symphonies

Post by p forsdick
Hello
I was thinking if you had to have 9 symphonies and had to have 9 d ifferent
composers for each number what would you choose
Mine would be
Elgar 1st Mine : Brahms
Sibelius 2 maybe
Brahms 3
Tchaikovsky 4
Shostakovich 5 so many choices here!
Beethoven 6 Mahler?
Bruckner 7
Dvorak 8
Mahler 9 Dvorak for me

Just off the cuff.

--
Illiterate? Write for free help!
(Remove "X" from address to reply)
ARTIFICIAL intelligence? What we need is the real thing!!!

RX-01

2003-11-03 11:25:47 UTC

Post by p forsdick
Hello
I was thinking if you had to have 9 symphonies and had to have 9 d ifferent
composers for each number what would you choose

Beethoven 6th
Mahler 2nd
Bruckner 8th
Mendelssohn 3rd
Sibelius 2nd
Vaughan Williams 4th
Haydn 104th
Nielsen 5th
Schubert 9th

RX-01

--
To reply be e-mail, add the word kons before the number.

Peter T. Daniels

2003-11-03 12:58:26 UTC

Post by p forsdick
Hello
I was thinking if you had to have 9 symphonies and had to have 9 d ifferent
composers for each number what would you choose

Beethoven 6th
Mahler 2nd
Bruckner 8th
Mendelssohn 3rd
Sibelius 2nd
Vaughan Williams 4th
Haydn 104th
Nielsen 5th
Schubert 9th
RX-01

Without "1," you have no math at all; "104" is not between 1 and 9. (The
model was in the OP.)

--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net

RX-01

2003-11-03 14:38:29 UTC

Post by p forsdick
Hello
I was thinking if you had to have 9 symphonies and had to have 9 d ifferent
composers for each number what would you choose

Beethoven 6th
Mahler 2nd
Bruckner 8th
Mendelssohn 3rd
Sibelius 2nd
Vaughan Williams 4th
Haydn 104th
Nielsen 5th
Schubert 9th
RX-01

Without "1," you have no math at all; "104" is not between 1 and 9. (The
model was in the OP.)

I'm sorry I don't understand your reply. I provided 9 symphonies from 9
different composers -- that's what the original poster asked for.
Perhaps he can clarify the issues even though I don't see why it's such
a big deal if I made a mistake.

RX-01

John Harrington

2003-11-03 16:58:32 UTC

Post by p forsdick
Hello
I was thinking if you had to have 9 symphonies and had to have 9 d ifferent
composers for each number what would you choose

Beethoven 6th
Mahler 2nd
Bruckner 8th
Mendelssohn 3rd
Sibelius 2nd
Vaughan Williams 4th
Haydn 104th
Nielsen 5th
Schubert 9th
RX-01

Without "1," you have no math at all; "104" is not between 1 and 9. (The
model was in the OP.)

Peter said "the model", which was sequential, a la:

Glazunov 1st
Sibelius 2nd
Beethoven 3rd
Nielsen 4th
Bruckner 5th
Tchaikovsky 6th
Vaughan Williams 7th
Dvorak 8th
Mahler 9th

(It just so happens I was thinking about this the other day while stuck in a
doctor's waiting room. The homology to the OP's list is strangely
troubling).

J

Peter T. Daniels

2003-11-03 18:51:25 UTC

Post by p forsdick
Hello
I was thinking if you had to have 9 symphonies and had to have 9 d

ifferent

Post by p forsdick
composers for each number what would you choose

Beethoven 6th
Mahler 2nd
Bruckner 8th
Mendelssohn 3rd
Sibelius 2nd
Vaughan Williams 4th
Haydn 104th
Nielsen 5th
Schubert 9th
RX-01

Without "1," you have no math at all; "104" is not between 1 and 9. (The
model was in the OP.)

Glazunov 1st
Sibelius 2nd
Beethoven 3rd
Nielsen 4th
Bruckner 5th
Tchaikovsky 6th
Vaughan Williams 7th
Dvorak 8th
Mahler 9th
(It just so happens I was thinking about this the other day while stuck in a
doctor's waiting room. The homology to the OP's list is strangely
troubling).

But -- Glazounov? Shostakovich's 1st is usually called an extraordinary
achievement.

--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net

Richard Brooks

2003-11-03 20:35:47 UTC

Post by p forsdick
Hello
I was thinking if you had to have 9 symphonies and had to have 9
d ifferent composers for each number what would you choose

Beethoven 6th
Mahler 2nd
Bruckner 8th
Mendelssohn 3rd
Sibelius 2nd
Vaughan Williams 4th
Haydn 104th
Nielsen 5th
Schubert 9th
RX-01

Without "1," you have no math at all; "104" is not between 1 and
9. (The model was in the OP.)

I'm sorry I don't understand your reply. I provided 9 symphonies
from 9 different composers -- that's what the original poster asked
for.
Perhaps he can clarify the issues even though I don't see why it's such
a big deal if I made a mistake.

Glazunov 1st
Sibelius 2nd
Beethoven 3rd
Nielsen 4th
Bruckner 5th
Tchaikovsky 6th
Vaughan Williams 7th
Dvorak 8th
Mahler 9th
(It just so happens I was thinking about this the other day while
stuck in a doctor's waiting room. The homology to the OP's list is
strangely troubling).

But -- Glazounov? Shostakovich's 1st is usually called an
extraordinary achievement.

I think that in the body text somewhere to be found is;

Post by p forsdick
d ifferent composers for each number what would you choose

And that's justification for not everyone for making the same choice.
Something to do with what is known as free will!

Richard.

John Harrington

2003-11-03 23:31:46 UTC

Post by p forsdick
Hello
I was thinking if you had to have 9 symphonies and had to have 9 d

ifferent

Post by p forsdick
composers for each number what would you choose

Beethoven 6th
Mahler 2nd
Bruckner 8th
Mendelssohn 3rd
Sibelius 2nd
Vaughan Williams 4th
Haydn 104th
Nielsen 5th
Schubert 9th
RX-01

Without "1," you have no math at all; "104" is not between 1 and 9. (The
model was in the OP.)

But -- Glazounov? Shostakovich's 1st is usually called an extraordinary
achievement.

I don't care what it's called. Sounds like cartoon music to me. Have you
heard the Glazunov? A wonderful work of craftsmanship and art.

