# Most Impressive "First" Symphonies



## Cosmos

What composer would you say wrote the most impressive first symphony?

For me, even though I love Mahler's, I am most impressed by Shostakovich's first. I think it's because of his unique orchestration and the fact that the symphony doesn't scream "IMMATURE" like some other composers works. Also I can't forget the fact that he wrote it when he was 19

What are your thoughts? Which first symphony impresses you the most?


----------



## Ukko

Hey - this is poll material.


----------



## DrKilroy

Mahler, Vaughan Williams, Sibelius, Walton, Lutosławski.

Best regards, Dr


----------



## Mahlerian

Beethoven's first is a well-crafted piece, but not as interesting as the piano sonatas of the same period. Schumann's first is decent, but I prefer the symphonies that followed. Brahms' first is a fully-formed mature work that holds up well against the rest of the cycle. Mahler's first is fascinating--as Schoenberg said, his personality there right from the beginning--but the finale has weak spots in it. Schoenberg's own Chamber Symphony in E is a masterpiece, but doesn't fit fully into the mould of a traditional symphony (like Liszt's B minor Sonata, it's an all-in-one single movement). Shostakovich's first has a strong first half and a weaker second half, I feel, although it is excellent for a student work. Samuel Barber's one-movement symphony is taut and dramatic, while Copland's Symphony for Organ and Orchestra is good but not in the same league.

Bruckner's first is weak compared to what followed, and the "Study" symphony that preceded it even more so. Tchaikovsky's first is brought down by the repetitive, bombastic finale. Stravinsky's student symphony in E-flat is terrible and is better off left unplayed.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Hmmm...good question.... Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique would be up there with the likes of Mahler and DSCH in the Remarkably Assured Debut Symphony stakes.


----------



## joen_cph

> Stravinsky's student symphony in E-flat is terrible and is better off left unplayed.


Mahlerian, may I ask, what is it about Stravinsky´s that you don´t like? It seems fairly conventional for its day, very much in the Russian spirit of R-Korsakov etc., but except from late Romanticism and Russian Folklore, there are some traits of detachment now and then, that seem to announce the later, more enigmatic and neoclassical Stravinsky too, I think. I´ve been listening some times to it recently and I quite like it - in Stravinsky´s and Alexander Gibson´s recordings. Overall, I prefer his later _Symphony in 3 Movements _and the _Psalm Symphony _though, and the E-Flat is definitely less innovative.


----------



## Mahlerian

joen_cph said:


> Mahlerian, may I ask, what is it about Stravinsky´s that you don´t like? It seems fairly conventional for its day, very much in the Russian spirit of R-Korsakov etc., but except from late Romanticism and Russian Folklore, there are some traits of detachment now and then, that seems to announce the later, more enigmatic, dry and neoclassical Stravinsky too, I think. I´ve been listening some times to it recently and I quite like it - in Stravinsky´s and Alexander Gibson´s recordings. Overall, I prefer his Symphony in 3 Movements and the Psalm Symphony though, and the E-Flat is definitely less innovative.


In my opinion, the best movement is the Scherzo, because it's light and colorful. Even from the beginning Stravinsky showed a great sense for orchestration. I'm being overly harsh with my pithy summation above, I know, but the rest is unconvincing to say the least; the first movement has decent if not particularly notable themes (although I find the second a little irksome), but the development feels forced, like he knows he has to do something but didn't plan out _what_ in advance, so the momentum more or less slows to a crawl until the recapitulation. I can't stand the Largo one bit, and I don't recall the finale off the top of my head.


----------



## Manxfeeder

I don't know offhand what I think is the _most_ impressive 1st symphony," but I think Nielsen's 1st symphony popped out of his head full-grown.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Havergal Brian's 1st symphony of course! 2 hours of Big British Bang!


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> ...Shostakovich's first has a strong first half and a weaker second half, I feel, although it is excellent for a student work.


I agree with your assessment, at least the first part. But it would be an excellent symphony for anybody, not just a graduating student. This symphony really made people sit up and pay attention at the time...somebody new is here! And of course it's still widely enjoyed.


----------



## Ondine

Impressive?

Beethoven's first two symphonies.

It seemed that symphonic language was to follow that of Haydn's and maybe Mozart's. That the evolving line will follow them smoothly. 'Experts' say -Oh! Beethoven's firsts are Hayden like- Haydn like? No way.

Beethoven's first two symphonies are a shift, a complete change, a quantum leap that changed the entire course of symphonic orchestral treatment. Of course there's 'Haydn' material in them but it is not Haydn like.

I love those two symphonies because is like standing at the edge looking into an abyss or like looking up to the sky for the first time and understanding the vastness of the Universe and grasping that ultimate mystery about existence.

Listening them I just can say... Yes, that is Beethoven. In his madness he changed the course of music into a complete different direction.


----------



## Tristan

I was going to say Mahler and Brahms.


