Symphony
5 BEETHOVEN Symphony No. 7 in A, Op 92
6 BEETHOVEN Symphony No. 5 in C minor, Op 67
7 TCHAIKOVSKY Symphony No. 6 in B minor, Op 74, Pathétique
8 BEETHOVEN Symphony No. 3 in E flat, Op 55, Eroica
9 SIBELIUS	Symphony No. 2 in D, Op 43
10 SCHUBERT Symphony No. 9 in C, D944, The Great
11 TCHAIKOVSKY Symphony No. 5 in E minor, Op 64
12 MOZART	Symphony No. 41 in C, K551, Jupiter
13 MOZART	Symphony No. 40 in G minor, K550
14 MAHLER	Symphony No. 2 in C minor, Resurrection
15 BERLIOZ	Symphonie fantastique, Op 14
16 RACHMANINOFF Symphony No. 2 in E minor, Op 27
17 GÓRECKI Symphony No. 3, Op 36, Symphony of Sorrowful Songs
18 MAHLER	Symphony No. 5 in C sharp minor
19 SCHUBERT Symphony No. 8 in B minor, D759, Unfinished
20 BRAHMS	Symphony No. 4 in E minor, Op 98
21 MAHLER	Symphony No. 1 in D, Titan
22 BRAHMS	Symphony No. 1 in C minor, Op 68
23 MENDELSSOHN Symphony No. 4 in A, Op 90, Italian
24 MENDELSSOHN Symphony No. 3 in A minor, Op 56, Scottish
25 SIBELIUS Symphony No. 5 in E flat, Op 82
26 SHOSTAKOVICH Symphony No. 5 in D minor, Op 47
27 PROKOFIEV Symphony No. 1 in D, Op 25, Classical
28 TCHAIKOVSKY Symphony No. 4 in F minor, Op 36
29 BRAHMS Symphony No. 3 in F, Op 90
30 ELGAR	Symphony No. 1 in A flat, Op 55
31 SHOSTAKOVICH Symphony No. 7 in C, Op 60, Leningrad
32 DVOŘÁK	Symphony No. 8 in G, Op 88
33 MAHLER	Symphony No. 4 in G
34 BIZET	Symphony in C
35 BRAHMS	Symphony No. 2 in D, Op 73
36 MAHLER Symphony No. 8 in E flat, Symphony of a Thousand
37 BEETHOVEN Symphony No. 8 in F, Op93
38 MOZART	Symphony No. 39 in E flat, K543
39 MAHLER	Symphony No. 3 in D minor
40 SCHUBERT Symphony No. 5 in B flat, D485
41 MAHLER Symphony No. 9 in D
42 FRANCK	Symphony in D minor
43 SIBELIUS Symphony No. 3 in C, Op 52
44 VAUGHAN WILLIAMS Symphony No. 5 in D
45 HAYDN	Symphony No. 94 in G, Surprise
46 BRUCKNER Symphony No. 4 in E flat, Romantic
47 SHOSTAKOVICH Symphony No. 10 in E minor, Op 93
48 SIBELIUS Symphony No. 1 in E minor, Op 39
49 R. STRAUSS An Alpine Symphony, Op 64
50 SHOSTAKOVICH Symphony No. 11 in G minor, Op 103, The Year 1905
51 MOZART	Symphony No. 38 in D, K504, Prague
52 BRUCKNER Symphony No. 8 in C minor
53 SIBELIUS Symphony No. 7 in C, Op 105
54 MAHLER	Symphony No. 6 in A minor, Tragic
55 MOZART	Symphony No. 29 in A, K201
56 MESSIAEN Turangalila Symphony
57 ELGAR	Symphony No. 2 in E flat, Op 63
58 HAYDN	Symphony No 101 in D The Clock
59 VAUGHAN WILLIAMS	Symphony No 3 Pastoral
60 BEETHOVEN Symphony No 4 in B flat, Op 60
61 DVOŘÁK	Symphony No 7 in D minor
62 VAUGHAN WILLIAMS	Symphony No. 1, A Sea Symphony
63 BEETHOVEN Symphony No. 2 in D, Op 36
64 RACHMANINOV Symphony No. 3, Op 44
65 VAUGHAN WILLIAMS	Symphony No. 2 in G, London
66 BRUCKNER Symphony No. 7 in E
67 EDWARDS Symphony No. 1 Da Pacem Domine
68 MOZART	Symphony No. 25 in G minor, K183
69 BRUCKNER Symphony No. 9 in D minor
70 MOZART	Symphony No. 35 in D, K385 Haffner
71 BORODIN Symphony No. 2
72 MOZART	Symphony No 36 in C, K425 Linz
73 SCHUMANN Symphony No 3 in E flat, Op 97 Rhenish
74 TCHAIKOVSKY Symphony No 1 in G minor, Op 13 Winter Dreams
75 TCHAIKOVSKY Manfred Symphony, Op 58
76 VAUGHAN WILLIAMS	Symphony No 7 Sinfonia Antartica
77 WALTON	Symphony No 1 in B flat minor
78 MENDELSSOHN Symphony No 5 in D Op 107 Reformation
79 HAYDN	Symphony No 104 in D London
80 SIBELIUS Symphony No 4 in A minor, Op 63
81 BRAČANIN Symphony No 2 Choral
82 RACHMANINOV Symphony No 1
83 O’BOYLE	Riversymphony
84 MAHLER	The Song of the Earth
85 HAYDN	Symphony No 45 in F sharp minor Farewell
86 PROKOFIEV Symphony No 5 in B flat, Op 100
87 BERLIOZ	Harold in Italy, Op 14
88 TCHAIKOVSKY Symphony No 2 in C minor Op 17 Little Russian
89 MENDELSSOHN Symphony No. 2, Op 52 Lobgesang
90 NIELSEN	Symphony No 4, Op 29 The Inextinguishable
91 NIELSEN	Symphony No 5, Op 50
92 SHOSTAKOVICH Symphony No 4 in C minor, Op 43
93 SIBELIUS	Symphony No 6 in D minor, Op 104
94 STRAVINSKY Symphony of Psalms
95 RACHMANINOV Choral Symphony, Op 35 The Bells
96 DVOŘÁK	Symphony No 6 in D, Op 60
97 SCHUMANN Symphony No 1 in B flat, Op 38 Spring
98 DVOŘÁK	Symphony No 5 in F, Op 76
99 GLASS	Symphony No 4 Heroes
100 HAYDN	Symphony No 100 in G Military


