Is Chronological Order Too Much To Ask For?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Having said that, do I really care which order Schumann symphonies are presented in; I have never listened to them all in sequence and doubt whether I ever will?

[vinteuil]

Anyone who is concerned about chronological order must really worry about playing the Haydn symphonies. Even the London symphonies are not numbered chronologically.

.

... and of course the BWV numbers are no help for the Bach cantatas. One of the features of the Bach 333 box I am enjoying is their attempt to have the cantatas in some sort of chronological order.

.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

.

... and of course the BWV numbers are no help for the Bach cantatas. One of the features of the Bach 333 box I am enjoying is their attempt to have the cantatas in some sort of chronological order.

.

Mozart's symphonies are a complete mess as far as chronological numbering is concerned.

[jayne lee wilson]

I've ripped all my CDs to computer so I no longer have these issues. Even multi-disk operas play from start to finish without interruption. From 5 mins on 78s to 30 on LP sides and then 80 mins on CD, there is no longer a limit to play lengths, bliss. And, of course, I can play things in any order I want - change the movement order of Mahler 6, easy.

Having said that, do I really care which order Schumann symphonies are presented in; I have never listened to them all in sequence and doubt whether I ever will?

Well because of what I said above -

Schumann's first symphonic attempt was the G Minor "Zwickau" of 1832-33, left incomplete but still a rewarding listen. In 1841 he wrote with astonishing speed: No.1; Overture Scherzo and Finale (called "Sinfonietta" at one point); Symphony in D Minor (Original version of No.4, but numbered "2" at its negatively-received première). He even fitted in the one-movement Fantasy for Piano/Orchestra that was later expanded into the Piano Concerto.

It is vital to know the order and circumstances of their composition to understand how Schumann developed his symphonic and imaginative visions, e.g. the tendency toward linked movements or single-movement works, and then against that - the various conflicting forces that produce such astonishing creativity.
Of course you don't have to listen to them in chronological order, but you'll understand (and I think, enjoy) them far better if you do (not every time of course...!)....

[mikealdren]

You're right Jayne, I didn't quite make my point correctly. I should have said that I doubt I would listen to them all in sequence in a single sitting without a break so, for me, the sequence on CD is irrelevant.

[BBMmk2]

Well because of what I said above -

Schumann's first symphonic attempt was the G Minor "Zwickau" of 1832-33, left incomplete but still a rewarding listen. In 1841 he wrote with astonishing speed: No.1; Overture Scherzo and Finale (called "Sinfonietta" at one point); Symphony in D Minor (Original version of No.4, but numbered "2" at its negatively-received première). He even fitted in the one-movement Fantasy for Piano/Orchestra that was later expanded into the Piano Concerto.

It is vital to know the order and circumstances of their composition to understand how Schumann developed his symphonic and imaginative visions, e.g. the tendency toward linked movements or single-movement works, and then against that - the various conflicting forces that produce such astonishing creativity.
Of course you don't have to listen to them in chronological order, but you'll understand (and I think, enjoy) them far better if you do (not every time of course...!)....

In essences, in the grand scheme of things, it’s absolutely essential that people understand totally what any composer has written chronologically.

[doversoul1]

It is vital to know the order and circumstances of their composition to understand how Schumann developed his symphonic and imaginative visions, e.g. the tendency toward linked movements or single-movement works, and then against that - the various conflicting forces that produce such astonishing creativity.
Of course you don't have to listen to them in chronological order, but you'll understand (and I think, enjoy) them far better if you do (not every time of course...!)....

Isn’t that depends on how you want to listen to music? Hearing a Schumann’s symphony and being deeply moved without any clinical knowledge about the music seems to me to be just as or even more vital to the way music is enjoyed. The knowledge about what you are listening can be important and useful particularly if you need/want to talk or write about it but I don’t think it is anything like vital for appreciating music.

