Yes, in Germany you always eat the Wurst first! 8)
But we are talking about SYMPHONIES now!
Since the forum loves lists and rankings, how about your opinions on the Worst First Symphony by a composer?
Dvorak's Bells of Zlonice? (Anybody? Anybody?)
Khachaturian? (Can you even find a recording of it?)
Copland? :o
How many people have I just outraged with these suggestions? 0:)
Quote from: Cato on December 11, 2007, 11:29:07 AM
Since the forum loves lists and rankings, how about your opinions on the Worst First Symphony by a composer?
Elgar
Elgar
Quote from: karlhenning on December 11, 2007, 11:30:57 AM
Elgar
Elgar's first symphony is perhaps the most matured and sophisticated first symphony ever. Elgar was very experienced and skilfull composer at the time he wrote it. In fact I think Elgar's first is the
best first symphony ever!
:)
Quote from: 71 dB on December 11, 2007, 11:34:09 AM
Complete BS. Elgar's first symphony is perhaps the most matured and sophisticated first symphony ever. Clearly too sophisticated for you.
We do concede, however, that
Elgar 1 generates some fabulous vibrational fields ........
Quote from: Cato on December 11, 2007, 11:29:07 AM
Dvorak's Bells of Zlonice? (Anybody? Anybody?)
Khachaturian? (Can you even find a recording of it?)
Copland? :o
I need to revisit the
Dvořák, but I remember liking it very well; I don't think it's a serious contender for Worst First.
Never heard the
Khachaturian, cannot comment.
The
Copland would be the
Symphony for Organ and Orchestra, yes? I've been meaning to investigate that one.
surprisingly, i can't think of a first symphony that's actually bad..... i guess that's cuz i haven't listened to Rachmaninov's or Elgar's 1st yet......
Good night!
Now you've done it.
i think we have given him some unpleasant vibrational fields.
Quote from: G...R...E...G... on December 11, 2007, 11:42:31 AM
i think we have given him some unpleasant vibrational fields.
He's just not sophisticated enough to handle good vibrational fields, poor sod.
Quote from: EmpNapoleon on December 11, 2007, 11:34:51 AM
Thirded.
I feel bad. I know my opinion hardly matters, but perhaps if only two mentioned Elgar's 1st, he wouldn't have gotten that upset. Come back 71!
Quote from: EmpNapoleon on December 11, 2007, 11:51:55 AM
I feel bad. I know my opinion hardly matters, but perhaps if only two mentioned Elgar's 1st, he wouldn't have gotten that upset.
Don't fret; he'd flown off the handle before your post appeared.
Quote from: Cato on December 11, 2007, 11:29:07 AM
Yes, in Germany you always eat the Wurst first! 8)
But we are talking about SYMPHONIES now!
Since the forum loves lists and rankings, how about your opinions on the Worst First Symphony by a composer?
Dvorak's Bells of Zlonice? (Anybody? Anybody?)
How many people have I just outraged with these suggestions? 0:)
:o
I can't think of a truly horrible First Symphony at the moment. I strongly believe, though, that Elgar's First Symphony doesn't belong in this thread. 8)
Quote from: 71 dB on December 11, 2007, 11:34:09 AM
Elgar's first symphony is perhaps the most matured and sophisticated first symphony ever.
Why?
The least satisfactory First I know is Gounod's. It's pleasant enough--but against such formidable contenders for good Firsts as Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Shostakovich and even Bizet, it's simply not in the running.
I must say that I remain in entire ignorance of Gounod's First . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on December 11, 2007, 12:22:47 PM
I must say that I remain in entire ignorance of Gounod's First . . . .
Now you also know there's at least a second.
EDIT: That being said, I'll check Amazon.com to order Debussy's second rhapsody for clarinet.
Mozart. 8)
Quote from: Manuel on December 11, 2007, 12:23:56 PM
Now you also know there's at least a second.
Yikes, and
five recordings of each available at Arkivmusic.com!
Quote from: ManuelEDIT: That being said, I'll check Amazon.com to order Debussy's second rhapsody for clarinet.
That is a lovely, lovely piece.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 11, 2007, 12:22:47 PM
I must say that I remain in entire ignorance of Gounod's First . . . .
You're not missing anything of substance. :-\
Woops.
I don't know any truly awful first symphonies by significant composers, but Ives' and Carter's first symphonies are certainly unrepresentative of their mature style.
I confess to finding Scriabin's first symphony a total bore, so I'll nominate it.
Quote from: edward on December 11, 2007, 12:31:19 PM
I confess to finding Scriabin's first symphony a total bore, so I'll nominate it.
And yet, that first movement is so lovely. He ought to have stopped there, perhaps... ;D
And does anyone truly like Rachmaninov's First?
Quote from: Wanderer on December 11, 2007, 12:40:57 PM
And does anyone truly like Rachmaninov's First?
I should give that a listen . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on December 11, 2007, 12:22:47 PM
I must say that I remain in entire ignorance of Gounod's First . . . .
somehow that seems like a blessing
(me too)
Quote from: Wanderer on December 11, 2007, 12:40:57 PM
And does anyone truly like Rachmaninov's First?
Of course!
Quote from: karlhenning on December 11, 2007, 12:42:39 PM
I should give that a listen . . . .
It's truly tragic... in multiple ways.
Rachmaninov's first was a total flop (but, as we all know, that happened at the premiere of many, many good works)
Personally, I can't sit through the finale of Dvorak's first. I get too annoyed.
Quote from: Wanderer on December 11, 2007, 12:44:09 PM
It's truly tragic... in multiple ways.
And it's in D Minor ......
Quote from: D Minor on December 11, 2007, 12:45:35 PM
And it's in D Minor ......
That's the least of its tragedies. :)
The Rach is always awesome, even when he's awry: the First is repetitious and is full of preening adolescent Todesangst mixed with 20-something tragedy.
But I don't mind! 0:)
And should we wonder about C.M. von Weber, Mendelssohn, and Wagner in this topic?
Quote from: Wanderer on December 11, 2007, 12:40:57 PM
...And does anyone truly like Rachmaninov's First?
YES!! It's intense and atmospheric, and the ending is a great musical tragic catharsis, almost on a Mahlerian level.
Quote from: Cato on December 11, 2007, 12:52:18 PM
And should we wonder about C.M. von Weber, Mendelssohn, and Wagner in this topic?
I've heard them all, and none of them are at all in the running for "wurst." ;) Weber's is theatrical and dramatic in the best senses; Mendelssohn's is lots of fun and beautifully crafted, like all his other music; and Wagner's, while by no means his best work, has some real substance. (Always IMHO.)
Quote from: Cato on December 11, 2007, 12:52:18 PM
And should we wonder about C.M. von Weber, Mendelssohn, and Wagner in this topic?
No. Well, you can.
Quote from: jochanaan on December 11, 2007, 12:55:40 PM
YES!! It's intense and atmospheric, and the ending is a great musical tragic catharsis, almost on a Mahlerian level.I've heard them all, and none of them are at all in the running for "wurst." ;) Weber's is theatrical and dramatic in the best senses; Mendelssohn's is lots of fun and beautifully crafted, like all his other music; and Wagner's, while by no means his best work, has some real substance. (Always IMHO.)
I recall them for
not being memorable, and was particularly disappointed with
von Weber. But that was over 40 years ago! :o
Maybe I will give them another chance before another 40 years zip by!
Quote from: edward on December 11, 2007, 12:31:19 PM
I don't know any truly awful first symphonies by significant composers, but Ives' and Carter's first symphonies are certainly unrepresentative of their mature style.
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.
Of the 1st symphonies I'm familiar with, Hanson's get my nod.
Quote from: Don on December 11, 2007, 02:13:01 PM
Of the 1st symphonies I'm familiar with, Hanson's get my nod.
Interesting; I'm not familiar with that one. If that's true, he sure redeemed himself with his 2nd. ;D
Quote from: Wanderer on December 11, 2007, 12:46:52 PM
That's the least of its tragedies. :)
Glazunov being one of its greatest ;D
What about Bax's first? Last I remember, it was hard to get through.
I found Dvorak's first a bit of a bore myself too.
Nieslen's first? Hmm....
RVW's first? That's the Sea Symphony no? Yeah, boring.
YAWWWwwwnnnnn....
(http://www.sonomaarts.com/images/Corrick1.jpg)
QuoteKhachaturian? (Can you even find a recording of it?)
As far as I know there have been 3 recordings of the 1st - 2 conducted by Tjeknavorian, the latter being part of his cycle of Khachaturian music for ASV, and one ancient one conducted by Alexander Gauk which I have on vinyl on the MK label but which has been transferred (still in mono) to CD - possibly 'Russian Disc'. In any event, this isn't a bad job for young composer who only started to read music at age 19; not as good as No.2 but far better than No.3.
Much as I hate to say it, I would agree that RVW's Sea Symphony is probably his worst (I too find it boring).
Beethoven's first is the worst I know.
RVW's first symphony was a big pleasant surprise to me. I heard it yesterday. I really liked it! :)
Quote from: 71 dB on December 12, 2007, 12:22:46 AM
Beethoven's first is the worst I know.
Surely not! I actually enjoy his 1st much more than I do his 2nd.
Quote from: Symphonien on December 12, 2007, 01:35:20 AM
Surely not! I actually enjoy his 1st much more than I do his 2nd.
His 2nd symphony can't be nominated because it is the 2nd. ;D
Quote from: 71 dB on December 12, 2007, 12:22:46 AM
Beethoven's first is the worst I know.
I just listened to
Rachmaninov's first symphony and I think it's even worse than
Beethoven's. :P
Quote from: techniquest on December 11, 2007, 11:03:02 PM
Much as I hate to say it, I would agree that RVW's Sea Symphony is probably his worst (I too find it boring).
Well, the least good of the
Vaughan Williams cycle is one thing; perhaps I might agree with that slice of the remark. Boring? I don't think so. It's one of a handful of
Whitman settings which I find does the poet something like justice.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 12, 2007, 02:14:27 AM
I just listened to Rachmaninov's first symphony and I think it's even worse than Beethoven's. :P
Wow! I was practically positive
Beethoven's would never be mentioned here! I do believe most people would agree, as mentioned above, that a rather startling new talent is proclaimed, even with just that opening chord.
To be sure, the first two
Beethoven symphonies are still shedding talcum from all the powdered wigs, but raw, unpowdered living is much in evidence!
See my earlier comments on the
Rachmaninov First Symphony. Of course, after its premiere, a reviewer called it the best symphony on the 10 plagues of Egypt written by the best student in Hell's Conservatory! >:D What an endorsement of greatness! :D
I have hesitated to nominate, or offer for your consideration, Firsts from composers such as
Raff,
Glazunov, the
Bach Street Boys, et al. since their futures were not destined to be at the top. :o
Quote from: Cato on December 12, 2007, 03:40:28 AM
Wow! I was practically positive Beethoven's would never be mentioned here!
Consider the source of the remark; 'nuff said.
Beethoven's is a particularly strong initial symphony, and of a refreshingly specific character, much more so (necessarily) than the
Mozart juvenilia, e.g.
Quote from: Cato on December 12, 2007, 03:40:28 AM
Wow! I was practically positive Beethoven's would never be mentioned here!
Well, imagine my amazement
Elgar's was mentioned here! :o
Quote
I just listened to Rachmaninov's first symphony and I think it's even worse than Beethoven's.
QuoteComplete BS. Clearly too sophisticated for you.[/size]
Quote from: 71 dB on December 12, 2007, 03:48:01 AM
Well, imagine my amazement Elgar's was mentioned here!
That amazement is simply a product of your inflated opinion of a work which most sober listeners find (a) mixed and (b) not among the composer's finest achievements.
The simple fact is, Poju, that given the question, when I considered First Symphonies to which I have listened over the past year, Elgar's was readily the weakest of them, the least entirely accomplished symphony: the "worst first."
It's only on Planet Poju that this becomes "anti-Elgarian."
I think that it is interesting that so many composers wrote remarkable first Symphonies. Sometimes, better than their ulterior works.
Since I cannot imagine what is the worst first Symphony, I will mention all the very good first Symphonies:
Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Bruckner, Borodin, Tchaikovsky, Sibelius, Dvorak, Nielsen, Elgar, Prokofiev, Shostakovitch.
Wait, I think I found "my worst" first Symphony. Charles Ives.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 12, 2007, 03:50:56 AM
That amazement is simply a product of your inflated opinion of a work which most sober listeners find (a) mixed and (b) not among the composer's finest achievements.
The simple fact is, Poju, that given the question, when I considered First Symphonies to which I have listened over the past year, Elgar's was readily the weakest of them, the least entirely accomplished symphony: the "worst first."
It's only on Planet Poju that this becomes "anti-Elgarian."
Inflated opinion?
Elgar's symphonies have given me superior musical pleasure for 10 years! There is nothing inflated about that.
It would be so nice to be like other and be a Mahlerian or whatever... ...but I can't help it I find
Elgar superior and I have to suffer from that this way!
Quote from: 71 dB on December 12, 2007, 12:22:46 AM
Beethoven's first is the worst I know.
Actually,
71dB, with the exception of the
Pastoral,
ALL of Beethoven's Symphonies are very poorly orchestrated. What a mess. LvB should not have ventured past the string quartet genre.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 12, 2007, 04:00:38 AM
Inflated opinion? Elgar's symphonies have given me superior musical pleasure for 10 years! There is nothing inflated about that.
Ah yes, welcome to another conversation with Poju which chases its tail.
Take a deep breath, Poju. Musical greatness is not simply a matter of Poju liking it a lot.
Got it? Good.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 12, 2007, 04:02:56 AM
Musical greatness is not simply a matter of Poju liking it a lot.
It is on Planet Poju .........
Quote from: D Minor on December 12, 2007, 04:01:46 AM
Actually, 71dB, with the exception of the Pastoral, ALL of Beethoven's Symphonies are very poorly orchestrated. What a mess. LvB should not have ventured past the string quartet genre.
Don't misshandle my words! They are not VERY POORLY orchestrated, just mediocre.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 12, 2007, 04:04:55 AM
Don't misshandle my words! They are not VERY POORLY orchestrated, just mediocre.
In comparison to Elgar, they
are VERY POORLY orchestrated ........ No?
Quote from: karlhenning on December 12, 2007, 04:02:56 AM
Musical greatness is not simply a matter of Poju liking it a lot.