----------



## dmg

I have no beef with any "Top X" lists, even if I disagree with the results. They are always going to be subjective, no matter who does them, and nobody will ever completely agree on the outcome.

Having said that, Saint-Saëns No. 3 is one of my favorites, and I have absolutely no problem with seeing it in the top 5.


----------



## Padawan

dmg said:


> I have no beef with any "Top X" lists, even if I disagree with the results. They are always going to be subjective, no matter who does them, and nobody will ever completely agree on the outcome.


Same here. Besides, there are still so many things on that list I haven't had time to listen to yet.

I love that one of favorites, Dvořák, is at the top of the list.

BTW, *dmg*, what is the building or facade of your avatar?


----------



## Tapkaara

I'm more than a little surprised with this list. This may be the first list of this kind that I've seen where Sibelius comes in before Mahler. I am more than comfortable with this!!

Beethoven seems to reign supreme here, more so than Mozart, and I am again very comfortable with this. Beethoven was, in my most humble and imperfect estimation, a far greater symphonist than Mozart and I am glad to see this sentiment reflected in this list.

I am perpetually amazed at the popularity of the Saint-Saens Organ Symphony on these lists. I just do not think it holds up as one of the non plus ultra symphonies of all time. And a little surprised that Dvorak's 9th is number one. It certainly belongs in the top 10, perhaps even top 5...but number one? Folks REALLY like that "Going Home" tune, I guess.


