The best symphonies of the past 50 years?

[Alan Howe]

A personal note: one of the reasons I take readily to, say, Simpson as opposed to, say Lutoslawski or Maxwell Davies, is that I can sense where he is going. Often this is a matter of Simpson preserving recognisable rhythms, whereas with other composers I feel continually lost, admiring many a beautiful sonority or striking phrase, but finding that I have no bearings by which to navigate the music. Is it me? Am I some sort of dolt incapable of following what other evidently listeners can follow? Or am I just a reactionary, subscribing as I do in general to the Simpson model of symphonism which requires a sense of travel and becoming?

[alberto]

I try to answer the to penultimate post, indicating further names.
IMHO there are at least several worthy symphonists (or authors of works titled symphonies ) not yet named before in the thread which have composed  symphonies since 1961.
David Diamond
Roy Harris
Walter Piston
Paul Creston
William Schuman
The above have followed a kind of straight way, and a tradition (maybe having given their best before 1961).
Still trustful to the Symphony I would list Gosta Nystroem and Vagn Holmboe.
I would list the maverick G.F. Malipiero as inventing and pursuing a kind of not-romantic symphony (he too at best before 1961).
Some modernists have come back to hints of the tradition : Henze from Symphony n.7 onwards.
Other have repudiated avantgarde idioms and embraced again tradition : Penderecky after the First,
Paart certainly with the neo-gregorian Third.
Kancheli is another who mingles past and modern .
Mine are just only a few suggestions. Indeed the last 50 years may be seen as not really discouraging (even if it would be idle to pretend that they are equal to 1911-1961....or to 1861-1911).

[Peter1953]

So - who/what have we left out?

I like to be an advocate for Thomas Schmidt-Kowalski's Symphonie Nr. 4 in C-Dur op. 96 für großes Orchester (2003) 

[Delicious Manager]

I have tried not to simply put-forward symphonies I 'like'. Rather, I have tried to stick to the spirit of the question and pick works that, whether I really like them or not, are worthy of being held-up as truly great symphonic works.

Kalevi Aho - Luosto Symphony (2003)
Malcolm Arnold - No 7 (1973)
John Corigliano - No 1 (1988)
Anders Eliasson - No 1 (1986)
Holmboe - No 9 (1967)
Lutosławski - No 3 (1973)
Nørgård - No 3 (1975)
Pettersson - No 7 (1967)
William Schuman - No 8 (1962)
Shostakovich Nos 13 (1962), 14 (1969) and 15 (1971)(all worthy in their ways)
Robert Simpson - No 9 (1982)
Tippett - No 4
Tubin - No 8 (1967)
Erkki-Sven Tüür - No 4 (Magma)(2002)
Weinberg - No 4 (1961)

[oldman]

I'm not sure about "best" but certainly the most striking symphonies have come from the pen of Arthur Schnittke.  Especially striking for me is his Symphony #1 (1969-74), which  I can only say has to be heard to be believed!

[Alan Howe]

It's precisely music like Schnittke's that I can't make head nor tail of. It's me, I know - but I'd listen to Simpson all day - and Shostakovich, Schuman, Arnold, Holmboe, Pettersson, Tippett, Tubin, Weinberg, Rautavaara (No.3 at least), Harris, etc.  But once we're into Lutoslawski, Maxwell Davies, Schnittke, etc. I'm lost. There's a definite shift here away from 'the tradition', it seems to me - or at least, the tradition's being stretched very hard and far. Am I wrong? What's happening here?

[alberto]

A minor remark about a symphonist I like very much, I would say a "true" symphonist, with a keen sense for the form, a real ability to "build".
Dutilleux second and last Symphony ("Le Double") is (if I am right) from 1959.

[JimL]

I'm not sure about "best" but certainly the most striking symphonies have come from the pen of Arthur Schnittke.  Especially striking for me is his Symphony #1 (1969-74), which  I can only say has to be heard to be believed!

That wouldn't be Alfred Schnittke you're talking about, would it?

[oldman]

Oops that is alfred schnittke

My bad

[Alan Howe]

Perhaps you were thinking of the Austrian writer Arthur Schnitzler?

[Alan Howe]

Anyway, does anyone want to take up the issue I am describing - the contrast between, say, Simpson  whose music moves in a way I can understand and, say, Maxwell Davies whose music doesn't? What am I missing?

[mbhaub]

Interesting topic, but I can't add anything to this. I don't know what the BEST symphonies of the last 50 years anymore than I can tell you what the best symphonies of the last 150 years are! I certainly have my favorites, but it seems that they are rarely on a list of the best. What makes a symphony "best" to me is that it stirs the soul, has real energy, drive, testosterone...but also some moments of reflection, tranquility, repose. I don't even mind ugly, as the symphonies of Humphrey Searle are frequent visitors in my household. Robert Simpson hardly ever. Too bad about the 50 year limit, though. One of the strongest, best, and entertaining symphonies of our era was written in 1958 by V Giannini for wind band, not orchestra. That 3rd symphony is a marvelous work that showed once again (as if it needed being proven) that one could still write tonal music in clear styles using modern idioms that people enjoyed.

[dafrieze]

I don't know if I could come up with a top ten offhand, but the symphonies from the last 50 years that speak to me most strongly are:

Shostakovich 13th (one of my absolute favorite symphonies regardless of when composed)
Tippett 3rd
Harbison 1st
George Lloyd 8th
Havergal Brian 21st
Arnold 5th
Lutoslawski 3rd

And I suppose listing the Elgar/Payne 3rd symphony would be cheating . . .

[eschiss1]

are all of those _from_ 1961?
hrm. still not sure what my other two of three would be, but Shostakovich 14, like Weinberg 6, I think have a strong case to make both in musical content (very very strong), in choice of texts (in the case of the Weinberg mostly- the finale is an exception there I know), in unifying themes and their response to them (death in general, death of children.) The Shostakovich is the better work but I'd certainly advocate for the Weinberg and am pleased with the recent performances it's been receiving. I suppose that leaves one... (I have a notion I may want to leave a spot open for Ivanovs' symphony 13, which I haven't listened to just yet. Though some other works as usual seem to me like they could fit as a representative best work.
Though given that 50 years' worth of other eras rarely produce three excellent symphonies (depending of course on what barrier one is requiring them to vault ... ! ), perhaps two is enough.

[Rainolf]

Asked, what is the best symphony written in the last 50 years, my choice would be Robert Simpson's 9th, too.

For me, this work is the greatest achievement in building up organic evolution in music. Everytime I hear this work, I find it amazing, what it could be made out of so a simple opening motive - a kind of symphonic life story, the main material beeing "born" at the beginning, going through different stations of life and "dying" at the ending - and how all that is integrated in one flowing musical continuum, that never breaks into parts.