J

Jerry Kohl

2003-11-04 00:04:22 UTC

Post by p forsdick
Hello
I was thinking if you had to have 9 symphonies and had to have 9 d

ifferent

Post by p forsdick
composers for each number what would you choose

Beethoven 6th
Mahler 2nd
Bruckner 8th
Mendelssohn 3rd
Sibelius 2nd
Vaughan Williams 4th
Haydn 104th
Nielsen 5th
Schubert 9th
RX-01

Without "1," you have no math at all; "104" is not between 1 and 9.

(The

Post by Peter T. Daniels
model was in the OP.)

I'm sorry I don't understand your reply. I provided 9 symphonies from

Post by RX-01
different composers -- that's what the original poster asked for.
Perhaps he can clarify the issues even though I don't see why it's

such

Post by RX-01
a big deal if I made a mistake.

Glazunov 1st
Sibelius 2nd
Beethoven 3rd
Nielsen 4th
Bruckner 5th
Tchaikovsky 6th
Vaughan Williams 7th
Dvorak 8th
Mahler 9th
(It just so happens I was thinking about this the other day while stuck

in a

Post by p forsdick
doctor's waiting room. The homology to the OP's list is strangely
troubling).

But -- Glazounov? Shostakovich's 1st is usually called an extraordinary
achievement.

I don't care what it's called. Sounds like cartoon music to me. Have you
heard the Glazunov? A wonderful work of craftsmanship and art.

An interesting distinction. The *character* of the music (i.e., what I suppose
you mean by "cartoon music"), as opposed to "craftsmanship and art". Cannot
cartoon music be made with craftsmanship, and even art?

Still, there is another side to this. When Shostakovich wrote his First
Symphony (1924-25) the sound film and, hence, "cartoon music" did not yet
exist. From our present-day vantage point, how much otherwise "craftsmanly"
and "artistic" works similarly suffer from the fact that film-music composers
of the 1930s and 1940s (or later) appropriated their styles (or salient
features of them)? I was just yesterday relistening to a problematic (for me)
Second Symphony that seems to suffer from this difficulty. It is Enescu's
Second, written in 1914-15. Much of it is in a "film score" style, but nowhere
quite so obviously as the opening of the finale, which eventually claws its
way to a different texture for a very satisfactory conclusion. It's difficult
not to hear references to Bernard Herrmann, Miklos Rosza, or Boris K. Morris
in this, and yet the influence (if any) would have to be quite the other way
around. Furthermore, Herrmann and Rosza, at least, were more than merely
respectable craftsmen.

I don't know the Glazunov (though from the other works of this composer with
which I *am* familiar, I can well believe the "craftsmanship" part, if not the
"art"), but I haven't seen anyone yet mention those other two "extraordinary"
First Symphonies, the Bax and the Walton. I'm not sure I'd be willing to put
Bax's up against the Shostakovich, but the Walton is another matter.

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

Peter T. Daniels

2003-11-04 00:45:55 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
But -- Glazounov? Shostakovich's 1st is usually called an extraordinary
achievement.

I don't care what it's called. Sounds like cartoon music to me. Have you
heard the Glazunov? A wonderful work of craftsmanship and art.

An interesting distinction. The *character* of the music (i.e., what I suppose
you mean by "cartoon music"), as opposed to "craftsmanship and art". Cannot
cartoon music be made with craftsmanship, and even art?
Still, there is another side to this. When Shostakovich wrote his First
Symphony (1924-25) the sound film and, hence, "cartoon music" did not yet
exist. From our present-day vantage point, how much otherwise "craftsmanly"
and "artistic" works similarly suffer from the fact that film-music composers
of the 1930s and 1940s (or later) appropriated their styles (or salient
features of them)? I was just yesterday relistening to a problematic (for me)
Second Symphony that seems to suffer from this difficulty. It is Enescu's
Second, written in 1914-15. Much of it is in a "film score" style, but nowhere
quite so obviously as the opening of the finale, which eventually claws its
way to a different texture for a very satisfactory conclusion. It's difficult
not to hear references to Bernard Herrmann, Miklos Rosza, or Boris K. Morris
in this, and yet the influence (if any) would have to be quite the other way
around. Furthermore, Herrmann and Rosza, at least, were more than merely
respectable craftsmen.

Do you know when the first movie score was composed? I know that Abel
Gance's *Napoleon* had one (unfortunately I couldn't go to the showing
of the restored print with live orchestra that was given in Chicago back
when it was touring the globe), and when I saw *Birth of a Nation* it
had the original score added as a soundtrack.

I know that some movies came with lists of what familiar pieces to play
in what scenes, and I've seen topical piano books with e.g. "Spring
Song" under "Spring," where the pianist was supposed to make their own
choices; but when did movies first get their own specific music?

Post by Jerry Kohl
I don't know the Glazunov (though from the other works of this composer with
which I *am* familiar, I can well believe the "craftsmanship" part, if not the
"art"), but I haven't seen anyone yet mention those other two "extraordinary"
First Symphonies, the Bax and the Walton. I'm not sure I'd be willing to put
Bax's up against the Shostakovich, but the Walton is another matter.

(Elgar 1, which was OP's choice, of course came late in his career.)

--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net

Jerry Kohl

2003-11-04 01:23:56 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
But -- Glazounov? Shostakovich's 1st is usually called an extraordinary
achievement.

I don't care what it's called. Sounds like cartoon music to me. Have you
heard the Glazunov? A wonderful work of craftsmanship and art.

An interesting distinction. The *character* of the music (i.e., what I suppose
you mean by "cartoon music"), as opposed to "craftsmanship and art". Cannot
cartoon music be made with craftsmanship, and even art?
Still, there is another side to this. When Shostakovich wrote his First
Symphony (1924-25) the sound film and, hence, "cartoon music" did not yet
exist. From our present-day vantage point, how much otherwise "craftsmanly"
and "artistic" works similarly suffer from the fact that film-music composers
of the 1930s and 1940s (or later) appropriated their styles (or salient
features of them)? I was just yesterday relistening to a problematic (for me)
Second Symphony that seems to suffer from this difficulty. It is Enescu's
Second, written in 1914-15. Much of it is in a "film score" style, but nowhere
quite so obviously as the opening of the finale, which eventually claws its
way to a different texture for a very satisfactory conclusion. It's difficult
not to hear references to Bernard Herrmann, Miklos Rosza, or Boris K. Morris
in this, and yet the influence (if any) would have to be quite the other way
around. Furthermore, Herrmann and Rosza, at least, were more than merely
respectable craftsmen.

