Berlioz' first blows all of these out of the water. I picked Brahms ahead of Mahler and Sibelius.

 

I would say Brahms too, but he took such a long time to write his first symphony that is hard to consider it his first. Probably the first piano concert may be considered his first symphonic work.

Schuman´s first symphony (if you consider both the first or the fourth) is probably another one to be included in the list.

 

Berlioz' first was also the first symphony to be dubbed "Beethoven's 10th," and with more aptness than Brahms' first. Berlioz was also the original third B of "the three B's."

(I blame Hanslick.)

 

Wagner tried to get Bruckner substituted for Brahms, but for once didn't get his way.

BTW, better to blame Hans von Bülow.

 

Brahms. Absolutely no doubt about it, IMO.

 

Schumann, then Brahms.

 

As much as I love Mahler's first, I'd favor Brahms here. I think Bruckner's first is relatively weak compared to those of Schumann and Beethoven (and the "Study" Symphony in F minor even weaker!).

 

Brahms, then Charles Ives.

 

Charles Ives, followed by Bernard Herrmann. The Brahms is also great, and I love Sibelius 1. Mahler's 1st has its moments, but the 3 blind mice theme seems to lessen it a bit for me.

 

Mahler's 1st has its moments, but the 3 blind mice theme seems to lessen it a bit for me.

Interesting. I was always under the impression it was 'Frère Jacques' rather than '3 Blind Mice'. Either way, I find the third movement of Mahler's 1st one of his most poignant. A traditional nursery-rhyme placed in the minor key, lending the movement an almost funereal quality. The notion of a child's death tragically foreshadows the death of Mahler's daughter Maria in 1907, a solemn omen subverted by the dare-I-say-it 'dirty' sound of a Klezmer ensemble. I remember reading somewhere that Mahler was commenting on the way society at the time simply overlooked the rates of child mortality, and that idea has stuck with me ever since.

Also, I vaguely remember someone telling me that the open A notes that start the symphony are the same notes made by the wind blowing through the trees in a forest near where Mahler grew up, though it's a whimsical thought.

After Mahler, it would have to be Brahms. A stunning symphonic debut.

 

Shostakovich. And that's the truth!

 

Two things, Ken.

One a big thumbs up for Shostakovich.

Two, you are of course correct about it's being von Bulow, not Hanslick.

Pure idiotic carelessness on my part.

 

The problem with Berlioz was he wrote just one. He quickly ran out of steam after that.

 

Well, he wrote one piece with the word "Symphony" in the title but Harold in Italy, Romeo and Juliet and March Funebre and Triomphale are also considered his other "symphonies".

 

It's not as good as some of those, but when I was thinking out my personal symphony cycle with one symphony per composer, Johan Svendsen's 1st kept coming to mind because Brahms already has the 4th spot, Sibelius the 2nd spot, Beethoven the 9th spot, etc.

 

I go with Brahms slightly over Mahler. Then maybe Berlioz and Sibelius. I will say that I have never heard Tchaikovsky's first. Hopefully I'll remedy that in the relatively near future.

 

I listened to Tchaikovsky's first the other day, driving up from Monterey to Santa Cruz. Surprised me. It's pretty darned good!

 

Schnittke, and by quite a large margin over the available choices.

 

You're one of those people, aren't you

 

I gave it to Mahler. Awesome first symphony.

 

I'm somewhat surprised--and disappointed--to see that this list omits Nielsen as one of the choices for this honor.
If I had been able to cast my vote for "other", then I would have; alas, this option is missing as well. :scold:
Jean Sibelius of course deserves to be on this list, as does Carl Nielsen. :cheers:

 

I'm somewhat surprised--and disappointed--to see that this list omits Nielsen as one of the choices for this honor. I have voted "other" on it, then I would have, but, alas, this category is missing as well! :scold: Since Sibelius is included--as well he should be--why not Nielsen also

I would have included him but didn't think of it at the time. It was my first poll, but no excuse to omit an 'other' catergory. Sorry.

 

Brahms, hands down. Although he did cheat by waiting until he was at his compositional peak.

Honourable mention to Vaughan Williams' Sea Symphony!


And agreement with the love for Tchaikovsky 1.
Anyone who hasn't heard it needs to rectify this immediately.

 

I don't believe he "cheated" because he waited so long. I am of the opinion that he was intimidated by the long shadow that Beethoven cast. Just another example of an "inferiority complex" resulting in a perfectionist personality.

 

When I said Cheated, my tongue was firmly in my cheek. ;-)

You are right to say he was concerned about Beethoven's shadow.

 

It seems like only yesterday there was a very similar thread to this one.

Here it is: http://www.talkclassical.com/26444-most-impressive-first-symphonies.html

I'll take the lazy route and repeat here what I said there:

1 Beethoven - Symphony No 1
2 Schumann - Symphony No 1 'Spring'
3 Brahms - Symphony No 1
4 Elgar - Symphony No 1
5 Berlioz - Symphony Fantastique
6 Walton - Symphony No 1
7 Mahler - Symphony No. 1 'Titan'
8 Bizet - Symphony in C
9 Sibelius - Symphony No 1
10 Bax - Symphony No 1
11 Prokofiev - Symphony No 1 'Classical'
12 Bantock - Hebridean Symphony
13 Schnittke - Symphony No 1
14 Brian - Symphony No 1 'Gothic'
15 Schönberg - Chamber Symphony No 1

 

I find Brahms 1 inconsisent. The forth movement is one of the most melodic in his entire output but I find the second movement pretty drab and lifeless. Berlioz would be my favourite first symphony (and maybe my favourite symphony overall). Shame his symphonic career peaked too soon.

 

Funny, I love the second movement of Brahms 1st symphony. It's one of the most romantic pieces I know. Simply glorious. Has genius written all over it. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

 

Mahler's 1st is truly fantastic and a worthy contender for perhaps his finest (which is quite an achievement in light of what he would write after this).

Tchaikovsky and Sibelius would be just behind, for me.

 

Mahler & Haitink (both with the Concertgebouw Orchestra and the Berliner Philharmoniker) for me as a match made in heaven. The trouble with Brahms 1st for me is the absence of such a composer-conductor match: I've got lots of interpretations of Brahms' 1st symphony, but no conductor is able to convince me / grab my attention from the first to the last note.

 

Have you heard Charles Munch with the Boston Symphony?

 

That is interesting information about the background of Mahler's first, I wasn't aware of, thanks Doc and Mahlerian.

(Btw - Frere Jacques and 3 Blind Mice have the same tune/melody).

 

(Btw - Frere Jacques and 3 Blind Mice have the same tune/melody).

Of course. My apologies.

 

I have voted for Brahms. But am having second thoughts! The opening of this symphony is very impressive. In some ways it can only go down hill after this. One of my problems with Brahms as a symphonist is all the meat is in the first and last movements. The middle movements seem to me to be rather secondary. (Or is this just me?)

Maybe I should change my vote to Mahler?

 

I think this is true of his 1st symphony, but only his 1st. After that the middle movements start getting more on par with the outer ones.