Hey - this is poll material.

 

Mahler, Vaughan Williams, Sibelius, Walton, Lutosławski.

Best regards, Dr

 

Beethoven's first is a well-crafted piece, but not as interesting as the piano sonatas of the same period. Schumann's first is decent, but I prefer the symphonies that followed. Brahms' first is a fully-formed mature work that holds up well against the rest of the cycle. Mahler's first is fascinating--as Schoenberg said, his personality there right from the beginning--but the finale has weak spots in it. Schoenberg's own Chamber Symphony in E is a masterpiece, but doesn't fit fully into the mould of a traditional symphony (like Liszt's B minor Sonata, it's an all-in-one single movement). Shostakovich's first has a strong first half and a weaker second half, I feel, although it is excellent for a student work. Samuel Barber's one-movement symphony is taut and dramatic, while Copland's Symphony for Organ and Orchestra is good but not in the same league.

Bruckner's first is weak compared to what followed, and the "Study" symphony that preceded it even more so. Tchaikovsky's first is brought down by the repetitive, bombastic finale. Stravinsky's student symphony in E-flat is terrible and is better off left unplayed.

Yes, Mahler's first is another one truly impressive.

 

Beethoven's first is a well-crafted piece, but not as interesting as the piano sonatas of the same period. Schumann's first is decent, but I prefer the symphonies that followed. Brahms' first is a fully-formed mature work that holds up well against the rest of the cycle. Mahler's first is fascinating--as Schoenberg said, his personality there right from the beginning--but the finale has weak spots in it. Schoenberg's own Chamber Symphony in E is a masterpiece, but doesn't fit fully into the mould of a traditional symphony (like Liszt's B minor Sonata, it's an all-in-one single movement). Shostakovich's first has a strong first half and a weaker second half, I feel, although it is excellent for a student work. Samuel Barber's one-movement symphony is taut and dramatic, while Copland's Symphony for Organ and Orchestra is good but not in the same league.

Bruckner's first is weak compared to what followed, and the "Study" symphony that preceded it even more so. Tchaikovsky's first is brought down by the repetitive, bombastic finale. Stravinsky's student symphony in E-flat is terrible and is better off left unplayed.

 

...Shostakovich's first has a strong first half and a weaker second half, I feel, although it is excellent for a student work.

I agree with your assessment, at least the first part. But it would be an excellent symphony for anybody, not just a graduating student. This symphony really made people sit up and pay attention at the time...somebody new is here! And of course it's still widely enjoyed.

 

Hmmm...good question.... Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique would be up there with the likes of Mahler and DSCH in the Remarkably Assured Debut Symphony stakes.

 

Stravinsky's student symphony in E-flat is terrible and is better off left unplayed.

Mahlerian, may I ask, what is it about Stravinsky´s that you don´t like? It seems fairly conventional for its day, very much in the Russian spirit of R-Korsakov etc., but except from late Romanticism and Russian Folklore, there are some traits of detachment now and then, that seem to announce the later, more enigmatic and neoclassical Stravinsky too, I think. I´ve been listening some times to it recently and I quite like it - in Stravinsky´s and Alexander Gibson´s recordings. Overall, I prefer his later Symphony in 3 Movements and the Psalm Symphony though, and the E-Flat is definitely less innovative.

 

Mahlerian, may I ask, what is it about Stravinsky´s that you don´t like? It seems fairly conventional for its day, very much in the Russian spirit of R-Korsakov etc., but except from late Romanticism and Russian Folklore, there are some traits of detachment now and then, that seems to announce the later, more enigmatic, dry and neoclassical Stravinsky too, I think. I´ve been listening some times to it recently and I quite like it - in Stravinsky´s and Alexander Gibson´s recordings. Overall, I prefer his Symphony in 3 Movements and the Psalm Symphony though, and the E-Flat is definitely less innovative.

In my opinion, the best movement is the Scherzo, because it's light and colorful. Even from the beginning Stravinsky showed a great sense for orchestration. I'm being overly harsh with my pithy summation above, I know, but the rest is unconvincing to say the least; the first movement has decent if not particularly notable themes (although I find the second a little irksome), but the development feels forced, like he knows he has to do something but didn't plan out what in advance, so the momentum more or less slows to a crawl until the recapitulation. I can't stand the Largo one bit, and I don't recall the finale off the top of my head.

 

I don't know offhand what I think is the most impressive 1st symphony," but I think Nielsen's 1st symphony popped out of his head full-grown.

 

Ouch! That sounds sore.

An eight year old writing a symphony is fairly impressive, wouldn't ya say...

 

Havergal Brian's 1st symphony of course! 2 hours of Big British Bang!

 

Impressive?

Beethoven's first two symphonies.

It seemed that symphonic language was to follow that of Haydn's and maybe Mozart's. That the evolving line will follow them smoothly. 'Experts' say -Oh! Beethoven's firsts are Hayden like- Haydn like? No way.

Beethoven's first two symphonies are a shift, a complete change, a quantum leap that changed the entire course of symphonic orchestral treatment. Of course there's 'Haydn' material in them but it is not Haydn like.

