A Tentative Ranking of Great Symphonists (Top Ten List)
Yu Zheng
Of all the musical genres, I happen to be most fascinated by symphonies. For
a long time I have always wanted to "rank" my evaluation of the great
symphonists throughout musical history. Although that may sound a little bit
opinionated, I put down my "top-ten" list nontheless just for fun. Your
comments are welcome. If you wish, please also attach your list in your
follow-ups.
First echelon:
1. MAHLER -- For a long time, Beethoven has always been on the No. 1 spot, but
as I listen and compare both people's music more and more, Mahler finally
outweighs Beethoven as my favorite composer. He has the best of Beethoven and
Shostakovich in his 11 symphonies. To me, Mahler's symphonies is the apex
achievement of this form of music. My favorites are No. 2, 6 and 8.
2. BEETHOVEN -- In my opinion, symphony as we know it today really started
with Beethoven. He was the first one who made symphony more than just a form
of light-hearted entertainment -- rather, it has become a way to explain and
express life itself. My favorites are No. 5, 6 and 9.
3. SHOSTAKOVICH -- Truly THE greatest symphonist of the 20th century. Like
what Wagner had done to operas, Shostakovich's achievement was so great and
his contributions so significant that he probably "killed" symphonies by
exhausting this form of music. Unfortunately, due to non-musical reasons, his
symphonies are not well recognized enough in the United States, but I firmly
believe that Shostakovich's music will be resurrected sometime in the future,
much like Mahler's music was resurrected half a century after his death. It
is possible that Shostakovich's influence will outweigh that of Mahler
someday. My favorites are No. 7, 10 and 13.
Between first and second echelons:
4. BRUCKNER -- Bruckner's music did not gain my favor in the very beginning.
I have the impression that his long motifs and themes work like a slow oven,
gradually building up to climactic points -- It is only in recent time that I
have begun to see the genius of it. As I listen to Bruckner's symphonies
more and more, I begin to enjoy them more and more -- finally to a point that
I think they are truly masterpieces. My favorite is the 9th (Unfinished) -- I
now think it is almost flawless.
Second echelon:
5. HAYDN -- After all, he was the guy who started all this. Haydn's
symphonies flow along unimpeded and are truly relaxing. My favorites are the
London Symphonies followed by the Paris Symphonies.
6. MOZART-- His late works are truly great. I can almost sense a little
Beethovian favor in them. After all, I think Mozart was the greatest musical
genius ever lived. My favorite is the Jupiter Symphony.
7. BRAHMS -- Tchaikovsky once mentioned that Brahms's symphonies lacked
passion. It is true that Brahm's four symphonies are extremely methodic, yet
they BECOME so beautiful after you listen to them a few times. My favorite is
the 1st -- I think Tchaikovsky might have had second opinions if he had
listened to the fourth movement more closely.
Third echelon:
I would have stopped at Brahms had I not have the intention to complete a top
ten list. However, I find it extremely hard to rank the rest of the musicians
without compromising my conscience. Hence I will give a list of names without
ranking and any three of them will easily make it to the list.
DVORAK -- My favorite is No. 9.
TCHAIKOVSKY -- The Pathetique Symphony is the one which can strike the
inner-most feelings of a man.
SCHUBERT -- I will never forget his 8th (Unfinished) although it has only two
movements. Frankly, I think it is impossible to develop anything else once
the music was so perfect.
SCHUMANN -- His four symphonies would have been more influential if they had
been 20 years ealier. Nevertheless, they were masterpieces nontheless.
PROKOFIEV -- Had it not been Shostakovich, he would have been the greatest
Russian symphonist in the 20th century.
COPLAND -- His Third Symphony has been called "the greatest American symphony".
Thank you for your attention. Have a nice day.
Dave
Robert R. Ramirez
> First echelon:
> 1. MAHLER -- For a long time, Beethoven has always been on the No. 1
> spot, but as I listen and compare both people's music more and more,
> Mahler finally outweighs Beethoven as my favorite composer. He has the
> best of Beethoven and Shostakovich in his 11 symphonies. To me,
> Mahler's symphonies is the apex achievement of this form of music. My
> favorites are No. 2, 6 and 8.
Hear, hear! I couldn't have said it better myself. What Mahler has done
to the genre rightfully earns him his place at the very top. His symphonies
are more than just syntheses of great music... more than worlds in
themselves... they are outright epic sagas of music and proof that
music in indeed the language of the soul. It is no mistake that his
popularity has grown exponentially in recent decades. I can relate to
your own progressively heightened regard for Mahler (it's taken me three
years from first being introduced to his music to become the raving Mahler
fanatic I am today).
> Between first and second echelons:
> 4. BRUCKNER -- Bruckner's music did not gain my favor in the very beginning.
> I have the impression that his long motifs and themes work like a slow oven,
> gradually building up to climactic points -- It is only in recent time that I
> have begun to see the genius of it. As I listen to Bruckner's symphonies
> more and more, I begin to enjoy them more and more -- finally to a point that
> I think they are truly masterpieces. My favorite is the 9th
> (Unfinished) -- I now think it is almost flawless.
Again, I can relate -- Bruckner was boring to me at first, but now I see
his music as the work of great genius. I think the fact that I came to
appreciate Mahler fully first, though, aided my eventual appreciation
of Bruckner. I think his 9th is his greatest symphony -- I especially
love the edition with the performing version of the Finale by Samale,
Phillips and Mazzuca. Others may disagree, but I think the Finale is
very convincing and effective in completing to the "hymn to God" that
Bruckner was striving for (yes, I even like the very end).
Robert Ramirez
Sara Freeman
Zheng) writes:
>
>
>Of all the musical genres, I happen to be most fascinated by
symphonies. For
>a long time I have always wanted to "rank" my evaluation of the great
>symphonists throughout musical history. Although that may sound a
little bit
>opinionated, I put down my "top-ten" list nontheless just for fun.
Your
>comments are welcome. If you wish, please also attach your list in
your
>follow-ups.
>
>First echelon:
>1. MAHLER -- For a long time, Beethoven has always been on the No. 1
spot, but
>as I listen and compare both people's music more and more, Mahler
finally
>outweighs Beethoven as my favorite composer. He has the best of
Beethoven and
>Shostakovich in his 11 symphonies. To me, Mahler's symphonies is the
apex
>achievement of this form of music. My favorites are No. 2, 6 and 8.
>
>2. BEETHOVEN -- In my opinion, symphony as we know it today really
started
>with Beethoven. He was the first one who made symphony more than just
a form
>of light-hearted entertainment -- rather, it has become a way to
explain and
>express life itself. My favorites are No. 5, 6 and 9.
I would personally put Dvorak and Schubert ahead of Beethoven, but
maybe that's because I have been Beethovened to death.
>
>3. SHOSTAKOVICH -- Truly THE greatest symphonist of the 20th century.
Like
>what Wagner had done to operas, Shostakovich's achievement was so
great and
>his contributions so significant that he probably "killed" symphonies
by
>exhausting this form of music. Unfortunately, due to non-musical
reasons, his
>symphonies are not well recognized enough in the United States, but I
firmly
>believe that Shostakovich's music will be resurrected sometime in the
future,
>much like Mahler's music was resurrected half a century after his
death. It
>is possible that Shostakovich's influence will outweigh that of Mahler
>someday. My favorites are No. 7, 10 and 13.
Yep, I love Shostakovich.
>
>Between first and second echelons:
>4. BRUCKNER -- Bruckner's music did not gain my favor in the very
beginning.
>I have the impression that his long motifs and themes work like a slow
oven,
>gradually building up to climactic points -- It is only in recent time
that I
>have begun to see the genius of it. As I listen to Bruckner's
symphonies
>more and more, I begin to enjoy them more and more -- finally to a
point that
>I think they are truly masterpieces. My favorite is the 9th
(Unfinished) -- I
>now think it is almost flawless.
>
>Second echelon:
>5. HAYDN -- After all, he was the guy who started all this. Haydn's
>symphonies flow along unimpeded and are truly relaxing. My favorites
are the
>London Symphonies followed by the Paris Symphonies.
>
>6. MOZART-- His late works are truly great. I can almost sense a
little
>Beethovian favor in them. After all, I think Mozart was the greatest
musical
>genius ever lived. My favorite is the Jupiter Symphony.
>
Ho! Ho! Haydn above Mozrt. I love it. I've always like Haydn better
than Mozart. He seems to have more fun with music.
>7. BRAHMS -- Tchaikovsky once mentioned that Brahms's symphonies
lacked
>passion. It is true that Brahm's four symphonies are extremely
methodic, yet
>they BECOME so beautiful after you listen to them a few times. My
favorite is
>the 1st -- I think Tchaikovsky might have had second opinions if he
had
>listened to the fourth movement more closely.
>
>Third echelon:
>I would have stopped at Brahms had I not have the intention to
complete a top
>ten list. However, I find it extremely hard to rank the rest of the
musicians
>without compromising my conscience. Hence I will give a list of names
without
>ranking and any three of them will easily make it to the list.
>
>DVORAK -- My favorite is No. 9.
See above.
>
>TCHAIKOVSKY -- The Pathetique Symphony is the one which can strike the
> inner-most feelings of a man.
