The Worst First!

[RebLem]

I haven't heard Prokofiev's symphonies yet but what I have heard from Shostakovich, Mahler and Brahms are inferior to Elgar in my opinion. That's my point. Elgar is not the worst or second worst. He's the best!
Elgar was able to write music that means the most for me. It is fair in my opinion for me to say he is the best. Mahler being the best does not make sense for me because I find the music inferior.

The statement I have put in boldface is absolutely shocking.  All three are truly great symphonies, especially the Brahms, which may well be the greatest Sym 1 ever written.  And you must hear Prokofiev's 1st.  It is pretty short, and will make you want to dance.  I recommend the Levine/CSO recording of Syms 1 & 5 as a starter, though I own about 10 of the 1st, and find value in at least 7 of them.

Now for my own nominee, which has yet to be mentioned.  And, it is a work I have heard described as a great work.  I know that Andre Previn, in particular, a conductor for whom I have great respect, loves it.  There are many works which others tell me are great, but which I just don't relate to.  About a third of Bartok is like that for me; but I accept as fact that most of these are my deficiencies, not the composers'.  But in the case of my nominee, I must say I cannot understand why anyone would like it at all.  I am speaking of the First Symphony of William Walton.

Don't misunderstand me.  I like many of Walton's works.  His Sym 2, recorded by George Szell, is a great work, as is Belshazzar's Feast, and many others.  I just don't see anything in the Sym 1, and cannot understand how anyone else possibly could.

[bwv 1080]

But in the case of my nominee, I must say I cannot understand why anyone would like it at all.  I am speaking of the First Symphony of William Walton.

wow, that's a great piece.  I love Walton's 1st.


For great composers the weakest first symphony, if no one has mentioned it yet, would likely be Mozart's which was a piece of juvenilia

[The new erato]

The statement I have put in boldface is absolutely shocking.  All three are truly great symphonies, especially the Brahms, which may well be the greatest Sym 1 ever written. 

I truly and enthusiastically agrees. Even though I don't think Elgars 1st is a bad symphony (the introductory tune i mvt 1 is truly great); stating that Mahler, Shostakovich and Brahms wrote some of the worst 1st symphonies is taking 71dbs bullshitting to an entirely new level. I hope it reflects his ignorance rather than some more serious problem.

[Montpellier]

I am speaking of the First Symphony of William Walton.

Don't misunderstand me.  I like many of Walton's works.  His Sym 2, recorded by George Szell, is a great work, as is Belshazzar's Feast, and many others.  I just don't see anything in the Sym 1, and cannot understand how anyone else possibly could.

Aaarghh!  How could you say that?   

Well, secretly I've wondered about Walton's 1.  It's a grand noise - the first movement gets a lot out of almost nothing. the last movement lightens up a little.  The problem is the last movement was written a little after movements 1-3 were premiered and doesn't quite cohere.  As for the No Symphony 2.....this isn't the thread to compare but that's the one I didn't like.      

[greg]

ehhhhhh...... Walton's 1st is ok, putting it on this thread seems weird to me.  0:)

[Mark G. Simon]

The first time I heard Walton's 1st symphony I was so floored, especially by the first movement, that I said "forget that Vaughan Williams guy. This is the British symphony par excellence!"

Eventually the merits of RVW's symphonic works reasserted themselves in my esteem, but that Walton 1st is still quite a symphony.

[karlhenning]

I don't think I've yet heard the Walton First.  But I chanced on the Second on the radio one day, and loved it.

[Sergeant Rock]

I insist: Charles Ives First Symphony. It is a work that reminds me of Dvorak (but drunk).

And that's a bad thing?    I like your description actually, and it pretty much defines exactly the reason I love the symphony.

Sarge

[71 dB]

P.S.  By some reckonings, Scriabin's Poem of Ecstasy and Prometheus are called Symphonies #4 and #5.

Ok, I have Poem of Ecstasy too. 

[Sergeant Rock]

I truly and enthusiastically agrees. Even though I don't think Elgars 1st is a bad symphony (the introductory tune i mvt 1 is truly great); stating that Mahler, Shostakovich and Brahms wrote some of the worst 1st symphonies is taking 71dbs bullshitting to an entirely new level. I hope it reflects his ignorance rather than some more serious problem.

Actually he never said any such thing, Erato. In fact he's NEVER said those composers write bad music. He simply said he finds the Elgar First a better symphony. It's not any different than, for example, Karl saying he prefers the Shostakovich First to the Elgar...except Karl didn't say that: he claims Elgar's is the worst...at least the worst he's heard this year....which doesn't really answer the OP's original question but seemed more of a baiting tactic to lure dB into another trap...which he fell for hook, line and sinker

Sarge

[Sergeant Rock]

Don't misunderstand me.  I like many of Walton's works.  His Sym 2, recorded by George Szell, is a great work, as is Belshazzar's Feast, and many others.  I just don't see anything in the Sym 1, and cannot understand how anyone else possibly could.

I do believe you are the first person I've ever known who's thought Walton's First, as a whole, to be a bad symphony. I cannot understand how you could possibly think that. My gasters are flabbered (to use a phrase coined by Mrs. Rock).

By the way, I completely agree about Szell, Cleveland, and the Walton Second. If there is any recording that can be considered definitive, this is it.

Sarge

[71 dB]

Actually he never said any such thing, Erato. In fact he's NEVER said those composers write bad music. He simply said he finds the Elgar First a better symphony.