However, I do sympathise the OP; some sort of order is a nice thing when it comes to a collection.

[Dave2002]

In essences, in the grand scheme of things, it’s absolutely essential that people understand totally what any composer has written chronologically.

Possibly, though this can be achieved without having all CD collections so ordered. If I know the order I can program my listening in that order if I have recorded versions of all the pieces. What is desirable is that the information about composition order is available.

I doubt that it is absolutely essential that most people understand completely most things they meet in life. Essential for whom? Why?

[MickyD]

Mozart's symphonies are a complete mess as far as chronological numbering is concerned.

The AAM/Hogwood set did a lot to redress this problem.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The AAM/Hogwood set did a lot to redress this problem.

As did Neal Zaslaw (who i believe wrote the accompanying booklets to the CD releases?) - and his Mozart Symphonies - Context, Performance Practice, Reception is magnificent (and not just regarding questions of chronology):

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mozarts-Symphonies-Performance-Reception-Paperbacks/dp/0198162863

[cloughie]

Mozart's symphonies are a complete mess as far as chronological numbering is concerned.

...and some of them are augmented overtures or Serenades with movements removed. As for No37?

[Bryn]

As did Neal Zaslaw (who i believe wrote the accompanying booklets to the CD releases?) - and his Mozart Symphonies - Context, Performance Practice, Reception is magnificent (and not just regarding questions of chronology):

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mozarts-Sym.../dp/0198162863

I have not checked recently but Zaslaw's notes for the Hogwood et al series were available via the Internet. I will check in a few minutes, when I get home.

[Ah, a bit of a mix-up. It's James Websters notes for the Hogwood Haydn symphonies which were available online.]

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

In essences, in the grand scheme of things, it’s absolutely essential that people understand totally what any composer has written chronologically.

I think this is a leeetle over-emphatic, Bbm. I've been listening recently to quite a lot of Dunstable, and not once have I found myself thinking "if only I knew what order these works were written in the composer's life".

Yes, it can be fascinating to follow a composer's biographical development over the course of his/her output (Simpson's monograph on the Beethoven Symphonies is exemplary in this respect); but I wouldn't say that this was at all "essential" (nor even, necessarily, particularly "useful") to anyone's appreciation of the individual works. And with an "output" as remarkable as Bach's, knowing the exact chronology comes way down the list (for me) of what makes these works quite so remarkable.

[jayne lee wilson]

In essences, in the grand scheme of things, it’s absolutely essential that people understand totally what any composer has written chronologically.

Thanks BBmK2.....

I tend to focus on one or two composers for some time, and the first thing I look for is a chronology, along with a more detailed look at how their style developed. It doesn't need to take long!

My latest obsession is with Bruno Maderna's orchestral music, and really, you could be quite lost if you didn't find out what he had written, why and when. The same absolutely applies to Enescu, or even more so, recently acclaimed for his Octet here.
Your understanding and ergo your enjoyment of the music is thus intensified. I would say this applies to most oeuvres, including the Mozart and Mendelssohn Symphonies. Would anyone suggest that knowledge of the order/history of composition of Mahler's or Bruckner's Symphonies is merely academic?
Surely not - it feeds into both enjoyment and understanding. The Life and the Work cross-fertilise in the heart and the mind...

Of course you don't have to look into these things to enjoy your listening; why else would Classic FM be so popular? But I don't know, time was when this forum would take such serious listening for granted. It seems strange to have to argue a case for it now, here....

[MickyD]

I have not checked recently but Zaslaw's notes for the Hogwood et al series were available via the Internet. I will check in a few minutes, when I get home.

[Ah, a bit of a mix-up. It's James Websters notes for the Hogwood Haydn symphonies which were available online.]

Yes, and I fear that you don't get either Zaslaw's or Webster's excellent notes for the budget boxes of the respective Mozart and Haydn cycles - at last one advantage for those of us who stumped up full price for each individual release all those years ago!