>
>SCHUBERT -- I will never forget his 8th (Unfinished) although it has
only two
> movements. Frankly, I think it is impossible to develop anything
else once
> the music was so perfect.
See above.
>
>SCHUMANN -- His four symphonies would have been more influential if
they had
> been 20 years ealier. Nevertheless, they were masterpieces
nontheless.
>
>PROKOFIEV -- Had it not been Shostakovich, he would have been the
greatest
> Russian symphonist in the 20th century.
>
>COPLAND -- His Third Symphony has been called "the greatest American
symphony".
>
>Thank you for your attention. Have a nice day.
>
>Yuk. He's not on any of my lists for anything.
>
Just my humble, biggoted, narrow-minded opinions.
_______________________________________________________________________
My computer is entirely responsible for my typos and misspellings.
Margaret Mikulska
>
>Of all the musical genres, I happen to be most fascinated by symphonies. For
>a long time I have always wanted to "rank" my evaluation of the great
>symphonists throughout musical history. Although that may sound a little bit
>opinionated, I put down my "top-ten" list nontheless just for fun. Your
>comments are welcome. If you wish, please also attach your list in your
>follow-ups.
I always wondered why people feel impelled to rank art and artists. No
sarcasm intended: I'm really curious why it is so important for many
people to create/impose a linear ordering (and many fight over it).
>2. BEETHOVEN -- In my opinion, symphony as we know it today really started
>with Beethoven.
Musicologists tend to disagree. Mozart and Haydn wrote symphonies "as
we know this genre today".
>3. SHOSTAKOVICH -- Truly THE greatest symphonist of the 20th century. Like
>what Wagner had done to operas, Shostakovich's achievement was so great and
>his contributions so significant that he probably "killed" symphonies by
>exhausting this form of music. Unfortunately, due to non-musical reasons, his
>symphonies are not well recognized enough in the United States, but I firmly
>believe that Shostakovich's music will be resurrected sometime in the future,
From what I see and hear, Shostakovich is_extremely_ well recognized in
the U.S. Actually, I find his popularity in this country a bit
puzzling. Interestingly, he seems to be popular mostly in the U.S. and
in the former Soviet Union, but much less so in other countries.
Interestingly again, it's mostly the works written when he more or less
complied to the Soviet art guidelines that are so popular here; not his
early (up to 1930s), really innovative works.
I don't think his music needs "resurrecting" - it's alive and extremely
well here, often at the expense of other 20th-C composers.
>much like Mahler's music was resurrected half a century after his death. It
>is possible that Shostakovich's influence will outweigh that of Mahler
>someday. My favorites are No. 7, 10 and 13.
I suspect that both Shostakovich's and Mahler's influence will wane.
>Between first and second echelons:
Mezzanine for symphonists?
>Second echelon:
>5. HAYDN -- After all, he was the guy who started all this.
All what, exactly?
>Haydn's symphonies flow along unimpeded and are truly relaxing.
Is "relaxing" a compliment when applied to a musical work? (I'm really
asking.)
It can be said about many well-written symphonies that it "flows along
unimpeded". What's so special about Haydn in this respect?
>My favorites are the
>London Symphonies followed by the Paris Symphonies.
>
>6. MOZART-- His late works are truly great. I can almost sense a little
>Beethovian favor in them. After all, I think Mozart was the greatest musical
>genius ever lived. My favorite is the Jupiter Symphony.
If he was the greatest, why is he in the second echelon only? :-)
[Pet-peeve mode on]
Why is it that people think they compliment Mozart by pointing out
"Beethovenian flavor" in some of his works? I see a certain
contradiction in your saying that WAM was the greatest, and at the same
time patting his back for having "a little Beethovenian flavor", which
is pretty much tantamount to saying "occasionally he was almost as good
as Beethoven". It shows a certain stereotype that is still very much at
work: even though a person say "Mozart was the greatest", s/he still
puts Beethoven, perhaps semi-consciously, higher.
[Pet-peeve mode off]
>7. BRAHMS -- Tchaikovsky once mentioned that Brahms's symphonies lacked
>passion. It is true that Brahm's four symphonies are extremely methodic,
What do you mean by "methodic" as applied to a symphony? I don't
understand.
> yet
>they BECOME so beautiful after you listen to them a few times. My favorite is
>the 1st -- I think Tchaikovsky might have had second opinions if he had
>listened to the fourth movement more closely.
I suspect he listened quite closely, but the aesthetics of the two
composers didn't quite agree.
>SCHUBERT -- I will never forget his 8th (Unfinished) although it has only two
> movements.
Some people can't forget even one movement of a work; we had a (painful)
opportunity to notice this phenomenon in this newsgroup quite recently.
>Frankly, I think it is impossible to develop anything else once
> the music was so perfect.
Schubert sketched someting more, I recall.
>COPLAND -- His Third Symphony has been called "the greatest American symphony".
Possibly, but by whom?
-Margaret
Bert Horowitz
1. Beethoven - No contest
2. Sibelius - Gets to me every time
3. Dvorak - I don't know why he's not traditionally up there with
"the immortals"; even No. 1 "Bells of Zlonice[sp?] is
a near great symphony.
4. Schubert - Only for the Unfinished which may be the greatest
symphony ever.
5. Brahms - but threw in several clunker movements
6. Mozart - "Prague" may be best but most others contain a lot of
perfection without substance - I still don't get it.
7. Frank - for just that one.
8. Bruckner - growing on me.
9. Mahler - ditto Bruckner.
10. Tchaikovsky - on melody and mood alone but as I grow older,
the lack of symphonic organization pushes him
further and further down my list.
--
Bert
Chloe Carter
Zheng) writes:
>
>Of all the musical genres, I happen to be most fascinated by symphonies. For
>a long time I have always wanted to "rank" my evaluation of the great
>symphonists throughout musical history. Although that may sound a little bit
>opinionated, I put down my "top-ten" list nontheless just for fun. Your
>comments are welcome. If you wish, please also attach your list in your
>follow-ups.
>
I think you overrate Shostakovich, and underrate Mozart. Some of the
Shostakovich symphonies are indeed first-rank masterpieces, but there's
also a lot of trash in there.
>Dave
- chloe
Bruce Knoll
(Margaret Mikulska) says:
>I always wondered why people feel impelled to rank art and artists. No
>sarcasm intended: I'm really curious why it is so important for many
>people to create/impose a linear ordering (and many fight over it).
Maybe only because it's fun, and it helps people to organize things in
their own minds. As a person becomes educated, though, the organization
seems to loosen up quite a bit, and it is more and more difficult to
rank symphonies as "great" or not. I certainly regard Beethoven's
Fifth Symphony as great. It was the work I cut my teeth on. But I
rarely listen to it any more because I've become so familiar with it.
I'd rather listen to a new work, which may not be so high on the
organizational ladder, because I enjoy coming to an understanding
of a new work.
It's very easy to say that things should not be ranked, and many
reasons not to do so. But it does help the novice build a mental
scheme to which he or she can refer when deciding what works to invest
in--either time or money. It may help someone just starting out in
classical music to know that many of the works listed in this thread
are "great." Imagine someone starting out with Pettersson's 10th
symphony, for instance, instead of Schubert's 8th, Beethoven's 9th, or
Shostakovich's 9th. They'd be as likely as not to keep "classical"
music at arms length for quite some time. Unless, of course, they
possessed an unusual musical intelligence, in which case one would
not need worry about his or her affinity and appetite for well-
crafted music.
On the other hand, rankings can be dangerous, as others have
pointed out. No one should avoid a musical composition, merely
because someone else said it's not part of the musical canon. But
we have to give others the benefit of the doubt when it comes to
judging. If they are that naive to go completely by someone else's
recommendation, they are the ones losing out.
>Interestingly again, it's mostly the works written when he more or less
>complied to the Soviet art guidelines that are so popular here; not his
>early (up to 1930s), really innovative works.
This last regarding Shostakovich. The key word seems to be popular.
Unfortunately, his compliance to Soviet art guidelines often resulted
in works more accessible to a public who simply don't have time to
educate themselves in the finer points of music listening. That may
be a pity, but it is also a fact that artists ignore to their peril.
The greatest composers have been those who are able to speak their
extremely complex thoughts through musical forms which the uneducated
can grasp. And I admit I am one of those uneducated. They may not
be able to analyse what they've heard, but they usually know when
they've heard something worth saying.
>>5. HAYDN -- After all, he was the guy who started all this.
>All what, exactly?
Symphonic and sonata form, I would guess.
>>Haydn's symphonies flow along unimpeded and are truly relaxing.
>Is "relaxing" a compliment when applied to a musical work? (I'm really
>asking.)
That would depend on the context. I doubt Mahler would be pleased by
this idea applied to his 6th symphony, for instance, but it may have
been just what Haydn was aiming for in some of his works, or perhaps
at least in some of his music.
>[Pet-peeve mode on]
>Why is it that people think they compliment Mozart by pointing out
>"Beethovenian flavor" in some of his works? I see a certain
>contradiction in your saying that WAM was the greatest, and at the same
>time patting his back for having "a little Beethovenian flavor", which
>is pretty much tantamount to saying "occasionally he was almost as good
>as Beethoven". It shows a certain stereotype that is still very much at
>work: even though a person say "Mozart was the greatest", s/he still
>puts Beethoven, perhaps semi-consciously, higher.