----------



## dmg

Padawan said:


> BTW, *dmg*, what is the building or facade of your avatar?


It's Bass Performance Hall in Fort Worth, TX.


----------



## Padawan

dmg said:


> It's Bass Performance Hall in Fort Worth, TX.


It's beautiful.

As a former-computer-programmer-analyst-turned-interior-designer, I originally wanted to be an architect. Great architecture is one of the things I miss most about Chicago.


----------



## Sid James

Being in Sydney, I listened to some of the broadcasts during the week. It was good to hear some works that I haven't heard for 20 years, like Mahler's 8th. But I wasn't glued to the radio like some, I just had other things to do, and I can't stand listening to that much music - it requires too much concentration.

I'm somewhat dismayed that not many post WW2 symphonies made it on the list. Gorecki, Glass, Messiaen were represented, but what of composers like Hovhaness, Tippett, Henze, Lutoslawski & Penderecki, who deserve to be on the list? But of course, this all comes down to popularity, & I have to accept that, I guess...


----------



## GraemeG

Tapkaara said:


> I am perpetually amazed at the popularity of the Saint-Saens Organ Symphony on these lists. I just do not think it holds up as one of the non plus ultra symphonies of all time.


Can't speak internationally, but from an Australian perspective, it was given a boost when the big tune from the finale was used in the locally made film 'Babe', which was immensely popular.

Yes, Dvorak is a real mystery; sure it's a popular work, but _that_ popular? There must be a lot of people for whom Beethoven IS classical music too, to see so many symphonies right up there. 'There's Beethoven and Tchaikovsky, then all those modern composers who don't write tunes', something like that.
cheers,
Graeme


----------



## Sid James

I hate the _Organ Symphony _- it's a horrible earworm, nothing more.

I think Dvorak's 9th won because it has so much optimism - people like being uplifted. I listened to the live broadcast from Melbourne on Saturday of the countdown finale, but I thought their performance of the Dvorak was a bit 'safe.'


----------



## Tapkaara

I see the Organ Symphony and the New World Symphony as "feel good" works in a very popular and easy idiom. Not that there is anything wrong with tunefulness and easy access, but these two works, in my flawed and ridiculously inept opinion, simply can not stand up to other works in the genre of the symphony. Saint-Saens simply cannot be counted in such august company as Beethoven, Mahler, Tchaikovsky, Sibelius, etc. And Dvorak is highly over-rated as a symphonist. Again, I do not see his symphonies as true contenders to those of any of the composers I listed above.

It's just a silly list, after all.


----------



## Artemis

GraemeG said:


> OK, so that's a solid week of listening over!


Thanks for listing the results.

I am not clear of the procedure for voting, eg how many symphonies people could vote for and whether the ranks were taken into account.

Given the fairly low population of Australia, the widespread lack of interest in classical music, and all the other usual inertia factors giving rise to low polls in situations like this, I suspect that the actual number of votes cast for some symphonies might be low, especially for those outside the top 10. This would render the results even more questionable.

Leaving aside the quirky results for some works, I calculate that the overall ranking by composer is as follows (based on 100 points for the No 1 spot, 99 points for the No 2 spot etc, which I accept is wholly arbitrary but possibly not totally silly):1. Beethoven 
2. Mahler 
3. Mozart 
4. Sibelius 
5. Tchaikovsky 
6. Brahms 
7. Shostakovich 
8. Schubert 
9. Dvorak 
10. Vaughan Williams 
11. Mendelssohn 
12. Bruckner 
13. Rachmnaninoff 
14. Haydn 
15. Elgar​I would suggest that the main anomalies are that Mahler and Sibelius are too high, Haydn is too low, and it is ludicrous that Schumann and Prokofiev don't even appear.​


----------



## emiellucifuge

Tapkaara said:


> I see the Organ Symphony and the New World Symphony as "feel good" works in a very popular and easy idiom. Not that there is anything wrong with tunefulness and easy access, but these two works, in my flawed and ridiculously inept opinion, simply can not stand up to other works in the genre of the symphony. Saint-Saens simply cannot be counted in such august company as Beethoven, Mahler, Tchaikovsky, Sibelius, etc. And Dvorak is highly over-rated as a symphonist. Again, I do not see his symphonies as true contenders to those of any of the composers I listed above.
> 
> It's just a silly list, after all.