----------



## Ondine

DrKilroy said:


> Mahler, Vaughan Williams, Sibelius, Walton, Lutosławski.
> 
> Best regards, Dr





Mahlerian said:


> Beethoven's first is a well-crafted piece, but not as interesting as the piano sonatas of the same period. Schumann's first is decent, but I prefer the symphonies that followed. Brahms' first is a fully-formed mature work that holds up well against the rest of the cycle. Mahler's first is fascinating--as Schoenberg said, his personality there right from the beginning--but the finale has weak spots in it. Schoenberg's own Chamber Symphony in E is a masterpiece, but doesn't fit fully into the mould of a traditional symphony (like Liszt's B minor Sonata, it's an all-in-one single movement). Shostakovich's first has a strong first half and a weaker second half, I feel, although it is excellent for a student work. Samuel Barber's one-movement symphony is taut and dramatic, while Copland's Symphony for Organ and Orchestra is good but not in the same league.
> 
> Bruckner's first is weak compared to what followed, and the "Study" symphony that preceded it even more so. Tchaikovsky's first is brought down by the repetitive, bombastic finale. Stravinsky's student symphony in E-flat is terrible and is better off left unplayed.


Yes, Mahler's first is another one truly impressive.


----------



## TrevBus

This is a very tough one. Most of my favorite composers had pretty impressive 1st and most of those have already been named. I will mentioned Walton's first, because I feel his is one of the greatest of the 20th century.
Here is a list of some who I don't think have been mentioned and had some pretty good 1st.

Asger Hamerik 7 in all. Good start w/his 1st and I believe his 4th the best.
Vagn Holmboe 14(includes the Sinfornia in memoriam). 4 Symphonic Metamorphoses. 3 Chamber Sym. IMO, all great.
Gian Francesco
Malipiero 11 numbered and additional 6 w/sinfornia in its title. Very original and pretty non-conformist in style.
Joly Braga Santos 6 in all. #4 probably his best but the 1st is very impressive.
Ahmed Adnan Saygun 5 in all. One of Turkeys finest. Next to Walton his first might be the most impressive.
Egon Wellesz 9 in all. Difficult music but very rewarding after futher listning.
William Grant Still Not sure but I think 6. #1 is very ground breaking. Also known as the 'Afro-American Synphony'.
Charles Ives 4 numbered. Considering this was a school effort and what came after, pretty impressive.


----------



## techniquest

Walton - even though the last movement doesn't exactly fit with the feel of the rest of it.
Mahler - undeniably impressive and because it was so 'new' for it's day.
Shostakovich - kind of agree with the sentiments above about the 1st half being better than the second, but it's all good.
Khachaturian - another graduation work and the first Armenian symphony.
Rachmaninov - yes it's rough around the edges, but certainly impressive and we're lucky to have it.


----------



## Art Rock

The usual suspects: Brahms, Mahler, Berlioz, Sibelius, Shostakovich

Off the beaten path: Moeran, Rott, Schmidt


----------



## norman bates

I don't know about the most impressive but yesterday I was listening to the first symphony of Jacques Chailley and I think it deserves to be mentioned





Also the first ones of Popov and Vermeulen are beautiful works.


----------



## Weston

Brahms' 1st impresses me the most. 

Vaughan-Williams next, but maybe that's just because of the big flashy loud opening. In other words I haven't really focused on it as I have some of his other symphonies.


----------



## CyrilWashbrook

Art Rock said:


> The usual suspects: Brahms, Mahler, Berlioz, Sibelius, Shostakovich
> 
> Off the beaten path: Moeran, Rott, Schmidt


Good nominations. The Rott is among my favourite pieces. I recall somebody saying on these forums a while back that the final movement gives the impression that he didn't quite know when to end the piece, which is probably a fair summation. But it's a very impressive first (and sadly, only) symphony nonetheless.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Shostakovich, Martinu, Milhaud, Elgar, RVW, Rubbra, Honegger, Hartmann, Brahms, Liszt (if we count his _Faust Symphony_ as his first), Roussel, Tchaikovsky, Ives, Barber, Copland, Schuman (his _Symphony No. 3_ must be considered his first since _Symphonies 1 & 2_ were withdrawn), Walton, and the list goes on.


----------



## Kieran

Manxfeeder said:


> I don't know offhand what I think is the _most_ impressive 1st symphony," but I think Nielsen's 1st symphony popped out of his head full-grown.


Ouch! That sounds sore.

An eight year old writing a symphony is fairly impressive, wouldn't ya say...


----------



## Llyranor

I'm going to go with Elgar. Love love love his 1st.


----------



## violadude

How about Prokofiev? His first is pretty impressive, although he had already proven he could write impressive pieces before he wrote his first symphony.


----------



## KenOC

violadude said:


> How about Prokofiev? His first is pretty impressive, although he had already proved he could write impressive pieces before he wrote his first symphony.


Prokofiev is a good call. He's not much mentioned in this regard because his 1st symphony is kind of "lite." Which has nothing to do with its quality, which is certainly top drawer. For that matter, nobody has mentioned Bizet, I think, who hid his own symphony in a drawer and ignored it.


----------



## violadude

KenOC said:


> Prokofiev is a good call. He's not much mentioned in this regard because his 1st symphony is kind of "lite." Which has nothing to do with its quality, which is certainly top drawer. For that matter, nobody has mentioned Bizet, I think, who hid his own symphony in a drawer and ignored it.