Sarge

You interpreted me correctly Sarge. Mahler, Shostakovich and Brahms didn't wrote bad symphonies. They wrote very good ones, just inferior to Elgar in my opinion. All of these 4 composers are great composers and do not belong to this thread, not even closely.

[The new erato]

Actually he never said any such thing, Erato. In fact he's NEVER said those composers write bad music. He simply said he finds the Elgar First a better symphony. It's not any different than, for example, Karl saying he prefers the Shostakovich First to the Elgar...except Karl didn't say that: he claims Elgar's is the worst...at least the worst he's heard this year....which doesn't really answer the OP's original question but seemed more of a baiting tactic to lure dB into another trap...which he fell for hook, line and sinker

Sarge

In which case I misunderstood a quote without reading the original post fully. However the Brahms first is one of the best 1sts ever, the Shostakovich is a surprisingly fine 1st by a youthful man, the Mahler 1st is a very decent tryout, and the Elgar 1 is a good 1st written by a mature composer. Very hard to compare between composers writing their 1sts at such different periods in their career.

[karlhenning]

I am truly puzzled, Sarge, by your claim that my post "doesn't really answer the OP's original question":

Since the forum loves lists and rankings, how about your opinions on the Worst First Symphony by a composer?

[Cato]

I had promised to give a review of Schubert's First Symphony, but life and Christmas intervened!

But now I can say that I have heard this work, and that it does not qualify for this category!  In the vast Catonian Archives lay the CD of this work performed by Roy Goodman and the Hanover Band, an unreconstructed group of musical purists!  As immense as my experience has been in classical music since the 1950's (!!!         !!!) I had never heard the first 4 Schubert symphonies, and am now resolved to fill that gap!

Schubert is operating of course in the shadows of Beethoven and Mozart, mainly that of the former, but that would be expected.  In any case, there is enough orignality and interest to say it is a fine piece, if not in the same memorable category as his later symphonies from #5 onward. 

The opening movement has some piquantly dissonant sections which make one wonder at the audacity of the composer; the slow movement is somewhat repetitious, but has some charming woodwind dialogues (in fact, these are found throughout the work); the Scherzo is a galumphing peasant dance leading nicely into the Finale, where there is a flurry of intersecting lines of drama and ebullience.

So, no, not close to incompetence, not even close to mediocrity!

[Brian]

I had promised to give a review of Schubert's First Symphony, but life and Christmas intervened!

But now I can say that I have heard this work, and that it does not qualify for this category!  In the vast Catonian Archives lay the CD of this work performed by Roy Goodman and the Hanover Band, an unreconstructed group of musical purists!  As immense as my experience has been in classical music since the 1950's (!!!         !!!) I had never heard the first 4 Schubert symphonies, and am now resolved to fill that gap!

Schubert is operating of course in the shadows of Beethoven and Mozart, mainly that of the former, but that would be expected.  In any case, there is enough orignality and interest to say it is a fine piece, if not in the same memorable category as his later symphonies from #5 onward. 

The opening movement has some piquantly dissonant sections which make one wonder at the audacity of the composer; the slow movement is somewhat repetitious, but has some charming woodwind dialogues (in fact, these are found throughout the work); the Scherzo is a galumphing peasant dance leading nicely into the Finale, where there is a flurry of intersecting lines of drama and ebullience.

So, no, not close to incompetence, not even close to mediocrity!

I just adore Schubert's Second and Third  0:)

[Sydney Grew]

the Shostakovich is a surprisingly fine 1st by a youthful man . . .

It is not so surprising when one realises that it was not really written by Shostacowitch at all. His initial effort was so profoundly incompetent and downright bad that his teacher Maximilian Shtaynberg (or Steinberg - there are various transliterations) kindly cleaned it up for him and made it at least presentable. What we hear now is something like 30 per cent Shostacowitch and 70 per cent Shtaynberg. Unfortunately Shostacowitch took all the credit, but as might be expected nothing he managed to produce subsequently rose to the standard of that first symphony. It was thought to be the work of a "brilliant young composer" but in actuality it was knocked into some sort of shape by a "clever mature man"!

For more information about this shameful affair please refer to Gerald Abraham's well-known book entitled Eight Soviet Composers.

[greg]

It is not so surprising when one realises that it was not really written by Shostacowitch at all. His initial effort was so profoundly incompetent and downright bad that his teacher Maximilian Shtaynberg (or Steinberg - there are various transliterations) kindly cleaned it up for him and made it at least presentable. What we hear now is something like 30 per cent Shostacowitch and 70 per cent Shtaynberg. Unfortunately Shostacowitch took all the credit, but as might be expected nothing he managed to produce subsequently rose to the standard of that first symphony. It was thought to be the work of a "brilliant young composer" but in actuality it was knocked into some sort of shape by a "clever mature man"!

For more information about this shameful affair please refer to Gerald Abraham's well-known book entitled Eight Soviet Composers.

wow, seriously? 

at least he made some great music later on all by himself 

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

I don't think you're unprejudiced, Mr Grew. Your title for the photo below is very revealing.



http://s176.photobucket.com/albums/w164/sydgrew/?start=40

Jez

[bhodges]

...but as might be expected nothing he managed to produce subsequently rose to the standard of that first symphony.

Erm, I respectfully--and completely--disagree, both with "as might be expected" and with the assessment of his later work.

--Bruce