I have to disagree with you about Dvorak. In my opinion he stands as one of the greatest symphonists of all time. I dont base this one the 9th symphony. Listen and experience the 8th, 6th, 4th and particularly the 7th and you may think differently.


----------



## Cortision

Yes, I also think that Dvorak was a wonderful Symphonist. No 7 is my favourite, but I still love the New World, despite the second movement in particular being so hackneyed. I wonder if some listeners suffer from music fatigue. I understand why people want to move away from the tried and tested and find things fresh and new; I've no doubt that as I get older I will do this to; however I hope this will not affect my enjoyment of the genius of composers such as Beethoven, Mozart and even Saint Saens!

The Organ Symphony may not be as musically profound as the great Symphonies of Brahms and Sibelius, but if I come to despise such a great tune I hope they come up with a pill to fix it!

Yours immaturely and naively.


----------



## tahnak

Dim7 said:


> Beethoven's fifth is pretty good, though there's quite a lot of unnecessary stuff in that symphony. Personally, I just listen to 6 second clip of that duh-duh-duh-duuuuh motif over and over again. Music has to be stripped down to its essentials.


Would you be able to edit the unnecessary stuff and mail me your revised version of the symphony?
There is not a single note in this symphony that should not be there. Each note is linked to the umbilical cord of the entire germ motif.
That is quite an ambitious statement here when you say that music should be stripped down to its essentials. Would Chopin's 'Minute' pre lude suit you or is that redundant too?


----------



## Tapkaara

Artemis said:


> [/INDENT]I would suggest that the main anomalies are that Mahler and Sibelius are too high, Haydn is too low, and it is ludicrous that Schumann and Prokofiev don't even appear.​


I do not find the high ranking of Mahler and Sibelius to be at all inappropriate. I do think that Schumann should be on the list. Prokofiev I'm less upset about. He's a good symphonist but I'd be cautious to call him great. Prokofiev's greatets strengths were piano music and ballets, in my disgusting opinion.


----------



## Tapkaara

emiellucifuge said:


> I have to disagree with you about Dvorak. In my opinion he stands as one of the greatest symphonists of all time. I dont base this one the 9th symphony. Listen and experience the 8th, 6th, 4th and particularly the 7th and you may think differently.


I am familiar with Dvorak's symphonies beyond the 9th. My favorite Dvorak symphony is the 6th.

Dvorak should be included on a list of greatest symphonists because he is pretty universally popular and he is no doubt influential. That's not debatable.

But from a purely personal standpoint, I find his symphonies to be fairly superficial in their content and they lack a profundity that one finds in other composers of symphonies. Don;t hate me, just shake your head at me disapprovingly.


----------



## Tapkaara

tahnak said:


> Would you be able to edit the unnecessary stuff and mail me your revised version of the symphony?
> There is not a single note in this symphony that should not be there. Each note is linked to the umbilical cord of the entire germ motif.
> That is quite an ambitious statement here when you say that music should be stripped down to its essentials. Would Chopin's 'Minute' pre lude suit you or is that redundant too?


I agree that Beethoven's 5th is perfect and not a single note needs to be removed.


----------



## JAKE WYB

Im glad to see all 7 sibelius symphonies up there - I shouldnt have dismissed the list so quickly (...) and it is quite appropriate to have the most popular above haydn - none of which stand up to in singular greatness to an of sibelius because they are light works with quality and appeal but not one particular one stands out to appear so very high up. 