Well, it's not heavy. But it's unique and "revolutionary" in its own right because as far as I know, no other piece sounds that close to imitating Haydn without it sounding pastiche or un-original while at the same time sounding distinctly 20th century. It's the perfect balance of both worlds.


----------



## MagneticGhost

Martinu's 1st Symphony is very exciting.
Tchaikovsky's 1st Symphony deserves to be much better known. 
Vaughan Williams Sea Symphony has got everything and it's just brilliant.


----------



## Lisztian

For me it's a tossup between Berlioz and Liszt, at this point.


----------



## Bix

Good question.

There are still a lot of 'Firsts' for me to listen to, but of those that I have I would have to say Shostakovich.

I would go further to say Shostakovich / Petrenko / RLPO - nice (but I am often biased towards my home orchestra - have you heard the 11th, its just  :tiphat: )


----------



## julianoq

Brahms 1st is the most impressive in my opinion, but I think he almost "cheated" this one, having used 21 years to compose it and finishing when he was already mature with 43 years old. So I would vote on Mahler :tiphat:


----------



## korenbloem

schnittke, mahler, shostakovich, brahms, schuma come to mind. But schnittke's 1st and Mahlers 1st are one of my all time favourites


----------



## norman bates

I was forgetting about the first of Alexander Lokshin. Shostackovich heard this work and considered him a genius


----------



## Skilmarilion

Not sure if we could put _Symphonie Fantastique_ in the same group as other 'true' symphonies, but it would be a fairly obvious choice.

Otherwise my favourite 3 would be:

Mahler
Sibelius
Tchaikovsky


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Schnittke and Brian are the ones I choose as most impressive. 
Even though *Sibelius* is my favourite composer and a fabulous symphonist, I don't really see what people find particularly impressive about his 1st. It is the weakest of the lot even if it is an outstanding symphony.


----------



## violadude

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Schnittke and Brian are the ones I choose as most impressive.
> Even though *Sibelius* is my favourite composer and a fabulous symphonist, I don't really see what people find particularly impressive about his 1st. It is the weakest of the lot even if it is an outstanding symphony.


I agree, unlike some composers, with Sibelius it only gets better after his first.


----------



## Selby

The most impressive first symphony?

Be - hold, _____ the
sea______________ it - self, _____________


----------



## techniquest

> The most impressive first symphony?
> 
> Be - hold, _____ the
> sea______________ it - self, _____________


Yes, but after that bit...


----------



## DrKilroy

... it's still great.  Only the fourth movement is a bit "half-baked", but isn't it also the case with Mahler's 1st?

Best regards, Dr


----------



## Vaneyes

1. Mahler, 2. Brahms, 3. Schumann, 4. Sibelius, 5. Nielsen, 6. Tchaikovsky, 7. Franck, 8. Scriabin, 9. Prokofiev, 10. Shostakovich.


----------



## Vaneyes

julianoq said:


> Brahms 1st is the most impressive in my opinion, but I think he almost "cheated" this one, having used 21 years to compose it and finishing when he was already mature with 43 years old. So I would vote on Mahler :tiphat:


Franck and Bruckner were late symphonic bloomers, too.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Prokofiev is a good call. He's not much mentioned in this regard because his 1st symphony is kind of "lite." Which has nothing to do with its quality, which is certainly top drawer. For that matter, nobody has mentioned Bizet, I think, who hid his own symphony in a drawer and ignored it.


I was reading down through this thread waiting for mention of Bizet's symphony in C. A student work, and a breezy very well made thing it is. Definitely one for this tally of impressive firsts, imho.


----------



## Novelette

Saint-Saens' first symphony--unnumbered in A Major.

Primarily because it is an ingenious throw-back to the styles of late Mozart and Haydn. My own compositions are still in sonata form, and I would be delighted if I had crafted a work so well in this style.


----------



## MJongo

Schnittke's is by far my favorite first.


----------



## LindnerianSea

Although I don't get along that amazingly with contemporary classical music, Schnittke's monumental 1st is worth the mention.
I definitely agree with the likes of Mahler, Rachmaninov, Walton..etc. but did anyone mention Elgar, Prokofiev, and Honegger's firsts ?


----------



## Garlic

Penderecki's 1st is easily his best IMO

My vote is for Brahms though


----------



## MagneticGhost

techniquest said:


> Yes, but after that bit...


It gets better.

I've lost count of the number of times I've read this dismissive comment against the Sea Symphony. I'm starting to get a little cross. 

The piece is majestic from beginning to end. There are moments of such beauty you could string them together and make a necklace.


----------



## DeepR

I have a lot of firsts to listen to, but I'd say my current favorites are Beethoven, Tchaikovsky and Scriabin.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

I second a great number already nominated.

Elgar and Glazunov I nominate as well. 

If Kalinnikov would be considered, he only wrote 2 symphonies, but the 1st is definitely considered his greatest work.


