The Worst First!

[Don]

Have you got an idea when he started all this vibrational madness? It was all the way from the old forum. Read every single post he made in the past, and tell us WHO is the more childish one.

Okay, maybe you're less childish than 71dB, but some of you are still acting like children (and mean ones too).

[BachQ]

The style Rachmaninov wielded in his First Symphony was highly sophisticated, highly multidimensional, and brilliantly orchestrated.  And it generates some kickass vibe fields ........

[Peregrine]

Okay, maybe you're less childish than 71dB, but some of you are still acting like children (and mean ones too).

Yep. Henning and that prat in the hoodie.

[BachQ]

Did I mention that Rach 1 is extremely multidimensional? 


(I mean ...... EXTREMELY ....... multidimensional .........)

[karlhenning]

(I mean ...... EXTREMELY ....... multidimensional .........)

All right, I'll ask:

How many dimensions?

[Montpellier]

My worst would probably be Vaughan Williams' 1st.  I don't know because I haven't listened to more than a few minutes before dozing off.   I don't know if a vibrator would keep me awake but I'll bear this vibrational stuff in mind when listening to certain symphonies.  

[karlhenning]

Has anyone heard the Mennin or Schuman First?

[Guido]

I'm going to surpise everyone and nominate Carter.  The fact that ithe Syomphony NO. 1 doesn't reflect his mature style isn't really the problem. Ives's first isn't mature, either, and neither is Stravinsky's, but both of them are very vibrant and show their composers to be young men of great promise  and creativity. I've often called the Ives First the best sypmphony written by an American before — well, before Ives. I don't think Carter's First quite falls into that category. It's pleasant enough, as you say, and it's not bad, but it doesn't announce an exciting new talent. The piece that does is the Piano Sonata, written only a few years later.

Karl, you'll like the Copland Organ Symphony. The composer found his voice early. It more modernist than the later stuff, but unmistakably Copland.

Agreed - Ives' first is an extraordinary student piece even if it doesn't quite have the superlative mastery of his later music. It was already highly experimental for American music at the time, with its shifting keysignatures and Dvorakian luminescence. I love it.

[BachQ]

All right, I'll ask:

How many dimensions?

The number of dimensions varies measure-by-measure, depending on the instrumentation matrix ........

[karlhenning]

The number of dimensions varies measure-by-measure, depending on the instrumentation matrix ........

So what is the mean? The average?  And what is the differential between the mean and the average?

[jochanaan]

So what is the mean? The average?  And what is the differential between the mean and the average?

In my experience, average people can be pretty mean.

I've got the Scriabin symphonic cycle, including Ecstasy and Prometheus, by Eliahu Inbal and the Frankfurt Radio Symphony Orchestra.  The First is not bad, but Scriabin had definitely not found his voice; it lacks the originality and power of the later orchestral music.

Remember, we're talking in relative terms here.  There's formidable competition for the "best" slot, as there is for the "worst."  And just because I find, say, Scriabin's and Gounod's Firsts less satisfying than, say, Mahler's or Sibelius', doesn't mean they're "bad."  The Mahler and Sibelius Firsts are masterworks; it's no fault of Gounod and Scriabin that they didn't rise to those heights with their first efforts.  Or even their second efforts. (I don't know Gounod's Second, so maybe you should take that last with a grain of salt.  But my sense is that Gounod should have stuck to wind ensembles for his symphonic efforts. )

71 dB, I think I said this once, but it needs saying again: I find Elgar's First to be a serious, substantial, well-crafted composition.  It just doesn't resonate within me the way some of the other masterworks I've mentioned do.  Apparently a lot of people feel the same way.  These are not "anti-Elgar" statements by any reasonable standard.

[greg]

I think Carter's First Symphony is a real yawn. It doesn't seem to have much character even compared to other Carter scores from the same period. It's probably significant that, although he has used the word "symphony" and "sinfonia" in his later scores, he has never appended the number 2 to any of them.

THANK YOU!!!!

i finally found my own reply to this thread; I hated that symphony A LOT, and thankfully forgot about it.

[greg]

There are things I really know next to nothing (e.g. hunting). Have you seen me writing on hunting forums?

wow, you don't know how to hunt even though you live in Finland? 

that's almost as strange as me only having gone to the beach once in years given where i live....

[greg]

Well, I don't think that the Skryabin First could be the 'worst first,' because Skryabin was so talented! He created his own style combining the best part of masters before him. This style is sophisticated, multidimensional and brilliantly orchestrated.

what does everything think about this symphony?

in my opinion, perfectly average, 5/10 average, couldn't get more average at all.

[JoshLilly]

Anybody here ever heard Furtwängler's #1? I won't lie: I couldn't finish it.

[greg]

i'm considering listening to Elgar's 1st in about a half an hour.....

(and, sometime, a real recording of the 2nd since i've only listened to the MIDI and judging it from only MIDI isn't so cool...)

hopefully i like it, though it seems to be unlikely given what i've heard from Elgar.....

(even if i didn't, i'd have to relisten to the Carter 1st to compare before i could say it was the worst first i've heard)

[Montpellier]

I thought Elgar's 1st more difficult than the 2nd and one that I have to be in the right mood for.  I've always respected him as a brilliant composer and orchestrator - one of those who compose orchestrally.  His command of orchestral tutti is beyond any criticism I could give. 

I can't claim the same luck (if luck it is) with Scriabin's 1st.  It's a debate to argue with myself, but I don't think his compositional skills were up to his spiritual aspirations at that point.     

[greg]

I can't claim the same luck (if luck it is) with Scriabin's 1st.  It's a debate to argue with myself, but I don;t think his compositional skills were up to his spiritual aspirations at that point.     

well, at least it turned out to be good practice for what came later  0:)

[Montpellier]

That's true!

[Mark G. Simon]

Have you got an idea when he started all this vibrational madness? It was all the way from the old forum. Read every single post he made in the past, and tell us WHO is the more childish one. It's not only 1 or 2 members that are "making fun" of him. It's almost EVERYONE who has a brain...that CLEARLY shows that the problem is not on our side, but on HIS side.

71 dB's behavior is of no relevance. Yes he says stupid things. We all know that. That doesn't need to be pointed out repeatedly.

None of that justifies the reprehensible behavior I've seen from people who really ought to know better. Threads get derailed and turn into taunting sessions. I just get sick of reading this crap.