Beethoven's Symphonic Quest?

[Wunderhorn]

I personally believe it is Bruckner and Mahler.

[Leo K]

By "climax" do you mean the pinnacle of Symphonic writing, such as orchestration, tonal language, or symphonic form?  Or all?

This reminds me of the old debate between Brahms and Wagner (regarding the true descendant of Beethoven) back in the day  

I have to admit it is hard for me to vote, because such a "journey" is difficult to qualify in absolute terms.  Richard Wagner's tonal language and expressive range (in regards to expansive forms and dynamics ) really opened alot of doors, so to speak.  Alot of composers reacted and others, such as Mahler and Bruckner, embraced Wagner's aesthetic. 

Brahms was apparently more traditional, but, according to Schoenberg, his work was more radical or "modern" than most...just more subtle rather than extreme.

So it's hard to say really, but interesting to discuss! 

I voted for Brahms (in the tradition of classicism) and Mahler (romanticism).

Bruckner is interesting as he seems to be a combination of classicism and romanticism. 

I hope I'm making sense

 

[Wunderhorn]

Brahms 1st is one of my top favs! His other works seem so richly orchestrated, it is befuddling to hear such a genius of 'timbre'. I remember Hermann Hesse whining in his 'Steppenwolf' about Brahms's too detailed of instrumentation. I personally see his 4th symphony as pushing to the absolute extremes of convention, I think that was his goal with the symphony.

[Leo K]

Brahms 1st is one of my top favs! His other works seem so richly orchestrated, it is befuddling to hear such a genius of 'timbre'. I remember Hermann Hesse whining in his 'Steppenwolf' about Brahms's too detailed of instrumentation. I personally see his 4th symphony as pushing to the absolute extremes of convention, I think that was his goal with the symphony.

I agree, I love his orchestration...and Schumann's too...they are both underrated perhaps?

Brahm's 4th is amazing.  Also, did I hear somewhere that Brahm's approved of Mahler's 2nd?  Or the Scherzo at least?  I thought I read that somewhere.

[Wunderhorn]

It's a funny thing. Brahms heard a complete performance of Mahler 'Resurrection' and I believe he made the comment along the lines, 'I thought Richard Strauss was the champion of this New Music. I was wrong; It is Mahler.'  (I believe Mahler was somewhat offended by Brahms remarks.)

[Amphissa]

You still have not answered my question. Instead you just started a poll.

What "symphonic idea" of Beethoven? What was Beethoven's "symphonic quest"? What is it that you think "climaxed"?

[barry guerrero]

I think it's fair to say that a structured symphonic tradition pretty much petered out with Shostakovich. I wouldn't discount Alan Pettersson too much either - he wrote a boat-load of decent symphonies. One under-rated symphonic composer who did happen to be German, was Karl Amadeus Hartmann. I wouldn't consider him to be as strong a symphonist as Shostakovich, but he's pretty good. For my money, the best symphony written by an American is the Ives 4th. I consider Vaughan-Williams to be a heavy hitter as well. I really like V-W's 9th symphony - his last one.

And at the other end of the survey, I really would back up to Haydn. Beethoven is deeply rooted in Haydn. Frankly, I hear a lot of Haydn in Mahler as well.

Barry

[tream]

Berlioz should be a choice here. While there would be no Mahler without Beethoven, there would have been no Liszt, Wagner or Mahler without Berlioz.

Of the choices offered, I chose Brahms and Mahler, but one could easily argue what might have been with Schubert - had he lived another 10 years - imagine.

[Wunderhorn]

Berlioz was surely very important, I agree. Schubert's early death was a true loss for Austria, tragic...

[Ivor]

   Yes,I don't understand the question either.   Yet.



     Ivor