----------



## Xaltotun

Sibelius' first is magnificient and powerful, and it shows a side of his personality that none of his other symphonies do.
Brahms' first is always my favourite, climbing Mt. Beethoven with a sour face.
Rachmaninov's first is a personal favourite as well, I like the serious spirit of it, and the "Vengeance is mine"-story makes it even better.
Schumann's first is just lovely, always a pleasure to listen to.
Then there are those guys who only have a single symphony of high quality, like Franck and Rott, so they belong to this club as well. I just bought a brilliant recording of the Franck - Monteux / Chicago Symphony - that I can recommend to anyone who loves this symphony, and even those who don't!


----------



## Vaneyes

PetrB said:


> I was reading down through this thread waiting for mention of Bizet's symphony in C. A student work, and a breezy very well made thing it is. Definitely one for this tally of impressive firsts, imho.


Stokowski's is the most convincing recording I've heard. Other suggestions? :tiphat:


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Xaltotun said:


> Rachmaninov's first is a personal favourite as well, I like the serious spirit of it, and the "Vengeance is mine"-story makes it even better.
> Schumann's first is just lovely, always a pleasure to listen to.


I forgot about both of those, agh! I'm listening to the Schumann now, the lovely "Spring" symphony. Also, that 1st symphony by Rachmaninoff is excellent..... eh...... <_< ... >_>


----------



## mtmailey

BRAHMS,DVORAK,TCHAIKOVSKY,ELGAR,SCHUBERT, & SCHUMANN had great ones.


----------



## drth15

Elgar's first is a long and uneven work. But it converys real authority. transition to slow movement really magnificent.


----------



## jim prideaux

Walton
Moeran
Barber


----------



## jim prideaux

Vaneyes said:


> Stokowski's is the most convincing recording I've heard. Other suggestions? :tiphat:


Orpheus Chamber Orch.-excellent CD with Brittens Simple Symphony and Prokofiev 1st-great recording, the performances are really energetic.


----------



## DavidA

Berlioz? Was the Symphonie Fantastique his first?


----------



## Skilmarilion

DavidA said:


> Berlioz? Was the Symphonie Fantastique his first?


Althought "Symphony" should be used much looser with him, I believe so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compositions_and_literary_works_by_Hector_Berlioz#Symphonies


----------



## Forte

Wel... Ralph Vaughan Williams's _A Sea Symphony_ is an absolutely colossal first symphony, and it's his first, as well as his largest.

But if you're talking about the _most_ colossal first symphony, it's probably Havergal Brian's _Gothic Symphony_ (he would write 32 eventually), and by far his largest.

Joachim Raff's Symphony No. 1 _An das Vaterland_ is a monumental five movement symphony that doesn't get performed very often at all.


----------



## Rangstrom

A lot of good suggestions and I would add Simpson (although he discarded 4 earlier attempts) and Popov.


----------



## DaDirkNL

Mahler and Beethoven.......................


----------



## Kommand

I like many, many, many first symphonies -- although Shostakovich's tops it off even though he was only 19 years old at the time; especially the last two movements.


----------



## Machiavel

Berlioz then Brahms. I also do like very much the first of Bruch!


----------



## AClockworkOrange

Ralph Vaughan Williams, Guatav Mahler, Johannes Brahms, Havergal Brian, Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy and of course Jean Sibelius.


----------



## JMiller

While I would agree that it's not on the level of, say, Nielsen 1 (which I'm listening to as we speak), I really do enjoy Spohr's first quite a lot.

I'm not sure what that says about me.


----------



## isridgewell

Ruud Langgard (please excuse my spelling!). Very impressive work.


----------



## violadude

Can "Turangalila" be considered Messiaen's first (and only) symphony? Cause that piece is pretty freakin impressive.

I'm wondering, is there any composer whose first symphony you would consider their best? Question aimed at anyone.


----------



## violadude

isridgewell said:


> Ruud Langgard (please excuse my spelling!). Very impressive work.


Yes it is. He must have put his all into that one, because his symphonies take quite a nosedive in quality after the first


----------



## rarevinyllibrary

I would mention SHOSTAKOVICH for sure


----------



## Art Rock

violadude said:


> I'm wondering, is there any composer whose first symphony you would consider their best? Question aimed at anyone.


Berlioz, definitely - difficult to see others.


----------



## moody

Berlioz,Brahms and Arriaga--and look how young he was.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Mendelssohn's first is very good, especially considering how young he was when he wrote it.


----------



## DeepR

Scriabin's first only mentioned twice. I've read some consider it "immature" compared to his later works... But what is immature anyway? And why compare it to the vastly different later works? Especially the symphonic poems, I mean. (Only about 7 years between this symphony and the poem of ecstasy, talk about radical change!). 
This symphony is great in its own right. Ít's not about the struggles of the ego, being a creator-god, becoming one with the cosmos through achieving ecstasy, and stuff like that... No, this is a young man, somewhat naive, full of hope and ambition, just making beautiful music to the best of his ability, very delicate and right from the heart, with a glorious ode to art at the end. I love this symphony.


----------



## JCarmel

I love Schumann's, Brahms' & Franck's in particular & in that order.


