Is there a greater first symphony than M1?

[barry guerrero]

OK, let's ponder something a bit different: who has a  truly great first symphony? Obvious choices here are Mahler, Brahms, Prokofiev, and Shostakovich. Can Beethoven 1 be considered a truly "great" first symphony (I have an opinion, but I'm not going to state it yet)? What about Dvorak, Schubert, or Schumann (I like the Schumann first!)? What about the numerous American symphonists? Leo, how 'bout the Ives first symphony? Certainly Dave Hurwitz could name tons of great first symphonies (Dave, care to chime in?). Let's see what we can come up with.

B.

[Polarius T]

Well, I really agree with your "greats" (including the Schumann with a proviso that this is a great Schumann symphony but that there is no truly great symphony by Schumann; there is something fundamentally flawed [as BG no doubt would put it] about their instrumentation and even structure, to say nothing of their overcooked ethos -- they're almost unlistenable at one uninterrupted go [although I really like the old Sinopoli Sch2 with VPO for its special pathos, and Sawallisch makes them all sound much more regimented and trasnparent than what they are]).

The one obvious addition would be: Stravinsky (Symphony of Psalms). The only true competitor to Mahler, I'd say! (The Brahms is too plodding, awkward, and heavy, the Prokofiev sounds like a mere exercise, and the Shosty just nice.)

On the whole, M1 really is quite astonishing in its richness and readiness as a Mahler symphony. What a preliminary of things to come!

All the others you mention can be safely relegated to the archival depths as mere youthful curiosities.

Quizzes are great summer fun!

PT

[akiralx]

You've omitted the best First of all: Elgar!   I prefer that to M1.

On the classical recording newsgroup someone proposed Elgar 2 as the best symphony of the 20th century - I wouldn't disagree, but then I am British... 

But I'm hijacking Barry's thread 

[Dave H]

Barry:

I think it depends on the period, to some extent (that is, on the definition of what a symphony ought to be). Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms (in replay to another post in this thread) isn't really a symphony, nor is it his first (it is preceded by the Symphony in E flat and, if you want to use a broader definition, by the Symphonies of Wind Instruments). As to other great Firsts, you can't leave out the Berlioz Symphonie fantastique, if not the "greatest" the certainly the most original piece of its era. Liszt's Faust Symphony also probably belongs on the list, even though no one really likes it. I would leave out Bruckner and Dvorak (good, not "great"), but I would include Tchaikovsky, simply because the music is so characteristic of him in both its strenghts and weaknesses. The Balakirev First also deserves serious consideration. It's a wonderful piece.

I would also add Bizet's Symphony in C, which I suppose you wouldn't call "great" in the grandiose sense, but it is remarkablely precocious, utterly typical of its composer, and it is a repertory item. The Sibelius First is also an unambiguously great work for me, and so is Kullervo (if you want to call that his "First")---very remarkable indeed, particularly given that it preceeds Mahler's big choral symphonies. Then there's Franck, of course, but this raises the issue of what it means to compare a "first symphony" by a composer in his teens or 20s to one in his 50s or 60s with a mature style already in place. This also applies to a composer like Martinu, whose First Symphony is a masterpiece but also, comparatively, a late work, as is Elgar's First (which I personally don't especially like). Indeed, of the English school, only one "First" strikes me as great: Walton's.

In sum, I think it helps to establish some limiting criteria. Otherwise, all we will get is a list of everyone's favorite First Symphonies, and most folk here already know what that list contains.

Dave H

[John Kim]

I would think that Beethoven's First Symphony is very special. It must have clearly signaled an arrival of new genius. That's the feeling I get whenever I listen to the piece.

John,

[Dave H]

Re: Beethoven's First:

Undeniably a delightful and well-crafted work, but only important retrospectively, in light of what Beethoven achieved later. Certainly, to judge from its contemporary reception, it did not signal the arrival of a new genius. Let us not confuse personal enjoyment with the work's significance either historically or in terms of Beethoven's output generally. The most interesting movement is the scherzo, but even here the word "great" (which was Barry's topic--not "special") hardly applies. The contemporary chamber works show a far more advanced style than does the symphony.

Dave H

[barry guerrero]

Yes, I also feel that Beethoven's first - although rather Haydnesque in style - shows marvelous potential; almost genius, really. Thanks John. Dave, I knew I could count on you for tons of great points.

In the case of Elgar, I feel that the second one is stronger than the first. But both are very good, there's no denying that.

Sibelius is certainly an obvious choice. Thanks to whoever pointed that one out. What about the Americans?     .     .     Roy Harris? David Diamond? Piston? W. Schuman?       .      .    any of those great. I certainly like the Ives 1st.

Among the French, certainly - as Dave so astutely pointed out - "Symphonie Fantastique" &  Franck's D-minor symphony (was that his one and only?) would be obvious candidates. What about the Roussell 1st?