Also i think beethoven dserves a coupl;e in the top ten - but his dense dominance is ionly because when one thinks of a symphony beethoven comes to mind before anybody else not because they are all greater than the less popular ones which means such a list is meaningless so i dont know why im so bothered


----------



## emiellucifuge

Ah sorry than tapkaara, i do not hate you, but i do dissaprove.

To me the 7th is the epitomy of profound emotion in music. I find the utmost joy and soaring spirits coupled with the most stormy and troubled negativity.


----------



## Tapkaara

emiellucifuge said:


> Ah sorry than tapkaara, i do not hate you, but i do dissaprove.
> 
> To me the 7th is the epitomy of profound emotion in music. I find the utmost joy and soaring spirits coupled with the most stormy and troubled negativity.


Perhaps I should revisit the 7th taking your comments in mind.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Please do!


----------



## Sid James

JAKE WYB said:


> Im glad to see all 7 sibelius symphonies up there - I shouldnt have dismissed the list so quickly (...) and it is quite appropriate to have the most popular above haydn - none of which stand up to in singular greatness to an of sibelius because they are light works with quality and appeal but not one particular one stands out to appear so very high up.


I disagree about Haydn. Listen to any of his symphonies perceptively and you will hear a wealth of contrast and constant changes in mood. But the result sounds cohesive, and to think that he achieved this with a far smaller orchestra than the later composers!

I think you'd find that alot of people disagree about Sibelius' supposed greatness. I was listening to the broadcast on Saturday of Sibelius' 2nd at a friend's place & she said 'this is so heavy.' When I asked her why she didn't like it but likes Bruckner she said 'Bruckner does it a whole lot better.' & I have to agree. The way Sibelius, in that symphony at least (particularly the finale), just repeats ideas ad nauseum in the same way with little development is just plainly boring and overblown. The 2nd was his top symphony on the list, but this is my least favourite symphony by him for those reasons.


----------



## Lukecash12

Let's just say this short and simple: I think they're all good


----------



## Tapkaara

Andre said:


> I think you'd find that alot of people disagree about Sibelius' supposed greatness. I was listening to the broadcast on Saturday of Sibelius' 2nd at a friend's place & she said 'this is so heavy.' When I asked her why she didn't like it but likes Bruckner she said 'Bruckner does it a whole lot better.' & I have to agree. The way Sibelius, in that symphony at least (particularly the finale), just repeats ideas ad nauseum in the same way with little development is just plainly boring and overblown. The 2nd was his top symphony on the list, but this is my least favourite symphony by him for those reasons.


Sibelius's "supposed" greatness? There's nothing "supposed" about it.

I think "ad nauseum" goes better with Bruckner. Who was it that said he didn't write 9 symphonies, but the same symphony 9 times?


----------



## Lukecash12

You two bicker like a married couple


----------



## JAKE WYB

Andre said:


> I disagree about Haydn. Listen to any of his symphonies perceptively and you will hear a wealth of contrast and constant changes in mood. But the result sounds cohesive, and to think that he achieved this with a far smaller orchestra than the later composers!
> 
> I think you'd find that alot of people disagree about Sibelius' supposed greatness. I was listening to the broadcast on Saturday of Sibelius' 2nd at a friend's place & she said 'this is so heavy.' When I asked her why she didn't like it but likes Bruckner she said 'Bruckner does it a whole lot better.' & I have to agree. The way Sibelius, in that symphony at least (particularly the finale), just repeats ideas ad nauseum in the same way with little development is just plainly boring and overblown. The 2nd was his top symphony on the list, but this is my least favourite symphony by him for those reasons.


of course a lot of people disagree - because hes not terribly heart on sleeve like most people want but he has starins which are imperceptible to most listeners which is why its reasonanly surprising to see all of his works on a popularity arranged list. Sibelius 2nd is to my mind his only symphony which isnt perfect i think there is terrible lack of unity throughout and the finale has nothing on the 5th's. I agree sibelius cnt do heavy like bruckner - but he never tries to (with the exception of Kullervo - which is actucally heavy well done)

Sibelius also achieves depths of contrast and drama, atmosphere, exploring magnificent scopes with small orchestras too - symphony 4 and 6 probably are sparser in orchestral forces at any one time than most of Haydns yet contain greater symphonic unity, greater drama, and certainly more timeless power


----------



## Tapkaara

If people come to Sibelius expecting Mahlerian/Brucknerian "heaviness," they'll be dissapointed. In order to appreciate or like Sibelius, one must approach him accepting what he is beforehand.

