Topic: The Worst First!

[Biffo]

As pointed out above the 'Study' symphony in F minor was Bruckner's first completed symphony and it is sometimes called No '00'. It was followed by the D minor symphony. Next Bruckner wrote the C minor symphony now known as No 1. It received a hostile reception when performed and Bruckner returned to the D minor symphony and revised it; he then put it aside and started another symphony in C minor, now known as No 2. Thirty years later Bruckner revised No 1 and looked at the D minor Symphony and gave the name No 0; it wasn't performed in Bruckner's lifetime.

No 1 in C minor is the first Bruckner symphony I ever heard (Jochum/Berlin PO) and I think it is a fine work.

[André]

As pointed out above the 'Study' symphony in F minor was Bruckner's first completed symphony and it is sometimes called No '00'. It was followed by the D minor symphony. Next Bruckner wrote the C minor symphony now known as No 1. It received a hostile reception when performed and Bruckner returned to the D minor symphony and revised it; he then put it aside and started another symphony in C minor, now known as No 2. Thirty years later Bruckner revised No 1 and looked at the D minor Symphony and gave the name No 0; it wasn't performed in Bruckner's lifetime.

No 1 in C minor is the first Bruckner symphony I ever heard (Jochum/Berlin PO) and I think it is a fine work.

+ 1. The scherzo is one of Bruckner’s very best and the explosive beginning of the finale is a knockout moment. It always reminds me of Helgoland in its fiery grandeur - although the latter was composed at the tail end of Bruckner’s career.

[Cato]

As pointed out above the 'Study' symphony in F minor was Bruckner's first completed symphony and it is sometimes called No '00'. It was followed by the D minor symphony. Next Bruckner wrote the C minor symphony now known as No 1. It received a hostile reception when performed and Bruckner returned to the D minor symphony and revised it; he then put it aside and started another symphony in C minor, now known as No 2. Thirty years later Bruckner revised No 1 and looked at the D minor Symphony and gave the name No 0; it wasn't performed in Bruckner's lifetime.

No 1 in C minor is the first Bruckner symphony I ever heard (Jochum/Berlin PO) and I think it is a fine work.

+ 1. The scherzo is one of Bruckner’s very best and the explosive beginning of the finale is a knockout moment. It always reminds me of Helgoland in its fiery grandeur - although the latter was composed at the tail end of Bruckner’s career.

Two big AMENS!      

[Mahlerian]

As pointed out above the 'Study' symphony in F minor was Bruckner's first completed symphony and it is sometimes called No '00'. It was followed by the D minor symphony. Next Bruckner wrote the C minor symphony now known as No 1. It received a hostile reception when performed and Bruckner returned to the D minor symphony and revised it; he then put it aside and started another symphony in C minor, now known as No 2. Thirty years later Bruckner revised No 1 and looked at the D minor Symphony and gave the name No 0; it wasn't performed in Bruckner's lifetime.

No 1 in C minor is the first Bruckner symphony I ever heard (Jochum/Berlin PO) and I think it is a fine work.

Recent scholarship puts the D minor after the C minor, which is one reason why I think the "No. 0" thing that people use is misleading at best.  "No. 00," of course, makes no sense whatsoever, but it's the only symphony Bruckner wrote in F minor, so it's easy to refer to it by that, unfortunately, he wrote a few others in D minor...

[OrchestralNut]

Resurrecting this old thread just to say that I really don't think Dvořák's is as bad as what a lot of people make it out to be.

I seem to especially like that 3rd movement Allegretto.

[DavidW]

None of the major composer's first symphonies are bad.  Clearly for some of them they hadn't found their voice yet.  So while not as great as their masterpieces, they are still interesting for demonstrating the evolution of their style.

[MusicTurner]

Resurrecting this old thread just to say that I really don't think Dvořák's is as bad as what a lot of people make it out to be.

I seem to especially like that 3rd movement Allegretto.

Hearing the Kosler recording made the work more interesting to me recently.

[Brian]

Prokofiev's first may be a trifle, but it is not bad by any means. That's what he meant.

I saw Brahms 1st mentioned. That seems too silly to reply to. Clearly just a provocation. I also saw Schumann 1. Except, IIRC, Schumann 4 was written before Schumann 1. I like both a lot.

Shostakovich 1st. I'm sure it's bad, I've never heard it. I've never gotten it on an individual disc and the notes of every Shostakovich cycle I have warn me off it. Must be really bad.