Barry

[Leo K]

Regarding Charles Ives' 1st Symphony...the John Sinclair recording on Naxos shows a better work than I had originally judged it to be...although obviously a student work, it is so sincere and avocative of its time I rate it highly in my Ives collection.  Actually, I think Ives' 2nd Symphony is a great work...not perfect, but such a natural sounding work, and quite complex in its own way...as interesting and Ivesian as his 4th Symphony.  I actually prefer the 2nd Symphony in many ways.

--Todd

[Dave H]

I don't think that there are any unambiguously great American "first" symphonies; interesting, yes, enjoyable, yes, promising, sure. But "great?" That would require a certain consensus, and not only isn't there one, most American composers are too recent for such a consensus to have developed. That's also the problem with the English school, despite it having gotten going marginally earlier and there being a larger number of known composers. I agree with Barry that the "great" Elgar symphony is the Second, but even here there's no censensus on his acheivement as a symphonist. He remains a local phenomenon outside of England, by and large, save perhaps for the popularity of the Enigma Variations.

Also, we need to understand that by the early decades of the 20th century, symphonic composition was no longer the exception for young composers--it became the rule because of the large number of orchestras available to play the music. Even in the Romantic period writing a symphony and getting it played was a sometime thing, and the only reason composers such as Haydn were able to work prolifically was because aristocrats had private orchestras on staff. So in the 20th century, as full-time orchestras became established just about everywhere, we see an explosion of symphonic composition, and a huge number of extremely well-trained composers writing orchestral music. Much of it is very well-fabricated and brilliantly scored, but that doesn't make it "great," and because the modern American school was dominated by Stravinsky (via Nadia Boulanger) and the neo-classical movement, not only the symphony but the very concept of the great work (in the Romantic or Mahlerian sense) was under siege. There certainly was great MUSIC being written, but the emphasis was not on the symphony as a grand statement. If I had to pick two of the most promising American First Symphonies, I would go with David Diamond or George Antheil, but as I said, there's certainly no consensus in this regard. But both are extremely attractive, enjoyable works.

Dave H

[Wolfbane]

Any more votes for Symphonie Fantastique by Berlioz ?

[barry guerrero]

Yep; Dave H. already pointed that work out.

Dave,

Obviously, you're so correct in pointing out the influence of Stravinsky and Nadia Boulanger on the so-called New England school of composers. Still, I was happy to see you mention David Diamond and George Antheil; two Americans I happy to really like. Thanks for contributing on this.

Barry

[Polarius T]

I think it depends on the period, to some extent (that is, on the definition of what a symphony ought to be). Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms (in replay to another post in this thread) isn't really a symphony, nor is it his first (it is preceded by the Symphony in E flat and, if you want to use a broader definition, by the Symphonies of Wind Instruments).

You are right in that SofP is not really a symphony as we would spontaneously understand it (a highly specific genre and form as developed from Viennese Classicism) but so wouldn't a lot of those other candidates mentioned here, either. But at least Stravinsky considered it his first of the kind. The E flat is mere juvenalia, a proof of apprenticeship, and the Symphonies of Wind Instruments has (should almost say "have") nothing to do with a symphony except the homonym in its ("their") title (the French original is less confusing than the US version: Symphonies d'instruments a vent, making it clearer that the reference is to those instruments "sounding together," or syn-phony, nothing else).

So in the absence of stricter rules I'll stick to my candidate! 

PT

[Dave H]

You are surely correct to describe Stravinsky's First Symphony as "juvenilia," but that's beside the point. This discussion, with all due respect, is not about whether a symphony is juvenilia or not. Barry's question concerned "first symphonies." The E-flat is indisputably Stravinsky's first symphony, the major work of his early years--not only that, he himself revived and recorded it and in that sense legitimized it, and it is certainly no more "juvenilia" than Shostakovifch's First, or Glazunov's First, or Bizet's Symphony, or many others that are considered significant. That fact that this example is NOT considered significant merely means that Stravinsky is not one of the composers whose first essay in the form matters. Barry did not ask about Mahler's First as compared to any other composer's first "important" symphony. That would be meaningless, obviously.

Dave H

[barry guerrero]

Regardless of the merits - or lack of merits - of Stravinsky's 1st symphony, I certainly feel that his strongest ones are the "Symphony In 3 Movements", and the "Symphony Of Psalms". Seems to me that his best orchestral scores are those that are intended for dance: Firebird; Petrushka; Le Sacre du Printemps; Jeu de Cartes - the usual suspects.

Barry

[John Kim]

What about Nielsen's First Symphony? I LOVE it! Have you folks ever listened to Previn's wonderful LSO recording? This one, along with Kubelik's live N5th, was the recording that made me a Nielsen convert. I think this symphony has much of his unique signature all over the place. That is, it sounds nothing like any other music before it but only Nielsen's.

John,