----------



## SIoannou

Brahms!!! He wrote it quite late in his life so he had already matured as a composer


----------



## Winterreisender

I would defintely vote Berlioz as the Fantastique is without question one of my favourite symphonies of all time!! It is just a shame that Berlioz could never follow it up, as the next three "symphonies" are hardly symphonies at all. They are all fine works but they all stray into very different genres (concerto, cantata, etc.)


----------



## Avey

Great mentions here, beyond the obvious contenders. But I'm still surprised to see just three mentions of *Elgar's First* here.

There's this motto, the main theme, which is altered throughout each movement, consistently struggling to make its way home again -- to return to the nobility, as Elgar may prefer. Obviously, this is the fundamental idea behind the symphonic structure (any many other forms).

However, I have not heard a greater dramatic rendering of that structure than this work. The way that theme perseveres throughout all the change, the tonal instability, how it retains the ability to become whole again, through rehabilitation in the adagio, despite _coming under attack_ in that final movement -- Elgar's story is unparalleled in this respect. Maybe he makes the struggle obvious and unrelenting, or that theme is just too..."noble" to ignore. Regardless, it's glorious.

Mahler's, Brahms, Berlioz, Vaughan-Williams' first symphonies are fantastic in their own right, hard for me to disagree with any those preferred _firsts_.

But *Elgar's First*, to me, _is_ the most psychologic/biographic music. I find it so accessible and _too analogous_ to life.


----------



## Stargazer

I think Mahler really did well with his first. I find that typically a first symphony is more a composer's learning symphony...a stepping stone to bigger and better things. Not being a composer myself, I realize how difficult it must be to produce a work of art on your first real attempt. Berlioz has a pretty good stake in this one as well!


----------



## tdc

I'm currently listening to Bernard Herrmann's 1st symphony and I find it quite impressive.


----------



## Andrei

1. Brahms
2. Walton
3. Prokofiev
4. Franck

Tchaikovsky and Berlioz have their moments but that's about it for me.


----------



## maestro267

Vaughan Williams' A Sea Symphony
Walton


----------



## leomarillier

Okay, Brahms' first is difficult to judge. It's definetly powerful, but I feel it's not the intimate, clever, and emotionnaly shifting Brahms he became in the second. But it's a strong work, which helped him being confident into revealing himself in the future. You don't have these moments when darkness lies under a beautiful melody, or a moment of calm and happy solitude. What I think is essential to Brahms is how it can easily turned into banal dancing music instead of poetic ideas merging (esp. 4rth symphony) in terms of tempo.

I used to like very much Mahler's 1rst, but it's only a glance at the future Mahler, I feel he kind of feared being too sarcastic for his first symphony. The second movement is what made me believe this. All other three have incredibly mature moments, but I feel he was trying to make too much out of this first. But... the marcia funebre is timeless by its slow pace, the burial cortege of animals, more and more are entering the group, and the g-Major section is just so dreamy, it's one of those music you hear behind your ear when you're in a forest. Good lord it's a good one nonetheless. i guess the moments he is bombastic are just loud music, whereas the other powerful climaxes of the later symphonies are filled by every feeling imaginable (9th, 10th, 6th especially).

Sibelius' stands very close to being my favorite first. Already everything is Sibelius, the frustration of music passing by, the weird yet awesome ending.

Bruckner's is really wunderful, but too unique and different to the later ones, yet it's fully mature.

Anybody mentioned Scriabin's first? pretty incredible, a fusion between wagner liszt and chopin under the direction of a russian mystique, that is appetizing! The stylistic fusion is so well controlled it sounds all new,and it is! I think this one might be my favorite. Even though one can criticize his attempt at creating another Ode to joy (on LSD), this is really good stuff!

Shosty's 1rst is fresh.
I prefer Elgar's to the rest of his work.
If I could choose a composer who only wrote one symphony, I'd choose either Franck, Chausson, (or perhaps Rott). But Chausson's is a desert-islend type work. I'm listening tonight to the BSO playing Franck's, with Thomas Ades conducting!

Does the Faust Symphony count?


----------



## DeepR

leomarillier said:


> Anybody mentioned Scriabin's first? pretty incredible, a fusion between wagner liszt and chopin under the direction of a russian mystique, that is appetizing! The stylistic fusion is so well controlled it sounds all new,and it is! I think this one might be my favorite. Even though one can criticize his attempt at creating another Ode to joy (on LSD), this is really good stuff!


Yes, one page back.  You are number 3 now. It is really good indeed. The first movement is also absolutely gorgeous. I'm going to hear it live in a couple of months and I've been looking forward to it for half a year already.


----------



## tahnak

This is a good symphony. I have heard it a couple of months ago. I am referring to Bernard Herrmann's First Symphony.


----------



## Celloissimo

I personally find Mahler's 1st to be extraordinary, a fully mature work where his shows his brilliant sense of orchestration from the very beginning. Anton Bruckner is one of my favorite symphonists, but I feel as if the 1st, 0th, and Study Symphony don't add up to the rest of the cycle (Everything from the 2nd on is a masterpiece).


----------



## nannerl

Yay so much to check out from all these suggestions! Whoooo


----------



## starthrower

I've always loved Ives first symphony.


