Composers whose subsequent symphonies never matched their first published effort

[mbhaub]

Gretchaninov - the first symphony was delightful and full of promise of more symphonies in the Russian Nationalist tradition. But alas, as he went on they became less interesting, melodic - the Russian soul seemed to be on hiatus. But at least there's the first.

[Balapoel]

This appears different (perhaps) from his "1st symphony", dating to 1853, which I have in my notes as 'lost'. When does this piece date to? Is it certainly after his Symphony in d minor (No. 2?) (1869).

didn't he?... *checks* Hrm. Parts to a Dietrich symphony in C, copies in ms., held at  Biblioteka Studium OO. Dominikanów. Archiwum Prowincji OO. Dominikanów, Kraków, description here - don't know for sure how complete it is, though, so I may be wrong...

Come to think though... it's conceivably a work by a different Dietrich, or even "Dytrych", of a different and earlier era ("con fundamento basso"? ... hrm.) (Only the copy, not the original, is pretty definitely of the 19th century or even definitely from a manuscript source, abschrift just meaning, I take it, that the copy is a manuscript/handwritten copy of something, itself , whatever the "something" was.) 

Attribution is not always so clear as librarians or others like to make out, of course. RISM included... So I withdraw my several-times repeated claim (not having even seen the manuscripts) of the Dietrich 2nd. (Still interested in that "Huber 1.5 in A major" but that's a different thread.)

[eschiss1]

The Huber symphony "1.5" as I call it? Definitely not lost- autograph ms score and parts (hopefully complete enough and legible enough- well, for autograph - for another performance; according to RISM it's been performed- once- years ago!, December 17 1889, conducted by Friedrich Hegar... but decay happens...) - see RISM and RISM (parts) for information and incipits... (there's also RISM hits for sketches and short-score for the piece. It's not his 6th symphony op.134, like this work also in A major, btw.)

Admittedly the Huber symphony CDs may not have done well enough to justify sending someone over to check, but this work is mentioned in "standard reference" sources on Huber, I gather, e.g. Refardt, "Hans Huber. Leben und Werk eines Schweizer Musikers", 1944, p.143. And as RISM says, the material's at Basel University Library (though I have heard, true, that they aren't as nice about scanning and distributing their large archive as some places I could mention.)

[Gauk]

Gretchaninov - the first symphony was delightful and full of promise of more symphonies in the Russian Nationalist tradition. But alas, as he went on they became less interesting, melodic - the Russian soul seemed to be on hiatus. But at least there's the first.

I rather disagree - the fourth is my favourite. Not Russian Nationalist, but rather more individual.

[Josh]

One name sprang into my mind as soon as I saw the thread title here: John Knowles Paine.  To my taste, the drop in quality from his fantastic first symphony to his second is just stunning.  I was about to say it's not in the same league, but maybe better to say it's not even the same sport, since it feels so much like Paine was forcing himself to try to emulate popular composers of the day - and not having very much success.  I think he was born a bit too late, his music was perfectly suited to a couple of decades earlier, but perhaps he just wasn't able to stay comfortable with that.

I think his 1st is concert hall-worthy.  The 2nd?  I try never to say negative stuff on here, but if I never heard it again, I wouldn't miss it one bit.

[kolaboy]

I knew Gade would come up...
Even before a note of his music was recorded the going line was that there was a marked falling off after the first. Granted, the 2nd symphony IS the weakest of the lot, but in subsequent outings - notably 5, 6 & 8 - he equaled and even bettered that initial effort.
But then, that gilded age prejudice dies hard...

[petershott@btinternet.com]

Fully agree with you, Kolaboy. I find all eight of them delightful (I've also got a warm spot for the violin concerto and of course the string quartets).

I'm not sure where that prejudice against the symphonies after the first has come from, and I must say it strikes me as a very silly prejudice. Rather like 8 young children in a class once you bother to get to know them you understand that each is different, each with their own strengths and limitations relative to the others. Just as there is no such thing as 'the best child' so there is no such thing as Gade's 'best symphony'. And so also with other composers. If someone asked you: 'What do you reckon Beethoven's best symphony?' wouldn't you rather wonder what distant planet they had come from?

[Alan Howe]

I hold two rather contrasting opinions of Gade. On the one hand, I'm in agreement with those who maintain that Gade never again attained the sheer freshness of utterance which characterises his 1st Symphony; however, on the other hand, to condemn the other seven to second-class status takes no account of their many virtues - and delights taken on their own terms. This is especially evident in the superb set conducted by Hogwood on Chandos.

[Ilja]

Also the mantra of Gade's 'perfect' First rather overlooks that its scherzo, in my opinion at least, is among the weaker ones in his symphonic canon. The scherzi in the Second, Fourth and the Seventh seem to work rather better, also within the symphony as a whole.