Great (or very impressive) First Symphonies of the (relatively) lesser known.

[eschiss1]

Well, in general here, I think, something briefer with some sort of explanation for something's presence in the list is / has been preferred over long, concise, lists of single unexplained items.

I can think of a few reasons why this might be (not to get too meta or self-referential- not to attempt to joke by providing an answer that itself contains an explanation of the sort requested, &c ...) - if only the obvious ones - an explanation can help clarify (one's own understanding of) the requested subject/definition (and give material for correction or launch interesting digression in other topics...) ; can encourage interesting discussion of particular pieces of music, trends, ... ... from the "point of view"/perspective of the topic in a more specific way...

[Dave]

I read the link, but at the same time, there is quite a bit of a grey area...

Of course there's a grey area with regard to the outer boundaries of UC's remit and we're always willing to reconsider our decisions. However, Tubin's music, for example, is modern tonal rather than romantic, and the plethora of Soviet-era composers are a nightmare to make decisions about, with many writing in different styles at different points in their careers.

On the whole it would be helpful if, rather than throwing a whole slew of names at a particular thread, individual works were suggested and described in some detail. Mere lists of works are not all that useful. So, fewer names and more description, please!

Please remember also that our remit contains the following advice:

<<If you are in any doubt, and in any event if the music was written after 1918, please email or PM a moderator before posting.>>

Very well (and fair enough), although there's still a good deal of room for debate, as Mr. Kevin Pearson alluded to. For instance, is Tubin's first effort more modern tonal than, say, Hanson's First that is on the list? I'll say yes if it is the case of Tubin's First versus Hanson's Second, but not (so much) in regards to their first efforts in the genre. The matter is still quite iffy here.

[Alan Howe]

Nevertheless, our advice is not simply to post about music on the ragged edge of our remit, but (a) to enquire first about its suitability, and (b) to offer some sort of explanation/description of the music concerned. Mere assertion of one's opinion is not sufficient. And let's get away from posting mere lists - anyone can do that. 

[Dave]

Explanations is (more than) reasonable, of course. The suitability part, well, I digress.

[Alan Howe]

Explanations will help us decide whether particular suggestions are suitable, or not.

[chill319]

The simple fact is that it wasn't my role to suggest to Dave what was or wasn't appropriate for this forum. I apologize for that.

I agree that there are and should be gray areas; the kind of culture we celebrate does not proceed by Draconian edict. 

[Alan Howe]

Is any more detail needed if that is the topic? Just need a composer's name as far as I can tell.
Kevin

Of course more detail is needed. For a start it would be good to know in what way someone thinks a particular first symphony is 'great' or 'very impressive'. As I have said on countless occasions, the simple posting of lists is both lazy and (if without explanation) amounts to mere subjective assertion. Very boring.

So let's hear WHY...

[alexi]

Frederic Cliffe Symphony in C minor should be mentioned. Hope they will record his second in the future too.

[eschiss1]

In regards that, you may be interested in this thread. (Also see this thread. The link in the above thread doesn't work, so that's the link that's wanted ) & this (a description of the 1892 premiere from a contemporary newspaper), and lastly from me on the subject, this.

[chill319]

The second symphony is such an advance it's easy (for me, at least) to overlook what Magnard achieved with his first symphony. A work with riches that bear many hearings; an immediately individual voice, with inflections here and there that display a kinship with the ironic smile of Mahler, and with the earnest, direct dramatic gestures found in the first two symphonies of Melartin (not that the one knew the other's music)...

[minacciosa]

Korngold's Op.5 Sinfonietta is a symphony in every way except name. His much later Symphony in F# should rightly be called "No.2".

I don't think Popov continued in the tradition of Glazunov and Borodin at all.

Karl Weigl's first is also a terrific start. You can find it on YouTube.

[John H White]

I think Gernsheim deserves a mention here as his 1st symphony anticipates the symphonic style of his good friend Brahms. Likewise Hans Rott's 1st symphony anticipates the early symphonic style of his good friend Mahler.

[Alan Howe]

I think Gernsheim deserves a mention here as his 1st symphony anticipates the symphonic style of his good friend Brahms.

Actually, I think it's more a case of two roughly contemporaneous composers coming up with ostensibly similar solutions to the symphonic problem - although Gernsheim is a much less rigorous symphonic thinker than Brahms.

[sdtom]

http://sdtom.wordpress.com/2013/08/04/symphony-no-1ippolitov-ivanov/

My choice as a first that deserves a listen. Many of you already have it but for the new member it is definitely worth investigation. Please read the review.
Tom