>[Pet-peeve mode off]
A very good question, despite pet-peeve mode. I wonder if we judge
musical greatness based on the percieved emotional outpouring rather
than fine craftsmanship? I have been guilty of the same judgement,
without thinking. Yet at the same time, emotional expression is often
considered feminine (ooh! there's that troublesome opposition!), and
therefore to be avoided in a society that praises the masculine virtues
of power, control and cold reason. A pity, that. Both are needed; in
fact, are inseparable.
Bruce Knoll
bwk...@psuvm.psu.edu
Holly Anderson
>In article <4afhi9$h...@cnn.princeton.edu>,
>Margaret Mikulska <miku...@astro.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>>I always wondered why people feel impelled to rank art and artists.
For those who are just beginning to learn, it's the only way to know
where they should start and be assured that they're listening to quality
stuff. It's sort of like wine: those little numbers are helpful
(usually) in avoiding vinegar, but eventually you learn about all those
little vintners who brought out equally good, but more obscure,
vintages.
>It can be harmful if it keeps people from exploring "lesser" but
>rewarding music.
True. IMO, however, that's only likely to happen if the person is
trying to fill his/her musical literacy requirement and isn't really
interested in the music for itself.
Holly Anderson
James Kahn
>My top ten symphonists and favorite symphonies by them:
>1. Beethoven (#9)
>2. Mahler (#6)
>3. Shostakovich (#11)
>4. Bruckner (#8)
>5. Brahms (#4)
>6. Sibelius (#5)
>7. Tchaichovsky (#6)
>8. Saint-Saeans (#3)
>9. Mozart (#41)
>10. Rachmaninoff (#2)
Any such list that doesn't include Haydn is not worth considering.
--Jim
====================================================================
ka...@troi.cc.rochester.edu Department of Economics
http://kahn.econ.rochester.edu University of Rochester
Rochester, NY 14627
Yu Zheng
>In article <zhengy.39...@caedm.et.byu.edu> zhe...@caedm.et.byu.edu (Yu
>Zheng) writes:
>>2. BEETHOVEN -- In my opinion, symphony as we know it today really started
>>with Beethoven.
>Musicologists tend to disagree. Mozart and Haydn wrote symphonies "as
>we know this genre today".
What I mean is that it was really Beethoven who made a name out of symphony.
Although Haydn started the symphonic genre, Beethoven perfected the model
which lasted throughout the 19th century -- the main age of classical music.
Beethoven transformed symphony from merely a form of entertainment to a form
of philosophical expression.
>From what I see and hear, Shostakovich is_extremely_ well recognized in
>the U.S. Actually, I find his popularity in this country a bit
>puzzling. Interestingly, he seems to be popular mostly in the U.S. and
>in the former Soviet Union, but much less so in other countries.
>Interestingly again, it's mostly the works written when he more or less
>complied to the Soviet art guidelines that are so popular here; not his
>early (up to 1930s), really innovative works.
I think Shostakovich's greatest work -- the Babi Yar Symphony (No. 13) by no
means complied with Soviet art guidelines. In fact it was banned in USSR
immediately after its debut. Even the great Russian conductor Mravinsky
refused to conduct its first performance.
>I suspect that both Shostakovich's and Mahler's influence will wane.
When that comes, my friend, it will be the beginning of a sad dark age of
musical enjoyment.
>>Haydn's symphonies flow along unimpeded and are truly relaxing.
>Is "relaxing" a compliment when applied to a musical work? (I'm really
>asking.)
>It can be said about many well-written symphonies that it "flows along
>unimpeded". What's so special about Haydn in this respect?
What I mean is that there is definitely no Mahlerian style soul searching in
Haydn's short, simple and pleasant symphonies. Maybe 18th century was indeed
a care-free time as compared to the early 20th century.
>>6. MOZART-- His late works are truly great. I can almost sense a little
>>Beethovian favor in them. After all, I think Mozart was the greatest musical
>>genius ever lived. My favorite is the Jupiter Symphony.
>If he was the greatest, why is he in the second echelon only? :-)
Greatest musical genius does not necessarily lead to greatest musician, let
alone symphonist. There were probably two people who showed similar
wonderchild type of talent as Mozart did in musical history -- Saint-Saen and
Bernstein, but neither one of them ever reached the same status as Beethoven
and Mahler. Mozart is among the second echelon symphonists not because he
didn't work hard, but because the ripe age of the first symphonic revolution
-- the romantic era -- was still decades away when he died.
>[Pet-peeve mode on]
>Why is it that people think they compliment Mozart by pointing out
>"Beethovenian flavor" in some of his works? I see a certain
>contradiction in your saying that WAM was the greatest, and at the same
>time patting his back for having "a little Beethovenian flavor", which
>is pretty much tantamount to saying "occasionally he was almost as good
>as Beethoven". It shows a certain stereotype that is still very much at
>work: even though a person say "Mozart was the greatest", s/he still
>puts Beethoven, perhaps semi-consciously, higher.
>[Pet-peeve mode off]
There is no doubt Mozart was the greatest *MUSICAL GENIUS*, but Beethoven was
overall a better musician, definitely a better symphonist. No contradiction
and no stereotype.
>>7. BRAHMS -- Tchaikovsky once mentioned that Brahms's symphonies lacked
>>passion. It is true that Brahm's four symphonies are extremely methodic,
>What do you mean by "methodic" as applied to a symphony? I don't
>understand.
That's an engineer's way of saying "well-planned", "well-structured", etc.
Brahms' orchestral works can be regarded as the antithesis of those by Wagner.
So if you are familiar with Wagner's opera orchestration, imagine Brahms'
symphonies to be (exactly) the opposite of that.
>>SCHUBERT -- I will never forget his 8th (Unfinished) although it has only two
>> movements.
>Some people can't forget even one movement of a work; we had a (painful)
>opportunity to notice this phenomenon in this newsgroup quite recently.
Only when such a movement, or a theme, or a motif is very impressive. Good
music must first be pleasant to the ear, and if the music is pleasant to both
the ear and the heart, then it is *GREAT* music. You will find a lot of such
music in Mahler's 11 symphonies.
>>Frankly, I think it is impossible to develop anything else once
>> the music was so perfect.
>Schubert sketched someting more, I recall.
Yet he found it so impossible to improve beyond the first two movements that
work on the 8th symphony stalled indefinitely. Schubert wrote a complete 9th
symphony (nicknamed "the Great Symphony") after his unfinished 8th.
>>COPLAND -- His Third Symphony has been called "the greatest American symphony".
>Possibly, but by whom?
By most American musicologists. Truly Copland was the one "who put America on
a world map of music". He was the "Moses who led American music out of the
desert".
>-Margaret
So Margaret, please tell me what music you enjoy and which music you like. We
haven't seen your side the story yet.
Dave
David M. Cook
>I always wondered why people feel impelled to rank art and artists. No
>sarcasm intended: I'm really curious why it is so important for many
>people to create/impose a linear ordering (and many fight over it).
I don't think it needs to be a harmful practice if the basis for ranking is
broad, flexible and is not taken too seriously.
It can be harmful if it keeps people from exploring "lesser" but
rewarding music.
Dave Cook
Margaret Mikulska
>Here's mine:
>...
>6. Mozart - "Prague" may be best but most others contain a lot of
> perfection without substance - I still don't get it.
If you don't get it, how do you know it lacks substance? And what _is_
"substance", by the way?
-Margaret
Matthew Bonness
1. Beethoven (#9)
2. Mahler (#6)
3. Shostakovich (#11)
4. Bruckner (#8)
5. Brahms (#4)
6. Sibelius (#5)
7. Tchaichovsky (#6)
8. Saint-Saeans (#3)
9. Mozart (#41)
10. Rachmaninoff (#2)
-Matt
Rick Hayward
>dc...@utpapa.ph.utexas.edu (David M. Cook) wrote:
>>In article <4afhi9$h...@cnn.princeton.edu>,
>>Margaret Mikulska <miku...@astro.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>I always wondered why people feel impelled to rank art and artists.
>For those who are just beginning to learn, it's the only way to know
>where they should start and be assured that they're listening to quality
>stuff.
Wow! - you mean there is a certified place where you *should* start ?
I'm devastated. I mean - nobody told me, and it looks like I'll have
to start all over again. All that time I spent getting hooked on music
through an amalgam of Dowland, Chuck Berry, Maxwell Davies, Poulenc,
Satie, Little Richard, Duke Ellington, Beethoven, Stravinsky,
Monteverdi and Schubert was non-certified!
Where can I contact the Taste Police for my licence?
Sorry to parody - but the important thing is where you end up rather
than where you start from: the routes into music are to many and
varied to legislate for. And the starting place will vary with the
individual - the best any advisor/teacher can do is to listen to what
fires an individual and point possible directions to extend that
interest. Those interests will change and develop, and the important
thing is to keep open the excitement of the unexpected. I didn't get
to Mozart until I was in my 20s - and it is still no use anyone waxing
lyrical about Verdi in my presence, but that's the nature of things.