----------



## BurningDesire

Schnittke's Symphony No. 1 is one of the most wacko, nuts pieces I've ever heard and I love it X3 Its like a manifesto for his musical universe, a treatise on the beauty of musical diversity, of breaking down barriers.


----------



## Schumann

Beethoven's 1st symphony !!!


----------



## Guest

This is how I would rate the main ones:

1	Beethoven - Symphony No 1
2	Schumann - Symphony No 1 'Spring'
3	Brahms - Symphony No 1
4	Elgar - Symphony No 1
5	Berlioz - Symphony Fantastique
6	Walton - Symphony No 1
7	Mahler - Symphony No. 1 'Titan'
8	Bizet - Symphony in C
9	Sibelius - Symphony No 1
10	Bax - Symphony No 1
11	Prokofiev - Symphony No 1 'Classical'
12	Bantock - Hebridean Symphony
13	Schnittke - Symphony No 1
14	Brian - Symphony No 1 'Gothic'
15	Schönberg - Chamber Symphony No 1


----------



## Rhombic

This is way too easy: Mahler.


----------



## neoshredder

Love Sibelius's first symphony.


----------



## Celloissimo

neoshredder said:


> Love Sibelius's first symphony.


Same here, it's so textually rich and creative. I find the scherzo to be very atmospheric and evoking of the cold Finnish landscape.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

neoshredder said:


> Love Sibelius's first symphony.


That is my least favourite of *Sibelius's* symphonies.

And his choral symphony "Kullervo" is the more impressive first symphony of *Sibelius* in my opinion.


----------



## neoshredder

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> That is my least favourite of *Sibelius's* symphonies.
> 
> And his choral symphony "Kullervo" is the more impressive first symphony of *Sibelius* in my opinion.


My least favorite is probably Symphony 5. Haven't listened to Kullervo yet. But I prefer regular symphonies over choral ones.


----------



## tdc

Sibelius 1st symphony seems to be a polarizing work where a lot of fans either love it or hate it, personally I love it. There are sections that perhaps sound a tad rougher around the edges than later Sibelius, but in ways I find it more accessible, and immediately appealing than the later works, with very catchy and memorable themes.


----------



## Celloissimo

As much as I love Sibelius' first though, I find the 1st movement to be pretty empty. That discursive clarinet solo at the beginning just goes on way to long and doesn't go anywhere, and some of his modulations really bothered me. The subsequent movements are brilliant though.


----------



## neoshredder

It starts kind of awkwardly which I kinda like actually. But once the first movement gets to the main theme, it really takes off for me.


----------



## starry

tdc said:


> Sibelius 1st symphony seems to be a polarizing work where a lot of fans either love it or hate it, personally I love it. There are sections that perhaps sound a tad rougher around the edges than later Sibelius, but in ways I find it more accessible, and immediately appealing than the later works, with very catchy and memorable themes.


Surely the final movement is by far the most criticised. I think it's a good work with some great ideas but the last movement means it doesn't rank for me among his very best.


----------



## Kivimees

My choice reflects my regional bias, but...

Peteris Vasks - Voices


----------



## Crassus

Stenhammar.

I guess most of big XX century composers can be considered mature in their first works but that symphony came to my mind.


----------



## Avey

Great thread, should move on to the greatest "second" symphony -- continue on by month.


----------



## Blake

This might not be a favorable opinion, but I think Dvorak's first symphony is excellent. Especially the one played by Kertesz and the London Symphony Orchestra. I simply love Dvorak's style though... he's in my top three with Beethoven and Bruckner.


----------



## Orfeo

I'll choose Scriabin's First (along with Glazunov's, Bax's, Rakov's, Lyatoshynsky's, Popov's).
Dohnanyi's First is likewise mighty impressive


----------



## DeepR

Nice to see another vote for Scriabin's first.

Fun facts:



> "Scriabin's First Symphony was composed during the summer of 1899 and the following January he tried it out at the piano with this friend, Alexander Goldenweiser, in Moscow. In this version for two pianos the work was played to various musicians, including Lyadov, who eventually conducted the premiere of the symphony. Scriabin had prevaricated over the definitive text of the choral finale, which he himself had written, but even worse, the artistic committee which presided over the acceptance of works to be published by the publishing house (headed by no lesser figures than Rimsky-Korsakov, Glazunov and Lyadov himself) then declared: 'the vocal part in the sixth movement of your symphony is unperformable, and in such a form this movement of the symphony cannot be published'. Despite Scriabin's protestations, when Lyadov conducted the work's premiere in November 1900, the finale was omitted and it was another five months before the symphony was heard in its entirety. This second performance proved Scriabin's critics wrong."


----------



## Rhombic

Lyapunov's First Symphony is close too...


----------



## Keith

I personally think Brahms wins hands down, for the best first symphony. Bruckner's first is also wonderful, even if it is really his second! Vaughan Williams, another awesome first, and oddly enough, I have a real soft spot for Schubert's first and second symphonies.


----------



## shangoyal

Beethoven's first one is a good symphony. It's in C major, so some parts remind of the 5th.


----------



## KenOC

shangoyal said:


> Beethoven's first one is a good symphony. It's in C major, so some parts remind of the 5th.


