Is there a greater first symphony than M1?

[sbugala]

It's not even one of my very favorite works, but count me as another vote for Symphonie Fantastique.  Even though Mahler's 1st is one of the best, I still wonder if we should knock off a point or two from it since it was originally meant as a symphonic poem, if I recall. 

Shostakovich and Walton are also worthy choices. God, I love the Walton 1st. But I really don't love any of his other works. So in some ways, Walton gets a "what could've been" prize from me.

[Amphissa]

I suppose I'll have to confess that my favorite 1st symphony is Rachmaninoff's. It has received very few decent recordings. The best was Ormandy's first recording of it with the Philadelphia Orchestra, which I'd score at 94/100. It would be higher if it did not have cuts. Very fine on quality vinyl. Ashkenazy's recording is good -- 91/100. None of the other recordings comes close, and I've heard every one I could ever find. Most start out like some lead-footed dirge, which was definitely not what Rachmaninoff intended.

I know, I know. Gee, I wish I could say I love David Diamond's 1st better, or Paderewski, Suk, Scriabin, Tubin, Berlioz, Rangstrom, Chausson, Lyatoshinsky, Stanford, whatever. But I don't. Rachmaninoff's First tops my list, and Brahms' First is second on my list.

[techniquest]

Must say that the Rachmaninov 1 is by far my favourite of his 3 symphonies, and I prefer the Ashkenazy recording above all.
In terms of a 'great' first, it maybe depends on how you define 'great'. I'm thinking of Havergal Brian who's own 1st symphony 'The Gothic' is vast in terms of length and the forces necessary in order to perform it.
I also wonder - could Schnittke's 1st be considered great? It is certainly spectacular.
Both Shostakovich and Khachaturian's 1st's were student works and were great in terms of a. being remarkable pieces b. giving the world a new sound i.e the composers musical footprint.

[Polarius T]

This discussion, with all due respect, is not about whether a symphony is juvenilia or not. Barry's question concerned "first symphonies."... Barry did not ask about Mahler's First as compared to any other composer's first "important" symphony. That would be meaningless, obviously.

Well, all this shows is that definitions are a bit vague and not just here but in real life, too, and there even more so. What's a "symphony," on what grounds, and what makes it a "first"? I think we could start a mile-long thread on the analytical points alone on this. All we need to do is recall -- as pointed out by sbugala above -- that even the Mahler 1 was conceived and composed as a Symphonic Poem. So I thought why not show some respect for the composer I otherwise don't honor enough and go with his very own words to the effect that indeed the SofP was his "first" in the genre. Summer is a nice time precisely because it makes us lay back, free-associate away, flex some concepts, and have some fun with it all...

But I'll acknowledge the wisdom of your words and modify my original answer accordingly: None by Stravinsky. 

Yet in secret I'll entertain the notion that all the same, mine may have been the equivalent of a right answer to a wrong question.

"Next question!" 

PT

[barry guerrero]

Ahhhhhh, the Rachy 1st - that's a good call! I like that one very much.


PT,

I don't know what the mix-up regarding Stravinsky was, but I sure like the "Symphony In Three Movements". I'm glad that you mentioned him.

Barry

[sperlsco]

I'm really puzzled that David Diamond's works have not become more popular.  To my ears, he has a very Mahlerian sound.  I really love the Schwarz/Seattle SO versions on Delos, but would also like some alternative performances.  Of course, I haven't listened to any of these in a while and cannot remember a thing about his first symphony. 

FWIW, the only other first symphony that I LIKE as much as Mahler's is Brahms' first (with the caveat that I am only considering where the composer followed with multiple and numbered symphonies). 

[John Kim]

Ditto. I really love Diamond's grand Second Symphony. A great work in Mahlerian scale and ambition.

John,

[stillivor]

I'd love to put M1 top. It's certainly tremendously original, as a recent analysis on the Beeb demonstrated.

And Berlioz's is close but a bit crude at times; and I love Nielsen's, too. And brahms is up there, but not quite as groundbreaking as Beethoven's, which gets the palm from me. starting in the wrong key, indeed.


   Ivor

[Frankler]

I think Brahms 1st is also first class, but then again he was how old when he wrote it, compared to Mahler's youth.

[Damfino]

FWIW, the only other first symphony that I LIKE as much as Mahler's is Brahms' first (with the caveat that I am only considering where the composer followed with multiple and numbered symphonies).

I like some other first symphonies, but in answer to the question "Is There a Greater?", for me the Brahms 1st is at least as great as the Mahler.

[John Kim]

To me Brahms 1st sounds a little too "labored", especially the first movt. No doubt he had spent many years before the work saw its light. It doesn't really flow as naturally as his 3rd symphony which is my favorite among all Brahms pieces.

Speaking of groundbreaking work, I agree Beethoven's 1st should be included on the list.

John,

[Leo K]

FWIW, the only other first symphony that I LIKE as much as Mahler's is Brahms' first (with the caveat that I am only considering where the composer followed with multiple and numbered symphonies).

I like some other first symphonies, but in answer to the question "Is There a Greater?", for me the Brahms 1st is at least as great as the Mahler.

I also prefer the Brahms first over Mahler's first....by miles 

--Todd