Classical Music Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

The TC 150 Top-Recommended Symphonies

Jump to Latest
161K views 1.3K replies 60 participants last post by  Don Fatale  
#1 ·
This thread is the daughter of the TC 100 Opera thread currently active in the Opera subforum:
TC Opera 100

If you dont wish to click on the link, here is a brief outline:
- the TalkClassical members who like orchestral music and symphonies can reach a concensus on the top 100 symphonies
- it should lead to some interesting debate and discussion as it has done in the Opera thread
- the list may be used as a starting point for newcomers to the world of orchestral music

Again, some people dislike lists and polls. I understand and respect this but please refrain from posting your criticisms here. This idea has been tried and tested, and active discussion and positive participation is underway currently in the Opera subforum - I hope we can foster a similar enviroment here and finish with a result that does not displease too many.

Before i start with the nomination procedures, I will allow you all some time to make comments or suggestions, but also to gauge the level of participation i can expect.

Let yourselves be heard!
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
D
#2 ·
I am relieved you have called it 'Top Recommended Symphonies' instead of 'Best' symphonies. I contribute regularly in another type of forum where there are countless 'which is best' type questions that drive us serious music lovers to state of advanced despair.

I would be happy to participate, mostly because any list of nominations I put forward would probably include some important but underrated works deserving of wider currency. What I would be dismayed to see was a list that simply reiterated the 100 FAVOURITE symphonies. 'Favourite', 'famous' and 'well known' don't always equate to high quality. There are some desperately overplayed symphonies (some great, some not so great) and anything which helps perpetuate this sad state of affairs would not be applauded by me.

I have worked in the classical music business for more than 30 years now and have fought long and hard to coax people to listen beyond what they 'know' (after all, they knew NOTHING once!). Therefore, any forum which draws attention to great works (in this case symphonies - something of a 'speciality' of mine) can only be a good thing.

You have my vote!
 
#3 ·
Im glad,

Obviously we are striving to create a list which is representative and therefore should include many symphonies which may be considered over-popular, but nevertheless occupy an important place in the repertoire.
A great number of posters at TC display a great deal of knowledge so im fairly confident we can get an intelligent list also, rather than what you describe. And yes I hope we can smuggle in some under-appreciated works! I know i have a few im eager to see included.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#4 ·
I don't know enough about symphonies to participate meaningfully, I'll probably just learn from the specialists. I do know opera a lot more and I've been an active participant of the top-recommended operas thread. Yes, the choice of the word "recommended" was a matter of debate there and fortunately has prevailed, since "best" is a subjective and misleading label. What we did in the other thread is to propose those operas that the opera forum members as a group "recommend" which makes a lot more sense.

The way we have proceeded in the opera thread is by considering chunks of ten. So for 1-10 each member would nominate 5 and then scores would be attributed to their relative position (1=5 points, 2=4 points, etc), and we'd give two days for the membership to get their nominations in. Then points would be tallied and the first chunk of 10 would be established, with additional tie-breaking votes if necessary. Some operas with high number of points that still didn't make it to the top 10 would then automatically qualify for the next chunk (11-20) while others with low points would be discarded (but nothing prevents members from nominating them again for the next chunk). Then we'd consider the next chunk with a couple already qualified, and the remaining spots would be decided by another round of five nominations. I hope it's not too confusing, people can consult the opera thread to see how it's being done (we're currently working on the 21-30 chunk).

OK, so, I guess I'd still like to participate at least once and then step back and learn from you guys, so, from a quasi-lay person's perspective Beethoven's 9th and 5th and Tchaikowsky's 5th would get my 1-2-3, then Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique would be my 4, and Mahler's 6th would be my 5.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#13 ·
Almaviva said:
I don't know enough about symphonies to participate meaningfully, I'll probably just learn from the specialists. I do know opera a lot more and I've been an active participant of the top-recommended operas thread. Yes, the choice of the word "recommended" was a matter of debate there and fortunately has prevailed, since "best" is a subjective and misleading label. What we did in the other thread is to propose those operas that the opera forum members as a group "recommend" which makes a lot more sense.

The way we have proceeded in the opera thread is by considering chunks of ten. So for 1-10 each member would nominate 5 and then scores would be attributed to their relative position (1=5 points, 2=4 points, etc), and we'd give two days for the membership to get their nominations in. Then points would be tallied and the first chunk of 10 would be established, with additional tie-breaking votes if necessary. Some operas with high number of points that still didn't make it to the top 10 would then automatically qualify for the next chunk (11-20) while others with low points would be discarded (but nothing prevents members from nominating them again for the next chunk). Then we'd consider the next chunk with a couple already qualified, and the remaining spots would be decided by another round of five nominations. I hope it's not too confusing, people can consult the opera thread to see how it's being done (we're currently working on the 21-30 chunk).