I have to quote (again) a Leipzig review of an 1803 concert of Beethoven's 1st: "The third concert, on November 15th, began with the excellent Symphony in C Major by Beethoven that was received with so much well-deserved applause in last year's concerts... This great symphony, this wonderful clear masterwork by B. which is full of harmony and still lacks all bizarre elements, was executed with taste and energy. How splendidly did the first Allegro sway back and forth in its emotional storms and effects! How pleasantly did the Quasi-Allegretto calm the excited senses! How unsurpassingly beautifully did the wind instruments play the 'singing' in the Trio of the minuet, in which the violins executed the progressing motions in entire synchrony!"


----------



## PeterJB

Easily Elgar and Mahler. Critics at the time of Mahler's premiere thought it too good to be a first attempt!


----------



## Aramis

PeterJB said:


> Easily Elgar and Mahler. Critics at the time of Mahler's premiere thought it too good to be a first attempt!


Because it wasn't first attempt indeed.


----------



## Mahlerian

PeterJB said:


> Easily Elgar and Mahler. Critics at the time of Mahler's premiere thought it too good to be a first attempt!


Actually, critics at the premiere called it "the most boring symphony of the new era", "nonsense", "cacophony", and the like...the First Symphony had a rocky reception throughout most of Mahler's life (really the only ones that audiences responded well to were the Second and Eighth).



Aramis said:


> Because it wasn't first attempt indeed.


True, but it was the first attempt that he actually finished, as far as the evidence shows.


----------



## Vaneyes

Celloissimo said:


> As much as I love Sibelius' first though, I find the 1st movement to be pretty empty. That discursive clarinet solo at the beginning just goes on way to long and doesn't go anywhere, and some of his modulations really bothered me. The subsequent movements are brilliant though.


I think HvK and Sir John (both EMI recs.) got out of the starting blocks well.


----------



## violadude

tdc said:


> Sibelius 1st symphony seems to be a polarizing work where a lot of fans either love it or hate it, personally I love it. There are sections that perhaps sound a tad rougher around the edges than later Sibelius, but in ways I find it more accessible, and immediately appealing than the later works, with very catchy and memorable themes.


I like the first symphony well enough, but it just doesn't have all the things I love about Sibelius in it yet. It's the least sibelian symphony of the bunch.


----------



## neoshredder

violadude said:


> I like the first symphony well enough, but it just doesn't have all the things I love about Sibelius in it yet. It's the least sibelian symphony of the bunch.


I would say the 4th is the least Sibelius sounding. 2, 3, and 5 sound much more Sibelius. Even 1 sounds more like Sibelius.


----------



## tdc

neoshredder said:


> I would say the 4th is the least Sibelius sounding. 2, 3, and 5 sound much more Sibelius. Even 1 sounds more like Sibelius.


I agree with this. My favorite Sibelius symphonies seem to be the least "critically acclaimed" ones - 1,3 and 6. 2 is my least favorite.


----------



## Mahlerian

neoshredder said:


> I would say the 4th is the least Sibelius sounding.


...What?

It has every single trait that marks off a piece as by Sibelius. The slowly shifting textures, the chorales, the motifs that morph over the course of a movement.

If it doesn't sound like Sibelius, who on earth _does_ it sound like?


----------



## Blake

I think all Sibelius symphonies sound like Sibelius. Some don't carry as much of a characteristic identity, but it's still from him. Here again, it's the mind constantly wanting something easily definable that it can slap a label onto....


----------



## tdc

Mahlerian said:


> ...What?
> 
> It has every single trait that marks off a piece as by Sibelius. The slowly shifting textures, the chorales, the motifs that morph over the course of a movement.
> 
> If it doesn't sound like Sibelius, who on earth _does_ it sound like?


Well I don't think anyone is saying it sounds nothing like Sibelius, just that out of all the symphonies it sounds the _least_ like Sibelius, or in other words stands out as a little different than the others. I like the 4th symphony a lot but to me it is clearly different than the others as it has a darker and more serious tone, and the harmonic language seems more dissonant.


----------



## Guest

Didn't know where to post this, so I post it here. It is primarily for the attention of poster *Mahlerian* (whose comments I look forward to!) and of course everybody else with a love of, or intelligent critical response to, his music: http://www.theguardian.com/music/tomserviceblog/2013/nov/12/symphony-guide-maher-first-tom-service


----------



## Mahlerian

TalkingHead said:


> Didn't know where to post this, so I post it here. It is primarily for the attention of poster *Mahlerian* (whose comments I look forward to!) and of course everybody else with a love of, or intelligent critical response to, his music: http://www.theguardian.com/music/tomserviceblog/2013/nov/12/symphony-guide-maher-first-tom-service


His description is spot-on, although he doesn't mention the origins of parts of the first and third movements in his Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen, which is important for two reasons: first, it gives us an insight into the way he develops a closed-off song melody into a developing dialogue (something that was crucial to Mahler's technique in writing both songs and symphonies throughout his life), and second, because it shows how a range of meanings was implicit in the music from the beginning, and the program was thus an adjunct inspiration (at most) rather than an initial one. The quote in my signature is part of Mahler's somewhat uneasy relationship with "program music".

