# Brahms: Symphony #1 in C minor, op. 68 [1876]



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Brahms's Symphony #1 in C minor, op. 68 is currently on the 6th tier of the Talk Classical community's favorite and most highly recommended works.

Wikipedia has an article about it, including some analysis that amounts to a very respectable listening guide. Additionally, Kelly Dean Anderson has written a very detailed listening guide.

The best source for recording recommendations is probably Trout's blog post on this work:



> Condensed Listing:
> 1.	Klemperer (cond.), Philharmonia Orchestra	(1957)
> 2.	Furtwängler (cond.), North German Radio Symphony Orchestra	(1951)
> 3.	Szell (cond.), Cleveland Orchestra	(1968)
> ...


The main questions of this thread are: Do you like this work? Do you love it? Why? What do you like about it? Do you have any reservations about it?

And of course, what are your favorite recordings?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Wow, Trout’s list is so very close to my own. I would not list two Furtwänglers though the 1952 DG is very good and would be my top choice were it not for the 1951 NGR. I’m not quite as high on Klemp due to a certain lack of elasticity which is necessary in Brahms, but it certainly packs a punch. Toscanini’s 1951 studio is great but I’d opt for a live version first. The 1941 coupled with Serenade No 2 really grabs me. Karajan provides the most conventional reading in very good sound. A good central recommendation. Bernstein is a bit eccentric but is dripping with angst and drama. A must.

My list:

1. Wilhelm Furtwängler (1951) (Tahra, Music & Arts) 
2. Willem Mengelberg (1940) (Philips)
3. Felix Weingartner (EMI)
4. Arturo Toscanini (1941) (RCA)
5. Herbert von Karajan (1964) (DG) 
6. Leonard Bernstein (DG)
7. Jascha Horenstein (Chesky)
8. Otto Klemperer (EMI)
9. Bruno Walter (1959) (Sony)
10. Karl Böhm (1960) (DG, Belart)


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

*Do you like this work? Do you love it?*
Yes, I love it. Like the other three Brahms symphonies, I think that this is one of the greatest achievements of it's genre that I know.

*Why? What do you like about it?*
I particularly like the fourth movement of this symphony, as it's one of the very few classical music pieces that I knew very well since my childhood, and it has always been a favorite.

*Do you have any reservations about it?*
No.

*And of course, what are your favorite recordings?*
I have nine recordings of this symphony, but don't have a favorite at the moment. Yet, I rate very highly the performances of Karajan, Bernstein, Abbado and Toscanini that I have.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Great, great music. Staggering in compositional detail. I love it dearly. I've always wound up playing the contrabassoon part - but it's one of the great parts in the repertoire. As a listener, my attitude has changed thanks to the HIP people. I grew up with the ultra-serious Klemperer, Walter, Ormandy, Karajan - all fine. Then along came the Telarc set with Mackerras and I was completely smitten - here's a different view, perhaps closer to what the composer wanted. And now I do prefer smaller forces, a leaner sound, a less heavy view. 

As to the above list. My minority viewpoint is this: music of the extraordinary quality needs the best reproduction possible. While I can appreciate highly (and I do!) the interpretive insights offered, so many of recordings are of such lo-fi mono quality that the true stature of the work can't come through. I want absolutely first-rate sound whether I'm listening with headphones or speakers. Not only does Mackerras get that treatment splendidly from Telarc, but so did Barenboim with Chicago on Warner.

My choices then are clear: Mackerras for HIP, Barenboim for big-band. Throw in Boult/Vienna and I'm a happy camper.


----------



## SuperTonic (Jun 3, 2010)

I had the honor and pleasure of performing this work with my college orchestra back in the 90's as a cellist. Of all the pieces I played in various orchestras throughout the years this one has always been special to me for some reason. It's been over 25 years since I played it, but I can still sing along most of the cello part from memory, that's how much of an impression it made on me.


----------



## D Smith (Sep 13, 2014)

I love this work and listen to it at least once a month. I have many recordings which I try and rotate through. In frequent rotation are Abbado, Barenboim (Chicago & Staatskapelle Berlin), Karajan (60s), Jochum (both), Walter, Wand and van Beinum.

For recent recordings I quite like Thielemann’s Staatskapelle Dresden performance.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

I didn't always appreciate Brahms and his symphonies but I have grown to love his music lately, and the first symphony is no exception. In fact, it was my gateway drug to the four Brahms symphonies; more specifically, it was the Furtwängler/NDR that I see high up on Trout's list. This recording is what made Brahms "click" for me. I can't call it a favorite, nor do I find it completely satisfying on account of poor sound. Even interpretively, it has been surpassed by another recording, another that happens to be high up on Trout's list: Otto Klemperer/Philharmonia Orchestra, on EMI. Wow, what a recording. The way he paces that tough opening is just perfect. Every note seems to last the perfect length of time for ultimate impact. 