Got it? Good.
It's not what Karl Henning likes either! Got it? Good.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 12, 2007, 04:04:55 AM
They are not VERY POORLY orchestrated, just mediocre.
Go right ahead, and dig into that hole, Poju.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 12, 2007, 04:06:38 AM
It's not what Karl Henning likes either!
The significant difference being, Poju, that I do not call anyone else a non-freethinking imbecile for no better reason than that his musical tastes differ to mine.
That we leave to small minds such as yours.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 12, 2007, 04:08:46 AM
Go right ahead, and dig into that hole, Poju.
You keep doing that whatever I say.
I HATE you!God heavens you make me furious. I just want to talk about classical music, maybe meet other Elgarians and so on.... ...I don't want this, I don't want to be hostile. I want to be friendly and I want other people be friendly too
Quote from: 71 dB on December 12, 2007, 04:10:30 AM
You keep doing that whatever I say. I HATE you!
God heavens you make me furious. I just want to talk about classical music, maybe meet other Elgarians and so on.... ...I don't want this, I don't want to be hostile. I want to be friendly and I want other people be friendly too
This has to be ironically satiric, right?
If not:
Try: www.elgar.org
I haven't heard the Skryabin First, and maybe it's as bad as all that.
Haven't yet listened to "Rocky I" . . . but I hear so much of merit in II and III, that it would really surprise me, when I do actually listen to the First, if I find that it belongs at the bottom of the 'first heap'.
Speaking of first symphonies which are nothing like a composer's mature voice . . . there's the Stravinsky Symphony in E-Flat, of course. Not anything like 'the worst first', though.
I've been embarked on a listening project to hear the complete symphony cycles of as many composers as possible (it's my favorite genre), and I have to say that Elgar's 1st is one I just haven't been able to listen to all the way through despite a few tries.
I know it's fashionable around here to mock Elgar, and I'm not doing that since I genuinely enjoy some of his works, but that symphony just hasn't done for me yet.
Quote from: Cato on December 12, 2007, 04:23:30 AM
Try: www.elgar.org
Ahhhhh! ......... Home Sweet Home ........
Quote from: Grazioso on December 12, 2007, 04:25:21 AM
and I have to say that Elgar's 1st is one I just haven't been able to listen to all the way through despite a few tries.
I know it's fashionable around here to mock Elgar, and I'm not doing that since I genuinely enjoy some of his works, but that symphony just hasn't done for me yet.
Testify, brother .........
Keep hope alive! ..........
Quote from: 71 dB on December 12, 2007, 04:10:30 AM
You keep doing that whatever I say. I HATE you!
God heavens you make me furious. I just want to talk about classical music, maybe meet other Elgarians and so on.... ...I don't want this, I don't want to be hostile. I want to be friendly and I want other people be friendly too
Well, I don't hate
you, Poju. Roughly half of what you say is next door to nonsense, but I do not find that any occasion for hatred. For instance, you take the fact that I do not have an especially high opinion of the
Elgar First as "anti-Elgarian." That is unadulterated piffle, Poju.
I'll let you in on a secret, Poju. If it were true that you do not
want to be hostile, you won't be.
If people not having a high opinion of the
Elgar First is going to enrage you, you must prepare yourself for frequent enragement.
Quote from: Grazioso on December 12, 2007, 04:25:21 AM
I've been embarked on a listening project to hear the complete symphony cycles of as many composers as possible (it's my favorite genre), and I have to say that Elgar's 1st is one I just haven't been able to listen to all the way through despite a few tries.
I know it's fashionable around here to mock Elgar, and I'm not doing that since I genuinely enjoy some of his works, but that symphony just hasn't done for me yet.
I can't understand why people don't enjoy this fantastic symphony! ???
Well, we all have our tastes...
Quote from: Cato on December 12, 2007, 04:23:30 AM
Try: www.elgar.org
There's also
PlanetPoju.com ............
Quote from: Cato on December 11, 2007, 11:29:07 AM
Dvorak's Bells of Zlonice? (Anybody? Anybody?)
Khachaturian? (Can you even find a recording of it?)
Copland? :o
How many people have I just outraged with these suggestions? 0:)
Dvorak's 1st is indeed a horror story. Easily the worst first symphony by a great symphonist.
Elgar's 1st is pretty darn good. I like the 2nd better, but the first ain't chopped liver.
I haven't heard Copland's 1st -- ie, the Organ Symphony shorn of its solo instrument -- but the Organ Symphony itself is really a terrific score, and I feel confident that Copland was capable of incorporating all the solo part into the orchestra without harming the work's aesthetic impact.
Also in regard to bad first symphonies, I think we can also add Stravinsky's
Symphony in E flat to the list of stinkers. It's pretty good for a student work, and a respectable effort for a no-name hack, but for a composer of Stravinsky's stature it's surely an embarrassment.
Quote from: Cato on December 12, 2007, 04:23:30 AM
Try: www.elgar.org
I visit there often but they don't have a discussion board so I can't communicate with anyone. :(
Quote from: Manuel on December 11, 2007, 12:23:56 PM
Now you also know there's at least a second.
EDIT: That being said, I'll check Amazon.com to order Debussy's second rhapsody for clarinet.
Let me know when you find it! I'd love to hear it. :)
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on December 12, 2007, 04:32:31 AM
Elgar's 1st is pretty darn good. I like the 2nd better, but the first ain't chopped liver.
Finally support! Thanks Mark G. Simon! :)
Those who understand Elgar know the 2nd is even better than the first.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 12, 2007, 04:29:36 AM
If people not having a high opinion of the Elgar First is going to enrage you, you must prepare yourself for frequent enragement.
I have tried 10 years to improve Elgar's esteem on this planet and seeing I have gained nothing is most frustrating. I feel I live for nothing.
Anyway, I know I am right about Elgar so I keep trying...
Quote from: 71 dB on December 12, 2007, 04:31:55 AM
Well, we all have our tastes...
I can't believe this. This must be a first. I wonder if it is original or copy and paste...
Quote from: 71 dB on December 12, 2007, 04:36:40 AM
Finally support! Thanks Mark G. Simon! :)
(http://madsenworld.dk/anigif/hearts/bar6_ani.gif)
Quote from: 71 dB on December 12, 2007, 04:36:40 AM
Those who understand Elgar know the 2nd is even better than the first.
There, you see? I understand
Elgar, too.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 12, 2007, 04:38:59 AM
Anyway, I know I am right about Elgar so I keep trying...
No, no, in many ways, you are profoundly mistaken about
Elgar. You don't "know" what you think you "know."
Has anyone even heard Haydn's First? It is tempting to dismiss it as something only a completist would seek out, but I haven't heard it.
Quote from: Corey on December 12, 2007, 04:52:44 AM
Has anyone even heard Haydn's First? It is tempting to dismiss it as something only a completist would seek out, but I haven't heard it.
Gurn has, certainly.
I've got it at home, but I haven't acted yet on the curiosity . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on December 12, 2007, 04:49:40 AM
No, no, in many ways, you are profoundly mistaken about Elgar. You don't "know" what you think you "know."
Who are you to say what I know? Elgar is my favorite composer! It means I have spend a lot of time and effort to understand him and his music. Just because I don't repeat the general mantras of music does not mean I don't understand or know anything.
There are things I really know next to nothing (e.g. hunting). Have you seen me writing on hunting forums?
What about Schubert's First Symphony? I haven't heard it, but am curious as to what others think about it. I only have his 8th and 9th.
I like Dvorak's 1st Symphony. It's not getting a lot of love on here. I'll agree it's nowhere near the quality of Symphonies 6-9.
Quote from: Corey on December 12, 2007, 04:52:44 AM
Has anyone even heard Haydn's First? It is tempting to dismiss it as something only a completist would seek out, but I haven't heard it.
Haydn's early symphonies are nice. :)
Quote from: ChamberNut on December 12, 2007, 04:58:38 AM
What about Schubert's First Symphony? I haven't heard it, but am curious as to what others think about it. I only have his 8th and 9th.
The Schubert 1st is actually surprisingly good, with a couple of possibly unconcious semi figure quotations of Beethoven. Not as good as the 8 and 9 or the little c, but a good symphony overall, not just for a first effort.
Quote from: Corey on December 12, 2007, 04:52:44 AM
Has anyone even heard Haydn's First? It is tempting to dismiss it as something only a completist would seek out, but I haven't heard it.
IIRC,
DavidW was/is very fond of
Haydn's First ........
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.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 12, 2007, 04:56:19 AM
Who are you to say what I know?
Partly because of your ready exhibitionism.
All of us have had occasion to see how so much of what you "know" (vibrational fields, e.g.) is absolute piffle. Poju.
QuoteElgar is my favorite composer!
Oh, now
there's a bulletin! Extra points for ever so much value added to the forum with
that announcement, Poju.
QuoteIt means I have spend a lot of time and effort to understand him and his music.
Right, so the failure in your knowledge and understanding is not for lack of trying, granted.
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on December 12, 2007, 05:05:04 AM
I think Carter's First Symphony is a real yawn.
I'll happily take your word there; that's not one I'm beating any path to listen to . . . .
Has anyone heard
Rimsky-Korsakov's First?
Quote from: karlhenning on December 12, 2007, 05:05:55 AM
QuoteElgar is my favorite composer!
Oh, now there's a bulletin! Extra points for ever so much value added to the forum with that announcement, Poju.
I must make a note of that ((
searching for notepad)) ......... Fresh, new revelations of this calibre are always welcome,
Poju .........
Quote from: karlhenning on December 12, 2007, 05:05:55 AM
All of us have had occasion to see how so much of what you "know" (vibrational fields, e.g.) is absolute piffle. Poju.
Damn! I am a free-thinker so I have my own theories. That doesn't mean I don't know things. It means I have brains to come up with theories. Every theory in the world, every advance in understanding has needed a person like me.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 12, 2007, 05:05:55 AMRight, so the failure in your knowledge and understanding is not for lack of trying, granted.
What failure? Are you an
Elgar specialist capable of judging me?
Quote from: 71 dB on December 12, 2007, 05:37:29 AM
Damn! I am a free-thinker so I have my own theories. That doesn't mean I don't know things. It means I have brains to come up with theories. Every theory in the world, every advance in understanding has needed a person like me.
What failure? Are you an Elgar specialist capable of judging me?
Give it up, dude. :)
Of course it is only a matter of taste, not of absolute truth, and therefore a thread like this is so amusing and at the same time not something to be taken so seriously. I do think that Elgars 2 symphonies are glorious works, his 2nd even more so than his first. They give me much pleasure over and over again.
Quote from: Thom on December 12, 2007, 05:50:22 AM
I do think that Elgars 2 symphonies are glorious works, his 2nd even more so than his first. They give me much pleasure over and over again.
It's always nice to hear some people enjoy the same things I do. 0:)
Quote from: 71 dB on December 12, 2007, 04:10:30 AM
I don't want to be hostile. I want to be friendly and I want other people be friendly too
Quote from: 71Who are you to say what I know? Elgar is my favorite composer! It means I have spend a lot of time and effort to understand him and his music. Just because I don't repeat the general mantras of music does not mean I don't understand or know anything.
Then, would you answer my previous question?
Quote from: ManuelWhy?
Quote from: karlhenning on December 12, 2007, 05:07:05 AM
I'll happily take your word there; that's not one I'm beating any path to listen to . . . .
Has anyone heard Rimsky-Korsakov's First?
Yes, and it is actually better than his
Third Symphony!
The
Second ("Antar") is the best of the three.
Quote from: Cato on December 12, 2007, 06:36:55 AM
Yes, and it is actually better than his Third Symphony!
The Second ("Antar") is the best of the three.
I don't remember having heard the
Third;
Antar is good!
Quote from: karlhenning on December 12, 2007, 06:40:06 AM
I don't remember having heard the Third; Antar is good!
I have the complete symphonies with Neeme Jarvi conducting on DGG, and was excited about hearing the
Third Symphony when I ordered the set, since I had never heard it, and then was very disappointed that it was not even close to "Antar"!
The
First is okay: as I recall it is the product of his late teens/early 20's, and
Balakirev helped him with revising it.
Quote from: Cato on December 12, 2007, 06:59:24 AM
I have the complete symphonies with Neeme Jarvi conducting on DGG, and was excited about hearing the Third Symphony when I ordered the set, since I had never heard it, and then was very disappointed that it was not even close to "Antar"!
Ah, but wait! Perhaps the fault is not
Nikolai Andreyevich's, but
Järvi's!
Quote from: Manuel on December 12, 2007, 06:35:15 AM
Then, would you answer my previous question?
Sorry, can you explain what exactly you want to know. ???
Quote from: 71 dB on December 12, 2007, 07:30:57 AM
Sorry, can you explain what exactly you want to know. ???
You are excused.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 11, 2007, 05:34:09 PM
Elgar's first symphony is perhaps the most matured and sophisticated first symphony ever.(http://trexic.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/arrow-up.jpg)
Sharp uptick in shovel futures.
Quote from: Manuel on December 12, 2007, 07:46:12 AM
You are excused.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 11, 2007, 05:34:09 PM
Elgar's first symphony is perhaps the most matured and sophisticated first symphony ever.
Because
Elgar was so talented! He created his own style combining the best part of masters before him. This style is sophisticated, multidimensional and brilliantly orchestrated. Richter introduced the music by saying to the orchestra:
"Gentlemen, let us now rehearse the greatest symphony of modern times, written by the greatest modern composer - and not only this country."
Quote from: 71 dB on December 12, 2007, 07:56:25 AM
Because Elgar was so talented!
Bzzzzt! Thank you for playing!
Many of the composers of first symhonies were also, so talented!
Quote from: boilerplate
He created his own style combining the best part of masters before him. This style is sophisticated, multidimensional and brilliantly orchestrated.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 12, 2007, 07:56:25 AM
Because Elgar's ... style is sophisticated, multidimensional
I'm disappointed ......... You forgot to mention
vibrational fields ..........
(
NOTE TO ROB: Is there a way to make letters vibrate?)
Quote from: 71 dB on December 12, 2007, 07:56:25 AM
Because Elgar was so talented! He created his own style combining the best part of masters before him. This style is sophisticated, multidimensional and brilliantly orchestrated. Richter introduced the music by saying to the orchestra: "Gentlemen, let us now rehearse the greatest symphony of modern times, written by the greatest modern composer - and not only this country."
