'Greatest Symphony'

[giles.enders]

I see in the September 2016 BBC music magazine, they have asked well known people in the music business to nominate the three greatest symphonies ever written.  There are some very odd choices and some obvious ones.  Any thoughts ?

[Gareth Vaughan]

I believe Beethoven's 3rd, the "Eroica", came out as No. 1 all round. And I would agree with that. But I think the exercise is rather futile on the whole. If really pushed I might plump for Vaughan Williams' "London" symphony and Bruckner's 8th as 2 and 3. But what of Mozart or Mahler, you might ask? And there are many other outstanding symphonists whose works one might also consider.
I do agree that there were certainly some curious choices.

[Mark Thomas]

I haven't read the magazine, but this strikes me as a meaningless exercise. What does "greatest" mean? How on earth can one even attempt to define it and, even if one could, how does one decide who is qualified to make the judgement? It really boils down to asking people to nominate their own personal favourites: the works to which they respond most both emotionally and intellectually. I have no problem with that as an exercise, but it doesn't amount to nominating the "greatest".

[Alan Howe]

...and meanwhile the unsungs get lost in the shuffle. Again.

[MartinH]

Yes, what does "greatest" mean? Is it the greatest to conduct? to play? The most technically perfect - whatever that means. As much as I love Mahler, even I can't place three of his in the top 10. Any top-10 list that doesn't include Raff 3, Schmidt 4, Bloch c# minor, Balakirev 1 or Atterberg 6 is clearly mistaken.

[eschiss1]

Clearly? Really??? I'd place some of those very high indeed but not at the cost of displacing 10 stunning and great (even if sung) works. Schmidt 4, for instance, sinks while one sits through its scherzo, though the rest is indeed wonderful...

[adriano]

Mark and Thomas, I fully agree with you!

[Alan Howe]

This thread is clearly stillborn. It's as dead (and daft) as the BBC Music Magazine feature which spawned it. Shall we kill it off...?

[minacciosa]

The scherzo of Schmidt's 4th is one of the many high points in that work; it weaves the motives of the first movement in rich polyphony, and in such masterly fashion as to create something entirely new from the misleadingly plain material. It is also illustrative of part the cycle of grief: that of denial, where one goes about one's business as if nothing has happened - until reality intrudes, as it does at the end of the scherzo. The scherzo begins and proceeds as an echt-Viennese quick-three dance, bumptious if not genial, when it suddenly comes to a stop as if hitting a wall, and then a huge climax that sounds as if one is falling into an abyss leads into the last movement. Then comes Resignation.

You don't need a score to get that.

[Alan Howe]

Agreed. It's a fabulous work.

[MartinH]

"Clearly" -- I wanted to put a winking smiley next to it, but can't. Sarcasm was intended. It's only clear in my mind.

What someone should write is The Worst 10 Symphonies for the Orchestra: things we hate to play for many reasons. Franck d minor heads the list, followed by Schubert 9.

[minacciosa]

Here we go!

The Franck is a great work; there's a reason it was overplayed for years.

This is why lists like that are worthless.

[Alan Howe]

Absolutely right. The Franck is a wonderful work. I suspect this thread has now run its course.

[Christopher]

Yes, the Forum is no place for discussion!    (nods towards Boris Gryzlov, former speaker of the Russian parliament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Gryzlov#Memorable_quotes)

[Christopher]

Yes agree that lists are silly.  None more so that the ClassicFM Hall of Fame, which just reinforces the same old sungs to be played over and over.  Surely they see what a self-perpetuating cycle it is?  And the BBC have just done some Top Ten Greatest Films of the 21st Century....fairly meaningless too!