This is why I think many have trouble with Sibelius. This is a composer who (in his major works) simply refuses to sound like anyone else and do his own thing the way he wanted to do it. Honestly, I cannot think of many composers who were so unaffected by trends of the day like Sibelius. He really marches to the beat of his own drummer.

The 2nd is popular among the general classical public, but of course, it lacks the unity and perfection of his later symphonies. I'll agree with all of that. But it's still a hell of a work and if it does not match the heaviness of a Mahler symphony, that should not be used against it. Again, one must accept it on its own terms.

For anyone out there (including Andre) who feels a skepticism towards Sibelius, I urge you to take a look at this website:

http://inkpot.com/classical/sibsym7.html

There are a series of well thought out articles on Sibelius's major works, including the symphonies. They are musically informed, yet even a layperson can read these and take away great info.

I would suggest giving some of these articles a good read before listening to your next Sibelius work and see if a little bit of light is shed on one of the most singular sound worlds in all of music.


----------



## Lukecash12

Now whatever happened to Scriabin's symphonies? 

There is a huge variety in them, each is orchestrated in depth, and a few of them literally sum up the story of the human condition. Each symphony was heavy, heavy drama, and never monotonous, never lost it's elegance, and it's personal level of emotion. I mean, how epic can you get? He wrote everything during his composing career. A few pieces that were somewhat baroque, some unbelievably distinct Chopinesque etudes (I'm not sure anyone will write with such poignant drama in such a short piece in any time soon), he defined what it is to write an introspective poem, wrote the Black Mass (which he intended as the embodiment of sin), and the Insect sonata (which has the most interesting use of trills in any piece I've yet seen), and he broke the barrier of what is and isn't tonal. Not to mention he wrote one of the most emotional piano concertos of any you can choose today.

He might not be the most popular, but he was certainly the most prolific composer in a lot of people's eyes (including mine). 

And we seem to be forgetting that Beethoven wrote 9 breathtaking, unique, and powerful symphonies. Beethoven really was the king of grand crescendos, choral progressions thick with harmony and praise, and great, sensitive use of the stringed instruments.


----------



## Tapkaara

I am not familiar with Scriabin's symphonies. I must confess I am in no hurry to hear them as I cannot get into his sound world with much success. He strikes me as a greater innovator than a musician.


----------



## Lukecash12

Rest assured, once you understand Scriabin, and the avante garde composers thereafter, you realize they aren't a bunch of smart people playing pretend. They're really writing music. 

And also, you would probably love Scriabin's piano concerto, and his first three symphonies. They're more up your alley than his later works. He hadn't really gotten a hold of how to use the mystic chord yet by then.

Personally, though, I still think his later works are more emotional, elegant, textural, and human than his Chopinesque works. That's really true for most composers, though, they really gain composure with age.

Edit: If you're at all curious now, look at my thread entitled Scriabin's Symphonic Works. If not, then that's too bad really, but it's your choice.


----------



## Air

Haydn is WAY too low.

Yes, Prokofiev’s best medium of expression was certainly not the symphony as he lacked the ability to utilize the orchestra in the way i.e. Shostakovich did. In addition, his tendency to jump from idea to idea is unique and leads to a lack of development. However, for the sheer amount of ideas released (He was the great melodist, was he not?), these seven works desperately deserve more than TWO spots on this list. What depresses me is not that only 2 of his symphonies made it, but more that they always happen to be the 1st and the 5th. The first, however witty, does not match up to the wild nature of the 2nd and its long, haunting (and developed) 2nd movement nor does the fifth (considered the greatest of the seven) have the same emotional (often said to be politically similar to Shostakovich) depth of the 6th. In fact, why bother? I love these 7 symphonies equally. Ranking is a waste of time.