I also question his inclusion of Norrington in the recommended recordings listing, but I suppose that's a matter of taste....

Thanks for the link!


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian said:


> I also question his inclusion of Norrington in the recommended recordings listing, but I suppose that's a matter of taste [...]


Vibrato is certainly a matter of taste! It depends on 'how much', which of course is not really specified in the score or parts. I don't know the Norrington, so I'm wondering how much 'historical' portamento he indulges in. Do you know by any chance, Mahlerian?


----------



## Mahlerian

TalkingHead said:


> Vibrato is certainly a matter of taste! It depends on 'how much', which of course is not really specified in the score or parts. I don't know the Norrington, so I'm wondering how much 'historical' portamento he indulges in. Do you know by any chance, Mahlerian?


I heard Norrington's Fourth, and that was enough for me. Perhaps his first is a revelation...but I doubt it.


----------



## leepee

Re: most impressive FIRST SYMPHONY

Yes indeed Mahler and Brahms are good choices but I would like to add 
Beethoven, Sibelius and Shostakovitch to say nothing of the one-symphony
wonder: *BERLIOZ!!!*

Hugs Leepee


----------



## MusicInTheAir

Three first symphonies I haven't seen mentioned much, one perhaps not at all..Bizet's C major Symphony. Prokofiev's "Classical" Symphony and Mendelssohn's First Symphony. I think all are fine pieces of music. The Prokofiev certainly contains identifiably "Prokofievian" elements as does the Mendelssohn. I'd have to choose the Mahler First and Brahms First for most impressive First Symphony. However, if one were to include age composed as a factor, I'd have to think about choosing the Schubert First or Shostakovich First instead.


----------



## Orfeo

*Here's my list of some of the great or highly impressive First Symphonies (of most of the lesser knowns)*

Barber
Vermeulen
Svendsen
Elgar
Parry
Atterberg (with a wonderful slow movement)
Glazunov (a precocious gem)
Balakirev
Lyapunov
Mahler
Bruckner (his No. 0)
Tchaikovsky
Tubin (a born symphonist)
Lemba
Artur Kapp
Vyacheslav Ovchinnikov
Eshpay
Stenhammar
Nielsen
Skulte (with a wonderful slow movement)
Rachmaninoff
Scriabin
Kalinnikov
Gliere
Lyatoshynsky
Bax
Vaughn Williams
Walton
Madetoja
Melartin
Rakov
Borodin
Diamond (brilliant)
Ives
Bernstein
William Grant Still 
Roussel
Hanson
Dohnanyi (brilliant yet bold)
Langgaard (discursive, but it has its moments)
Popov
Revutsky
Braga-Santos
Khrennikov
Khachaturian
Shebalin
Kabalevsky (well, it's compelling at least)
Goossens (a particular favorite, the slow movement is wonderful!)
Gordon Jacob (love the larghetto 4th movement!)
Draeseke


----------



## Nevum

Probably Berlioz. Then, Hans Rott. His symphony in E minor is unbelievable. After that Mahler.


----------



## DeepR

This thread has inspired me to listen to first symphonies. Currently listening to Atterberg.
So much to listen to, so little time...


----------



## MozartEarlySymphonies

I thought Schubert's First Symphony was impressive. Currently, my favorite First Symphony would probably be Sibelius's

PS-Personally, I consider Beethoven's First overrated.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

This makes me want to listen to Haydn's 1st. Listening to it right now, conducted by Adam Fischer.


----------



## Novelette

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> This makes me want to listen to Haydn's 1st.


Haydn's early symphonies are a sheer delight! But then again, I couldn't honestly name a single work of Haydn's to which I am indifferent, let alone averse.


----------



## Zingo

I suppose I would have to say Brahms and Mahler, although having listened to them so much as a youngster these days I'm more likely to actually listen to those by Atterberg, Bizet and Walton.


----------



## AClockworkOrange

AClockworkOrange said:


> Ralph Vaughan Williams, Guatav Mahler, Johannes Brahms, Havergal Brian, Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy and of course Jean Sibelius.


I would just like to add Berlioz, Bax and perhaps Nielsen to my list.


----------



## Funny

Not exactly a revelation here, but yeah, Mahler's first wins hands-down for me. One of the all-time greatest symphonies in the literature. And unfortunately I think it dwarfs his others because it's so fresh and original that the later works inevitably sound like echoes and reworkings of the favorite ideas he's already done great things with in the first.

Also, another vote for Prokofiev. Loved the "Classical" when I was younger but only as a piece of sonic candy. Having now gone through Haydn's oeuvre I'm finding a lot more depth (including motivically) and humor in it than I had perceived before. Quite a ballsy move to do something so blazingly idiosyncratic as your symphonic calling-card to the world.

And lastly, Rachmaninoff's First is a real winner... sorry, Cesar Cui... built out of one simple motive and covering vast expanses of emotion and expression.


----------



## samurai

From its opening notes, Nielsen's *First* had me hooked--and still does. It practically *demands *to be listened to!


----------