Convincing enough. I'm wearing my Elgar cap now.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41ZumrYG74L._AA280_.jpg)
Quote from: Manuel on December 12, 2007, 08:13:28 AM
I'm wearing my Elgar cap now.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v614/LOTGK/Thought%20Screen/thought_screen_helmet.jpg)
This constant schoolyard-style bullying of 71dB is exceedingly childish and mean-sprited. I would have thought you'd outgrown this behavior when you turned 15. But no, now that you don't have Pinkharp to kick around you've got to find someone else.
Children!
71 dB: If you really want to increase appreciation for Elgar's music, you would do best to stop talking about it. I think Elgar will do quite well on his own merits.
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on December 12, 2007, 11:05:29 AM
This constant schoolyard-style bullying of 71dB is exceedingly childish and mean-sprited. I would have thought you'd outgrown this behavior when you turned 15. But no, now that you don't have Pinkharp to kick around you've got to find someone else.
Children!
71 dB: If you really want to increase appreciation for Elgar's music, you would do best to stop talking about it. I think Elgar will do quite well on his own merits.
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.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 12, 2007, 07:56:25 AM
Because Elgar was so talented! He created his own style combining the best part of masters before him. This style is sophisticated, multidimensional and brilliantly orchestrated. Richter introduced the music by saying to the orchestra: "Gentlemen, let us now rehearse the greatest symphony of modern times, written by the greatest modern composer - and not only this country."
I'll bite. Fair enough, but the same thing could be said of Gustav Mahler's 1st or Anton Webern's
Symphony, op. 20 (which I'll count as his first). I had problems with "sophistication" as a justification for anything when Eric was still around, and my issues have not diminished. I'll ignore that, then. There are plenty of multidimensional (whatever that means, again) and brilliantly orchestrated works that aren't all that great. I, for example, cannot stand Richard Strauss'
Alpensinfonie. Indeed, it is the only CD that I have ever given away out of disgust. It seems to me that you're defending Elgar's first on shaky grounds.
Before you start, though: I'm not suggesting that your apparent non-conformity with the musical establishment (though I wasn't aware that Elgar was an outsider artist) is a problem. I just want some better justification.
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.
Quote from: Bonehelm on December 12, 2007, 11:13:14 AM
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).
The style Rachmaninov wielded in his First Symphony was highly sophisticated, highly multidimensional, and brilliantly orchestrated. And it generates some kickass vibe fields ........
Quote from: Don on December 12, 2007, 11:31:56 AM
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.
Did I mention that Rach 1 is extremely multidimensional?
(I mean ...... EXTREMELY ....... multidimensional .........)
Quote from: D Minor on December 12, 2007, 11:46:07 AM
(I mean ...... EXTREMELY ....... multidimensional .........)
All right, I'll ask:
How many dimensions?
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.
Has anyone heard the Mennin or Schuman First?
Quote from: Joe Barron on December 11, 2007, 02:07:38 PM
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.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 12, 2007, 11:56:50 AM
All right, I'll ask:
How many dimensions?
The number of dimensions varies measure-by-measure, depending on the instrumentation matrix ........
Quote from: D Minor on December 12, 2007, 12:21:31 PM
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?
Quote from: karlhenning on December 12, 2007, 12:28:56 PM
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. ;D
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. ;D (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.
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on December 12, 2007, 05:05:04 AM
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.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 12, 2007, 04:56:19 AM
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? :o
that's almost as strange as me only having gone to the beach once in years given where i live....
Quote from: karlhenning on December 12, 2007, 11:31:01 AM
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.
Anybody here ever heard Furtwängler's #1? I won't lie: I couldn't finish it.
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)
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.
Quote from: Anacho on December 12, 2007, 03:08:47 PM
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:)
That's true!
Quote from: Bonehelm on December 12, 2007, 11:13:14 AM
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.
just finished Elgar's 1st.
honestly, i'm pretty impressed (with an exception to most of the finale).
the best Elgar i've heard, and by that i mean the only Elgar i can say i truly liked after first hearing.
i give it 7/10.
i like it, but in a way it seems too simplistic. Except i wouldn't know how to explain this because my explanation would contradict my other observations....
Quote from: G...R...E...G... on December 12, 2007, 04:22:58 PM
just finished Elgar's 1st.
honestly, i'm pretty impressed (with an exception to most of the finale).
the best Elgar i've heard, and by that i mean the only Elgar i can say i truly liked after first hearing.
i give it 7/10.
i like it, but in a way it seems too simplistic. Except i wouldn't know how to explain this because my explanation would contradict my other observations....
ROTF!!111 You had the LP going backwards! Play it going
forwardsOLOLOL!!!1#
Definitely, MOST definitely, not Elgar's! A pox on those who claim that ;) It was enormously popular world-wide when it was first published and was admired by the great conductors of the time. I do not think they were wrong. Of no bearing on its worth, I'll say anyway that it's one of my favorite symphonies and has been for forty years. It's probably not a better symphony than the Second but it certainly pulls on my heartstrings with a firmer grasp.
I'm not sure who to nominate. Of the composers already mentioned often, I happen to love the Ives and Rach Firsts and can listen to the Dvorak with pleasure...occasionally. Scriabin's First?...never thrilled me. I'm going to listen to Golovanov's version tomorrow; if anyone can convince me that Scriabin isn't the worst, he can. If I dip into the second and third tiers, Stanford comes to mind. He'd qualify for worst Second through Seventh too ;D Just kidding...but he is a bit of a bore symphonically speaking. Thank god Elgar came along to rescue the British symphony.
Sarge
I insist: Charles Ives First Symphony. It is a work that reminds me of Dvorak (but drunk).
It's like the First Quartet. The music is nice, sometimes, but without real personality.
Very far from that splendid masterpiece, the 4th Symphony.
Concerning Rimsky-Korsakov's First vs. Third Symphonies.
With my wife gone last night I was able to revisit both of these. 8)
The First has a good deal of energy, with the opening movement giving you an impression for a while that you might have a Russian Beethoven here! While not all the themes are overtly "Russian," the music has a drive that sustains one's interest.
To be sure, according to the notes, Rimsky revised the work heavily in later years: the original version charmed the Nationalists, but apparently had abrupt transitions and other awkward moments in the polyphony. Rimsky in fact simplified the symphony, with the purpose that an amateur or student orchestra would be able to play it.
Karl Henning wondered if, in the Third Symphony, the conductor Jarvi might not be at fault for a lackluster reading.
After listening to it again, I think just the opposite: Jarvi and the Gothenburg orchestra do everything they can to squeeze something compelling from the notes. The opening movement offers a little drama, and a little mystery now and then, which one hopes will be built up. But no: the scherzo has a tippy-toeing moto perpetuo of little interest, the slow movement is just slow and repetitious, and the finale has a fairly nice theme which the composer does not do much with.
Although I think I will be a little less harsh, ultimately I just do not find the Third Symphony very compelling. Truly disappointing.
Quote from: JoshLilly on December 12, 2007, 02:36:51 PM
Anybody here ever heard Furtwängler's #1? I won't lie: I couldn't finish it.
I won't lie: I can't even approach it :-)
Quote from: karlhenning on December 13, 2007, 04:06:39 AM
I won't lie: I can't even approach it :-)
You should have warned me before i plunged into getting the second to see if it is any better.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on December 12, 2007, 05:57:01 PM
Definitely, MOST definitely, not Elgar's! A pox on those who claim that ;) It was enormously popular world-wide when it was first published and was admired by the great conductors of the time. I do not think they were wrong.
Sure,
Sarge. It may be worth while repeating a remark that I have made several times. In citing
Elgar's First as a response to the OP, I was not claiming that it is
abysmally bad. Of first symphonies to which I have listened over the past year, the
Elgar stood out in my ears as the least entirely accomplished: the 'Worst First'.
That's all I'll say at present.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 13, 2007, 04:28:10 AM
That's all I'll say at present.
I don't blame you.
Quote from: jochanaan on December 12, 2007, 01:54:46 PM
71 dB, I think I said this once, but it needs saying again *** These are not "anti-Elgar" tatements by any reasonable standard.
Why bother?
71dB will turn any thread into an
Elgar thread. If you don't believe me, I can show you several
Bruckner and
Mahler threads that had to be locked because they were hijacked by
71dB. His anti-
Bruckner, anti-
Mahler, anti-
Shostakovich, anti-
Beethoven ravings are among the
most amusing reads to be found anywhere on the Internet ...... which is why I'm conflicted as to whether to ignore him, or urge him to continue with his blather. This is entertainment, pure and simple. And, with his ongoing, incessant Dog and Poju Show, he constantly digs himself deeper into his
hole of alienation by diminishing the intellects and aesthetics of those who disagree with him.
Which is why I don't take him seriously; and, as an unfortunate consequence, I am disinclined to consider
Elgar's alleged "greatness" seriously. Let's face it:
71dB and
Elgar have been inextricably "bundled" together ....... and the more
71dB tries to elevate
Elgar by diminishing other composers (including
Beethoven, Shostakovich, Bruckner, Mahler, Brahms), the more repugnant many of us find this bundled
Poju/Elgar entity ....... a pervasive entity which enjoys infecting any thread that will allow it ........
WITNESS: This thread has now been turned into an
Elgar thread ........ Gee, what a shocker .........
Quote from: D Minor on December 13, 2007, 05:07:49 AM
I don't blame you.
Why bother? 71dB will turn any thread into an Elgar thread. If you don't believe me, I can show you several Bruckner and Mahler threads that had to be locked because they were hijacked by 71dB. His anti-Bruckner, anti-Mahler, anti-Shostakovich, anti-Beethoven ravings are among the most amusing reads to be found anywhere on the Internet ...... which is why I'm conflicted as to whether to ignore him, or urge him to continue with his blather. This is entertainment, pure and simple. And, with his ongoing, incessant Dog and Poju Show, he constantly digs himself deeper into his hole of alienation by diminishing the intellects and aesthetics of those who disagree with him.
Which is why I don't take him seriously; and, as an unfortunate consequence, I am disinclined to consider Elgar's alleged "greatness" seriously. Let's face it: 71dB and Elgar have been inextricably "bundled" together ....... and the more 71dB tries to elevate Elgar by diminishing other composers (including Beethoven, Shostakovich, Bruckner, Mahler, Brahms), the more repugnant many of us find this bundled Poju/Elgar entity ....... a pervasive entity which enjoys infecting any thread that will allow it ........
WITNESS: This thread has now been turned into an Elgar thread ........ Gee, what a shocker .........
It doesn't turn into an Elgar thread if you don't let it. Just don't respond to Elgar comments in non-Elgarian threads. Simple.
And that's all I have to say about that. ;D
What do you consider the 'worst first,' Dave?
Quote from: karlhenning on December 13, 2007, 05:13:41 AM
What do you consider the 'worst first,' Dave?
I don't know from firsts.
Dave, if you let me speak for you, I have a composer in mind ........
Quote from: D Minor on December 13, 2007, 05:15:51 AM
Dave, if you let me speak for you, I have a composer in mind ........
Noooo!!! ;D
If once the Dark Path you tread . . . . ;D
Quote from: D Minor on December 13, 2007, 05:07:49 AM
Which is why I don't take him seriously; and, as an unfortunate consequence, I am disinclined to consider Elgar's alleged "greatness" seriously. Let's face it: 71dB and Elgar have been inextricably "bundled" together .......
Only in your shallow mind. It should be the most basic thing to keep in mind that these foolish people who are fixated on certain composers are separate entities from the composers themselves. 71 dB is not Elgar. Pink Harp is not Debussy. Let them say what they will, ignore them and their comments will not derail threads.
But you're not going to do any such thing, are you? Because deep down you
enjoy bullying people like 71 dB. You enjoy pursuing them like a pack of wild dogs after an errant sheep. This abhorrent behavior is your own responsibility.
Quote from: JoshLilly on December 12, 2007, 02:36:51 PM
Anybody here ever heard Furtwängler's #1? I won't lie: I couldn't finish it.
So far, the worthiest contender for the title.
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on December 13, 2007, 05:32:32 AM
Only in your shallow mind. It should be the most basic thing to keep in mind that these foolish people who are fixated on certain composers are separate entities from the composers themselves. 71 dB is not Elgar. Pink Harp is not Debussy. Let them say what they will, ignore them and their comments will not derail threads.
Good to see that Mark made the above comments. Linking Elgar with the extremist rantings of 71dB makes no sense to me.
Concerning
Furtwaengler's First:
Quote from: Wanderer on December 13, 2007, 05:33:30 AM
So far, the worthiest contender for the title.
Speaking of conductor/composers: has anyone experienced
Leonard Bernstein's First Symphony?
Or :o (dare I type this name?)
Leif Segerstam's? :o
This afternoon I will have an opportunity to listen to the
Schubert First and will report on that!
Quote from: Cato on December 13, 2007, 05:54:51 AM
Or :o (dare I type this name?) Leif Segerstam's? :o
I doubt most listeners have heard any of his 100+ symphonies (I think he's beat Haydn now).
Quote from: Cato on December 13, 2007, 05:54:51 AM
Speaking of conductor/composers: has anyone experienced Leonard Bernstein's First Symphony?
No; we listened to bits of
The Age of Anxiety (no. 2) in a class once . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on December 13, 2007, 06:01:20 AM
No; we listened to bits of The Age of Anxiety (no. 2) in a class once . . . .
i heard that one a long time ago, it's actually a pretty good symphony
I never intented to turn this thread into an Elgar thread. I came here almost accidentally and saw two persons claiming Elgar's first is the worst. Of course I defend Elgar against such claims. (Thanks Sarge for support!). I'm also sorry people think what I say is stupid. I don't feel that way myself.
Scriabin's first was mentioned. Well, I have all of his 3 symphonies and I agree #1 & #2 are weaker than #3 which I like.
@ Anacho:
Elgar's 2nd is more difficult and sophisticated than the first.