If we ever nominate a thread for worst last symphony, I nominate Nielsen.

Nielsen has a good case for worst last and best first. (Though my own personal "Best First" rankings would probably go Berlioz, Walton, Prokofiev, Schumann, Nielsen.)

This is going to be a super unpopular opinion but...I do think Brahms' First is at best "problematic." All that drama in the first movement, and then the movement ends happily and resolves itself into peace, followed by 15 minutes of peaceful calm and cheer, followed by a heroic finale completely out of proportion to the bucolic simplicity of the previous two movements. Of course, Mahler did the same thing in some of his symphonies, having super dramatic beginnings and endings with a whole lot of cheery pastoral fluff in between. It leaves me......well, not cold, I like all those pieces, but it does leave me with mixed feelings.

[Symphonic Addict]

Maybe not the worst first, but these could qualify to me:

Goossens
Schumann
Szymanowski
Halvorsen
Arensky
Taneyev
d'Indy Symphonie italienne
Reinecke
Bruckner 00
Harris

[vandermolen]

I like the Khachaturian and Goossens 1st symphonies very much.

[Wanderer]

This is going to be a super unpopular opinion but...I do think Brahms' First is at best "problematic." All that drama in the first movement, and then the movement ends happily and resolves itself into peace, followed by 15 minutes of peaceful calm and cheer, followed by a heroic finale completely out of proportion to the bucolic simplicity of the previous two movements. Of course, Mahler did the same thing in some of his symphonies, having super dramatic beginnings and endings with a whole lot of cheery pastoral fluff in between. It leaves me......well, not cold, I like all those pieces, but it does leave me with mixed feelings.

"...the movement ends happily and resolves itself into peace"?! Do those really sound like happy tympani and happy strings to you?* As I've always perceived this movement's ending, it's an uneasy, precarious respite from whatever nightmare/existential angst/inner or outer tragedy/struggle one might connect it with - at best.

*(that's rhetorical, no explanation asked or needed; )

Always interesting, fascinating even, to read about seemingly "incomprehensible" perceptions. That's the unfathomable power of music in action, able to convey different things to each one of us. 

[springrite]

Most of the really really bad firsts have been well-hidden.

New discoveries of Symphony #0, #00, etc. are not always a good thing.

[Wanderer]

So far, the only symphony I've seen mentioned in this thread that could really bear the title The Worst with pride, is Furtwängler's. Time and again, one sees people call this or that work bombastic, when it's anything but, it usually being joyous, boisterous or celebratory. I think Furtwängler's First is the kind of bombastic that all other bombastic works strive to be. The world still awaits for the genius conductor and superlative orchestra who will perform this and persuade the world that it's a good piece of music.

[Wanderer]

Most of the really really bad firsts have been well-hidden.

So true.

[springrite]

So far, the only symphony I've seen mentioned in this thread that could really bear the title The Worst with pride, is Furtwängler's. Time and again, one sees people call this or that work bombastic, when it's anything but, it usually being joyous, boisterous or celebratory. I think Furtwängler's First is the kind of bombastic that all other bombastic works strive to be. The world still awaits for the genius conductor and superlative orchestra who will perform this and persuade the world that it's a good piece of music.

I love all three of them!

[Wanderer]

I love all three of them!

Regarding his No. 1, I think it's the kind of "bad" that transcends the conventional, like the kind of trash-TV that ultimately reaches cult status, or those fascinatingly appalling botched restoration projects from Spain that make the news once in a while.

[Maestro267]

Honestly surprised to see Schumann 1 mentioned. Unless you're talking of an earlier symphony rather than the one that's come to us as the First, namely the "Spring" in B flat major.

[springrite]

Regarding his No. 1, I think it's the kind of "bad" that transcends the conventional, like the kind of trash-TV that ultimately reaches cult status, or those fascinatingly appalling botched restoration projects from Spain that make the news once in a while.

In other words, it is the Eiffel Tower!

[ultralinear]

Shostakovich 1st. I'm sure it's bad, I've never heard it. I've never gotten it on an individual disc and the notes of every Shostakovich cycle I have warn me off it. Must be really bad.

  

If we ever nominate a thread for worst last symphony, I nominate Nielsen.

  

[OrchestralNut]

Maybe not the worst first, but these could qualify to me:

Taneyev

I really like Taneyev's first.