RH
Rick Hayward, Wakefield, West Yorkshire
rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk
Rick Hayward
>In article <4afhi9$h...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, miku...@comet.Princeton.EDU
>(Margaret Mikulska) says:
>>I always wondered why people feel impelled to rank art and artists. No
>>sarcasm intended: I'm really curious why it is so important for many
>>people to create/impose a linear ordering (and many fight over it).
> Imagine someone starting out with Pettersson's 10th
>symphony, for instance, instead of Schubert's 8th, Beethoven's 9th, or
>Shostakovich's 9th. They'd be as likely as not to keep "classical"
>music at arms length for quite some time.
I think that you are fundamentally wrong in this supposition - what
can stunt enjoyment is a too-easy imposition of the concept of the
accepted canon. Maybe the time is not right to get into the Viennese
classics for a particular person - but they might be excited by (say)
the colour of 'The Firebird' or the association of a more obscure work
with a film image. The concept of a canon is not redundant, but it can
too easily degenerate into a diktat of 'what is best' rather than a
useful social/aesthetic construct. As such, it can deter individuals
who are not immediately attracted by the 'great' works.
Music is far too exciting and varied to reduce to given lists carved
on tablets of stone. I am not arguing against conceptual frameworks -
they are necessary, but need to be used with care.
Bruce Knoll
Hayward) says:
>Wow! - you mean there is a certified place where you *should* start ?
Certified? I think you're reading something into my post that wasn't
there.
>Where can I contact the Taste Police for my licence?
Once again, you're making much more out of this than was originally
there.
>Sorry to parody . . .
Then don't. It saves apologies.
> . . . . the routes into music are to many and
>varied to legislate for. And the starting place will vary with the
>individual - the best any advisor/teacher can do is to listen to what
>fires an individual and point possible directions to extend that
>interest. . . .
Of course the routes are varied. But if an individual with abso-
lutely no interest asks you for suggestions, how do you respond? By
saying, "Oh, there are about 10,000 possibilites, just find something
you like"? You give the novice absolutely no credit for being able
to make up his or her own mind. Do you really think that if I tell
someone they "should" start with a Mozart Piano Concerto or Beethoven's
5th symphony, they will stick to those works without doing any exploring
on their own? If that were the case, they'd never have any interest
in classical music in the first place. Why is it that you must take
a suggested list of music to start with as though it were carven in
stone?
Bruce Knoll
bwk...@psuvm.psu.edu
Ted Floyd
> I take it this "ranking" is simply a metaphor for your own preferences
> as of today. As such, no-one can argue with it. However, I can't resist
But that's what you're about to do (not that there's anything wrong with
that, but let's come down off our pedestal, eh?)...
> remarking that you are seriously underappreciating Haydn (to my mind,
> the greatest symphonist, probably on a level with Beethoven), and that
Both even approached Mozart's level.
> you are *very seriously* overappreciating Mahler and Shostakovich, who
> are good but not of Haydn-Mozart-Beethoven caliber. In fact, I much
Definitely...
> prefer the symphonies of Martinu, Sessions, Roussel, Kokkonen, Panufnik,
> Lutoslawski, Ives, Malipiero, Persichetti, to those of M & Sh. I *do*
Come on, Mario! In what possible sense is Sessions better than Mahler?!
I would think a Haydn fan would be especially approving of Mahler. Rosen
tells us how the two of them were the great orchestrators of their
respective generations, and Robbins-Landon tells us how they were the
great tinkerers/pranksters. How can you *not* like the First, or the
Second, or the Ninth? . . .
And what don't you like about Shostakovich's 5th, while you're at it?
Hm? (Mind you, S's greatest achievements weren't necessarily in the
realm of the symphonic, but he was a LOT better than Roger Sessions, for
crying out loud!)
> wish Lenny (for example) had made as much of an effort for other
composers
> as he made for Mahler.
Many of us are grateful for what he did with Mahler.
> Besides which, the symphonic genre represents a tiny fraction of
> most composer's output; I think symphonies are overvalued, probably
> due to their constant presence in the concert hall. Many of the
So? That wasn't the original writer's point. Besides, Mahler's lieder
are much better than Sessions'. And so are Shostakovich's string
quartets.
> greatest modern composers, for example, didn't write symphonies
> or wrote very few (Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Stravinsky, Villa-Lobos,
> etc.).
Ted Floyd <afl...@williams.edu>
Bruce Knoll
Hayward) says:
>Bruce Knoll <BWK...@psuvm.psu.edu> wrote:
>> Imagine someone starting out with Pettersson's 10th
>>symphony, for instance, instead of Schubert's 8th, Beethoven's 9th, or
>>Shostakovich's 9th. They'd be as likely as not to keep "classical"
>>music at arms length for quite some time.
>I think that you are fundamentally wrong in this supposition . . .
I think the popularity of less rigorous music supports my supposition.
> . . . what
>can stunt enjoyment is a too-easy imposition of the concept of the
>accepted canon. Maybe the time is not right to get into the Viennese
>classics for a particular person . . .
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There's the problem. What particular person are you talking about?
If you know the person, then certainly you might be able to suggest
different works based on his or her tastes. I direct you to Heidegger's
concept of "das Man."
> . . . but they might be excited by (say)
>the colour of 'The Firebird' or the association of a more obscure work
>with a film image. The concept of a canon is not redundant, but it can
>too easily degenerate into a diktat of 'what is best' rather than a
>useful social/aesthetic construct. . . .
Indeed it can, but your parodistic attack only reinforces the problems
that are associated with all kinds of canons. They are merely guides,
and anyone so foolish as to use them for anything more proceeds at his
or her own peril. Everyone has the freedom, too, to reject any canon-
ized work, and to concentrate on non-canonical works. Everyone has
the freedom to find their own path into music, as you yourself has
done. As for me, my own path led through the use of organs in rock
music of the 60s, then to Bach's organ works, and from there into
quite varied means of musical expression. I was greatful to those
who recommended Beethoven's 5th, Schubert's 8th and other of the
"great" works, but I always maintained my own freedom to decide if
I liked them or not.
>Music is far too exciting and varied to reduce to given lists carved
>on tablets of stone. I am not arguing against conceptual frameworks -
>they are necessary, but need to be used with care.
But you see, it sounds very much as though you are.
Bruce Knoll
bwk...@psuvm.psu.edu
Bert Horowitz
Bert
--
Bert
M Sebastian Djupsjobacka
: >2. BEETHOVEN -- In my opinion, symphony as we know it today really started
: >with Beethoven.
:
: Musicologists tend to disagree. Mozart and Haydn wrote symphonies "as
: we know this genre today".
Yes, and I think it is important to remember the fact that the term
sonata form, which is supposed to describe, among others, the symphony
was "invented" in the 1840's. It was sort of tailored to suit Beethoven's
symphonies, which were enormously popular at that time. If we demand
that the original sonata form rules should be strictly followed we can say
that Beethoven started symphony as we know it now. We can of course be
less formalistic about this and say that it was really Haydn and Mozart
who started the symphonic era, although their symphonies doesn't follow
the rules set up in the 1840's (For instance, Haydn's monothematic
composing is a good example of where they "don't fit in", according to
the sonata form rules each symphony should have to themes.)
Excuse me for my messy writing, but the time is 01:21 AM and I'm getting
a little bit tired here =)
---
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| | Sebastian Djupsjöbacka |
| God is dead- Nietzsche | Department of Musicology |
| | Universitas Helsingiensis |
| Nietzsche is dead- God | e-mail: sebastian.d...@helsinki.fi |
| | http://www.helsinki.fi/~djupsjob |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| "In the fight between you and the world, bet on the world" - F. Zappa | =) |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Chloe Carter
>I always wondered why people feel impelled to rank art and artists. No
>sarcasm intended: I'm really curious why it is so important for many
>people to create/impose a linear ordering (and many fight over it).
The human mind loves patterns, and it will try to create them even
when they're not actually there.
>From what I see and hear, Shostakovich is_extremely_ well recognized in
>the U.S. Actually, I find his popularity in this country a bit
>puzzling.
Shostakovich is popular because his symphonies are loud, bombastic, and
largely non-dissonant. IMO, the best of Shostakovich is not to be
found in the symphonies.
>[Pet-peeve mode on]
>Why is it that people think they compliment Mozart by pointing out
>"Beethovenian flavor" in some of his works?
>[Pet-peeve mode off]
Indeed. One might just as well discuss the Mozartean flavor of
the early Beethoven.
Lastly: to see a 'great symphonists' list that excludes Sibelius,
Nielsen, and Vaughan Williams is problematic at the very least.
>-Margaret
>
- chloe
Rick Hayward
The thread from which these snips are taken seems to illustrate the
crassness that is engendered by simplistic attempts to validate
concepts of 'the greatest'. Much better to hold discussions under the
proper, subjective head of 'What I like and why'.
>What I mean is that it was really Beethoven who made a name out of symphony.
>Although Haydn started the symphonic genre, Beethoven perfected the model
>which lasted throughout the 19th century -- the main age of classical music.
>Beethoven transformed symphony from merely a form of entertainment to a form
>of philosophical expression.