@ G...R...E...G...:
I'm glad you were impressed with Elgar's first symphony. It's true the finale isn't the strongest Elgar but still very good in my opinion. The 2nd symphony has a fantastic finale. Keep listening! I'm sure Elgar will grow on you. :)
Quote from: 71 dB on December 13, 2007, 06:23:44 AM
Scriabin's first was mentioned. Well, I have all of his 3 symphonies and I agree #1 & #2 are weaker than #3 which I like.
wait, he wrote 5....... but sometimes they aren't called symphonies. :P
Quote from: G...R...E...G... on December 13, 2007, 06:26:12 AM
wait, he wrote 5....... but sometimes they aren't called symphonies. :P
Well, I have the 3 which ARE called symphonies... :P
Quote from: 71 dB on December 13, 2007, 06:23:44 AM
I never intented to turn this thread into an Elgar thread. I came here almost accidentally and saw two persons claiming Elgar's first is the worst. Of course I defend Elgar against such claims.
It is an entirely valid point of view, to consider
Elgar's First the weakest of the lot. Period.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 13, 2007, 06:32:12 AM
I try to ignore these posters:
- karlhenning
- D Minor
- Bonehelm
Gotta try harder...
Quote from: 71 dB on December 13, 2007, 06:23:44 AM
Of course I defend Elgar against such claims.
How can you defend against people's personal likes and dislikes? Just saying.
Anyway, suggestion: convince more people to listen to Fürtwangler's first, and I'm sure at least a couple of those naming Elgar's first as the worst would change their minds.
In other words, instead of a negative campaign ("Stop picking Elgar #1"), instead embark on a
positive campaign: "Fürtwangler's #1 sucks more!" ;D
In any case, Fürtwangler's #1 is probably not the absolute worst first symphony, in my opinion. It's just the one I think is the worst I've heard by composers whose name would probably be universally recognised here. And I'd like to point out further, some people actually like it. I don't know anyone in love with it, but probably someone out there thinks it's terrific. People heavy into Bruckner seem to find it at least moderately appealing, if a bit lengthy.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 13, 2007, 06:36:31 AM
It is an entirely valid point of view, to consider Elgar's First the weakest of the lot. Period.
i think it depends more on what you've heard before...... if all you've heard are the symphonies of Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Mahler, Brahms, etc., then yeah, by far it's going to be the worst.
but, if you get into more obscure composers, i'm sure there's worse out there....
Quote from: G...R...E...G... on December 13, 2007, 06:39:18 AM
i think it depends more on what you've heard before...... if all you've heard are the symphonies of Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Mahler, Brahms, etc., then yeah, by far it's going to be the worst.
And (to say again) there is much I like in the
Elgar First; but (and of course, my hearing of the piece may change at some point) it does not seem to me entirely successful as a symphony; and I find it markedly less imaginative (and more hidebound) than (for instance) his concerti, or
Falstaff.
I suppose I can find worse first symphonies than
Elgar's. But, why should I look for them, eh? ;)
Quote from: G...R...E...G... on December 13, 2007, 06:39:18 AM
i think it depends more on what you've heard before...... if all you've heard are the symphonies of Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Mahler, Brahms, etc., then yeah, by far it's going to be the worst.
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.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 13, 2007, 06:45:45 AM
I suppose I can find worse first symphonies than Elgar's. But, why should I look for them, eh? ;)
good point ;D
Quote from: Cato on December 13, 2007, 05:54:51 AM
Speaking of conductor/composers: has anyone experienced Leonard Bernstein's First Symphony?
I heard it at Tanglewood under the direction of Bernstein himself. It was the only live performance with Bernstein that I ever attended. The
Jeremiah Symphony impressed me quite favorably.
Thanks for the Bernstein comments!
As for Leif Segerstam, according to Wikipedia, his symphonies now number 189! :o
I remember sitting through a CD some years ago with one of his symphonies in the teens, 16 or 17, called "Thoughts at the Edge," and thinking it much ado about nothing, and also thinking that it had a certain amount of premeditated chaff which one could recycle.
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on December 13, 2007, 08:26:29 AM
I heard it at Tanglewood under the direction of Bernstein himself. It was the only live performance with Bernstein that I ever attended. The Jeremiah Symphony impressed me quite favorably.
I
never thought he was a bullfrog :-)
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on December 13, 2007, 05:32:32 AM
Only in your shallow mind. It should be the most basic thing to keep in mind that these foolish people who are fixated on certain composers are separate entities from the composers themselves. 71 dB is not Elgar. Pink Harp is not Debussy. Let them say what they will, ignore them and their comments will not derail threads.
But you're not going to do any such thing, are you? Because deep down you enjoy bullying people like 71 dB. You enjoy pursuing them like a pack of wild dogs after an errant sheep. This abhorrent behavior is your own responsibility.
The best post thus far on this nonsense, you articulate my feelings entirely and save me the bother!
Quote from: 71 dB on December 13, 2007, 06:48:41 AM
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.
A friendly suggestion to help you in your quest to raise Elgar's esteem: When stating an opinion, be careful not to let it turn into dogma. Opinions are fine. But I cannot subscribe to dogmatic statements like the one of yours I've put in boldface.
You will find it much harder to convince people that Elgar is "the best" than that he's a worthy composer. Because, after all, better minds than mine or even yours have failed to define "the best." ;D Yet Elgar's worthiness, based on such works as the Enigma Variations and the Cello Concerto, appears to be beyond question among music lovers with broad experience.
Now, let's get back to discussing inferior First (including only) Symphonies. :-[
P.S. By some reckonings, Scriabin's Poem of Ecstasy and Prometheus are called Symphonies #4 and #5.
P.P.S. Did Berlioz write a symphony before the Fantastique? :o
Quote from: Cato on December 13, 2007, 05:54:51 AM
Speaking of conductor/composers: has anyone experienced Leonard Bernstein's First Symphony?
I've got his DG recording of it, with the second. I sorta like it, especially the second movement ("Profanation"), but then I'm generally all in favor of profanation, in any case. ;D
Of course there were some composers, such as Mennin and Pettersson, who were sagacious enough to avoid being ridiculed in this thread. They withdrew their first symphonies.
Quote from: Cato on December 13, 2007, 09:13:45 AM
Thanks for the Bernstein comments!
As for Leif Segerstam, according to Wikipedia, his symphonies now number 189! :o
I remember sitting through a CD some years ago with one of his symphonies in the teens, 16 or 17, called "Thoughts at the Edge," and thinking it much ado about nothing, and also thinking that it had a certain amount of premeditated chaff which one could recycle.
I have one of his symphonies and several of his "Monumental Thoughts". To be honest, not only were the "thoughts" not monumental, they all sounds like they were composed in 10 minutes or so, probably as fast as a copist couple put the notes on paper.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 13, 2007, 06:48:41 AM
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.
Quote from: RebLem on December 13, 2007, 08:54:08 PM
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
Quote from: RebLem on December 13, 2007, 08:54:08 PM
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.
Quote from: RebLem on December 13, 2007, 08:54:08 PM
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.
ehhhhhh...... Walton's 1st is ok, putting it on this thread seems weird to me. 0:)
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.
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.
Quote from: val on December 12, 2007, 11:40:55 PM
I insist: Charles Ives First Symphony. It is a work that reminds me of Dvorak (but drunk).
And that's a bad thing? ;D I like your description actually, and it pretty much defines exactly the reason I love the symphony.
Sarge
Quote from: jochanaan on December 13, 2007, 02:56:21 PM
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. :)
Quote from: erato on December 13, 2007, 10:56:32 PM
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 ;D
Sarge
Quote from: RebLem on December 13, 2007, 08:54:08 PM
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.
:o ??? :o
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
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on December 14, 2007, 06:06:31 AM
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.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on December 14, 2007, 06:06:31 AM
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 ;D
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.
I am truly puzzled,
Sarge, by your claim that my post "doesn't really answer the OP's original question":
Quote from: Cato on December 11, 2007, 11:29:07 AM
Since the forum loves lists and rankings, how about your opinions on the Worst First Symphony by a composer?
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 (!!! :o !!!) 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!
Quote from: Cato on December 28, 2007, 02:05:05 PM
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 (!!! :o !!!) 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:)
Quote from: erato on December 14, 2007, 06:30:49 AMthe 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.
Quote from: Sydney Grew on December 28, 2007, 03:10:38 PM
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? :o
at least he made some great music later on all by himself ;D
I don't think you're unprejudiced, Mr Grew. Your title for the photo below is very revealing.
(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w164/sydgrew/sjostakovitj_ung.jpg)
http://s176.photobucket.com/albums/w164/sydgrew/?start=40
Jez
Quote from: Sydney Grew on December 28, 2007, 03:10:38 PM
...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
But we deem that Shostakovich has inferior vibrational fields...
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/nso/Shosta1.htm
"In October 1924, he wrote to his girlfriend, Tanya, that he was so fed up with his family's poverty that he had taken an engagement as a cinema pianist. A month later he tells Tanya that he is writing a symphony saying that it is "quite bad, but I have to write it so that I can have done with the conservatory this year, since I'm sick of it and don't feel like writing a symphony now." By the beginning of January 1925 he had finished three movements. "In my view it's turned out very well, the most substantial of my works" adding "and it'll be performed badly since I won't be there to show them how it should go." At the same time, Shostakovich's sister, Maria, found employment as a dance teacher and he was able to give up a cinema job which had become ever more demanding and irksome although he still had the energy to sue the cinema owner for unpaid wages. Life continued to lurch between moments of blissful happiness and suicidal depression. "Doubts and problems, all this darkness suffocate me. From sheer misery I've started to compose the finale of the Symphony. It's turning out pretty gloomy - almost like Miaskovsky, who takes the cake when it comes to gloominess." A further letter to Tanya describes his "sweet ecstasy" whilst composing, often until the early hours of the morning, but outlining an attempt to hang himself yet not having the courage to kick away the chair. At last on the 26th April he had finished the symphony announcing that he was pleased with the result.
Although in his adult years Shostakovich wrote his orchestral music directly to manuscript, his First Symphony was in piano-score and the arduous task of writing out the score and orchestral parts made him ill again. A first performance was scheduled for the 12th of May, 1926, at the Leningrad Philharmonic Hall with the great Nicolai Malko in charge of the Leningrad Philharmonic - a prestigious debut that would have thrilled most student composers. Even so Shostakovich had doubts, regarding Malko as a good conductor yet afraid that he was incapable of presenting the symphony the way it should be, "Even the slightest deviation from my wishes is painfully unpleasant." After all this angst, it was an enormous boost to Shostakovich that the première received a triumphant reception.
... Shostakovich's contemporary, Lev Lebedinsky, portrayed the Symphony as "An alarm, a forecast of the terrible future." Some years later he expanded on this statement: "As a true democrat, he [Shostakovich] deeply detested the communist system, which continually threatened his very life. In his first major work, his First Symphony, he already challenged the forces of evil. I was the first to note that the timpani in the last movement sound like a depiction of an execution on a scaffold. When I remarked to Shostakovich, 'You were the first to declare war against Stalin,' he did not deny it. Already, from his early years, Shostakovich understood what was going on in our country and what was to come."
(My emphasis above)
No mention of Prof. Steinberg in this analysis.
I would assume the Maximilian Steinberg mentioned by Mr. Grew earlier is the son-in-law of Rimsky-Korsakov?
Quote from: Sydney Grew on December 28, 2007, 03:10:38 PM
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.
Hey! I remember you from
Talk Classical, you appeared there as
Egregious Professor (http://www.talkclassical.com/1860-russians-2.html#post17130)
Quote from: Egregious ProfessorYou cannot go wrong with Alexander Scryabine; any of his wonderful symphonies or piano sonatas for instance. The Poem of Ecstasy! Is not the title enough to capture any one's interest!
Another great Russian was Rachmannineff. It will at once be clear from a first hearing that his symphonies and concertos are a hundred times better than those of Shostacowitch.
Quote from: 12tone. on December 11, 2007, 06:55:23 PM
What about Bax's first? Last I remember, it was hard to get through.
I love Bax's first.
Anyone mentioned Vaughan Williams? What a horrid work that is, the Sea Symphony, I thought it would never end.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on December 28, 2007, 04:57:40 PM
Anyone mentioned Vaughan Williams? What a horrid work that is, the Sea Symphony, I thought it would never end.
I disagree. I heard the work some time ago and I was pleasantly surprised!
Quote from: bhodges on December 28, 2007, 03:21:37 PM
Erm, I respectfully--and completely--disagree, both with "as might be expected" and with the assessment of his later work.
--Bruce
Bruce, there's no need for respect where respect is trampled.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 28, 2007, 06:01:13 PM
I disagree. I heard the work some time ago and I was pleasantly surprised!
For once I agree with you unreservedly. This is one fine choral symphony. It sprawls a bit--but that might be said of many other masterpieces. (I highly recommend the old Adrian Boult/London Philharmonic recording. Boult really had a way with English music. 8))
Quote from: jochanaan on December 11, 2007, 12:55:40 PMWagner's, while by no means his best work, has some real substance.
The principal problem with the 1832 symphony of the German man Wagner is that it shows no feeling for
form whatever. We believe that that is the secret reason why he turned thereafter to writing operas of the "continuous recitative" type, in which this deficiency of his talent would be less noticeable.
In that respect - the sense of musical balance - he was at the opposite pole to the older Mozart; but even the latter's first symphony did not manage much did it.
Some listeners of course do not care about musical structure; but to a good many its absence is painful. Richard Strauss was another one in the Wagner mould; he wrote - what is it? - four meandering symphonies, the first of which he did not dare even to publish, and he became much more successful once he turned to opera with its dramatic scenes and loud voices.
Quote from: Sydney Grew on December 28, 2007, 08:29:03 PMRichard Strauss was another one in the Wagner mould; he wrote - what is it? - four meandering symphonies, the first of which he did not dare even to publish, and he became much more successful once he turned to opera with its dramatic scenes and loud voices.
Have you heard it, by the way? I actually do not mind it at all; the first movement's first subject has an interesting little jolt to it and I remember the finale being rousing ... though it has been a full two years since I have heard the piece :P
Quote from: btpaul674 on December 28, 2007, 04:43:24 PM
I love Bax's first.
So do I. That second, funereal movement is one of his greatest.