Do you know when the first movie score was composed?

Not really, but a quick Google search turns up a 1908 example from Saint-Saëns for
L'Assassinat du Duc de Guise, and somewhat vaguer references back to 1895.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
I know that Abel
Gance's *Napoleon*

which is 1927

Post by Peter T. Daniels
had one (unfortunately I couldn't go to the showing
of the restored print with live orchestra that was given in Chicago back
when it was touring the globe), and when I saw *Birth of a Nation* it
had the original score added as a soundtrack.
I know that some movies came with lists of what familiar pieces to play
in what scenes, and I've seen topical piano books with e.g. "Spring
Song" under "Spring," where the pianist was supposed to make their own
choices; but when did movies first get their own specific music?

But even films with specially commissioned scores were not necessarily performed
with them--other music was frequently substituted if the local orchestra didn't
like, or couldn't play the "official" score. Even given that there were such
dedicated scores (I had the privilege some years ago to see Das Kabinett des Doktor
Caligari (1920) with a live orchestra playing an arrangement of what was supposed
to be the original score), however, the specific genre of cartoon music must have
evolved somewhat late, and I suspect that the type of film-genre clichés that we so
redily identify today were not really in place until the advent of sound films.

(Elgar 1, which was OP's choice, of course came late in his career.)

And I've never considered it a match for either the Bax or the Walton.

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

Peter T. Daniels

2003-11-04 13:45:34 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Do you know when the first movie score was composed?

Not really, but a quick Google search turns up a 1908 example from Saint-Saëns for
L'Assassinat du Duc de Guise, and somewhat vaguer references back to 1895.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
I know that Abel
Gance's *Napoleon*

which is 1927

So late! No wonder he was still alive for the reconstruction ca. 1980.

And that is much earlier (1915).

I did see *Wings* (1927), first Best Picture Academy Award (they weren't
Oscars yet), with live orchestra. Now there's a _good_ movie! (And Gary
Cooper is on screen for about 30 seconds and is utterly memorable --
like Mickey Rourke in *Body Heat*).

And Schoenberg wrote a piece for a nonexistent film.

--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net

Jerry Kohl

2003-11-04 20:57:24 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Do you know when the first movie score was composed?

Not really, but a quick Google search turns up a 1908 example from Saint-Saëns for
L'Assassinat du Duc de Guise, and somewhat vaguer references back to 1895.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
I know that Abel
Gance's *Napoleon*

which is 1927

So late! No wonder he was still alive for the reconstruction ca. 1980.

And that is much earlier (1915).

I did see *Wings* (1927), first Best Picture Academy Award (they weren't
Oscars yet), with live orchestra. Now there's a _good_ movie! (And Gary
Cooper is on screen for about 30 seconds and is utterly memorable --
like Mickey Rourke in *Body Heat*).
And Schoenberg wrote a piece for a nonexistent film.

Heh! I've never heard anyone describe that as "cartoon music", either!

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

John Harrington

2003-11-04 02:53:36 UTC

"Jerry Kohl" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message news:***@comcast.net...
<snips>

"extraordinary"

Post by Jerry Kohl
First Symphonies, the Bax and the Walton. I'm not sure I'd be willing to put
Bax's up against the Shostakovich, but the Walton is another matter.

I like the Bax first, but, as with most of his music, what that means is
that I really enjoy it while I'm listening to it, and then I forget it
completely after. Kind of the moral equivalent of Chinese food or Henry
James. As for the Walton, I'm actually a big fan of the symphony, but I'd
still pass it over for the Glazunov on my way to the proverbial desert
island.

J

Jerry Kohl

2003-11-04 03:13:37 UTC

Post by John Harrington
<snips>

Post by Jerry Kohl
I don't know the Glazunov (though from the other works of this composer

with

Post by Jerry Kohl
which I *am* familiar, I can well believe the "craftsmanship" part, if not

the

Post by Jerry Kohl
"art"), but I haven't seen anyone yet mention those other two

"extraordinary"

Post by Jerry Kohl
First Symphonies, the Bax and the Walton. I'm not sure I'd be willing to

put

Post by Jerry Kohl
Bax's up against the Shostakovich, but the Walton is another matter.

Hmm. On the strength of that, perhaps I really need to give the Glazunov a
listen.

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

Mark Stratford

2003-11-04 15:25:21 UTC

Post by John Harrington
<snips>

Post by Jerry Kohl
I don't know the Glazunov (though from the other works of this composer

with

Post by Jerry Kohl
which I *am* familiar, I can well believe the "craftsmanship" part, if not

the

Post by Jerry Kohl
"art"), but I haven't seen anyone yet mention those other two

"extraordinary"

Post by Jerry Kohl
First Symphonies, the Bax and the Walton. I'm not sure I'd be willing to

put

Post by Jerry Kohl
Bax's up against the Shostakovich, but the Walton is another matter.

I'd say Peter Maxwell-Davies' Second symphony. As a student I went to
the premiere and have never lost interest in this great piece.

mark stratford

Jerry Kohl

2003-11-04 21:03:43 UTC

Post by Mark Stratford

Post by John Harrington
<snips>

Post by Jerry Kohl
I don't know the Glazunov (though from the other works of this composer

with

Post by Jerry Kohl
which I *am* familiar, I can well believe the "craftsmanship" part, if not

the

Post by Jerry Kohl
"art"), but I haven't seen anyone yet mention those other two

"extraordinary"

Post by Jerry Kohl
First Symphonies, the Bax and the Walton. I'm not sure I'd be willing to

put

Post by Jerry Kohl
Bax's up against the Shostakovich, but the Walton is another matter.

I'd say Peter Maxwell-Davies' Second symphony. As a student I went to
the premiere and have never lost interest in this great piece.

Well, as we were discussing amazing *first* symphonies, I'd say that was cheating! However, assuming you really mean Peter
Maxwell Davies (no hyphen, name usually indexed under D, familiarly known as "Max", from his middle name), I'd have to agree
it is a very fine symphony. However, given the rule of choosing only one symphony per composer, I'd be hard-pressed to make a
choice between the Second, Fourth or Sixth. (I don't know the Third anything like as well, and have yet to hear the Fifth or
Seventh.)

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

Alan Watkins

2003-11-05 01:37:08 UTC

Post by John Harrington
I don't care what it's called. Sounds like cartoon music to me. Have you
heard the Glazunov? A wonderful work of craftsmanship and art.