The symphony - like any musical form - is an emergent concept, to
which a multitude of composers have added their contribution. As those
contributions are added, so the concept changes. Musical development -
in all senses - is dynamic, not a series of static pre-determined
forms. Generalized concepts of form are simply a useful template, not
expressions of a Platonic ideal.
Whilst Beethoven may have 'transformed the symphony' , so did Haydn
and so did Mozart: our concept of the symphony would be radically
different had their work not existed. To suggest that the
distinguishing feature of a Beethoven symphony (in comparison with
what went before) is that it is 'a philisophical expression' as
opposed to 'merely a form of entertainment' is meaningless .
In terms of the form of a symphony - it would be equally valid to
state that Haydn 'perfected' the model of the classical symphony which
dominated the 19th century. Both statements are, of course, nonsense
in suggesting that at one point in time the symphony was 'perfected' -
the process of development is continual, to the point where it might
be asked 'where are the boundaries of what we describe as symphonic
form?' . In the above context the answer simply becomes 'what
Beethoven wrote'.
The argument thus becomes circular:
I like Beethoven symphonies more than those written by other
composers.
Therefore Beethoven's notion of symphonic form represents its
perfection.
Therefore I lam justified in liking Beethoven symphonies best.
>What I mean is that there is definitely no Mahlerian style soul searching in
>Haydn's short, simple and pleasant symphonies. Maybe 18th century was indeed
>a care-free time as compared to the early 20th century.
Again - this says no more than that Haydn wasn't Mahler and I like
Mahler. If Haydn's symphonies are 'simple' - try writing one. So you
like romantic angst - fine, but, equally, someone else might prefer
the concision and inventiveness of Haydn to the sprawling and
repetitious windbaggery of Mahler, which destroyed the coherence of
symphonic form.
No - I don't feel that way about Mahler myself, but simply use it to
highlight that subjective likes and dislikes should not be confused
with objective evaluations of musical worth.
> Mozart is among the second echelon symphonists not because he
> didn't work hard, but because the ripe age of the first symphonic revolution
>-- the romantic era -- was still decades away when he died.
Again - simply meaningless: so Mozart wasn't Beethoven, Brahms,
Bruckner or Mahler ... and they weren't Mozart. As he lived in the
18th century, he didn't write symphonies in the 19th century. So what
is meant (again) is that you particularly like symphonies written in
the 19th century - fine, but don't confuse this with judgements about
relative worth.
>There is no doubt Mozart was the greatest *MUSICAL GENIUS*, but Beethoven was
>overall a better musician, definitely a better symphonist. No contradiction
>and no stereotype.
I rest my case.
Toby Lipman
> Of all the musical genres, I happen to be most fascinated by symphonies.
For
> a long time I have always wanted to "rank" my evaluation of the great
> symphonists throughout musical history. Although that may sound a little
bit
> opinionated, I put down my "top-ten" list nontheless just for fun. Your
> comments are welcome. If you wish, please also attach your list in your
> follow-ups.
This is an interesting thread so far (8.00pm GMT 13th December!) and I have
to admit I find it difficult to rank symphonies or symphonists. Of course,
Beethoven is in the top 10 and of course William Boyce, for example, isn't.
The difficulty lies in picking and choosing between more than 10 great
symphonists and sometimes even in deciding what is a symphony. Are we to
judge works purely on their own merits, without taking into consideration
how influential they were, or does influence on other composers add merit?
If so, do we include J.C.Bach who greatly influenced Mozart's style or
C.P.E.Bach whose dramatic,"spiky" works were well known to Haydn and
Beethoven? Maybe not, but I might include C.P.E.Bach as one of my
favourites.
I would include Haydn, whose symphonies I love more the more I hear them.
What other symphonist is so clear, so witty, so fastidious in his
craftsmanship and so consistently interesting? You can always find something
new in a Haydn symphony, no matter how often you hear it. I wouldn't include
Mozart in the top 10 *symphonists* despite the fact that he wrote some of
the undoubted masterpieces of the symphonic repertoire. Is this perverse? I
just don't see him as predominantly a symphonist - his operas, concertos
(especially for piano) and his chamber music seem to me to be his major
achievements; being Mozart, he wrote superb symphonies anyway!
What about Berlioz? His music, particularly the Symphonie Fantastique and
Romeo et Juliette (which he described as a "dramatic symphony") are, by any
standards great music and profoundly influenced Wagner, Liszt and the
Russian symphonists. Mahler (whom I would certainly include in the top 10)
owes a lot to Berlioz's example. Some would say that Berlioz's symphonies
are not really symphonies but to that I would respond that if Mahler's 8th
is a symphony, then so is Romeo and Juliette! So Berlioz stays in.
I would include Sibelius, Nielsen and Shostakovitch. Sibelius and
Shostakovitch have been mentioned by others and are, I think, indispensible.
I am a little surprised that Nielsen hasn't been mentioned. His symphonies
as a body of work are of great stature and I think his 5th symphony one of
the greatest of the twentieth century.
Bruckner gives me a problem. I recognise his greatness, but I just don't
like his music much, so out he goes from my list. On the other hand I revere
Brahms's symphonies, so I will include him.
My final choice will seem bizzare to some - Elgar. There is nothing quite so
thrilling to me as his 1st symphony or so moving as his 2nd. Blame it on my
English background.
So my top 10 list is: C.P.E.Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, Berlioz, Brahms, Elgar,
Mahler, Sibelius, Nielsen, Shostakovitch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dr Toby Lipman EMail to...@tobylipm.demon.co.uk
Mail sent via Demon Internet
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Hayward
>In article <4ake0j$2...@irk.zetnet.co.uk>, rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk (Rick
>Hayward) says:
>>Bruce Knoll <BWK...@psuvm.psu.edu> wrote:
>>> Imagine someone starting out with Pettersson's 10th
>>>symphony, for instance, instead of Schubert's 8th, Beethoven's 9th, or
>>>Shostakovich's 9th. They'd be as likely as not to keep "classical"
>>>music at arms length for quite some time.
>>I think that you are fundamentally wrong in this supposition . . .
>I think the popularity of less rigorous music supports my supposition.
Sorry - but I don't see that this relates to your supposition - unless
you are saying that music which is, to most people, harder to approach
is a less *likely* starting point. In general, I would agree with you
- but approachability is very context dependent. Consider, for
instance, how a relatively unknown tone-poem gained in poularity when
its opening was used in '2001'.
>> . . . what
>>can stunt enjoyment is a too-easy imposition of the concept of the
>>accepted canon. Maybe the time is not right to get into the Viennese
>>classics for a particular person . . .
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>There's the problem. What particular person are you talking about?
>If you know the person, then certainly you might be able to suggest
>different works based on his or her tastes.
There is the nub of the problem - generalities are not very useful
for this particular purpose.
>I direct you to Heidegger's concept of "das Man."
Why?
>> . . . but they might be excited by (say)
>>the colour of 'The Firebird' or the association of a more obscure work
>>with a film image. The concept of a canon is not redundant, but it can
>>too easily degenerate into a diktat of 'what is best' rather than a
>>useful social/aesthetic construct. . . .
>Indeed it can, but your parodistic attack only reinforces the problems
>that are associated with all kinds of canons. They are merely guides,
>and anyone so foolish as to use them for anything more proceeds at his
>or her own peril.
My response stems from the feeling that the 'accepted canon' is not a
particularly useful tool for the purpose of introducing music. It may
have value at a later stage, or simply as a listing of *some* of the
available possibilities. The objection to your original posting arose
from inclusion of the word 'should'.
>>Music is far too exciting and varied to reduce to given lists carved
>>on tablets of stone. I am not arguing against conceptual frameworks -
>>they are necessary, but need to be used with care.
>But you see, it sounds very much as though you are.
I think not - simply against misuse.
Nick Vaccaro
<AFL...@williams.edu> wrote:
> Mario Taboada writes:
(snip)
> > prefer the symphonies of Martinu, Sessions, Roussel, Kokkonen, Panufnik,
> > Lutoslawski, Ives, Malipiero, Persichetti, to those of M & Sh. I *do*
>
> Come on, Mario! In what possible sense is Sessions better than Mahler?!
> I would think a Haydn fan would be especially approving of Mahler.
Well, you would think incorrectly in Mario's case, obviously.
> Rosen tells us how the two of them were the great orchestrators of their
> respective generations, and Robbins-Landon tells us how they were the
> great tinkerers/pranksters.
I guess all right-thinking people have no choice but to like them, because
Rosen and Robbins-Landon say so.
> How can you *not* like the First, or the
> Second, or the Ninth? . . .
Perhaps his tastes are different from yours. Nah....
Bruce Knoll
Hayward) says:
>>>> . . . They'd be as likely as not to keep "classical"
>>>>music at arms length for quite some time.
>>>I think that you are fundamentally wrong in this supposition . . .
>>I think the popularity of less rigorous music supports my supposition.
>Sorry - but I don't see that this relates to your supposition - unless
>you are saying that music which is, to most people, harder to approach
>is a less *likely* starting point. . . .