Quote from: Cato on December 28, 2007, 04:03:17 PM
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/nso/Shosta1.htm
"In October 1924, he wrote to his girlfriend, Tanya, that he was so fed up with his family's poverty that he had taken an engagement as a cinema pianist. A month later he tells Tanya that he is writing a symphony saying that it is "quite bad, but I have to write it so that I can have done with the conservatory this year, since I'm sick of it and don't feel like writing a symphony now." By the beginning of January 1925 he had finished three movements. "In my view it's turned out very well, the most substantial of my works" adding "and it'll be performed badly since I won't be there to show them how it should go." At the same time, Shostakovich's sister, Maria, found employment as a dance teacher and he was able to give up a cinema job which had become ever more demanding and irksome although he still had the energy to sue the cinema owner for unpaid wages. Life continued to lurch between moments of blissful happiness and suicidal depression. "Doubts and problems, all this darkness suffocate me. From sheer misery I've started to compose the finale of the Symphony. It's turning out pretty gloomy - almost like Miaskovsky, who takes the cake when it comes to gloominess." A further letter to Tanya describes his "sweet ecstasy" whilst composing, often until the early hours of the morning, but outlining an attempt to hang himself yet not having the courage to kick away the chair. At last on the 26th April he had finished the symphony announcing that he was pleased with the result.
Although in his adult years Shostakovich wrote his orchestral music directly to manuscript, his First Symphony was in piano-score and the arduous task of writing out the score and orchestral parts made him ill again. A first performance was scheduled for the 12th of May, 1926, at the Leningrad Philharmonic Hall with the great Nicolai Malko in charge of the Leningrad Philharmonic - a prestigious debut that would have thrilled most student composers. Even so Shostakovich had doubts, regarding Malko as a good conductor yet afraid that he was incapable of presenting the symphony the way it should be, "Even the slightest deviation from my wishes is painfully unpleasant." After all this angst, it was an enormous boost to Shostakovich that the première received a triumphant reception.
... Shostakovich's contemporary, Lev Lebedinsky, portrayed the Symphony as "An alarm, a forecast of the terrible future." Some years later he expanded on this statement: "As a true democrat, he [Shostakovich] deeply detested the communist system, which continually threatened his very life. In his first major work, his First Symphony, he already challenged the forces of evil. I was the first to note that the timpani in the last movement sound like a depiction of an execution on a scaffold. When I remarked to Shostakovich, 'You were the first to declare war against Stalin,' he did not deny it. Already, from his early years, Shostakovich understood what was going on in our country and what was to come."
(My emphasis above)
No mention of Prof. Steinberg in this analysis.
Thank you for setting the record straight,
Cato.
I thought
Syd an eccentric ere now. But
now . . . .
Quote from: Elizabeth WilsonShostakovich conceived the idea of the First Symphony in July 1923. Probably his early Scherzo Opus 7 was initially intended as its third movement. The young composer noted, not without satisfaction, that he had provoked Steinberg's displeasure with this piece: 'What is this obsession with the Grotesque? The [Piano] Trio alreaday was in part Grotesque!' Steinberg's comments did not have much effect. The young composer went on to to ridicule the traditional tenets of his teacher: 'The inviolable foundations of The Mighty Handful, the sacred traditions of Nikolai Andreevich [Rinsky-Korsakov] and other such pompous phrases. Unfortunately, I can no longer indulge him with my music.'
[Shostakovich: A Life Remembered, p. 50 ]That doesn't really sound like two 'collaborators', doesn't at all sound like a situation which will result in a piece which is 30%
Shostakovich and 70%
Steinberg.
Does it?
Quote from: karlhenning on December 29, 2007, 06:49:33 PM
[Shostakovich: A Life Remembered, p. 50 ]
That doesn't really sound like two 'collaborators', doesn't at all sound like a situation which will result in a piece which is 30% Shostakovich and 70% Steinberg.
Does it?
Wouldn't fit that a composer of Shostakovich's caliber would even allow a work 70% someone else's out of the drawing room. Despite the early date.
Ego's bound to play some part... 8)
Quote from: Sydney Grew on December 28, 2007, 03:10:38 PM
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.
I've indeed checked what is published in Gerald Abraham's book, and was reminded of the significant context from which that British musicologist took the rather slender evidence for his claim - that Steinberg assisted Shostakovich in composing Symphony No. 1. His evidence is simply a statement Steinberg made at one of the various meetings held in 1936 when it was obligatory to denounce Shostakovich's
Lady Macbeth, and indeed it seemed likely that the composer himself was soon to meet a sticky end:
"A number of speakers have referred to Shostakovich's First Symphony as one of his best works, but no one has reminded us that this Symphony was written in the Conservatoire class. The First Symphony, the highest possible expression of his talent, is the result of his study in the Conservatoire. I was very distressed by Shostakovich's published allegation that in the Conservatoire we only 'hindered him from composing'."
Gerald Abraham goes on to say: 'The fairly obvious inference is that Steinberg himself had had some hand in the polishing of the Symphony, that his relationship to it was (shall we say?) similar to Stanford's rumoured relationship to
Hiawatha's Wedding Feast. That may be one reason why Shostakovich has never done anything as good as his Op. 10.' [end of extract]
I'll make two observations: a) Gerald Abraham has not a shred of evidence that Shostakovich was helped by Steinberg - he draws an inference which I think is quite incorrect. The context was that both the St Petersburg and Moscow Conservatoires had suffered some brutal handling during the years of the cultural revolution (in the late 1920s and early 1930s - roughly the period of the First Five-Year Plan), during which many distinguished professors had been sent away on 'leave of absence' or bluntly told to shut up, put up or get out while musically illiterate but politically orthodox people interfered with their organisation and how courses were run; any students who had any bourgeois background were kicked out, while musically illiterate students barely able to compose a competent tune but with working class backgrounds were recruited and allowed to best professors unable to explain the significance of a piece of music to the working class struggle. Steinberg himself confided to his diary that it was a time of 'real bedlam, threatening the annihilation of professional art and the reduction of everything to complete dilettantism'. All this was brought to a halt in 1932 with the abolishment of the proletarian unions, but as Steinberg and his colleagues well knew, a lot of those who had been active in decimating the Conservatoires until then were still in positions of power and potentially waiting for their chance to attack the 'bourgeois' professors.
In short, Steinberg in 1936 clearly felt he was turning the tables on those who wished to suggest the professors at the (pre-Cultural Revolution) Conservatoires had a destructive influence on their students, pointing out that the very works Shostakovich was being attacked for were in
reaction against what had been fostered in the Conservatoire. I don't think even Steinberg would have claimed that he helped Shostakovich actually compose the Symphony, let alone Grew's mischievous '30 per cent Shostacowitch and 70 per cent Shtaynberg' claim (nowhere to be found even in Abraham).
Observation b): Abraham's claim that by 1943 (when his book was published) 'Shostakovich has never done anything as good as his Op. 10' is patently no more than a personal opinion – not a statement of fact – and almost certainly not one informed of remarkable things like Shostakovich's Symphony No. 4 (suppressed at that time). Abraham had clearly encountered
The Nose (another remarkable opera IMHO) but thought it 'clever' and 'vulgar' (though, by the way, Abraham was equally obtuse when it came to Britten's talent, thinking
Les illuminations 'clever', yet the equally sure-footed
Serenade for Tenor, Horn and Strings 'poetic', presumably simply because it had a more recognizably pastoral vein more to Abraham's taste). To be charitable, Abraham was perhaps mindful of not offending the Soviets by praising a work –
Lady Macbeth - which was still officially banned, but I suspect he probably also found this opera 'vulger'.
Sorry to have gone on at some length here – I think this issue's too important to drift off unchallenged, and I've only just come across
Sydney Grew's mischievous post. Whoever 'Grew' is should be ashamed of propagating a malicious lie and pretending it has the authority of Abraham.
Quote from: Pierre on January 01, 2008, 12:45:09 PMSorry to have gone on at some length here – I think this issue’s too important to drift off unchallenged, and I’ve only just come across Sydney Grew’s mischievous post. Whoever ‘Grew’ is should be ashamed of propagating a malicious lie and pretending it has the authority of Abraham.
Don't apologise for an excellent piece of investigative journalism...
Pierre, Thanks for the information.
Mike
phew, i was starting to think the 1st wasn't really his. Thanks, Pierre. :)
Quote from: Pierre on January 01, 2008, 12:45:09 PMGrew's mischievous ‘30 per cent Shostacowitch and 70 per cent Shtaynberg’ claim (nowhere to be found even in Abraham).
Of
course the per-centage is not found in Abraham; it comes from our own two ears. There is nothing remotely mischievous about our own ears!
And if we disregard all the guff about "working-class struggle" what the rest of Member Pierre's message boils down to is a confirmation (by looking it up in the book) of what we originally wrote: namely that Abraham (one of our foremost authorities on Russian music remember) stated that Shtaynberg knocked the symphony into shape. And Abraham, who did not expire until 1988, never as far as we are aware retracted that statement. He was in a position to know and we should trust his authority.
Quote from: Pierre on January 01, 2008, 12:45:09 PM
. . . let alone Grew's mischievous '30 per cent Shostacowitch and 70 per cent Shtaynberg' claim (nowhere to be found even in Abraham).
No, that bizarre fantasy does not exist outside "Syd"'s feverish brain.
Quote from: Sydney Grew on January 01, 2008, 05:04:54 PM
. . . namely that Abraham (one of our foremost authorities on Russian music remember) stated that Shtaynberg knocked the symphony into shape.
It would have been to Abraham's credit to retract that unalloyed balderdash; that he never did retract it, does not concern us.
Quote from: Sydney Grew on January 01, 2008, 05:04:54 PM
Of course the per-centage is not found in Abraham; it comes from our own two ears. There is nothing remotely mischievous about our own ears!
Have you not heard, perhaps, Shostakovich's Fourth? Very imaginative and masterful, and much in the "vein" of the First. Or the Tenth or the Fourteenth, great tragic masterworks? Or the G minor Piano Quintet, the Opus 67 Piano Trio, or the Eighth Quartet? These works and many, many others show that the First was no fluke. :D
Quote from: jochanaan on January 01, 2008, 08:47:55 PMHave you not heard, perhaps, Shostakovich's Fourth? Very imaginative and masterful, and much in the "vein" of the First. Or the Tenth or the Fourteenth, great tragic masterworks? Or the G minor Piano Quintet, the Opus 67 Piano Trio, or the Eighth Quartet? These works and many, many others show that the First was no fluke.
The Member is fortunate to be able to find something in Shostacowitch's later works to amuse him; we on the other hand are obliged to confess that we find in them nothing either to hold our attention or to attract our admiration. As Gerald Abraham - a sound judge - once wrote, "Shostacowitch cannot write even a moderately good tune." We do not know what he thought of the
Fourth, but he described the
Third Symphony as "mob-oratorical and hysterical, deficient in musical logic." Musical logic - that is after all the great thing in composition is it not?
Anyway let us adhere to the subject of this thread, which is
First symphonies; otherwise there is a great risk of the entire thread's being shuffled off to the coffee-bar department.
Quote from: Sydney Grew on January 01, 2008, 05:04:54 PM
Of course the per-centage is not found in Abraham; it comes from our own two ears. There is nothing remotely mischievous about our own ears!
..........that Abraham (one of our foremost authorities on Russian music remember) stated that Shtaynberg knocked the symphony into shape. And Abraham, who did not expire until 1988, never as far as we are aware retracted that statement. He was in a position to know and we should trust his authority.
Your ears tell you that only 20% of the symphony was composed by Shostakovitch? Which bars belong to him? Can you even nail 50% of the specific bars as being by Maximilian Steinberg? You seem to have taken the merest hint and extrapolated it by using your ears, then you put it forward as having some kind of authority. Next we will be getting theory about 'Vibrational Fields'. There seems not to be much recorded music by Maximilian Steinberg, does that mean you are using manuscript analysis to get to understand his style and ability? What sources have you used to build up the knowedge that enables you to name so much of that symphony to be by Steinberg?
Knight
Quote from: Corey on December 12, 2007, 04:52:44 AM
Has anyone even heard Haydn's First? It is tempting to dismiss it as something only a completist would seek out, but I haven't heard it.
From what I know, Haydn's 1st symphony is n°37, n°1 comes next.
I find Dvorak and Elgar's 1st are very find works
Elgar was fined £50 and jugged for 30 days without the option.
Which Haydn are you talking about?
With Joseph Haydn, I've listened to it, and have a recording. #1 is from 1759, and though the numbering of his symphonies is a chronological mess to some extent, it appears this really is his first. It's a 3-movement work, one that I really like. I would have bet money on a blind listen that it was by Leopold Mozart, or maybe Ignaz Holzbauer. Of all his 106 extant symphonies, there's not a one that I don't like at least a little. What a cornucopia!
I haven't yet finished a complete set of Michael Haydn symphonies (available on cpo), and as far as I know, have never even heard the first.
Quote from: D Minor on December 11, 2007, 11:32:43 AM
Elgar
Not one of my favorites (one of my least in fact). But I actually fell asleep listening to Mozart's earliest (known) Symphonies, and both J. and M. Haydn's earliest known as well.
Quote from: Haffner on January 04, 2008, 11:14:53 AM
Not one of my favorites (one of my least in fact). But I actually fell asleep listening to Mozart's earliest (known) Symphonies, and both J. and M. Haydn's earliest known as well.
We forgive the 8-yr-old Wolfie for having failed to compose a jaw-dropping blockbuster symphony ........
Quote from: D Minor on January 04, 2008, 11:46:01 AM
We forgive the 8-yr-old Wolfie for having failed to compose a jaw-dropping blockbuster symphony ........
Speak for yourself. What an untalented little twerp.
Quote from: Sydney Grew on January 01, 2008, 10:37:30 PM
The Member is fortunate to be able to find something in Shostacowitch's later works to amuse him; we on the other hand are obliged to confess that we find in them nothing either to hold our attention or to attract our admiration. As Gerald Abraham - a sound judge - once wrote, "Shostacowitch cannot write even a moderately good tune." We do not know what he thought of the Fourth, but he described the Third Symphony as "mob-oratorical and hysterical, deficient in musical logic." Musical logic - that is after all the great thing in composition is it not?
Grew's views about Shostakovich remind me of the corkster regarding Bach and Mozart - extremist and unreasonable.
How can anyone's personal taste be unreasonable?
Quote from: JoshLilly on January 04, 2008, 12:49:28 PM
How can anyone's personal taste be unreasonable?
It can't. But Grew and a few others trot out their personal taste as being grounded in good sense and musical insight.
Quote from: jwinter on January 04, 2008, 12:33:11 PM
What an untalented little twerp.