I cannot make a list because I love all of them but it's certainly not
right to call the Shostakovich 1 cartoon music. I do not think that
is so.

I have been fortunate enough to have played all the Glazounov
symphonies several times and while I can see the merit of the first
(especially as it was written when he was 15, I think) I would humbly
suggest that No 2 and No 5 should not be excluded.

Two is a masterpiece and so utterly Russian. I believe No 2 to be a
great symphony. No 5 has a finale which "brings the house down" and
almost guarantees an ovation.

Not a symphony, of course, but the ballet "The Seasons" is beautifully
written for the orchestra as is Op 52.

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins

Michael Creevey

2003-11-03 19:21:36 UTC

Post by John Harrington
Glazunov 1st
Sibelius 2nd
Beethoven 3rd
Nielsen 4th
Bruckner 5th
Tchaikovsky 6th
Vaughan Williams 7th
Dvorak 8th
Mahler 9th
(It just so happens I was thinking about this the other day while stuck in a
doctor's waiting room. The homology to the OP's list is strangely
troubling).
J

Okay, I'll have a go wot.
1. Franck
2. Elgar
3. Schumann
4. Brahms
5. Mahler
6. Tchaikovsky
7. Dvorak
8. Schubert (C Major)
9. Beethoven

Regards,
Michael Creevey

p forsdick

2003-11-05 00:24:11 UTC

glad my idea gave got you interested and glad someone recommend another
Elgar
should have made Mahler 2 my choice as it was a wonderful performance
tonight at the royal festival hall London with Gilbert Kaplan conducting
and the hall completely full
news:YOvpb.5212

Post by Michael Creevey

Post by Michael Creevey
a

Post by John Harrington
doctor's waiting room. The homology to the OP's list is strangely
troubling).
J

Okay, I'll have a go wot.
1. Franck
2. Elgar
3. Schumann
4. Brahms
5. Mahler
6. Tchaikovsky
7. Dvorak
8. Schubert (C Major)
9. Beethoven
Regards,
Michael Creevey

Earl Koenig

2003-11-05 20:19:49 UTC

Post by p forsdick
glad my idea gave got you interested and glad someone recommend another
Elgar

Yes- to me these are truly great works. My preference is slightly for no.2,
I find it more direct and doesn't contain some of the passages which a harsh
critic might describe as slightly rambly or discursive. But the emotional
experience of no.1 might be said to be more elevating, if one cares about
such things.

Post by p forsdick
should have made Mahler 2 my choice as it was a wonderful performance
tonight at the royal festival hall London with Gilbert Kaplan conducting
and the hall completely full

Post by Michael Creevey
Okay, I'll have a go wot.
1. Franck
2. Elgar
3. Schumann
4. Brahms
5. Mahler
6. Tchaikovsky
7. Dvorak
8. Schubert (C Major)
9. Beethoven
Regards,
Michael Creevey

Schubert gets in at no.8 either way.

Regards,
Michael Creevey

Can Altinbay

2003-11-03 15:22:31 UTC

Post by p forsdick
Hello
I was thinking if you had to have 9 symphonies and had to have 9 d ifferent
composers for each number what would you choose
Mine would be
Elgar 1st
Sibelius 2
Brahms 3
Tchaikovsky 4
Shostakovich 5
Beethoven 6
Bruckner 7
Dvorak 8
Mahler 9

This is really tough. in just the last three,

7 - Schubert, Beethoven, Shostakovich...
8 - Schubert
9 - Beethoven, Dvorak...

--
How can you worship a homeless man on Sunday
and ignore another on Monday?

Carrie

2003-11-03 15:38:49 UTC

Post by p forsdick
Hello
I was thinking if you had to have 9 symphonies and had to have 9 d

ifferent

Post by p forsdick
composers for each number what would you choose
Mine would be
Elgar 1st
Sibelius 2
Brahms 3
Tchaikovsky 4
Shostakovich 5
Beethoven 6
Bruckner 7
Dvorak 8
Mahler 9

This is really tough. in just the last three,
7 - Schubert, Beethoven, Shostakovich... Mine *Beethoven!
8 - Schubert

*Schubert

Post by p forsdick
9 - Beethoven, Dvorak... *Dvorak

--
Carrie and Twilight
http://community.webshots.com/user/carriephlyons
www.lyonsmusic.co.uk
www.btinternet.com/~midnightlyons
carriephlyons at btinternet dot com

Jerry Kohl

2003-11-03 18:00:46 UTC

Post by p forsdick
Hello
I was thinking if you had to have 9 symphonies and had to have 9 d

ifferent

Post by p forsdick
composers for each number what would you choose
Mine would be
Elgar 1st
Sibelius 2
Brahms 3
Tchaikovsky 4
Shostakovich 5
Beethoven 6
Bruckner 7
Dvorak 8
Mahler 9

This is really tough. in just the last three,
7 - Schubert, Beethoven, Shostakovich...
8 - Schubert
9 - Beethoven, Dvorak...

I think this unfairly tilts the balance against composers like Brahms
who wrote fewer than nine symphonies and, as has already come up on this
thread, tilts severely against Haydn (and other composers) who wrote
considerably more than nine. I think in all fairness to Haydn and Brahms
we should start subthreads in which we list symphonies numbered from 1
to 107, and 1 to 4 (or even, to be fair to Walton and Elgar, from 1 to
2; or to be fair to Wagner and Webern, from 1 to 1).

BTW, counting Schubert in this list gets mighty tricky, given that there
are at least three different numberings for his symphonies after No. 6,
and in my youth, we respected Dvorak's decision to limit his symphony
count to just five.

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

Can Altinbay

2003-11-04 19:14:49 UTC

Post by Jerry Kohl
BTW, counting Schubert in this list gets mighty tricky, given that there
are at least three different numberings for his symphonies after No. 6,
and in my youth, we respected Dvorak's decision to limit his symphony
count to just five.

I wondered if anyone would comment on that. Yes, I *do* mean the No. 7 that
was not completed/orchestrated by him, and No. 8 is the famous "Unfinished".

--
How can you worship a homeless man on Sunday
and ignore another on Monday?

Jerry Kohl

2003-11-04 21:16:12 UTC

Post by Can Altinbay

I wondered if anyone would comment on that. Yes, I *do* mean the No. 7 that
was not completed/orchestrated by him, and No. 8 is the famous "Unfinished".

Interesting, then, that you value the E major Symphony that highly. Doesn't
this depend in large degree on whose completion you rely on? In whatever
edition, I have never felt that the scherzo, in particular, is up to scratch.

