Draeseke boxed set

[TerraEpon]

Huh. I just listened to them in the order they were on the CDs (which happens to be 1-4-2-3). But then again I don't tend of over-analyze what I listen to (most of the time anyway, I have been known to do it...) either, so....

[Alan Howe]

No.4 is really a pendant to the the other three. It's best heard last. However, I don't think it really matters one way or the other.

[khorovod]

Huh. I just listened to them in the order they were on the CDs (which happens to be 1-4-2-3). But then again I don't tend of over-analyze what I listen to (most of the time anyway, I have been known to do it...) either, so....

"Huh"??

Well, if I need to explain then the reason I asked, it was because sometimes an early work might be atypical or weaker than the rest so an expert on the composer like Alan, whose judgment I would respect, might say, "Don't start with no. 1 - go to no. 3 first, it is echt-Draeseke and leave no.1 until you have heard the best of him." Seemed like a sensible question to me and nothing to do with being "over-analytical".

What I will say (and the reason why I am posting) is that no. 3 has become a regular fixture in my listening, up there with the Brahms symphonies that I return to equally often. It's definitely a masterpiece of the romantic era and should be in the concert halls and recording studios as often as they are.

No. 2 I return to fairly often too. The 1st and 4th not so much.

Not sure if it's okay to resurrect an old thread but if people reading get interested in trying Draeseke's music that cant be a bad thing! 

[Alan Howe]

You have it spot-on, I'd say. No.3 is his outright symphonic masterpiece, and No.2 isn't far behind. No.1 is a fine work with a great slow movement but otherwise shows Draeseke's symphonic project as a work in progress. No.4 is a quirky late work which shows how far his idiom had developed.