No doubt. Afterall, we were writing operas by age seven ........
Quote from: JoshLilly on January 04, 2008, 12:49:28 PM
How can anyone's personal taste be unreasonable?
Personal taste, is not a matter of unreasonable.
Imagining that the
Shostakovich First is "70% Steinberg," is the high-pitched squeak of a loon.
You guys just made my day. Now I can go to bed laughing.
Elgar! Elgar! Elgar! And Wolfgang, of course.
Quote from: Valentino on January 04, 2008, 03:33:45 PM
You guys just made my day. Now I can go to bed laughing.
Elgar! Elgar! Elgar! And Wolfgang, of course.
We aim to please .........
Quote from: D Minor on January 04, 2008, 11:46:01 AM
We forgive the 8-yr-old Wolfie for having failed to compose a jaw-dropping blockbuster symphony ........
You think :D?
Beethoven's first is the worst first for me. I really find it extremely boring.
Quote from: JoshLilly on January 04, 2008, 11:06:54 AM
Which Haydn are you talking about?
Joseph. Nobody cares about Michael. >:D
Quote from: Corey on January 06, 2008, 04:03:41 PM
Joseph. Nobody cares about Michael. >:D
Michael Haydn isn't as great as
Dittersdorf but he is ok, I enjoy his divertimentos. 0:)
Michael Haydn just missed being a truly great composer. He had the same problem as Modest Mussorgsky--too fond of liquor. (Mozart once did M. Haydn a favor by composing a quartet Haydn had been commissioned to write and giving it to him, thereby saving his job. :o) I've read that Josef Haydn said more than once that his brother was better at church music than he was.
Quote from: Sydney Grew on January 01, 2008, 10:37:30 PM
The Member is fortunate to be able to find something in Shostacowitch's later works to amuse him; we on the other hand are obliged to confess that we find in them nothing either to hold our attention or to attract our admiration.
I can't argue with that.
Quote from: Sydney Grew on January 01, 2008, 10:37:30 PM
Musical logic - that is after all the great thing in composition is it not?
Only one of them. Evocation of emotions is the other great thing. And in that, DSch is second to none and equal to many--at least, I find him so.
Quote from: jochanaan on January 08, 2008, 01:57:09 PM
Michael Haydn just missed being a truly great composer. He had the same problem as Modest Mussorgsky--too fond of liquor. (Mozart once did M. Haydn a favor by composing a quartet Haydn had been commissioned to write and giving it to him, thereby saving his job. :o) I've read that Josef Haydn said more than once that his brother was better at church music than he was.
You are very close in regard to Mozart writing M. Haydn's stuff. But it was actually a pair of phenomenally brilliant string duos. Haydn had been too busy getting drunk to finish a set of six for the Archbishop, so Mozart did the last two. It's hard to believe the Archbishop didn't notice the difference, as those two String Duets are two of the finest works Mozart ever produced.
Can you recommend recordings of these string duos, Haffner?
To me, the best version is the one with Vera Beths (violin) and Jürgen Kussmaul (viola), in a CD that also includes the version for Sextet of the Sinfonia Concertante K 364 (SONY).
By the way, regarding Michael Haydn although he had not the talent of Josef he was a good composer. And he influenced Mozart in special in his String Quintets.
To have an idea of Michael Haydn quality, people should listen to some of his string quintets, in special the Quintet in G major. There is a very good interpretation, by the Archibudelli (SONY).
Great, val. Thank you.
V. , I can't reccomend this cd to you enough. It's got the best Divertimento in Eb I've ever heard with a really good recording and performance and just wait until you hear k 266!!!
sorry, couldn't help myself
ROGER SESSIONS SYM NO.1- it made me angry. i'm getting mad just thinking about it
LOU HARRISON symphony on G- not his first symphony, but the only sym i know "on" a note rather than "in" a key. however, it's 12tone,...look, i don't even want to
listen to it just to remind myself....but i know it makes me very mad, so i stay away.
also, CHARLES WUORINEN'S 1st string quartet makes me mad in the exact same way.
...find the happy place...find the....
Quote from: snyprrr on January 12, 2009, 05:29:44 PM
sorry, couldn't help myself
ROGER SESSIONS SYM NO.1- it made me angry. i'm getting mad just thinking about it
LOU HARRISON symphony on G- not his first symphony, but the only sym i know "on" a note rather than "in" a key. however, it's 12tone,...look, i don't even want to
listen to it just to remind myself....but i know it makes me very mad, so i stay away.
also, CHARLES WUORINEN'S 1st string quartet makes me mad in the exact same way.
...find the happy place...find the....
What's wrong with Sessions' 1st Symphony ? It is a lot easier on the ear than his later, more complex symphonies :) Or is that what's wrong with it?
And, Lou Harrison's Symphony on G is, I believe, his first symphony. Harrison wrote four in total-the Symphony on G(1948-54), the 2nd 'Elegiac'(1942-75), the 3rd(1937-82) and the 4th 'Last Symphony'(1990-95).
i have enjoyed a lot of harrison, and his elegiac and 3rd, and piano concerto, and mass all seem to enjoy harrison's "classical" style. big meaty first movement of epic pacific sweep. i especially used to love the elegiac, coupled with hovaness on the cd. and i really like the mass...that's my favorite harrison sound.
i thought the sym on g was from the 60s, but....i ...i....i...i don't even want to listen to it to refresh my memory. i think it's just not what i wanted from this
composer.
i know, if i'm gonna say this stuff i should maybe listen to it again,....but i'm scurrred!!! however, the ruggles pieces on the same cri cd are MANDATORY!!!haha
i think the sessions reminded me of aspects of 1920s copland that i'm not to fond of. i think sessions' 2nd is a verrry noble work, and of course the classic 3rd sym NEEDS A MODERN RECORDING NOW!!!...YEEESH, WHAT'S UP MR. DAVIES? also, sessions' piano concerto. i think the 3rd sym and piano cto show mature (read, difficult) sessions in the best light. but yes, i do like everything else i've heard from him, though...i must say i worked on a lot of it, but i personally think that late honegger, pettersson, and sessions have a few things in common, sonically speaking.
I think I don't dislike any 1st. Maybe Scriabin's, but just the finale.
Quote from: snyprrr on January 12, 2009, 05:29:44 PM
sorry, couldn't help myself
ROGER SESSIONS SYM NO.1- it made me angry. i'm getting mad just thinking about it
Not that I enjoy being made angry by music, but I think that if a piece of music affects you to the point that you become angry, it must have something special about it. I sometimes find that if I set out do figure out what it is about a piece of music that makes me angry, by the time I've come up with an answer I've decided I actually like it.
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on January 13, 2009, 11:03:13 AM
Not that I enjoy being made angry by music, but I think that if a piece of music affects you to the point that you become angry, it must have something special about it. I sometimes find that if I set out do figure out what it is about a piece of music that makes me angry, by the time I've come up with an answer I've decided I actually like it.
This has happened to me with some of my very favorite music.
Of course, there's exceptions, such as nearly anything with the "American" sound to it. It just makes me bored, disgusted, then angry. ;D
Quote from: Cato on December 11, 2007, 11:29:07 AM
Yes, in Germany you always eat the Wurst first! 8)
But we are talking about SYMPHONIES now!
Since the forum loves lists and rankings, how about your opinions on the Worst First Symphony by a composer?
Dvorak's Bells of Zlonice? (Anybody? Anybody?)
Khachaturian? (Can you even find a recording of it?)
Copland? :o
How many people have I just outraged with these suggestions? 0:)
*Bump* :D
A little (but only a little) embarrassed that I am unsure which came first, Copland's Dance Symphony or the Short Symphony. (Or is the Organ Symphony first?) I think them all good pieces, though.
Quote from: karlhenning on October 26, 2013, 06:04:57 AM
A little (but only a little) embarrassed that I am unsure which came first, Copland's Dance Symphony or the Short Symphony. (Or is the Organ Symphony first?) I think them all good pieces, though.
Karl, do you still think the Elgar is the worst First?
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on October 26, 2013, 06:10:11 AM
Karl, do you still think the Elgar is the worst First?
Sarge
This morning I read this thread all the way through and god, the Elgar-bashing stuff is completely embarrassing. That had to be a low point in GMG history. I'm glad everyone got over their collective lunacy and put a little Elgar back in their hearts.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on October 26, 2013, 06:10:11 AM
Karl, do you still think the Elgar is the worst First?
Sarge
No! Apart from any other dynamic at the time, those were days when I largely failed to see the merits of the symphonies. I rejoice that the ears are "getting bigger" all the time.
Quote from: Brian on October 26, 2013, 06:12:24 AM
This morning I read this thread all the way through and god, the Elgar-bashing stuff is completely embarrassing. That had to be a low point in GMG history. I'm glad everyone got over their collective lunacy and put a little Elgar back in their hearts.
I never read these old threads without a certain amount of trepidation :D
Sarge
Quote from: Brian on October 26, 2013, 06:12:24 AM
This morning I read this thread all the way through and god, the Elgar-bashing stuff is completely embarrassing. That had to be a low point in GMG history. I'm glad everyone got over their collective lunacy and put a little Elgar back in their hearts.
Well said Brian. The other day, I was looking through the 'Composer Discussion' forum. The first three 'locked' threads that I found, happened to all be Elgar threads. ;D
Maybe the worst Firsts were Schuman and Wuorinen, since the composers themselves withdrew them.
Quote from: ChamberNut on October 26, 2013, 04:52:33 AM
*Bump* :D
Your memory is better than mine, Nut! 8)
Although I still would like to think Cato doesn't really dislike the Dvorak but was merely using that as an example to get the thread started. Maybe Cato will chime in.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on October 26, 2013, 06:28:52 AM
Your memory is better than mine, Nut! 8)
Although I still would like to think Cato doesn't really dislike the Dvorak but was merely using that as an example to get the thread started. Maybe Cato will chime in.
Sarge
I agree, Sarge. I have a feeling Cato may not have been completely serious about this. Either way, I'm fine with it. :)
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on October 26, 2013, 06:28:52 AM
Your memory is better than mine, Nut! 8)
Although I still would like to think Cato doesn't really dislike the Dvorak but was merely using that as an example to get the thread started. Maybe Cato will chime in.
Sarge
Wow! Did I start this in 2007???!!!
And yes, I was just throwing out possibilities: certainly the
Dvorak has its weak moments, but is not the worst symphony by any means.
And yes, the almost immediate dislike of the
Elgar First was astonishing! ???
I "googled" the phrase "worst first symphony" and found - besides our own topic - a wise guy named Thomas Wood who claimed
Bruckner :o wrote the worst first symphony, and the worst second, third, etc... Even the worst "0 and 00" symphony.
Rene Leibowitz thought the same thing of
Sibelius.
Quote from: Cato on October 26, 2013, 07:00:41 AM
Rene Leibowitz[/b] thought the same thing of Sibelius.
A few years ago I had the pleasure of reading, and translating from the French (with a little help from my friends), Leibowitz's pamphlet, "Sibelius, the Worst Composer in the World." I need to upload that somewhere!
Virgil Thompson's "Symphony on a Hymm Tune" has to be the worst thing I have ever heard labeled as a symphony. I understand he wrote others, but for all I know they are worse.
Quote from: Scarpia on October 26, 2013, 07:30:51 AM
Virgil Thompson's "Symphony on a Hymm Tune" has to be the worst thing I have ever heard labeled as a symphony. I understand he wrote others, but for all I know they are worse.
Since you recently said similar things about Panufnik's Seventh (I think?) and I listened and thought, "meh, boring," I am going to load this on NML now, and probably think, "meh, boring."
Quote from: Scarpia on October 26, 2013, 07:30:51 AM
Virgil Thompson's "Symphony on a Hymm Tune" has to be the worst thing I have ever heard labeled as a symphony. I understand he wrote others, but for all I know they are worse.
Okay yeah this piece is pretty annoying. It's one of very few works I've heard where you can't use what happened previously to explain or justify what happens next. So far the only thing I've remembered was a five-second snippet that sounded like "Blazing Saddles." That said, it's not actively offensive or anything.
EDIT: I spoke too soon! The second movement is kinda nice.
EDIT: Hey, "Blazing Saddles" came back in the scherzo!
It's so thoroughly American, simple and direct, in its tunes and rhythms, I almost feel obligated to like it ;) And I do. The use of hymns reminds me of Ives (without the dissonance and complexity) and Copland (without the genius). The "Jesus Loves Me" cracks me up...and makes me nostalgic.
"We all loved his music and rarely performed it." --Lenny
Sarge
Yeah, now reaching the end, it's not that great and the first movement kind of stinks, but it's just some populist grubbing. And it makes me think of "Blazing Saddles." It's certainly no worse than the worst symphonies of, say, Bruch, Spohr, or A. Rubinstein.
Quote from: Brian on October 26, 2013, 07:45:52 AM
Okay yeah this piece is pretty annoying. It's one of very few works I've heard where you can't use what happened previously to explain or justify what happens next.
Forget the fact he called it a symphony, which implies a logical and dramatic progression, and think of the first movement as a series of dance pieces, variations on the hymn tune. That's how Thomson described it. Works for me.
Sarge
Maybe the fact that I do not recognize any of the hymn tunes is interfering with my appreciation, but it struck me as very crudely naive, as though it was written as background music for a Bugs Bunny cartoon. I listened to the Hansons/Eastman recording on Mercury (on the same disc as the interesting Sessions Black Maskers suite and a really bad piece by someone named McPhee, I think).
Quote from: Brian on October 26, 2013, 08:01:24 AM
And it makes me think of "Blazing Saddles."
<wakes from a nap> Er, whuh,
Blazing Saddles? I've got to hear this. Is there a prominent part for bassoons?
Quote from: Daverz on October 26, 2013, 03:03:21 PM
<wakes from a nap> Er, whuh, Blazing Saddles? I've got to hear this. Is there a prominent part for bassoons?
Nah, it's just that the hymn tune that features in every movement bear a suspicious resemblance to the tune "He rode a blazing saddle." The tune also shows up in David Bedford's Symphony No. 1, which is even more fun (and shorter, also, iirc).
Quote from: Cato on December 11, 2007, 11:29:07 AM
Yes, in Germany you always eat the Wurst first! 8)
But we are talking about SYMPHONIES now!