This is a symphony of such epic scope that is only shared, I think, by two or three other symphonies in the entire symphonic literature: Mahler's 3rd, which I see as something of a spiritual sibling to Brahms' 1st, and then Beethoven's 9th, which clearly must have been Brahms' blueprint for this work. Nothing else compares. Interestingly, it's not my favorite Brahms symphony at all, but I find it dwarfs the other three in length, structure, emotional impact. He went in a totally different direction with his 2nd, 3rd, and 4th symphonies, and music is better off for it. As it stands, Brahms' 1st is a truly unique masterpiece. I'm getting excited just thinking about it :lol: I definitely will have to listen to it in the morning, either the Furtwängler previously mentioned or (more likely) the Klemperer. I also really would like to revisit the Solti Brahms cycle...


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

Love the symphony. I think of Brahms's 2nd and 3rd almost as complementary companion pieces, sort of like Beethoven's 5th and 6, and I consider the 4th to be the absolute zenith of the symphonic genre. That leaves the first that (like many Brahms pieces) is quite unlike anything else despite it's 'Beethoven's 10th' reputation. Perhaps many would disagree with me that the symphony as a form was never better than in Brahms's 4th but I doubt many would disagree with the assertion that the 1st is the most impressive entrance by a composer into the genre.

I prefer Karajan but I also like Furtwangler and Kurt Sanderling. Truthfully this symphony is one of a very few (the others being Mahler's 2nd and Bruckner's 6th) for which I rarely listen to outside of my favorite recording. A lot of conductors are too ponderous in this one for my taste.

EDIT: I would add I also like Gardiner's set in all 4 Brahms.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

The Brahms First is one of the handful of works that when I first encountered it (on a radio broadcast in my early teen years, shortly after I had acquired an interest in classical music by way of Tchaikovsky's _Capriccio Italian_) I became obsessed with the piece. I did purchase a set of albums featuring the symphony, and the other three by Brahms, and nearly played the entire set to death.









I've since heard many interpretations of this symphony and I tend to always enjoy the performance This is just one of the great handful of works that sits at the top of my "must hear" list, and today over half a century after I first heard the piece it remains one of my great favorite works of music.

The Steinberg/PSO recordings still sound fresh after all these years.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

The opening of this symphony, with those drum beats, is disturbing in the right performance, bleak. One performance which I appreciate is Giulini here, because of the bleakness and the himmlische Länge.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> The opening of this symphony, with those drum beats, is disturbing in the right performance, bleak. One performance which I appreciate is Giulini here, because of the bleakness and the himmlische Länge.
> 
> View attachment 128110


Agreed. This is why I love Klemperer here, because he paces the beats just right. Going to try and check out that Giulini you mention. Giulini, I think, is a conductor who like Klemperer tends toward the slower tempi, to mixed results, but in the right circumstance it works really well.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I like it a lot, even though to my taste it is the least impressive of the four. I have Karajan and Gardiner.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Art Rock said:


> I like it a lot, even though to my taste it is the least impressive of the four. I have Karajan and Gardiner.


I too rate it least of the four, but to my ears it is still much better than any symphony by any composer who isn't Beethoven, Sibelius, Mozart, or Mahler.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I'm not sure how to compare it with the others - all four are mature works and seem to me to be toweringly great - and I am sure there are so many ways to play it .... at least these three are all absolutely different and among the ones (there are many others) I love greatly.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Never was my favourite symphony. Just about always sounds bloated to me. But I found this detailed performance great to listen to. Lots of control and contrasting details no other conductor does, from those I've heard. Always hated what I felt were cheap romanticized thrills of speeding up certain parts in phrasing, which Brahms didn't mark (like Walter's, or Kleiber in the 4th, where rubato works against the music to me). Could be slowed down at parts, but with an otherwise consistent tempo.






Bohm is also quite good to me


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

While I like it very much, I derive the greatest overall satisfaction from the Third. Notwithstanding, two versions of the First have long stood out for me: Van Beinum's with the Amsterdam (Royal) Concertgebouw (1958) and Klemperer's with the Philharmonia Orchestra (1957). Both conductors clearly underscore the sense of grandeur, but while Klemperer's view is weightier, Van Beinum's displays somewhat of a lighter, more refreshing quality. Though I had wished for a bit more drive in the finale of his conception, Bruno Walter's Columbia performance (1959) is otherwise superb when both tension and poetry are called for.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Although I really like it, I view it as Brahms' weakest symphony. Some great accounts over the years though - Wand, Szell, Levine, Munch, Karajan, Van Beinum, Ozawa, Zehetmair have all smashed this one.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

science said:


> Brahms's Symphony #1 in C minor, op. 68 is currently on the 6th tier of the Talk Classical community's favorite and most highly recommended works.
> 
> Wikipedia has an article about it, including some analysis that amounts to a very respectable listening guide. Additionally, Kelly Dean Anderson has written a very detailed listening guide.
> 
> ...


Wow - I do quite well on this one. I have Klemperer, Szell, Toscanini, Walter, Karajan, and Abbado plus Furtwangler with the VPO (1952), Mackerras and several others.