Yes, I think we have reached a point of agreement. "Likely" is
a much better word. It is not outside the realm of possibility that
someone completely unschooled in classical music would pick up a dif-
ficult work and immediately fall in love with it. In fact, I wish
I had a mind capable of that. Unfortunately, I've known too many
people who listen to something like Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, and
concluding, if that is classical music, they want nothing of it. On
the other hand, I know instances where people whose main interest is
popular music to feel immediately attracted to Davies' Eight Songs for
a Mad King.
> In general, I would agree with you
>- but approachability is very context dependent. Consider, for
>instance, how a relatively unknown tone-poem gained in poularity when
>its opening was used in '2001'.
Once again, I agree. It's too bad that other works are not in-
troduced in a context that makes them easier to grasp. If that were
the case, many relatively unknown pieces would probably be more
popular.
>>> . . . what
>>>can stunt enjoyment is a too-easy imposition of the concept of the
>>>accepted canon. Maybe the time is not right to get into the Viennese
>>>classics for a particular person . . .
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>There's the problem. What particular person are you talking about?
>>If you know the person, then certainly you might be able to suggest
>>different works based on his or her tastes.
>There is the nub of the problem - generalities are not very useful
>for this particular purpose.
>>I direct you to Heidegger's concept of "das Man."
>Why?
It's a very interesting section in Heidegger's "Being and Time"
that discusses what we mean when we say, "They," as in "That's what
they say. . . .", or "One" as in "Well, one just doesn't do that."
A computer is designed, for instance, not for you, Rick Hayward, nor
for me, Bruce Knoll, but for some undefined user. For everyone, or
for no one. "das Man" is usually translated as "one." It means every-
one and no one at the same time. It allows us to shift responsibility
away from the individual onto this amorphous being. It was to "das
Man" that I was referring when I said that "one" should listen to
certain works. To whom was I referring? Everyone? No one? Either
I suppose, but certainly not to any particular person. Of course,
I cannot speak with Heidegger's eloquence, but it's an interesting
section, and I'd recommend that you read it, if you're interested in
that kind of stuff.
>My response stems from the feeling that the 'accepted canon' is not a
>particularly useful tool for the purpose of introducing music. It may
>have value at a later stage, or simply as a listing of *some* of the
>available possibilities. The objection to your original posting arose
>from inclusion of the word 'should'.
Once again, we can agree here. "Should" is always a problematic word.
I hope you and any other readers of this thread understand that I don't
advocate a canon as an exclusionary tool for teaching music. Any non-
canonical work can be as vivid an introduction to music as the so-called
"greats." The important thing is, as you pointed out, there is no
music that *should* be listened to, only works that may be more likely
to strike a responsive chord in a potential listener.
> . . . simply against misuse.
Point well taken. A "canon" can easily be misused. Enough said.
Bruce Knoll
bwk...@psuvm.psu.edu
Ted Floyd
ka...@picard.cc.rochester.edu writes:
>> My top ten symphonists and favorite symphonies by them:
>> 1. Beethoven (#9)
I like No. 3 better
>> 2. Mahler (#6)
I like No. 2 better
>> 3. Shostakovich (#11)
I like No. 5 better.
>>4. Bruckner (#8)
It is my favorite.
>>5. Brahms (#4)
I like No. 3 better.
>> 6. Sibelius (#5)
I like No. 7 better.
>> 7. Tchaichovsky (#6)
I like No. 5 better, but I don't like it very much.
>> 8. Saint-Saeans (#3)
It's the only one I know by him!
>> 9. Mozart (#41)
Perhaps the greatest symphony ever written.
>>10. Rachmaninoff (#2)
I don't know any symphonies by Rachmaninoff.
> Any such list that doesn't include Haydn is not worth considering.
Definitely.
(By the way, 88, 92, and 104.)
Ted Floyd <afl...@williams.edu>
David M. Cook
>Shostakovich is popular because his symphonies are loud, bombastic, and
>largely non-dissonant.
I just don't understand this assessment. Of the symphonies I know -- 1,
4-11, 13 and 15 -- only 7 and 11 seem to be seriously marred in this way (7
doesn't do anything for me.) 5 was of course written to please, but I
don't think that makes it bad. Of the rest, 1 and 9 are delightful, 4
and 15 are fascinating, and 6, 8 and 10 are devastating.
I don't agree that his symphonies are generally loud and bombastic, and I
don't see what there popularity and non-dissonace has to do with their
quality.
>IMO, the best of Shostakovich is not to be found in the symphonies.
The 7 symphonies I mention above are more than enough to lay his claim as
one of the greatest of 20th century symphonists.
Dave Cook
Jose Marques
>Besides which, the symphonic genre represents a tiny fraction of
>most composer's output; I think symphonies are overvalued, probably
>due to their constant presence in the concert hall. Many of the
>greatest modern composers, for example, didn't write symphonies
>or wrote very few (Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Stravinsky, Villa-Lobos,
>etc.).
This of course doesn't invalidate your point, but one should note that
Villa-Lobos wrote no less than twelve symphonies, between 1916 and 1957. Only
one of them (#4, 1919) was ever recorded.
Jose Marques
jmar...@originet.com.br
AVIKG
avik
GUSTAV MAHLER SOCIETY-USA (1963)
Chloe Carter
(David M. Cook) writes:
I didn't say that DS wasn't one of the great 20th Cent. symphonists;
he clearly is, and I generally agree with your rankings (6, 8, and 10
are the best of the bunch).
What I DID say was that DS's greatest writing can be found in his
non-symphonic works.
- chloe
Wes Clark
And what?!? No Sibelius? What an omission!
Wes Clark
Chang Wu Ji
(in order of greatness)
I have to give a three way tie for first place:
1.Haydn
1.Mozart
1.Beethoven
The symphony started with Haydn, found new grounds and territories with Mozart,
and achieve supreme perfection with Beethoven. Without any of these three,
there would not be symphonies as we know it today. Any list of the greatest
symphonists have to include these three pioneers.
4.Brahms
Whether you like him or not his continuation of the classical tradition in a
time when Europe was humming with the "music of the future" of Wagner and Liszt
is a great extension of the form and style of Beethoven. And yet his music
cannot sound more different from that of Beethoven with it's unmistakable
Brahmsian warmth.
Again a two way tie here in fifth place:
5.Bruckner
5.Mahler
It is always dangerous to mention these two hand in hand because their music
cannot be more different. But both of these extended the symphony to monstrous
size and proportion and expression. Mahler has the effect of a great turmoil
and distress in his symphonies whereas Bruckner's echo with the most beautiful
majesty. I wouldn't take one over the other.
7.Dvorak
I can never understand how he could just be remembered for his 9th symphony.
His 7th and 8th symphonies are as good as symphonies come. Even his 5th and 6th
outshines many of the more famous works in this genre.
8.Schubert
Although his output in this genre is limited (sure he wrote 9 symphonies, 8
extant), but just by virtue of the "Unfinish" and the "Great" C Major he
deserves a place in the top ten. The "Unfinish" is unquestionably the most
lyrical and solemnly powerful of all symphonies echoing with tragic
Romanticism. The "Great" C Major sets a standard for all Romantic symphonic
work.
9.Berlioz
The founder of program music, the large orchestra, and high Romanticism
certainly deserves a place in the top ten. Till this day, his Fantastic
Symphony is still the most exotic piece I've ever heard.
10. Sibelius
Very tough call at this final spot. I am thinking whether it should be Sibelius
or Tchailovsky or Shostakovich or Prokofiev. But I personally find Shostokovich
and Prokofiev's music very alienating ( just my humble opinion, please don't
flame me !). I use to like Tchaikovsky a lot. But as I grow older I find his
music more and more neurotic, insecure, and even a bit shallow. That is why he
is not on my top ten. Sibelius' music, although not really my cup of tea, is
much more pure, refreshing, and provacative than any one (besides Mahler) in
the 20th century. By virtue of his 7th symphonies and his ever-popular
Finlandia he makes this last spot on my top ten.
Feel free to send me any comments:)
Rick Hayward
Absolutely. Let's get back to the honest subjectivity of 'what I
like'. Perhaps that raises another related issue - namely the nature
of the self-selecting sample of music-lovers that forms the Net
audience -?
Dickran Kazandjian
: Of all the musical genres, I happen to be most fascinated by symphonies. For
: a long time I have always wanted to "rank" my evaluation of the great
: symphonists throughout musical history. Although that may sound a little bit
: opinionated, I put down my "top-ten" list nontheless just for fun. Your
: comments are welcome. If you wish, please also attach your list in your
: follow-ups.
: First echelon:
: 1. MAHLER -- For a long time, Beethoven has always been on the No. 1 spot,
but
sorry but I can't stand mahler Tchaikovsky's the best
: as I listen and compare both people's music more and more, Mahler finally
: outweighs Beethoven as my favorite composer. He has the best of Beethoven and
: Shostakovich in his 11 symphonies. To me, Mahler's symphonies is the apex
: achievement of this form of music. My favorites are No. 2, 6 and 8.