I perfectly understand why people would devalue Prokofiev’s symphonies in comparison to his concerti, operas, ballets, film scores, and piano music. Personally, I do not.


----------



## Tapkaara

Air said:


> Haydn is WAY too low.
> 
> Yes, Prokofiev's best medium of expression was certainly not the symphony as he lacked the ability to utilize the orchestra in the way i.e. Shostakovich did. In addition, his tendency to jump from idea to idea is unique and leads to a lack of development. However, for the sheer amount of ideas released (He was the great melodist, was he not?), these seven works desperately deserve more than TWO spots on this list. What depresses me is not that only 2 of his symphonies made it, but more that they always happen to be the 1st and the 5th. The first, however witty, does not match up to the wild nature of the 2nd and its long, haunting (and developed) 2nd movement nor does the fifth (considered the greatest of the seven) have the same emotional (often said to be politically similar to Shostakovich) depth of the 6th. In fact, why bother? I love these 7 symphonies equally. Ranking is a waste of time.
> 
> I perfectly understand why people would devalue Prokofiev's symphonies in comparison to his concerti, operas, ballets, film scores, and piano music. Personally, I do not.


I enjoy Prokofiev's symphonies...and they are certainly great...but compared to some of the other symphonies out there, the competition is just too stiff. (My fav Prokofiev symphonies, by the way, are 2 and 3.)


----------



## emiellucifuge

Hey tapkaara, any luck with Dvorak yet?


----------



## Tapkaara

emiellucifuge said:


> Hey tapkaara, any luck with Dvorak yet?


Well, I thought I had the 7th...I do not. I know that I heard it on the radio recently though. (I listen to a lot of classical radio stations around the world via the good ol' internet.) So, I am not as familiar with it as I am some of the others. I did take in the 6th, though...

The final two movements of the 6th are great, but I was finding myself bored listening to the first two movements. How can I overcome this?


----------



## JAKE WYB

Air said:


> Haydn is WAY too low.
> 
> Yes, Prokofiev's best medium of expression was certainly not the symphony as he lacked the ability to utilize the orchestra in the way i.e. Shostakovich did. In addition, his tendency to jump from idea to idea is unique and leads to a lack of development. However, for the sheer amount of ideas released (He was the great melodist, was he not?), these seven works desperately deserve more than TWO spots on this list. What depresses me is not that only 2 of his symphonies made it, but more that they always happen to be the 1st and the 5th. The first, however witty, does not match up to the wild nature of the 2nd and its long, haunting (and developed) 2nd movement nor does the fifth (considered the greatest of the seven) have the same emotional (often said to be politically similar to Shostakovich) depth of the 6th. In fact, why bother? I love these 7 symphonies equally. Ranking is a waste of time.
> 
> I perfectly understand why people would devalue Prokofiev's symphonies in comparison to his concerti, operas, ballets, film scores, and piano music. Personally, I do not.


Disagree about haydn

AGREE about prokofiev - 
theres a great deal of unjust neglect towards his cycle - and the familiarity of his 1st is a great vexation to me as the otheres are greater more profound works -
I think in his weaker symphonies (2, 4etc..) his lack of unity and developpment etc are tough on the old patience - his better ones like 3 5 and 6 are amongst the ggreatest of the century and do stand up to shostakovich - especially the *3rd* this especially inits inner two movments oneof the most advanced and truly original works of his the second movment has some of the most extraordinary sound worlds arrangedmin a very solid satisfying way and the unity of the sound world is what binds this work together to create a single span of symphonic music that is lacking in some others of his. I am fed up at not seeing this work up there but of course not surprised or really that bothered.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Tapkaara said:


> The final two movements of the 6th are great, but I was finding myself bored listening to the first two movements. How can I overcome this?