OK, so, I guess I'd still like to participate at least once and then step back and learn from you guys, so, from a quasi-lay person's perspective Beethoven's 9th and 5th and Tchaikowsky's 5th would get my 1-2-3, then Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique would be my 4, and Mahler's 6th would be my 5.
Click to expand...
I believe we first nominated operas believed to be worthy of the no. 1 spot and then drew personal rankings from these.

Personally, im against restricitions too. I think we have a good number of posters so far with interest in more recent works that quotas wont be necessary. One suggestion though, some discussion may be necessary to ensure you organise your votes together. Otherwise youll probably each nominate different symphonies which then dont make it with only 1 vote.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#5 ·
Interesting subject. There´s a problem though as regards the more exotic repertoire of symphonies, many won´t have a chance of listening to symphonies that haven´t been much recorded, and people don´t have the same references ... I suggest at least that people are given some time to reflect during the process - to re-hear some works or even obtain works previously unknown to them ... And that the results aren´t produced too much in a hurry.
100 is a large number though, and gives space to some lesser known works / the preferences of only a few people, I guess ...
 
#6 ·
Well as Almaviva noted, we generally give two days for each bracket and there is much space in between for conversation and debate. These debates could arguably be used to 'lobby' your choices or to raise awareness.

On the other hand, do exotic symphonies that have hardly been recorded hold a valid claim to a top 100 recommended list?
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#7 · (Edited)
Sorry, I overlooked the two days mentioned by Almaviva.

Works like Tubin V, Langgaard X or Hovhaness "St. Vartan" are immediately striking and romantically attractive also melodically - and it seems partly a matter of chance that they have only been recorded 2 -3 times, though perhaps influenced also by the fact that the general public after all has a naturally limited appetite for the number of new works / continous repertoire expansion ...

I´d find it a pity if composers such as these would be drowned in cascades of, say, early Haydn- or -Mozart-symphonies, which have been recorded much more ... This also applies to more recent repertoire like, for instance, Rochberg, Carter, Sessions, Schnittke etc., to mention some ...

Luckily, there´s also quite a lot available of the repertoire available on you-tube now.

Perhaps one could limit the number of symphonies to, say, 5 per composer ... ??? And introduce a minimum of, say 15, from 20th century ???
 
#699 ·
Just been looking back through this thread, perhaps we need to be reminded of some works mentioned early on that seem to have been forgotten:
joen_cph said:
Works like Tubin V, Langgaard X or Hovhaness "St. Vartan"

This also applies to more recent repertoire like, for instance, Rochberg, Carter, Sessions, Schnittke etc., to mention some ...
Click to expand...
joen_cph said:
well-known or "important" symphony composers, like for instance Borodin, Liszt, Ives, Scriabin, Messiaen, Berio, Honegger, Martinu, Schnittke, or even just a sample from those with a substantially large symphony output like Langgaard, Holmboe, Tubin, Gloria Coates, Boccherini or Myaskovsky etc. ...
Click to expand...
Well Messiaen, Liszt, Martinu and Honegger have made it. the others are gaining considerable support, Scriabin, Myaskovsky, Schnittke, Tubin, Langgaard have all been brought up recently.

The following comes from the first two pages:

Art Rock said:
4. Gorecki 3
Click to expand...
joen_cph said:
5. Martinu 6. This is especially based on the Neumann recording. Less "heroic" and of course more contemporary than the other 4 mentioned, very varied and sometimes with a, say, Janacekian, rhapsodic freshness to it.
Click to expand...
I admire your determination guys! You've been nominating the same symphony for the entire 50 or so pages of this thread :tiphat:
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#8 ·
Im willing to discuss these limits and quotas further, but believe the opinions of others should be heard as well.

In any case i sympathise with your cause and would likely vote for some of the symphonies you have mentioned, albeit at a low stage in the list. If one other person were to vote with us it would most likely be enough to guarantee their selection.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#10 ·
Sorry yes! I meant i would be likely to vote for symphonies by the composers youve mentioned.

Ill probably also put forward something by Penderecki and Lutoslawski.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#11 ·
First, let me say that this is a great idea, and I plan on participating.