Since the forum loves lists and rankings, how about your opinions on the Worst First Symphony by a composer?
Dvorak's Bells of Zlonice? (Anybody? Anybody?)
Khachaturian? (Can you even find a recording of it?)
Copland? :o
How many people have I just outraged with these suggestions? 0:)
Oh, I really like the Khachaturian and the Copland too.
Personally I dislike Prokofiev's 'Classical Symphony' but it is generally much admired and very tuneful.
Mozart's 0:)
Quote from: kyjo on October 27, 2013, 10:56:01 AM
Mozart's 0:)
You basically just told an 8 year old he's the worst. You bully. :P ;D
Quote from: TheGSMoeller on October 27, 2013, 11:00:43 AM
You basically just told an 8 year old he's the worst. You bully. :P ;D
:P I just spilt my my drink after reading this!!!! LOL!
Quote from: TheGSMoeller on October 27, 2013, 11:00:43 AM
You basically just told an 8 year old he's the worst. You bully. :P ;D
:laugh:
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 27, 2013, 11:01:30 AM
:P I just spilt my my drink after reading this!!!! LOL!
Sorry, I owe you a beverage.
Quote from: TheGSMoeller on October 27, 2013, 11:16:39 AM
Sorry, I owe you a beverage.
:D Don't worry about it. The liquid came right up with no problems. :)
Quote from: vandermolen on October 27, 2013, 10:39:21 AM
Personally I dislike Prokofiev's 'Classical Symphony'
Me, too. I don't know why.
We can still all be mates.
I've never liked Ravel's First Symphony. It's nearly as bad as Chopin's.
Quote from: Cato on October 26, 2013, 07:00:41 AM
And yes, the almost immediate dislike of the Elgar First was astonishing! ???
I still can't fathom what brought
that about. I suspect mass hypnosis.
Quote from: amw on October 27, 2013, 02:07:03 PM
I've never liked Ravel's First Symphony. It's nearly as bad as Chopin's.
Ravel's Fifth Symphony is great, though. Almost as great as Schoenberg's and Berlioz's Fifth.
Quote from: Greg on October 27, 2013, 06:02:43 PM
Ravel's Fifth Symphony is great, though. Almost as great as Schoenberg's and Berlioz's Fifth.
Don't forget about Schnittke's 10th! Man, what a symphony!!! :)
Let's not forget Delius' incredible Symphony no. 9 Symphony of Sweet and Sorrowful Summer Songs! What mastery of the symphonic form Delius displays in this work! Such tight structure, gripping drama, etc..... ;D
Wow, my sense of humor is so bad :-[
Quote from: kyjo on October 27, 2013, 06:24:48 PM
Let's not forget Delius' incredible Symphony no. 9 Symphony of Sweet and Sorrowful Summer Songs! What mastery of the symphonic form Delius displays in this work! Such tight structure, gripping drama, etc..... ;D
Wow, my sense of humor is so bad :-[
For an example of bad humor, go to the
Hiking thread and look at my post. ;) :D
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 27, 2013, 06:29:04 PM
For an example of bad humor, go to the Hiking thread and look at my post. ;) :D
Noted. :D
Is this exclusive to only music? Cause my first wife was the worst. >:D
Quote from: TheGSMoeller on October 27, 2013, 06:37:54 PM
Is this exclusive to only music? Cause my first wife was the worst. >:D
Thanks for the chuckle this frosty Monday morning!
Quote from: TheGSMoeller on October 27, 2013, 06:37:54 PM
Is this exclusive to only music? Cause my first wife was the worst. >:D
If we're going that route, then Final Fantasy 1 was terrible.
No, I don't have Aspergers...
Quote from: TheGSMoeller on October 27, 2013, 06:37:54 PM
Is this exclusive to only music? Cause my first wife was the worst. >:D
They always are.
Quote from: TheGSMoeller on October 27, 2013, 06:37:54 PM
Is this exclusive to only music? Cause my first wife was the worst. >:D
Practice makes perfect! Except... in this case lawyers make it expensive!
Roger Sessions
There are a lot of American Composers who have withdrawn their first.
Quote from: amw on October 27, 2013, 02:07:03 PM
I've never liked Ravel's First Symphony. It's nearly as bad as Chopin's.
Ravel and Chopin were wise. They avoided any serious (serial?) mention in this thread. ;D
I've never been too fond of the first symphonies of Shostakovich and Prokofiev, despite being great admirers of both composers.
Quote from: Brian on October 27, 2013, 05:43:40 AM
Nah, it's just that the hymn tune that features in every movement bear a suspicious resemblance to the tune "He rode a blazing saddle." The tune also shows up in David Bedford's Symphony No. 1, which is even more fun (and shorter, also, iirc).
When you read something you wrote 4 years ago and not only don't remember the piece of music, but don't remember even the composer's name.
Guess I know what I'm listening to now.
Quote from: kyjo on October 25, 2017, 12:22:31 PM
I've never been too fond of the first symphonies of Shostakovich and Prokofiev, despite being great admirers of both composers.
I've never taken to Shostakovich's 1st either, but I love Prokofiev's !
There's no doubt in my mind that Dvorak's 1st is pure, unadulterated dreck. It has its defenders of course. They're the same that send pics of their pet to the Ugliest Dog contests :P.
I have to give it to the man, though: he deserves a prize for the most amazing learning curve in the history of music!
The Worst First is a symphony none of us has heard, nor will ever hear 8)
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Quote from: André on October 25, 2017, 12:34:58 PM
There's no doubt in my mind that Dvorak's 1st is pure, unadulterated dreck.
;D :D ;D ...I
love the dreck, especially the first movement.
Sarge
Quote from: kyjo on October 25, 2017, 12:22:31 PM
I've never been too fond of the first symphonies of Shostakovich and Prokofiev, despite being great admirers of both composers.
I agree with the Shostakovich's. In fact, his symphonies 1-3 don't get much attention from me. But I disagree about the Prokofiev's. It's so amusing and joyful.
I'd say the first symphony by Vincent d'Indy (Symphonie Italienne). It's too weak. Sadly, a few works of this composer appeals me.
Schnittke. Pick a number: Schnittke.
Quote from: Ken B on March 28, 2018, 01:28:47 PM
Schnittke. Pick a number: Schnittke.
What? Schnittke's symphonic oeuvre is a downhill journey after the first. ;D
Generally a safe bet that any withdrawn first symphony is not going to be that great, eg Bruckner's "No. 00" or Szymanowski's First etc.
Quote from: amw on March 28, 2018, 04:36:10 PM
Generally a safe bet that any withdrawn first symphony is not going to be that great, eg Bruckner's "No. 00" or Szymanowski's First etc.
Yes but safe bets are not fun.
I'm picking Brahms 1.
Quote from: jessop on March 28, 2018, 03:24:54 PM
What? Schnittke's symphonic oeuvre is a downhill journey after the first. ;D
It is. But worst 2nd, Schnittke; worst 3rd, Schnittke; etc.
Schnittke's 2nd can't be worse than Britten's (Spring Symphony) >.>
Read only the first 10 pages or so but have to confess I'm surprised that Vaughan Williams's Sea Symphony gets so much dislike. It was the first VW work I heard (seems logical to start from the first symphony, no?) and I loved it.
Walton's 1st is good but not IMO on a par with Belshazzar's Feast or some of his film scores.
I cannot mention Mozart's 1st as a contender for this thread because, weak as it is, it was composed by a child.
Has anyone mentioned or heard Richard Strauss's First? Although it was written by a teenager so it's not much fairer to mention it than Mozart's, whether or not it is a good work.
Although I like it nowadays much more, I would still think Robert Schumann's first symphony is a strong contender for the answer to the thread's question. There is much in it that shows potential but also a large dose of sheer boredom.
I don't think Dvorak's first qualifies as the worst ever first, just as Dvorak's weakest. I know from previous discussions elsewhere that many people like it but I don't. Playing the long exposition repeat in the 1st movement - necessary for some, it seems - only makes it worse.
Have ELEVEN years gone by, since I posed this question?!
Some early answers:
Quote from: karlhenning on December 11, 2007, 11:30:57 AM
Elgar
Quote from: BachQ on December 11, 2007, 11:32:43 AM
Elgar
Quote from: EmpNapoleon on December 11, 2007, 11:34:51 AM
Thirded. Some composers can't handle pressure.
Quote from: jochanaan on December 11, 2007, 12:21:57 PM
The least satisfactory First I know is Gounod's. It's pleasant enough--but against such formidable contenders for good Firsts as Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Shostakovich and even Bizet, it's simply not in the running.
We now have a home for
Gounod under the
Composer topic.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 12, 2007, 02:14:27 AM
I just listened to Rachmaninov's first symphony and I think it's even worse than Beethoven's. :P
Wow!
The Rach and
Beethoven First Symphonies are all-around faves!
Quote from: Alberich on March 29, 2018, 06:18:48 AM
Read only the first 10 pages or so but have to confess I'm surprised that Vaughan Williams's Sea Symphony gets so much dislike. It was the first VW work I heard (seems logical to start from the first symphony, no?) and I loved it.
That dislike was surprising!
Quote from: Cato on December 11, 2007, 11:29:07 AM
Yes, in Germany you always eat the Wurst first! 8)
But we are talking about SYMPHONIES now!
Since the forum loves lists and rankings, how about your opinions on the Worst First Symphony by a composer?
Dvorak's Bells of Zlonice? (Anybody? Anybody?)
Khachaturian? (Can you even find a recording of it?)
Copland? :o
How many people have I just outraged with these suggestions? 0:)
I really like the Khachaturian and Copland's Organ Symphony.
Quote from: Biffo on March 29, 2018, 06:39:19 AM
I don't think Dvorak's first qualifies as the worst ever first, just as Dvorak's weakest.
Exactly.
Quote from: Cato on March 29, 2018, 07:46:39 AM
Have ELEVEN years gone by, since I posed this question?!
Some early answers:
Quote from: karlhenning on December 11, 2007, 11:30:57 AM
Elgar
Oh, I must have been . . . reacting to certain circs 8)
No, I do not at all believe that the
Elgar qualifies.
I'm not voting for Prokofiev's first, however, to my (relatively uneducated) ear it has often sounded something of a catch-all; less of a nod and perhaps more of an appeasement of what came before. That's not to say I haven't enjoyed fine, lively performances (especially in a concert setting) where it has almost served as an aperitif for what follows on the programme.
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.
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on March 29, 2018, 09:57:43 AMI also saw Schumann 1. Except, IIRC, Schumann 4 was written before Schumann 1. I like both a lot.
The original version of Schumann's Fourth was written after the First but before the Second or Third. There was an abandoned G minor symphony, though, that predates any of the others and isn't nearly as distinctive. He only completed two movements of it.
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on March 29, 2018, 09:57:43 AMShostakovich 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. :)
I think the first two movements of the symphony are actually quite fine, especially for a student work, but the latter two are weaker.
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on March 29, 2018, 09:57:43 AM
If we ever nominate a thread for worst last symphony, I nominate Nielsen.
Go on, start one - that opinion will provoke lots of interesting discussion!
For a rather poor "first", Tippett's symphony "no.0" in B flat, which was broadcast on the BBC recently and is I believe going to be included in Brabbins' ongoing cycle, sounded very tentative, unmemorable and confused, as well as being totally un-Tippettlike,
Quote from: André on October 25, 2017, 12:34:58 PM
There's no doubt in my mind that Dvorak's 1st is pure, unadulterated dreck. It has its defenders of course. They're the same that send pics of their pet to the Ugliest Dog contests :P.
Quote from: Biffo on March 29, 2018, 06:39:19 AM
I don't think Dvorak's first qualifies as the worst ever first, just as Dvorak's weakest. I know from previous discussions elsewhere that many people like it but I don't. Playing the long exposition repeat in the 1st movement - necessary for some, it seems - only makes it worse.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on March 29, 2018, 08:52:34 AM
Exactly.
This morning I started to revisit the
Dvorak Symphony #1 (i.e. I heard most of the first movement before needing to break off). I had not heard it for many years until today: for some reason I was filled with a desire last week to revisit all the symphonies (I have the recommended-by-
Sarge 8) set by
Witold Rowicki ).
I was struck by a resemblance now and then to the works of
Jan Kalliwoda, which is understandable. However, I have no idea whether
Dvorak knew much or any of his predecessor's music.
Anyway, my previously low opinion of the work began to change: we shall see! 0:)
For the record, I've never sent a picture of a pet anywhere. Retract that calumny, André! 8)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 27, 2018, 06:42:44 AM
For the record, I've never sent a picture of a pet anywhere. Retract that calumny, André! 8)
I'm sure you have pet peeves, Karl. Esp. the orange mutt kind :laugh:
The worst first?
Wouldn't that be Trump first?
I think I have heard this before.
Excuse for being off topic.
Quote from: Cato on December 11, 2007, 11:29:07 AM
Yes, in Germany you always eat the Wurst first! 8)
But we are talking about SYMPHONIES now!
Since the forum loves lists and rankings, how about your opinions on the Worst First Symphony by a composer?
Dvorak's Bells of Zlonice? (Anybody? Anybody?)
Khachaturian? (Can you even find a recording of it?)
Copland? :o
How many people have I just outraged with these suggestions? 0:)
Responding only eleven years late. I think that Khachaturian's First Symphony is excellent but you need to hear Tjeknavorian's LSO performance to hear it at its best.
Quote from: vandermolen on July 31, 2018, 04:20:21 AM
Responding only eleven years late.
;)
QuoteI think that Khachaturian's First Symphony is excellent but you need to hear Tjeknavorian's LSO performance to hear it at its best.
Okay, I have found that performance via my classical music on-line service (called, oddly enough, Classical Music On-Line, ;) a Russian company), so I will give it a try! 0:)
Well, you knew there had to be a Melodiya recording of the Khachaturian First!
my first selection would be biased.
but Saint Saens First. ...well i dislike his symphonies in general and haven't come to terms with listening to his chamber works... it's just that i get far too frustrated trying to figure out who i am listening to.
but all in all subjectively i would say Sibelius' it really kinda was a let down.
That or Walton's (which is in my favourite key.)
For a while i would have said Brianps Gothic, but i revisited it and was amazed, (my answers subjectively will change, but it will always be Saint Saens for me.)
*insert rant about Saint Saens here, followed by a few dozen headbangs into the wall from presto rall. larghissimo shortly after a fermented pause falling over.