FWIW, once we start accepting unfinished (as opposed to "The Unfinished")
symphonies, we have the problem of the 1818 and two 1821 D-major symphonies
that precede the E major, which promotes the latter to No. 10, the B minor to
No. 11, the "Great" C major to No. 12, and the unfinished final D-major
Symphony to No. 13. I also like the idea that, had Schubert lived longer, he
would have withdrawn his first six symphonies (as student works). This raises
the question of whether the Great C Major should actually be No. 1 or
(supposing the B minor had the distinction of first place) No. 2.

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

Earl Koenig

2003-11-05 20:20:31 UTC

Post by Jerry Kohl
FWIW, once we start accepting unfinished (as opposed to "The Unfinished")
symphonies, we have the problem of the 1818 and two 1821 D-major symphonies
that precede the E major, which promotes the latter to No. 10, the B minor to
No. 11, the "Great" C major to No. 12, and the unfinished final D-major
Symphony to No. 13. I also like the idea that, had Schubert lived longer, he
would have withdrawn his first six symphonies (as student works). This raises
the question of whether the Great C Major should actually be No. 1 or
(supposing the B minor had the distinction of first place) No. 2.
--

The mind boggles. Nearly as bad as the situation wrt his piano sonatas.

Regards,
Michael Creevey

Jerry Kohl

2003-11-06 03:25:25 UTC

Post by Jerry Kohl
FWIW, once we start accepting unfinished (as opposed to "The Unfinished")
symphonies, we have the problem of the 1818 and two 1821 D-major

symphonies

Post by Jerry Kohl
that precede the E major, which promotes the latter to No. 10, the B minor

Post by Jerry Kohl
No. 11, the "Great" C major to No. 12, and the unfinished final D-major
Symphony to No. 13. I also like the idea that, had Schubert lived longer,

Post by Jerry Kohl
would have withdrawn his first six symphonies (as student works). This

raises

Post by Jerry Kohl
the question of whether the Great C Major should actually be No. 1 or
(supposing the B minor had the distinction of first place) No. 2.
--

The mind boggles. Nearly as bad as the situation wrt his piano sonatas.

He wrote piano sonatas??

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

Michael Haslam

2003-11-05 21:41:34 UTC

Was this ever done by anyone in Schubert's time? I mean withdrawing a
known performed piece on account of its immaturity.

Post by Jerry Kohl
This raises
the question of whether the Great C Major should actually be No. 1 or
(supposing the B minor had the distinction of first place) No. 2.

C major is a good key for a 1st Symphony.

MJHaslam

Jerry Kohl

2003-11-06 03:28:23 UTC

Post by Michael Haslam

Was this ever done by anyone in Schubert's time? I mean withdrawing a
known performed piece on account of its immaturity.

Post by Jerry Kohl
This raises
the question of whether the Great C Major should actually be No. 1 or
(supposing the B minor had the distinction of first place) No. 2.

C major is a good key for a 1st Symphony.

Sort of a beginner's key? I suppose so, but you're not going to impress the world
by starting out cautiously. I'd say B-flat minor is a better choice if you want to
make a splash. Hey! There's another idea for a list: List your top ten nominations
for First Symphonies in the key of B-flat minor.

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

Richard Schultz

2003-11-06 05:29:37 UTC

In article <***@comcast.net>, Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net> wrote:

: I'd say B-flat minor is a better choice if you want to make a splash.

Well, Rimsky-Korsakov's first symphony was originally in E-flat minor.
He later realized what a stupid idea *that* was, and in the revised version,
transposed it into the much more rational key of E minor.

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You go on playing Bach your way, and I'll go on playing him *his* way."
-- Wanda Landowska

Jerry Kohl

2003-11-06 07:07:13 UTC

Post by Richard Schultz
: I'd say B-flat minor is a better choice if you want to make a splash.
Well, Rimsky-Korsakov's first symphony was originally in E-flat minor.
He later realized what a stupid idea *that* was, and in the revised version,
transposed it into the much more rational key of E minor.

His pupil Prokofiev evidently was not so smart when he got to his Sixth Symphony. It's
still his very best, IMO, in part because of the dark colour that key produces in the
strings.

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

Mark Stratford

2003-11-06 11:16:27 UTC

Post by Richard Schultz
Well, Rimsky-Korsakov's first symphony was originally in E-flat minor.
He later realized what a stupid idea *that* was, and in the revised version,
transposed it into the much more rational key of E minor.

Prokofiev evidently was not so smart when he got to his Sixth Symphony. It's
still his very best, IMO, in part because of the dark colour that
key produces in the strings.

The Sixth Symphony of Miaskovsky is also in E flat minor - similarly
with dark strings.

mark stratford

Michael Creevey

2003-11-08 07:02:57 UTC

Definitely a fine work. IMO comparable with any of DSch's contributions to
the genre. And Earl agrees with me too :-)

Dr.Matt

2003-11-06 10:57:37 UTC

Eb minor has the advantage that Piccardy thirds resonate with open
G strings. But E minor gets you the chance to hear the fiddles in, erm...
on their G strings more often.

--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/

nightingale

2003-11-06 14:27:24 UTC

Post by Dr.Matt

Eb minor has the advantage that Piccardy thirds resonate with open
G strings. But E minor gets you the chance to hear the fiddles in, erm...
on their G strings more often.

LOL!

MICHEL Claude

2003-11-06 17:44:58 UTC

Rare and obscurs XX century french symphonies

Rare and obscurs others XX century symphonies

Are listed in this WEB site

http://perso.club-internet.fr/week/index.htm

With best regards from Paris

Claude MICHEL

erease NOSPAM for answer please

--
Ce message a ete poste via la plateforme Web club-Internet.fr
This message has been posted by the Web platform club-Internet.fr

http://forums.club-internet.fr/

Nicolai P. Zwar

2003-11-04 14:21:08 UTC

Who-hoo, another top ten, er, top nine list. Haven't had one of those
lately. Just off the top of my head and in no particular order:

Johannes Brahms: Symphony No. 4
Ludvig van Beethoven: Symphony No. 7
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: Symphony No. 41
Sergei Prokofiev: Symphony No. 1 (Classical)
Felix Mendelssohn: Symphony No. 4 (Italian)
Gustav Mahler: Symphony No. 6
Philip Glass: Symphony No. 5
Joseph Haydn: Symphony No. 94
Paul Hindemith: Mathis der Mahler Symphonie
Camille Saint-Saens: Symphony No. 3

Note: all symphonies are subject to change without further notice.