Instead of saying that we should include a certain number of works from the modern era, why don't we say that each bracket needs at least one representative from the 3 major eras with symphonic literature (classical, romantic, modern/postmodern). I leave out Baroque because the symphony as we know it today didn't come about until the Classical era, but of course that is open to discussion.
The problem I see however is that some composers/works are "on the bubble" in terms of what stylistic era they belong in. Does Beethoven and Schubert belong in the Romantic or Classical eras? Or what about Rachmaninoff and Sibelius who composed symphonies well into Modern era but belong stylistically more with the Romantic era?
I think we need to come to agreement on issues like this before we proceed. Or maybe it is just easier to not have any quotas, or limits on what works can be nominated in any given bracket.
 
D
#45 ·
SuperTonic said:
Instead of saying that we should include a certain number of works from the modern era, why don't we say that each bracket needs at least one representative from the 3 major eras with symphonic literature (classical, romantic, modern/postmodern).
Click to expand...
In all things I am against discrimination, positive or negative, and 'quotas'. People's recommendations should be free from constraints of what historical era it might come from. These 'eras' were artificially pasted onto music history in the 1920s in any case and have no place in a forum such as this. Recommendations should be done on merit alone.
 
#12 ·
I don't think there should be restrictions on era or anything like that. It would ruin the whole premise, which is the top recommended symphonies. It isn't the top recommended symphonies provided there are 15 modern, 40 romantic and 45 classical. It's just what symphonies we think should be on the list. It would also eliminate the need for arguing about it. I see no reason to put in "quotas" (though I do agree with limiting to 5 per composer, so Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven don't unreasonably dominate the list as they'd be sure to otherwise...).

I'm in.
 
#24 · (Edited)
World Violist said:
I don't think there should be restrictions on era or anything like that. It would ruin the whole premise, which is the top recommended symphonies. It isn't the top recommended symphonies provided there are 15 modern, 40 romantic and 45 classical. It's just what symphonies we think should be on the list. It would also eliminate the need for arguing about it. I see no reason to put in "quotas" (though I do agree with limiting to 5 per composer, so Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven don't unreasonably dominate the list as they'd be sure to otherwise...).

I'm in.
Click to expand...
World, you have just contradicted yourself.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
G
#18 ·
Count me in as well.

I also agree in not imposing restrictions. Seems kind of counterintuitive to restrict what people can recommend. If we somehow skew it to bias it in favor of including more obscure works, then is it truly reflective of our top recommendations? 6 of Beethoven's symphonies are in constant rotation in my playlists - were I to recommend symphonies to someone, I wouldn't cut one of those out because I have reached my quote for that composer.
 
#19 ·
Thanks and just a reminder to all who've 'called in' sofar; each round of voting will last around 48 hours so please ensure you check back to vote frequently enough!
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#20 ·
Way back when, at the time I started tallying up the votes in this thread, probably my biggest single regret was that there were TOO FEW Haydn symphonies mentioned. The problem, of course, was that people who were apt to recommend Haydn symphonies were much less likely to settle on a limited few for consideration. There were so many to choose from, they kind of diluted their own votes with some scattershot support.

Now I'm not normally a fan of categorical restraint- but I think there are times when it might make sense to exercise some... and now might be one of those times.

I'm just brainstorming here. Please treat my post as the contribution of a concerned member-
I'm NOT wearing my 'Moderator' hat here.;)

(As an initial thought...) how about 100 symphonies- but AT LEAST 10 must have been written before 1800 (so Haydn doen't get jobbed), and AT LEAST 20 must have been written after 1900? More than 100 years of music-history have transpired since 1900- and 20 doesn't seem an out-of-line minimum. If anything, it's almost certainly a little low...
 
#21 ·
This is kind of a conflict between left and right politics:

Right. Do you believe that the free market, or in this case the members themselves will manage to arrive at the best list independently?

OR

Left. Do you believe we need to elect a system which should then decide for us?

In this case im leaning to the right.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#22 · (Edited)
Concerning the free market: If we take a major lump of the main-repertoire big-sellers

- say 12 selected Haydns, 6 Mozarts, 9 Beethovens, 3 Schuberts, 2 Mendelssohns, 4 Schumanns, 4 Brahms, 2 Berliozes, 7 Tchaikovskys, 7 selected Bruckners, 9 Dvoraks, 10 Mahlers, 3 Rachs, 10 selected Shost´vich, 3 Prokofievs, 3 Sibeliuses, 3 Nielsens, 2 Elgars, 4 selected V-Williams

- then we will already have around 103 symphonies - and no space for anything else. This doesn´t even include many well-known or "important" symphony composers, like for instance Borodin, Liszt, Ives, Scriabin, Messiaen, Berio, Honegger, Martinu, Schnittke, or even just a sample from those with a substantially large symphony output like Langgaard, Holmboe, Tubin, Gloria Coates, Boccherini or Myaskovsky etc. ...