It's rare that I can pick a favorite of a work that I love so much - one that I've been listening to for nearly 50 years (starting with a Leinsdorf/BSO cutout). Some days I want Szell's drive, other days I want Klemperer's majesty. Some days I need the lean sound of Mackerras, other days I want a big band. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

The Brahms First Symphony used to be called the "Beethoven 10th" for its minor key drama inside classical lines and for its duration. It is considered the greatest first symphony.

Brahms was intimidated by being in Beethoven's shadow to such extent he is known to have destroyed a lot of his work before finally publishing his first symphony so we can only guess what may have come before it in his mind.

Like much of his work musicologists have decided there are two basic ways to perform it: as a mature work of grandiose stature with some philosophizing; and as a more youthful work (he was about 40 when he wrote it) where energy, forward thrust and emotion tend to rule the performance. The recordings from the likes of Klemperer are the first way and Toscanini's literalism is an exemplar of the other.

I tend to like the latter way, the so-called youthful approach. My favorite recording is from *Karel Ancerl and the Czech Philharmonic Orchestra* made in the 1960s for Supraphon. It was praised by critics everywhere on its release and rereleased on the Ancerl Gold in the 1990s.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

larold said:


> The Brahms First Symphony used to be called the "Beethoven 10th" for its minor key drama inside classical lines and for its duration. It is considered the greatest first symphony.
> 
> Brahms was intimidated by being in Beethoven's shadow to such extent he is known to have destroyed a lot of his work before finally publishing his first symphony so we can only guess what may have come before it in his mind.
> 
> ...


I definitely like the first of your two ways and that's how I hear it. Brahms was clearly trying to create a monumental piece of music, and he succeeded in just that. I totally get why they call it Beethoven's 10th. He used Beethoven's 9th as a springboard and actually found success in doing so. A lesser composer couldn't have pulled it off.

I gotta hear the Ancerl performance you mention. Sounds great. I have a couple of those Ancerl Gold Edition CDs.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Brahms Sym #1 is a great work, and certainly a very mature, ensemble, which more prevalent in syms 3, 4 and substantwoodwind ial first effort in the genre.....remember tho, his 2 Serenades are very symphonic, and are certainly within the scope of the symphony as a form..it is fun to play, plenty of action, as always with Brahms...it doesn't have the delightful chamber music spots for woodwinds that we find in syms 3,4 and 2...still tho, the orchesteation is full and rich, and there are many inner boices that must sound thru....Ive always loved the wonderful choraletune that appesrs for trombones and contrabassoon in the finale....great bass line for contra and trombobe basso...low Cs And Bbs


----------



## Russell Chee (Dec 3, 2019)

I've always loved the Brahms First, though it doesn't (for me) rate as highly as the Fourth Symphony, the only Brahms symphony I find all the movements equally strong in. I've found the slow movements rather draggy at times - I always find the outer movements of a Brahms symphony stronger than the inner ones, excluding the excellent third movements of the Third and Fourth - melancholic and nostalgic in the former, energetic and exciting in the latter. 

I also agree with many of the recordings suggested by Trout and Brahmsianhorn, although I'm really not enough of a Furtwangler person to be able to differentiate between his different recordings of the piece. My favourite recordings are probably the Klemperer on EMI and (slightly guilty to admit this) the 1960s Karajan version - I can't resist the beauty of the Berlin Philharmonic. I'd recommend two modern versions too - Abbado's with the Berlin Phil is already well-praised, while I would also like to throw in a shoutout for Gunter Wand's excellent recording with the Chicago Symphony - he takes the opening bars at a much greater pace than most others, yet the sheer dramaticism of the Chicago orchestra means this effect works brilliantly.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Heck148 said:


> Brahms Sym #1 is a great work, and certainly a very mature, ensemble, which more prevalent in syms 3, 4 and substantwoodwind ial first effort in the genre.....remember tho, his 2 Serenades are very symphonic, and are certainly within the scope of the symphony as a form..it is fun to play, plenty of action, as always with Brahms...it doesn't have the delightful chamber music spots for woodwinds that we find in syms 3,4 and 2...still tho, the orchesteation is full and rich, and there are many inner boices that must sound thru....Ive always loved the wonderful choraletune that appesrs for trombones and contrabassoon in the finale....great bass line for contra and trombobe basso...low Cs And Bbs


What recordings do you like?


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

flamencosketches said:


> What recordings do you like?


Toscanini/NBC, , both the 1940 and the 50s ones....
Solti/CSO - really excellent Solti takes 1st mvt repeat, which works very well...powerful finale


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Heck148 said:


> Toscanini/NBC, , both the 1940 and he 50s ones....
> Solti/CSO - really exceloent Solti takes 1st mvt repeat, which mest...powerful finale


Awesome, I'll have to revisit the Solti. I have yet to really take the deep dive on Toscanini's recordings. I am kind of allergic to pre-1950 orchestral recordings. But some day I will explore the great maestro's legacy.


----------