Quote from: Capeditiea on September 02, 2018, 06:08:32 AM
my first selection would be biased.
but Saint Saens First. ...
I wasn't even aware that Saint Saens composed a first symphony.
he composed a few. let me check the number he had, *checks, he had three. as well as a few non numbered symphonies
Quote from: Capeditiea on September 02, 2018, 06:58:22 AM
he composed a few. let me check the number he had, *checks, he had three. as well as a few non numbered symphonies
I know, I was being poorly sarcastic 8)
I do like the Organ Symphony a little, but honestly can't remember last time I listened to it, or wanted to. Other than that the only time I listen to Saint Saens is when
Aquarium from Carnival is being used in a movie or commercial. So not by choice.
Quote from: TheGSMoeller on September 02, 2018, 07:03:24 AM
I know, I was being poorly sarcastic 8)
I do like the Organ Symphony a little, but honestly can't remember last time I listened to it, or wanted to. Other than that the only time I listen to Saint Saens is when Aquarium from Carnival is being used in a movie or commercial. So not by choice.
*nods, i think his second was the first symphony i ended up turning off and switching to Joe Hisaishi's Princess Mononoke Symphonic Suite to recover from the madness. :O (that piece was my personal health potion if i hear horrid music. but now it is Marin Marais' Gall Bladder Operation. :D
Quote from: Capeditiea on September 02, 2018, 07:11:52 AM
*nods, i think his second was the first symphony i ended up turning off and switching to Joe Hisaishi's Princess Mononoke Symphonic Suite to recover from the madness. :O (that piece was my personal health potion if i hear horrid music. but now it is Marin Marais' Gall Bladder Operation. :D
You had me at Joe Hisaishi.
:D yay :D i have found someone with similar music tastes. *nods.
Quote from: TheGSMoeller on September 02, 2018, 07:03:24 AM
I do like the Organ Symphony a little, but honestly can't remember last time I listened to it, or wanted to.
Curiously, we have heard the piece twice live in
Symphony Hall. We like it, but . . . it would be a funny world, if we all thought the same 8)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 02, 2018, 09:17:17 AM
Curiously, we have heard the piece twice live in Symphony Hall. We like it, but . . . it would be a funny world, if we all thought the same 8)
i agree with you there. :3 but it would be a scary world. :O
Is Bruckner's First Symphony any good?
Never heard it.
Quote from: vandermolen on September 02, 2018, 01:24:18 PM
Is Bruckner's First Symphony any good?
Never heard it.
The first one he wrote (the F minor "Study Symphony") or the one he gave the number 1 to (the second one he wrote, in C minor)?
The F minor isn't all that distinctive, but the C minor does have some fine things in it.
Quote from: vandermolen on September 02, 2018, 01:24:18 PM
Is Bruckner's First Symphony any good?
Never heard it.
Of course it is good!!! It's
Bruckner! 8)
Symphony "0" (
Die Nullte) is also worth your time!
Mahlerian is correct!
Thanks Mahlerian and Cato. I'd forgotten about Symphony No.0.
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.
Quote from: Biffo on September 03, 2018, 02:30:58 AM
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.
Quote from: Biffo on September 03, 2018, 02:30:58 AM
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.
Quote from: André on September 03, 2018, 04:35:37 AM
+ 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! 0:) 0:)
Quote from: Biffo on September 03, 2018, 02:30:58 AM
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...
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.
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.
Quote from: OrchestralNut on April 07, 2021, 09:59:28 AM
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.
Quote from: Baron Scarpia on March 29, 2018, 09:57:43 AM
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.
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
I like the Khachaturian and Goossens 1st symphonies very much.
Quote from: Brian on April 09, 2021, 01:34:50 PM
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. 8)
Most of the really really bad firsts have been well-hidden.
New discoveries of Symphony #0, #00, etc. are not always a good thing.
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.
Quote from: springrite on April 09, 2021, 10:58:01 PM
Most of the really really bad firsts have been well-hidden.
So true.
Quote from: Wanderer on April 09, 2021, 11:05:51 PM
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!
Quote from: springrite on April 09, 2021, 11:07:06 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Wanderer on April 09, 2021, 11:18:52 PM
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!
Quote from: Symphonic Addict on April 09, 2021, 08:55:10 PM
Maybe not the worst first, but these could qualify to me:
Taneyev
I really like Taneyev's first. :-[ :-X
Quote from: Brian on April 09, 2021, 01:34:50 PM
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.
This hot take is hilariously pretentious! I obviously disagree, it is a masterpiece. But not only that but your narrative description is just bizarre. It is the kind of criticism I would have expected from a Wagnerian at the time. ;D
Quote from: OrchestralNut on April 10, 2021, 03:21:47 AM
I really like Taneyev's first. :-[ :-X
I should give it a listen.
Quote from: DavidW on April 10, 2021, 06:53:50 AM
This hot take is hilariously pretentious! I obviously disagree, it is a masterpiece. But not only that but your narrative description is just bizarre. It is the kind of criticism I would have expected from a Wagnerian at the time. ;D
What can I say, I'm a pretentious guy ;D ;D
Let that one of you who wrote a symphony cast the first stone! ;D
Quote from: DavidW on April 10, 2021, 06:53:50 AM
This hot take is hilariously pretentious! I obviously disagree, it is a masterpiece. But not only that but your narrative description is just bizarre. It is the kind of criticism I would have expected from a Wagnerian at the time. ;D
Brian's having mixed feelings is one thing, and not to be disputed. Going from there to dubbing the symphony
problematic is undue haste. Heck, I would have dismissed all the
Mahler symphonies when I was his age ... though, like the peasant who was turned into a newt,
I got better.
Quote from: Florestan on April 10, 2021, 08:59:19 AM
Let that one of you who wrote a symphony cast the first stone! ;D
If I were more ambitious, I might check to see if I posted to this thread earlier. My read on the question isn't that any
First Symphony which is known to us is likely to be genuinely
bad, but an exercise in sifting out the
minimis inter pares.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 10, 2021, 09:44:43 AM
minimis inter pares.
Good point but then again, which is it? Go on, call a spade a spade! ;D
Quote from: OrchestralNut on April 10, 2021, 03:21:47 AM
I really like Taneyev's first. :-[ :-X
Amen!
https://www.youtube.com/v/umF_-zvSSKs
Perhaps mentioned earlier: a symphony by a teenager, perhaps not on the level of Bizet's felicitous creation, or of Mendelssohn's quasi-homage to Mozart...
Is it a "worst First" when it is the only symphony composed by the man? The comments are interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/v/d0d-yI3fMVc
Quote from: Cato on April 10, 2021, 10:34:46 AM
Perhaps mentioned earlier: a symphony by a teenager, perhaps not on the level of Bizet's felicitous creation, or of Mendelssohn's quasi-homage to Mozart...
Is it a "worst First" when it is the only symphony composed by the man? The comments are interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/v/d0d-yI3fMVc
That's not fair... not fair at all...
Quote from: Florestan on April 10, 2021, 09:52:01 AM
Good point but then again, which is it? Go on, call a spade a spade! ;D
Let me see if I have posted an opinion earlier, either to affirm or emend.
lol I didn't even know that Wagner wrote a symphony!
Quote from: DavidW on April 11, 2021, 07:31:59 AM
lol I didn't even know that Wagner wrote a symphony!
It is an interesting artifact at the least!
Quote from: Brian on April 09, 2021, 01:34:50 PM
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.
Super unpopular, indeed, although I'm not much of a Brahmsian (unless Schoenberg gets ahold of him ;)) and Mahler's 1st is a good symphony, but I wouldn't claim it to be one of his best. We're definitely in disagreement about Nielsen's 6th. I think its one of his best works and I love the fact that it is so unconventional and, most of all, quirky. But I seldom listen to any symphony aside from Mahler's and Bruckner's these days. If I do listen to a symphony outside of these two composers, it's usually some of the more compact ones like those last two from Roussel or Szymanowski's 3rd and 4th. Of course, I have plenty of time for the chamber symphonies of composers as well, especially Schoenberg, Enescu and Milhaud.
Quote from: Cato on April 10, 2021, 10:34:46 AM
Perhaps mentioned earlier: a symphony by a teenager, perhaps not on the level of Bizet's felicitous creation, or of Mendelssohn's quasi-homage to Mozart...
Is it a "worst First" when it is the only symphony composed by the man? The comments are interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/v/d0d-yI3fMVc
A first is a first, even if there is no second, right? (e.g. the fallacy of claiming that Mary had children after Jesus because he is described as her "firstborn")
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 11, 2021, 07:58:58 AM
A first is a first, even if there is no second, right? (e.g. the fallacy of claiming that Mary had children after Jesus because he is described as her "firstborn")
Amen to both of those,
Karl! 0:)
Here is a thought: find a composer who is not very good, and you might find a "worst First" symphony!
Any candidates? My first thought - or deaf spot - would be
Ferde Grofe, but I do not believe he composed a symphony. (Many years ago I confessed to a great dislike of his music: it usually makes me laugh out loud because of its corny nature.)
Anyway...there might be no such thing as a "worst First,'' as
Karl mentioned, only a "
symphonia minima inter pares."
Unpopular opinion time: I'm definitely not fond of Rachmaninov's 1st. In fact, I don't think it should've been rescued at all. >:D May the firing squads commence. ;D
Quote from: Mirror Image on April 13, 2021, 07:50:04 PM
Unpopular opinion time: I'm definitely not fond of Rachmaninov's 1st. In fact, I don't think it should've been rescued at all. >:D May the firing squads commence. ;D
I was with you until recently, having heard only Previn/LSO which is an unqualfiied dud. Then I heard Nezet-Seguin/The Philadelphians and changed my mind.
Quote from: Florestan on April 14, 2021, 12:39:13 AM
Then I heard Nezet-Seguin/The Philadelphians and changed my mind.
I listened to them in the piano concertos and they were really good (and the piano playing was also excellent). Now I'm thinking from what you said I should track down their performances of the symphonies.
Quote from: Florestan on April 14, 2021, 12:39:13 AM
I was with you until recently, having heard only Previn/LSO which is an unqualfiied dud. Then I heard Nezet-Seguin/The Philadelphians and changed my mind.
Interesting.
Previn so often did so well. Well, we all take the odd misstep.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 14, 2021, 05:33:17 AM
Interesting. Previn so often did so well. Well, we all take the odd misstep.
It is always funny how sometimes a performer can do something exceptionally well and so you turn to something similar and then it is just mediocre. As if they had an intense amount of passion and commitment for this one singular work and the other ones were by the numbers.
Quote from: Mirror Image on April 13, 2021, 07:50:04 PM
Unpopular opinion time: I'm definitely not fond of Rachmaninov's 1st. In fact, I don't think it should've been rescued at all. >:D May the firing squads commence. ;D
(https://static.businessinsider.com/image/572b603752bcd029008c0fcd-/bi_graphics-bazooka.gif)
Quote from: OrchestralNut on April 14, 2021, 06:42:00 AM
(https://static.businessinsider.com/image/572b603752bcd029008c0fcd-/bi_graphics-bazooka.gif)
I was going to get out my bazooka but you beat me to it ;D
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 14, 2021, 06:53:30 AM
I was going to get out my bazooka but you beat me to it ;D
Sarge
I was looking for the same one you use Sarge, but I did not want to infringe on any patent rights. :D
Quote from: Florestan on April 14, 2021, 12:39:13 AM
I was with you until recently, having heard only Previn/LSO which is an unqualfiied dud. Then I heard Nezet-Seguin/The Philadelphians and changed my mind.
Honestly, I never heard one performance that has convinced me of it's alleged greatness and I don't think I could stomach listening to it again no matter how well Nezet-Seguin conducts it. Sorry, dear Rachmaninov fans!
Quote from: DavidW on April 14, 2021, 05:39:10 AM
It is always funny how sometimes a performer can do something exceptionally well and so you turn to something similar and then it is just mediocre. As if they had an intense amount of passion and commitment for this one singular work and the other ones were by the numbers.
Yeah! That always surprises me. It's especially true in the cases of composers with rather limited outputs - like a conductor who is really good in Elgar 1 but really bad in Elgar 2, or a Brahms cycle where one of the four is inexplicably way worse. It makes more sense in a case like Mahler or Shostakovich that maybe you don't love all 10-15 symphonies equally, but if you only love Rach 2 and 3, nobody is forcing you to do 1!
Quote from: OrchestralNut on April 14, 2021, 06:42:00 AM
(https://static.businessinsider.com/image/572b603752bcd029008c0fcd-/bi_graphics-bazooka.gif)
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 14, 2021, 06:53:30 AM
I was going to get out my bazooka but you beat me to it ;D
Sarge
Boy...this didn't take long. ;P
Quote from: Mirror Image on April 14, 2021, 07:05:51 AM
Honestly, I never heard one performance that has convinced me of it's alleged greatness and I don't think I could stomach listening to it again no matter how well Nezet-Seguin conducts it. Sorry, dear Rachmaninov fans!
We can still be friends. :D
Quote from: OrchestralNut on April 10, 2021, 03:21:47 AM
I really like Taneyev's first. :-[ :-X
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 10, 2021, 07:23:41 AM
I should give it a listen.
Back in 2007 someone recommended this Symphony and included a link to the JPC website...which led me to pull a paulb. I sampled the first 30 seconds and concluded it was repetitious crap ;D So, yeah, I too should give it a proper listen.
Sarge
I've come to think of Alfvén's as the least interesting first symphony, it pales in comparison with both his next attempts in the form and the ones of many of his compatriots.
I'm sure that I replied before but I really like Khachaturian's First Symphony (especially the RCA LSO recording with Tjeknavorian).
Quote from: vandermolen on January 26, 2023, 09:38:57 PMI'm sure that I replied before but I really like Khachaturian's First Symphony (especially the RCA LSO recording with Tjeknavorian).
Count me as another fan of this exuberant symphony (I don't know that performance, nonetheless).
Quote from: Symphonic Addict on January 28, 2023, 04:29:42 PMCount me as another fan of this exuberant symphony (I don't know that performance, nonetheless).
It's here Cesar:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE6t0E5WCSw
Quote from: vandermolen on January 29, 2023, 01:13:58 AMIt's here Cesar:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE6t0E5WCSw
Thanks, Jeffrey!