: 2. BEETHOVEN -- In my opinion, symphony as we know it today really started
: with Beethoven. He was the first one who made symphony more than just a form
: of light-hearted entertainment -- rather, it has become a way to explain and
: express life itself. My favorites are No. 5, 6 and 9.
my friend i totally agree with you. all bethoven is awesome
: 3. SHOSTAKOVICH -- Truly THE greatest symphonist of the 20th century. Like
:
what Wagner had done to operas, Shostakovich's achievement was so great and
: his contributions so significant that he probably "killed" symphonies by
: exhausting this form of music. Unfortunately, due to non-musical reasons, his
: symphonies are not well recognized enough in the United States, but I firmly
: believe that Shostakovich's music will be resurrected sometime in the future,
: much like Mahler's music was resurrected half a century after his death. It
: is possible that Shostakovich's influence will outweigh that of Mahler
: someday. My favorites are No. 7, 10 and 13.
ok man shotakovich good not that good. go for Khataturian listen some of his symphonies and then you'll reconsider
: Between first and second echelons:
: 4. BRUCKNER -- Bruckner's music did not gain my favor in the very beginning.
: I have the impression that his long motifs and themes work like a slow oven,
: gradually building up to climactic points -- It is only in recent time that I
: have begun to see the genius of it. As I listen to Bruckner's symphonies
: more and more, I begin to enjoy them more and more -- finally to a point that
: I think they are truly masterpieces. My favorite is the 9th (Unfinished) -- I
: now think it is almost flawless.
saint-saens man rules
: Second echelon:
: 5. HAYDN -- After all, he was the guy who started all this. Haydn's
: symphonies flow along unimpeded and are truly relaxing. My favorites are the
: London Symphonies followed by the Paris Symphonies.
please: go for berlioz
: 6. MOZART-- His late works are truly great. I can almost sense a little
: Beethovian favor in them. After all, I think Mozart was the greatest musical
: genius ever lived. My favorite is the Jupiter Symphony.
come on ok for the jupiter but not here. i'll say sibelius
: 7. BRAHMS -- Tchaikovsky once mentioned that Brahms's symphonies lacked
: passion. It is true that Brahm's four symphonies are extremely methodic, yet
: they BECOME so beautiful after you listen to them a few times. My favorite is
: the 1st -- I think Tchaikovsky might have had second opinions if he had
: listened to the fourth movement more closely.
i prefer the german schuman way over brahms; he's over credited
: Third echelon:
: I would have stopped at Brahms had I not have the intention to complete a top
: ten list. However, I find it extremely hard to rank the rest of the musicians
: without compromising my conscience. Hence I will give a list of names without
: ranking and any three of them will easily make it to the list.
: DVORAK -- My favorite is No. 9.have you heard anything else?
: TCHAIKOVSKY -- The Pathetique Symphony is the one which can strike the
: inner-most feelings of a man.way too better for this position
: SCHUBERT -- I will never forget his 8th (Unfinished) although it has only two
: movements. Frankly, I think it is impossible to develop anything else once
: the music was so perfect.
you rank one of the founding romanitcs at here come on man get rid of mahler
you think too much like bernstein
: SCHUMANN -- His four symphonies would have been more influential if they had
: been 20 years ealier. Nevertheless, they were masterpieces nontheless.
: PROKOFIEV -- Had it not been Shostakovich, he would have been the greatest
: Russian symphonist in the 20th century.
: COPLAND -- His Third Symphony has been called "the greatest American symphony".
: Thank you for your attention. Have a nice day.
since when do americans know how to right symphonies or anything else come on
let's be honest. Dvorak a chek wrote a better american symphony than any
american. it's the truth be honest
my 2cents dk
: Dave
Sara Freeman
get rid of mahler
>you think too much like bernstein
Please don't equate loving Mahler with loving Bernstein. I love Mahler
and hate Bernstein, especially what he does with Mahler. Bernstein
trashes Mahler, makes him sound cheap and sensationalistic.
AVIKG
have you ever seen bernstein conduct? what is wrong with conducting with
your heart as well as all those other parts? i guess we all have our
tastes, n'est ce pas?
avik
GUSTAV MAHLER SOCIETY=-USA (1963)
Marc San Soucie
> Please don't equate loving Mahler with loving Bernstein. I love Mahler
> and hate Bernstein, especially what he does with Mahler. Bernstein
> trashes Mahler, makes him sound cheap and sensationalistic.
His older recording of the 8th (Sony) is far from either of those.
Marc San Soucie
Portland, Oregon
ma...@netcom.com
Sara Freeman
Yes, I have seen him conduct quite a few times. He must have some
choreographer. I've also seen him smootch the members of his orchestra
at the end. He's one that it's best not to watch.
Paul Rapoport
composers of the 20th century aren't mentioned in the recent discussion.
--
========================== =================================
Dr. Paul Rapoport e-mail: rapo...@mcmaster.ca
SADM (Music) tel: 905 529 7070, ext. 2 4217
McMaster University fax: 905 527 6793
El Cielito
discussed in this topic, although I do have a headache from reading all 37
posts. Should Haydn be included in the venerable Top Ten? I think so.
Should Beethoven be No. 1? Depends on whom you ask, obviously! What if
someone loves Hovhaness or Harrison so much as to include their names in
this list? Great, if that's what s/he likes. I guess my point is, (and
this will be very obvious to all of you), that this whole discussion is so
subjective; all we're doing is compiling the statistics of the day: who
ranks highest on everyone's list of classical favorites? I think we've
determined that Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, Mahler, Shostakovich, Sibelius,
Dvorak seem to get most of the honors. Of course, all of us will continue
to listen to the same things we love the most.
Oh, which composer do I love the most? I guess it has to be either Mozart
or Dvorak. But that's just my opinion. Happy Holidays to all!
Chloe Carter
>: COPLAND -- His Third Symphony has been called "the greatest American
symphony".
>
>since when do americans know how to right symphonies or anything else come on
>let's be honest. Dvorak a chek wrote a better american symphony than any
>american. it's the truth be honest
>my 2cents dk
This is troll, right? Perhaps Mr. Kazandjian is unfamiliar with the
works of Ives, Ruggles, Piston, Sessions, Carter, Diamond,
and - yes - Copland.
Perhaps the truth is that *some* Americans have written symphonies
and other symphonic works that can easily withstand comparison to
the best of Europe, or any other continent.
- chloe
Robert R. Ramirez
Ah, yes... When cornered with a contradictory but (socially) acceptable
point of view, go straight for the (homophobic?) ad hominem. At least
it's one step up from BAAAAAARRRRRFF.
For the record, though, Avik has the right idea on this one. If
"choreographic" conducting styles are a crime, then (gathering from
historical data) Mahler himself should be on death row.
Robert Ramirez
Robert R. Ramirez
> >you think too much like bernstein
>
Oh? And why ever not? There are many out there who love both.
> I love Mahler
> and hate Bernstein, especially what he does with Mahler. Bernstein
> trashes Mahler, makes him sound cheap and sensationalistic.
That certainly is news to me (and many other admirers of Bernstein's
Mahler out there). How exactly does Bernstein "trash" Mahler?
How is his interpretation of Mahler "cheap and sensationalistic"? Yes,
Bernstein's histrionics and "over-the-top" approach to Mahler make you
either love him or hate him; but with music that is inherently indulgent
and histrionic (not a criticism in this case, mind you), Bernstein's
interpretations are within the realm of acceptability, to say the least.
But we all have our own unique tastes, yes?
Robert Ramirez
Adam W. Grasso
R. Ramirez) wrote:
> fre...@ix.netcom.com (Sara Freeman ) writes:
> > Yes, I have seen him conduct quite a few times. He must have some
> > choreographer. I've also seen him smootch the members of his orchestra
> > at the end. He's one that it's best not to watch.
>
> Ah, yes... When cornered with a contradictory but (socially) acceptable
> point of view, go straight for the (homophobic?) ad hominem. At least
> it's one step up from BAAAAAARRRRRFF.
>
> For the record, though, Avik has the right idea on this one. If
> "choreographic" conducting styles are a crime, then (gathering from
> historical data) Mahler himself should be on death row.
Why can't you see what Ms. Freeman is trying to say, you moronically
stubborn Bernsteinophile? Every post you make tries to put Lenny up on
some pedestal, while not recognizing the fact that he was the ultimate
showman; a conductor who rated image at least the equal of substance.
Yes, he certainly had important musical insights, but he wasn't the God of
conducting that you make him out to be. But then again, one of the
problems of "religion" is that the devout can rarely see outside their
narrow, dogmatic view of the world..
As I wrote in a previous reply to one of your posts (Re:
Kindertotenlieder) which you failed to respond to, LISTEN TO SOME OTHER
RECORDINGS! Then maybe you'd at least get an inkling of why Ms. Freeman
wrote BAAAAAAARRRRRRRFFFF! Living in your little Bernstein world I
suppose you can't imagine why anyone would write that, but believe me,
there are plenty of people who agree with her, Ramirez. Myself most
enthusiastically included.
Both she and others have listened to plenty of other interpretations,
and all of your efforts to belittle her statements or give idiotic morsels
of pseudo-medical advice to her are pure hogwash. Open up your mind and
stop being such a little twit.