If that question is not sarcasm, ill come back to you with an answer.


----------



## JAKE WYB

emiellucifuge said:


> If that question is not sarcasm, ill come back to you with an answer.


well good luck to you on that one - i couldnt possibly answer that - every single dvorak movment i find irresistable and inexplicably enjoyable right from the 1st symphony - which is more than can be said of beethoven and brahms or even mahler


----------



## MrTortoise

Tapkaara said:


> For anyone out there (including Andre) who feels a skepticism towards Sibelius, I urge you to take a look at this website:
> 
> http://inkpot.com/classical/sibsym7.html


Thanks for the link, I need to familiarize myself with his work. Seems I heard the 2nd Symphony a long time ago, however I'm not familiar with any of his other Orchestral works. I'll read up a bit before I get some recordings. Any other Sebelius links that introduce his music would be appreciated.


----------



## Tapkaara

MrTortoise said:


> Any other Sebelius links that introduce his music would be appreciated.


Sebelius is the Health and Human Services Secretary. Sibelius is a composer. (There is a difference. A BIG difference.)


----------



## emiellucifuge

I agree with you Jake.
Tapkaara, i know you havent got a recording but still try and listen to the 7th symphony ,it is miles better than the 6th. It has a much broader emotional pallete.

I do like sibelius quite a bit, but whats the cause of your total fascination?


----------



## MrTortoise

Tapkaara said:


> Sebelius is the Health and Human Services Secretary. Sibelius is a composer. (There is a difference. A BIG difference.)


Thanks for the correction, my typing/spelling is horrible. I'll never make that mistake again. So could you suggest any further links to familiarize myself with Seb..oh wait Sibelius


----------



## Tapkaara

MrTortoise said:


> Thanks for the correction, my typing/spelling is horrible. I'll never make that mistake again. So could you suggest any further links to familiarize myself with Seb..oh wait Sibelius


I think you can google his name and find lots of info. Another great site is www.sibelius.fi. You can view in English as well as Finnish. Great biographical notes as well as information about his compositions.


----------



## Sid James

I agree with some of the others about Prokofiev. It is true, perhaps, that he didn't develop his ideas in the symphonies in the same (perhaps long-winded) way as Shostakovich, but who cares? Prokofiev still produced great symphonies, perhaps most people (like me) aren't familiar with them all, but there are some excellent ones.

I've only heard Nos. 1, 3, 5. Perhaps No. 1 isn't the greatest symphony of the C20th, but it's an interesting foray into Neo-Classicism. No. 3 also strikes me as very engaging, a multiplicity of ideas in the 1st movement, and an interesting tension between dissonance and astringency in the 3rd movement, contrasted with a romantic lyrical episode. The 2nd & final movements are also memorable. Indeed, so advanced was Prokofiev's writing, that parts of the music remind me of late C20th composers, like Lutoslawski & Penderecki. The 5th is also an excellent work, I particularly like the slow movement, with this horrible climax, that seems to speak so well to those living under dictatorships.

About Sibelius, people can probably detect how I'm not a big fan of his symphonies. I like his symphonic poems better, like _Lemminkainen_ or _Tapiola_. His symphonies don't grab me half as much. I supose the standout masterpiece would have to be the 4th, but I find it such a great picture of inwardness & depression, that it depresses me. So does the 7th. I can't really stand No.2, Nos. 3 or 5 don't appeal to me either. I'm lukewarm on No. 1, though it is very memorable, and the only one I haven't heard is the 6th. I'm not a Brucknerian either, but I like his style better, there seems to be more freedom there.

But my taste is different to other people's here (or the ones that answered the survey). I particularly like post 1945 symphonies, such as those by Josef Tal, Lutoslawski, Penderecki, Glass. So I'm not really of the same mindset as the masses, who can't seem to get into post WW2 classical music, and just stay stuck in the early C20th...


----------