I love those two symphonies because is like standing at the edge looking into an abyss or like looking up to the sky for the first time and understanding the vastness of the Universe and grasping that ultimate mystery about existence.

Listening them I just can say... Yes, that is Beethoven. In his madness he changed the course of music into a complete different direction.

 

I was going to say Mahler and Brahms.

 

This is a very tough one. Most of my favorite composers had pretty impressive 1st and most of those have already been named. I will mentioned Walton's first, because I feel his is one of the greatest of the 20th century.
Here is a list of some who I don't think have been mentioned and had some pretty good 1st.

Asger Hamerik 7 in all. Good start w/his 1st and I believe his 4th the best.
Vagn Holmboe 14(includes the Sinfornia in memoriam). 4 Symphonic Metamorphoses. 3 Chamber Sym. IMO, all great.
Gian Francesco
Malipiero 11 numbered and additional 6 w/sinfornia in its title. Very original and pretty non-conformist in style.
Joly Braga Santos 6 in all. #4 probably his best but the 1st is very impressive.
Ahmed Adnan Saygun 5 in all. One of Turkeys finest. Next to Walton his first might be the most impressive.
Egon Wellesz 9 in all. Difficult music but very rewarding after futher listning.
William Grant Still Not sure but I think 6. #1 is very ground breaking. Also known as the 'Afro-American Synphony'.
Charles Ives 4 numbered. Considering this was a school effort and what came after, pretty impressive.

 

Walton - even though the last movement doesn't exactly fit with the feel of the rest of it.
Mahler - undeniably impressive and because it was so 'new' for it's day.
Shostakovich - kind of agree with the sentiments above about the 1st half being better than the second, but it's all good.
Khachaturian - another graduation work and the first Armenian symphony.
Rachmaninov - yes it's rough around the edges, but certainly impressive and we're lucky to have it.

 

The usual suspects: Brahms, Mahler, Berlioz, Sibelius, Shostakovich

Off the beaten path: Moeran, Rott, Schmidt

 

Good nominations. The Rott is among my favourite pieces. I recall somebody saying on these forums a while back that the final movement gives the impression that he didn't quite know when to end the piece, which is probably a fair summation. But it's a very impressive first (and sadly, only) symphony nonetheless.

 

I don't know about the most impressive but yesterday I was listening to the first symphony of Jacques Chailley and I think it deserves to be mentioned

Also the first ones of Popov and Vermeulen are beautiful works.

 

Brahms' 1st impresses me the most.

Vaughan-Williams next, but maybe that's just because of the big flashy loud opening. In other words I haven't really focused on it as I have some of his other symphonies.

 

Shostakovich, Martinu, Milhaud, Elgar, RVW, Rubbra, Honegger, Hartmann, Brahms, Liszt (if we count his Faust Symphony as his first), Roussel, Tchaikovsky, Ives, Barber, Copland, Schuman (his Symphony No. 3 must be considered his first since Symphonies 1 & 2 were withdrawn), Walton, and the list goes on.

 

I'm going to go with Elgar. Love love love his 1st.

 

How about Prokofiev? His first is pretty impressive, although he had already proven he could write impressive pieces before he wrote his first symphony.

 

How about Prokofiev? His first is pretty impressive, although he had already proved he could write impressive pieces before he wrote his first symphony.

Prokofiev is a good call. He's not much mentioned in this regard because his 1st symphony is kind of "lite." Which has nothing to do with its quality, which is certainly top drawer. For that matter, nobody has mentioned Bizet, I think, who hid his own symphony in a drawer and ignored it.

 

Martinu's 1st Symphony is very exciting.
Tchaikovsky's 1st Symphony deserves to be much better known.
Vaughan Williams Sea Symphony has got everything and it's just brilliant.

 

For me it's a tossup between Berlioz and Liszt, at this point.

 

Good question.

There are still a lot of 'Firsts' for me to listen to, but of those that I have I would have to say Shostakovich.

I would go further to say Shostakovich / Petrenko / RLPO - nice (but I am often biased towards my home orchestra - have you heard the 11th, its just :tiphat: )

 

Brahms 1st is the most impressive in my opinion, but I think he almost "cheated" this one, having used 21 years to compose it and finishing when he was already mature with 43 years old. So I would vote on Mahler :tiphat:

 

Franck and Bruckner were late symphonic bloomers, too.

 

schnittke, mahler, shostakovich, brahms, schuma come to mind. But schnittke's 1st and Mahlers 1st are one of my all time favourites

 

I was forgetting about the first of Alexander Lokshin. Shostackovich heard this work and considered him a genius

 

Not sure if we could put Symphonie Fantastique in the same group as other 'true' symphonies, but it would be a fairly obvious choice.

Otherwise my favourite 3 would be:

Mahler
Sibelius
Tchaikovsky

 

Schnittke and Brian are the ones I choose as most impressive.
Even though Sibelius is my favourite composer and a fabulous symphonist, I don't really see what people find particularly impressive about his 1st. It is the weakest of the lot even if it is an outstanding symphony.

 

I agree, unlike some composers, with Sibelius it only gets better after his first.