--
Nicolai Zwar
http://www.nicolaizwar.com

Peter T. Daniels

2003-11-04 23:05:12 UTC

Who-hoo, another top ten, er, top nine list. Haven't had one of those
Johannes Brahms: Symphony No. 4
Ludvig van Beethoven: Symphony No. 7
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: Symphony No. 41
Sergei Prokofiev: Symphony No. 1 (Classical)
Felix Mendelssohn: Symphony No. 4 (Italian)
Gustav Mahler: Symphony No. 6
Philip Glass: Symphony No. 5
Joseph Haydn: Symphony No. 94
Paul Hindemith: Mathis der Mahler Symphonie
Camille Saint-Saens: Symphony No. 3
Note: all symphonies are subject to change without further notice.

If you're not going to play by the rules, don't play at all.

--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net

Nicolai P. Zwar

2003-11-05 13:19:46 UTC

If you're not going to play by the rules, don't play at all.

Dang, Peter actually counted.

--
Nicolai Zwar
http://www.nicolaizwar.com

Nicolai P. Zwar

2003-11-05 13:45:38 UTC

If you're not going to play by the rules, don't play at all.

Dang, Peter actually counted, as old habits die hard and I listed ten
instead of nine. However, I must point out that the original poster only
asked for nine different symphonies by nine different composers, _not_
specifically that the nine chosen symphonies actually carry the numbers
"one" through "nine", respectively. But I don't want to be a spoilsport,
so here I go again.

Alfred Schnittke: Symphony No. 1
Robert Schumann: Symphony No. 2
Camille Saent-Sans: Symphony No. 3
Johannes Brahms: Symphony No. 4
Philip Glass: Symphony No. 5
Robert Simpson: Symphony No. 6
Gustav Mahler: Symphony No. 7
Anton Bruckner: Symphony No. 8
Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphony No. 9

There.... is that more suitable, Peter?

--
Nicolai Zwar
http://www.nicolaizwar.com

Jerry Kohl

2003-11-05 18:39:48 UTC

If you're not going to play by the rules, don't play at all.

Dang, Peter actually counted, as old habits die hard and I listed ten
instead of nine. However, I must point out that the original poster only
asked for nine different symphonies by nine different composers, _not_
specifically that the nine chosen symphonies actually carry the numbers
"one" through "nine", respectively. But I don't want to be a spoilsport,
so here I go again.
Alfred Schnittke: Symphony No. 1
Robert Schumann: Symphony No. 2
Camille Saent-Sans: Symphony No. 3
Johannes Brahms: Symphony No. 4
Philip Glass: Symphony No. 5
Robert Simpson: Symphony No. 6
Gustav Mahler: Symphony No. 7
Anton Bruckner: Symphony No. 8
Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphony No. 9

Hmm. I see you are also avoiding reading into the OP's "rules" any suggestion
that aesthetic appeal should be a criterion. Nice one, Nicolai!

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

Nicolai P. Zwar

2003-11-06 14:36:38 UTC

Post by Nicolai P. Zwar
Dang, Peter actually counted, as old habits die hard and I listed ten
instead of nine. However, I must point out that the original poster only
asked for nine different symphonies by nine different composers, _not_
specifically that the nine chosen symphonies actually carry the numbers
"one" through "nine", respectively. But I don't want to be a spoilsport,
so here I go again.
Alfred Schnittke: Symphony No. 1
Robert Schumann: Symphony No. 2
Camille Saent-Sans: Symphony No. 3
Johannes Brahms: Symphony No. 4
Philip Glass: Symphony No. 5
Robert Simpson: Symphony No. 6
Gustav Mahler: Symphony No. 7
Anton Bruckner: Symphony No. 8
Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphony No. 9

Hmm. I see you are also avoiding reading into the OP's "rules" any suggestion
that aesthetic appeal should be a criterion.

You find Brahms aesthetically unappealing?

Post by Jerry Kohl
Nice one, Nicolai!

That's what I think, too.

--
Nicolai Zwar
http://www.nicolaizwar.com

Jerry Kohl

2003-11-06 20:04:21 UTC

Hmm. I see you are also avoiding reading into the OP's "rules" any suggestion
that aesthetic appeal should be a criterion.

You find Brahms aesthetically unappealing?

Only moderately. But I was thinking more of the Schumann, the Saint-Saëns and
(though I've not heard them so this is a bit unfair) the Glass and Simpson.

Post by Jerry Kohl
Nice one, Nicolai!

That's what I think, too.

Egotist! ;-)

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

Nicolai P. Zwar

2003-11-06 20:35:39 UTC

Hmm. I see you are also avoiding reading into the OP's "rules" any suggestion
that aesthetic appeal should be a criterion.

You find Brahms aesthetically unappealing?

Only moderately.

I have to confess that the first movement of Brahms's fourth symphony is
one of my favorite movements in the symphonic repertoire.

Post by Jerry Kohl
But I was thinking more of the Schumann,

The Sinopoli VPO recording made me pick that one.

Post by Jerry Kohl
the Saint-Saëns

Which I like a lot, though I admit I have not heard it all that often. I
needed to fill the No. 3 slot, though, and couldn't think of anything
else at the time.

Post by Jerry Kohl
and
(though I've not heard them so this is a bit unfair) the Glass

The mere mentioning of his name is of course always controversial in
this group.

Post by Jerry Kohl
and Simpson.

You should give that one a shot. Simpson is highly underrated in my
opinion. Try the recordings of his 3rd and 5th symphony on Hyperion, if
you get a chance; they are terrific.

Post by Jerry Kohl
Nice one, Nicolai!

That's what I think, too.

Egotist! ;-)

You talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me? Well, I'm the only one here.

--
Nicolai Zwar
http://www.nicolaizwar.com

Jerry Kohl

2003-11-07 00:28:41 UTC

Hmm. I see you are also avoiding reading into the OP's "rules" any suggestion
that aesthetic appeal should be a criterion.

You find Brahms aesthetically unappealing?

Only moderately.

I have to confess that the first movement of Brahms's fourth symphony is
one of my favorite movements in the symphonic repertoire.

Oh, so really did mean this as a list of *good* symphonies? Well, the Brahms isn't
so bad, but I can think of other Fourths I'd rather hear. Max Davies's for a start.

Post by Jerry Kohl
But I was thinking more of the Schumann,

The Sinopoli VPO recording made me pick that one.