--
Adam W. Grasso Dept. of Molecular Biology/Microbiology
aw...@po.cwru.edu Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, OH USA School of Medicine
Chloe Carter
(Adam W. Grasso) writes:
>In article <4btjk7$o...@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, rr69...@bcm.tmc.edu (Robert
>R. Ramirez) wrote:
>
>> For the record, though, Avik has the right idea on this one. If
>> "choreographic" conducting styles are a crime, then (gathering from
>> historical data) Mahler himself should be on death row.
>
> Why can't you see what Ms. Freeman is trying to say, you moronically
>stubborn Bernsteinophile? Every post you make tries to put Lenny up on
>some pedestal, while not recognizing the fact that he was the ultimate
>showman; a conductor who rated image at least the equal of substance.
>Yes, he certainly had important musical insights, but he wasn't the God of
>conducting that you make him out to be. But then again, one of the
>problems of "religion" is that the devout can rarely see outside their
>narrow, dogmatic view of the world..
(more Bernstein-bashing deleted)
This is pathetic and way out of line.
Though I too am a Bernstein fan, I see little evidence of a 'religious'
devotion to Bernstein in Mr. Ramirez's articles. I see plenty to
criticize in *yours* however, starting with the wholly unwarranted
use of phrases like 'moronic', 'dogmatic', and 'little twit', all of
which say a heck of a lot more about *you* than they do about Mr.
Ramirez.
I can't speak for Mr. Ramirez, but I have certainly listened to
plenty of Mahler recordings by conductors other than Bernstein, and
I have no problem acknowledging the merits of many of them. I
certainly wouldn't want to be without Horenstein's "Das Lied", or
Solti's 8th Symphony, but none of this outweighs the (IMHO) fact
that Bernstein had some unique insights into Mahler.
>--
>Adam W. Grasso Dept. of Molecular Biology/Microbiology
>aw...@po.cwru.edu Case Western Reserve University
>Cleveland, OH USA School of Medicine
- chloe
Robert R. Ramirez
aw...@po.cwru.edu (Adam W. Grasso) writes:
> In article <4btjk7$o...@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, rr69...@bcm.tmc.edu (Robert
> R. Ramirez) wrote:
>
> > fre...@ix.netcom.com (Sara Freeman ) writes:
>
> > > Yes, I have seen him conduct quite a few times. He must have some
> > > choreographer. I've also seen him smootch the members of his orchestra
> > > at the end. He's one that it's best not to watch.
> >
> > Ah, yes... When cornered with a contradictory but (socially) acceptable
> > point of view, go straight for the (homophobic?) ad hominem. At least
> > it's one step up from BAAAAAARRRRRFF.
> >
> > For the record, though, Avik has the right idea on this one. If
> > "choreographic" conducting styles are a crime, then (gathering from
> > historical data) Mahler himself should be on death row.
>
> Why can't you see what Ms. Freeman is trying to say, you moronically
> stubborn Bernsteinophile?
Who the hell asked YOU?
> Every post you make tries to put Lenny up on
> some pedestal, while not recognizing the fact that he was the ultimate
> showman; a conductor who rated image at least the equal of substance.
If I choose to "put Lenny up on some pedestal", as you so condescendingly
(albeit exaggeratedly) put it, that's my business. If I choose not to
"recognize" him as "the ultimate showman" (a highly opinionated appraisal
which I do not share), that's also my prerogative.
> Yes, he certainly had important musical insights, but he wasn't the God of
> conducting that you make him out to be.
I didn't say he WAS any "God of conducting". You inferred it from my
enthusiasm.
> But then again, one of the
> problems of "religion" is that the devout can rarely see outside their
> narrow, dogmatic view of the world..
You're confusing enthusiastic acclaim with dogmatism. Get over it.
> As I wrote in a previous reply to one of your posts (Re:
> Kindertotenlieder) which you failed to respond to,
I failed to respond to your earlier reply because, at the time, I did not
feel that it was even WORTH responding to. I almost thought the same of your
current post, but your unprovoked, direct attacks on my person pushed me
over the edge.
> LISTEN TO SOME OTHER
> RECORDINGS!
What the hell makes you think I haven't? You jump to conclusions awfully
fast, buddy. I'll have you know that I've listened to -- and currently
own -- many other interpretations of Mahler, including Solti, Szell,
Tennstedt, Berio, Abbado, Karajan and Horenstein (yes, I even own ol'
Jascha's Mahler 3). So there.
> Then maybe you'd at least get an inkling of why Ms. Freeman
> wrote BAAAAAAARRRRRRRFFFF! Living in your little Bernstein world I
> suppose you can't imagine why anyone would write that, but believe me,
> there are plenty of people who agree with her, Ramirez. Myself most
> enthusiastically included.
That's just fine, pal. You, like myself -- heck, like everyone ELSE on
this newsgroup, for crying out loud! -- are entitled to your own
opinion, whether it's reserved or downright enthusiastic (I make no
apologies whatsoever for subscribing to the latter brand).
> Both she and others have listened to plenty of other interpretations,
> and all of your efforts to belittle her statements or give idiotic morsels
> of pseudo-medical advice to her are pure hogwash. Open up your mind and
> stop being such a little twit.
Now you're WAY out of line, pal. Just look at the names you've dished
out in your post... "moronic", "little twit"... I think that, in
addition to the overall tone of your post, says a lot more about YOU than
it does me. Just who the hell do you think you are, anyway?!?
Now, as far as my responses to Sara Freeman's statements earlier are
concerned (which YOU and YOU ALONE have thus far interpreted as
"belittlement") -- at least for me, thoughtless, juvenile, smart-ass
responses (such as "BAAAAAARRRRRRF") to others' well-intentioned
enthusiasm (I seconded another individual's acclaim of Bernstein's
Mahler 5, just in case you haven't been following) just do not fly. I
may have gotten a bit carried away in reacting on that level (and I do
apologize, Sara, if you're reading this), but that gives YOU no right
whatsoever to make the kinds of blatant insults you've spewed. Nor do
any of your hasty conclusions regarding me personally have any
foundation in this or any parallel universe.
Now lets move onward to more enlightened discussion, shall we? I grow
weary of all this bashing.
Robert Ramirez
__
"Meine Zeit wird noch kommen." -- Gustav Mahler
Nurhan Arman
Bert Horowitz
rate the Roy Harris 3rd Symphony and the Samuel Barber 1st above
any of Copland's
Bert
--
Bert
Chloe Carter
<7634...@CompuServe.COM> writes:
This strikes me as cutting it rather fine. To begin with, in
discussing Copland's symphonies there are really only two, since
the 1st really originated as more of an organ concerto than a
symphony. Of the two that remain, the 3rd is perhaps a little
overambitious, and is to my mind a less successful rendering
of Copland's 'accessible' style than some other works, most
notably "Appalachian Spring" (which IMHO looms ever larger as
time moves along).
The 2nd, or "Short" symphony, however, is a near-perfect
distillation of Copland's more rigorous style. Those who are
turned off by the 'American' ballets may find this more to
their taste.
As fine as the Harris 3rd and Barber 1st are (both BTW can be
overwhelming in live performance), and have no trouble whatever
in placing the Copland Short Symphony at the same level.
- chloe
John R. Penrod
>In article <4bak7a$l...@news.bu.edu>, k...@bu.edu (Dickran Kazandjian) writes:
>
>>: COPLAND -- His Third Symphony has been called "the greatest American
>symphony".
>>
>>since when do americans know how to right symphonies or anything else come on
>>let's be honest. Dvorak a chek wrote a better american symphony than any
>>american. it's the truth be honest
>>my 2cents dk
>
>
>and other symphonic works that can easily withstand comparison to
>the best of Europe, or any other continent.
>
>- chloe
Anyone interested in starting a group music.enthusiasts.without.borders?
-John Penrod
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
John R. Penrod
U of M School of Public Health Tel(313) 936-1297
tbre...@fido.microserve.com
>- chloe
It's good to see someone championing American music - my personal
[i.e. subjective] favorites are Hanson's 1st, and Ives' Holiday Sym
[ok, so it's a collection of shorter works], 1st & 4th Sym. I will
add more because I have the complete Hanson and Bernstein syms. [and
Ives' Universe Sym], plus Diamond and Piston waiting in the wings. So
much music, so little time.
Tom - tbre...@fido.microserve.com
Len Fehskens
effect on anything, so here it is, albeit a bit belatedly.
To get onto the list, the composer had to be one whose entire symphonic
output I listened to more or less regularly; of course, I've had to make an
exception to this rule of thumb for Haydn...
Sorry, I can't "rank" them as as such, so they're just in alphabetical order.
Beethoven
Brahms
Bruckner
Dvorak
Haydn
Mahler
Nielsen
Schubert
Sibelius
Tchaikovsky
There, I feel so much better now.
Of course, I've left a lot of individual symphonic favorites off the list,
to stay within the bounds of ten symphonists.
Why these ten? Because I like their symphonies. All of them.
len.
hka...@gmail.com
Terry
about structure. You can constantly hear him running out of steam, then
reaching for another song...
The three you name should be somewhere near the top. Then add
selections from Brahms, Sibelius, Dvorak, Haydn, Mozart, Rubbra, Robert
Simpson and Humphrey Searle, Schumann, Tchaikovsky, Copeland, not
necessarily in that order though.