Whether the symphonies of, say Schumann, have a number of 29, 41 or 67 on a TC-list probably won´t matter that much to anyone ? ...

Of course, none of us really know the hundreds of recorded symphonies by heart (actually there must be at least 1500 different recorded ones, I guess, which is probably even too low a number), but the core list above is reasonably well-known to many people, and shouldn´t there also be an element of potential exploration and widening of the perspective here also ?

Therefore some sort of a limit for each composer should be established - or at least the posters should take this into consideration ...

Whereas it´s allright with me if the quota for periods / styles are abolished, since most posters do not find it necessary. (This was written before the entry above, though - of course I like the idea of 20 after 1900 - or perhaps even 5 - 10 after 1930 !!!)
 
#25 ·
joen_cph said:
Concerning the free market: If we take a major lump of the main-repertoire big-sellers

- say 12 selected Haydns, 6 Mozarts, 9 Beethovens, 3 Schuberts, 2 Mendelssohns, 4 Schumanns, 4 Brahms, 2 Berliozes, 7 Tchaikovskys, 7 selected Bruckners, 9 Dvoraks, 10 Mahlers, 3 Rachs, 10 selected Shost´vich, 3 Prokofievs, 3 Sibeliuses, 3 Nielsens, 2 Elgars, 4 selected V-Williams

- then we will already have around 103 symphonies - and no space for anything else. This doesn´t even include many well-known or "important" symphony composers, like for instance Borodin, Liszt, Ives, Scriabin, Messiaen, Berio, Honegger, Martinu, Schnittke, or even just a sample from those with a substantially large symphony output like Langgaard, Holmboe, Tubin, Gloria Coates, Boccherini or Myaskovsky etc. ...

Whether the symphonies of, say Schumann, have a number of 29, 41 or 67 on a TC-list probably won´t matter that much to anyone ? ...

Of course, none of us really know the hundreds of recorded symphonies by heart (actually there must be at least 1500 different recorded ones, I guess, which is probably even too low a number), but the core list above is reasonably well-known to many people, and shouldn´t there also be an element of potential exploration and widening of the perspective here also ?

Therefore some sort of a limit for each composer should be established - or at least the posters should take this into consideration ...

Whereas it´s allright with me if the quota for periods / styles are abolished, since most posters do not find it necessary. (This was written before the entry above, though - of course I like the idea of 20 after 1900 - or perhaps even 5 - 10 after 1930 !!!)
Click to expand...
Maybe the remedy for your points would be to establish a list of the 150 top recommended symphonies.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#23 ·
Well i for one do not believe all of Tchaikovsky, Bruckner, Dvorak. But yes that is quite a dilemna, we could - due to the vast repertory available - consider creating a list greater than 100?

To most people, i agree, it wouldnt matter exactly which number a symphony gets. What does matter is which bracket it falls in. Is it a top 10, top 15, or a top 50 symphony? So a fairoynhigh degree of precision is needed.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#28 ·
Why not do a seperate top 100 for each era - classical, romantic and modern/contemporary? That would be more interesting, and allow people who know more about one or other era to contribute more fruitfully. It's more complicated, but ultimately would allow more room for us to manouvre to allow the less popular guys in - I don't see the use of a list of the old warhorses. Who cares about a top 100 that is as dull as dishwater?...
 
G
#29 ·
So far in this present thread I count 14 potential contributors. Is that enough? I wouldn't have thought so.

I haven't yet seen any voting criteria. Are we simply to vote for our favourite symphonies? If so, how are the results likely to differ from looking at general popularity figures for symphonies (for example radio station polls)?
 
#32 ·
Hi Genoveva, i have just opened the first segment of nomination, but will gladly explain the rules:

We take it in segments. For each segment, all of us will be asked to rank their (next) best five. The symphonies with the most votes will be included, ties will be broken using a ranking point system (1=5, 2=4 etc...). From this we can draw our list for that segment, any symphonies which gained a significant number of points/votes but did not place will automatically qualify for the next segment and so on..

From those 10 that have made into the present segment, we will then ask you to take your top 5 And rank them. From this then using a similar method to the one above, the definitive ranking fir the segment can be drawn, and then we can move on.

Jhar has probably explained it much clearer. If youd care to look its on page 26(?) of the opera thread linked.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
Classical Music Forum
posts
2.8M
members
47K
Since
2004
A forum community dedicated to classical music for musicians and other enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about composers, compositions, arrangements, collections, recordings, techniques, instruments, styles, reviews, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Classical Music Discussion Classical Music Games and Polls Off Topic Pub Opera Non-Classical Music