Post by Jerry Kohl
the Saint-Saëns

Which I like a lot, though I admit I have not heard it all that often. I
needed to fill the No. 3 slot, though, and couldn't think of anything
else at the time.

It would actually be difficult for me to think of more than two or three others I
would rate lower ...

Post by Jerry Kohl
and
(though I've not heard them so this is a bit unfair) the Glass

The mere mentioning of his name is of course always controversial in
this group.

Knee-jerk reaction, of course and, as I said, it was unfair of me to rubbish him
without even listening to the thing. Just because nothing by him that I've ever
heard up to now has been worth the bother doesn't mean he can't surprise me and
suddenly write something tolerable. I once nearly thought I had discovered an
aexception in the Kronos Quartet recording of his music for Company. Then I found
out the LP had a scratch in it, and when I got the copy replaced, all the interest
had disappeared.

Post by Jerry Kohl
and Simpson.

You should give that one a shot. Simpson is highly underrated in my
opinion. Try the recordings of his 3rd and 5th symphony on Hyperion, if
you get a chance; they are terrific.

So many symphonies, so little time! We'll see. After the previous round on this
general theme, I was convinced to go out and try some Rautavaara. Nice try, no
cigar.

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

Nicolai P. Zwar

2003-11-07 09:30:07 UTC

Post by Nicolai P. Zwar
Alfred Schnittke: Symphony No. 1
Robert Schumann: Symphony No. 2
Camille Saent-Sans: Symphony No. 3
Johannes Brahms: Symphony No. 4
Philip Glass: Symphony No. 5
Robert Simpson: Symphony No. 6
Gustav Mahler: Symphony No. 7
Anton Bruckner: Symphony No. 8
Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphony No. 9

Hmm. I see you are also avoiding reading into the OP's "rules" any suggestion
that aesthetic appeal should be a criterion.

You find Brahms aesthetically unappealing?

Only moderately.

I have to confess that the first movement of Brahms's fourth symphony is
one of my favorite movements in the symphonic repertoire.

Oh, so really did mean this as a list of *good* symphonies? Well, the Brahms isn't
so bad, but I can think of other Fourths I'd rather hear. Max Davies's for a start.

Brahms 4th was an easy choice for me.

Post by Jerry Kohl
But I was thinking more of the Schumann,

The Sinopoli VPO recording made me pick that one.

Post by Jerry Kohl
the Saint-Saëns

Which I like a lot, though I admit I have not heard it all that often. I
needed to fill the No. 3 slot, though, and couldn't think of anything
else at the time.

It would actually be difficult for me to think of more than two or three others I
would rate lower ...

Come on, try to think of four.

Post by Jerry Kohl
and
(though I've not heard them so this is a bit unfair) the Glass

The mere mentioning of his name is of course always controversial in
this group.

LOL! Yeah, good ol' Glass is always an easy target for jokes.
Nevertheless, I like a lot of his music; especially his operas, like
Akhnaten for example. Though it's of course also a different kind of
music, way removed from Brahms or Mahler, and requires a different kind
of listening. I can understand if Glass' mosaic-like repetitions drive
some people up the wall.

Post by Jerry Kohl
and Simpson.

You should give that one a shot. Simpson is highly underrated in my
opinion. Try the recordings of his 3rd and 5th symphony on Hyperion, if
you get a chance; they are terrific.

So many symphonies, so little time!

And there are concertos, rhapsodies, operas, and string quartets, too.

Post by Jerry Kohl
We'll see. After the previous round on this
general theme, I was convinced to go out and try some Rautavaara. Nice try, no
cigar.

Now it's your turn to step up to the plate, Jerry. Your list, please...

--
Nicolai Zwar
http://www.nicolaizwar.com

Jerry Kohl

2003-11-07 19:48:15 UTC

Post by Jerry Kohl
the Saint-Saëns

Which I like a lot, though I admit I have not heard it all that often. I
needed to fill the No. 3 slot, though, and couldn't think of anything
else at the time.

It would actually be difficult for me to think of more than two or three others I
would rate lower ...

Come on, try to think of four.

Hmm. Really bad Third Symphonies, huh? Well, obviously the Shostakovich. Then there's
the Villa-Lobos (by no means his worst symphony overall, but pretty bad nevertheless).
Now things begin to get difficult. I'd nominate the Hovhannes on general principles, but
I'm not sure whether I've ever actually heard it. Gorecki's Third is pretty bad, but not
really in the same category of symphony. Got it! Arvo Pärt's Third is very
disappointing, and without much doubt worse than the Saint-Saëns. That makes three, now
what about a fourth Third? I used to rate the Chávez Third more highly than I now do,
but I don't think it has sunk below the Saint-Saëns yet in my estimation ... Milhaud's
Third? I'm not sure (I'd have to go have a listen to refresh my memory). Henk Badings?
Again, I don't remember it well enough. Ah, I know! Schubert's Third--cute, but no
prizes. (And how old was he, again, when he wrote it? 17?)

Truth be told, I rather like Saint-Saëns's music in general (though I've not heard very
much of it--only 30 or 40 pieces all told, I'd say at a guess, out of a catalog
of--what?--200 opus numbers?), but I've never been able to take the "Organ" Symphony
seriously, it's just too ridiculous. Always reminds me of the Hoover and electric floor
polisher in Malcolm Arnold's "A Grand, Grand Overture".

Post by Jerry Kohl
and
(though I've not heard them so this is a bit unfair) the Glass

The mere mentioning of his name is of course always controversial in
this group.

On a serious level, I think the critical question is whether the "mosaic-like
repetitions" produce sufficient surface information to provide a structural depth to a
composition that is to last longer than about five minutes. It can become rather like
listening to a Schenkerian Ursatz without any elaboration even at the middleground
level--though I hasten to add that Glass's harmnic structures do not usually adhere to
the Schenkerian model.

Post by Jerry Kohl
and Simpson.

You should give that one a shot. Simpson is highly underrated in my
opinion. Try the recordings of his 3rd and 5th symphony on Hyperion, if
you get a chance; they are terrific.

So many symphonies, so little time!

And there are concertos, rhapsodies, operas, and string quartets, too.

Gee! Are we going to move on now to lists of top-9 (or just lain *any* 9) numbered
violin concertos, each by a different composer? (I'd suggest viola concertos, but that
would be silly.) Or numbered operas? Now *that* would be a challenge!

Post by Jerry Kohl
We'll see. After the previous round on this
general theme, I was convinced to go out and try some Rautavaara. Nice try, no
cigar.

Now it's your turn to step up to the plate, Jerry. Your list, please...

Lemme think about this for a bit ...

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

Nicolai P. Zwar

2003-11-08 10:24:13 UTC

Post by Jerry Kohl
On a serious level, I think the critical question is whether the "mosaic-like
repetitions" produce sufficient surface information to provide a structural depth to a
composition that is to last longer than about five minutes.

I would assert that this is so with a definitive "yes", but as I have
said, it is a different kind of music, just as Indian music, which has
clearly influenced Glass' style, is a different kind of music than
Western Classical music, or the way Picasso's pictures are a different
kind of pictures than van Gogh's. Glass' music is more like the musical
equivalent of Mandelbrot sets, which I find endlessly fascinating, too.
The "depth" of Glass music is one of introspection and more of a
meditative quality; it is the exact opposite of Mahler's music, which is
all about Mahler, and it is also far removed from Beethoven, whose music
strove to be highly expressive. But hey, it's fine by me if some think
Glass' music is superficial, unchallenging, or endlessly repetitive and
annoying, I can see why one might think that, too. So I shall close with
something I already wrote some time ago in this very group:

"Glass music is to my ears a little bit like modern
architecture, in that it narcisstically displays itself as an artificial
object, where the ear is led to hear the nuts and bolts of the music
itself. Then again, I also like Boulez, whose music drives most people
up a wall, and John Cage, who was a flim-flam man for some, so what do I
know?"

Post by Jerry Kohl
Gee! Are we going to move on now to lists of top-9 (or just lain *any* 9) numbered
violin concertos, each by a different composer? (I'd suggest viola concertos, but that
would be silly.)

Bassoon concertos! Bassoon concertos!

Post by Nicolai P. Zwar
Now it's your turn to step up to the plate, Jerry. Your list, please...

Lemme think about this for a bit ...

Sure. But be aware that you're now raising expectations. :)

--
Nicolai Zwar
http://www.nicolaizwar.com

Dr.Matt

2003-11-08 13:59:00 UTC

Bassett's bassoon concerto is worth checking out

--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/

Jerry Kohl

2003-11-08 19:44:21 UTC

Post by Dr.Matt
Bassett's bassoon concerto is worth checking out

I have no doubt, but as an unnumbered concerto, it's disqualified from
the list. By the way, how is Bassoon's Basset Horn Concerto?

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

Michael Haslam

2003-11-08 22:12:19 UTC

Post by Dr.Matt
Bassett's bassoon concerto is worth checking out

I have no doubt, but as an unnumbered concerto, it's disqualified from
the list. By the way, how is Bassoon's Basset Horn Concerto?

i used to know but I've fagotten.

MJHaslam

Jerry Kohl

2003-11-08 19:42:56 UTC

I would assert that this is so with a definitive "yes", but as I have
said, it is a different kind of music, just as Indian music, which has
clearly influenced Glass' style, is a different kind of music than
Western Classical music, or the way Picasso's pictures are a different
kind of pictures than van Gogh's. Glass' music is more like the musical
equivalent of Mandelbrot sets, which I find endlessly fascinating, too.
The "depth" of Glass music is one of introspection and more of a
meditative quality; it is the exact opposite of Mahler's music, which is
all about Mahler, and it is also far removed from Beethoven, whose music
strove to be highly expressive. But hey, it's fine by me if some think
Glass' music is superficial, unchallenging, or endlessly repetitive and
annoying, I can see why one might think that, too. So I shall close with
"Glass music is to my ears a little bit like modern
architecture, in that it narcisstically displays itself as an artificial
object, where the ear is led to hear the nuts and bolts of the music
itself.

Well said. Many people seem to think that Glass's music (and musical minimalism generally)
is somehow a reaction against a "constructivism" that he found repugnant in Boulez's music.
He certainly was reacting against Boulez (we have that famous statement about his student
days in Paris), but his choice was far more impersonal and constructivist than anything
that came out of the European Avant-Garde!

Post by Nicolai P. Zwar
Then again, I also like Boulez, whose music drives most people
up a wall,

Well, that could be said of a lot of composers, of course. Some of them seem to attract
more attention in this regard than others. Tchaikovsky drives *me* up the wall (with a few
notable exceptions), but I don't seem to have the critical mass of like-minded people
around me to force the radio stations to make an announcement, just before they start to
play something by Tchaikovsky, warning me to shut off my radio and how long it will be
before I can turn it back on again. The last time an unannounced Tchaikovsky came on like
this, I shut it off, and I'm still waiting for the "all clear". That was in 1977.

Post by Nicolai P. Zwar
and John Cage, who was a flim-flam man for some, so what do I
know?"

Bassoon concertos! Bassoon concertos!

Hurrah! Hurrah! Lemme see now, since if a composer only wrote *one* bassoon concerto it
doesn't get a number, that disqualifies the Mozart, the Hindemith, the Jacob, the Luke, the
Panufnik ... What to choose for "No. 1" ... ?

Post by Nicolai P. Zwar
Now it's your turn to step up to the plate, Jerry. Your list, please...

Lemme think about this for a bit ...

Sure. But be aware that you're now raising expectations. :)

I'm confused--I though we were raising pumpkins ...

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

Marcello Penso

2003-11-07 02:15:57 UTC

If you're not going to play by the rules, don't play at all.

Dang, Peter actually counted, as old habits die hard and I listed ten
instead of nine. However, I must point out that the original poster only
asked for nine different symphonies by nine different composers, _not_
specifically that the nine chosen symphonies actually carry the numbers
"one" through "nine", respectively. But I don't want to be a spoilsport,
so here I go again.
Alfred Schnittke: Symphony No. 1
Robert Schumann: Symphony No. 2
Camille Saent-Sans: Symphony No. 3
Johannes Brahms: Symphony No. 4
Philip Glass: Symphony No. 5
Robert Simpson: Symphony No. 6
Gustav Mahler: Symphony No. 7
Anton Bruckner: Symphony No. 8
Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphony No. 9
There.... is that more suitable, Peter?

I had to think about this one for a moment. Here's what I came up with:

1 Brahms
2 Sibelius
3 Rimsky Korsakoff
4 Roussel
5 Mahler
6 Vaughn Williams
7 Dvorak/Bruckner
8 Shostakovich
9 Beethoven

Marcello

Bill Johnston

2003-11-09 07:14:18 UTC