Other than the First Symphonies of the most (or more) famous names (Brahms, Berlioz, Bruckner, Schumann, Elgar, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Sibelius, Shostakovich), I would love to read your take on this subject. For me, a lot of First Symphonies impress me immensely, in part due to ambition in communication, but also due to maturity; the fingerprints or gateways of composers they ultimately became and whom we've come to understand and admire further. So, with that said, I'll mention the First Symphonies of:
Svendsen
Atterberg (with a wonderful slow movement)
Glazunov (a precocious gem)
Balakirev
Lyapunov
Lemba
Artur Kapp
Stenhammar
Nielsen
Rachmaninoff
Scriabin
Kalinnikov
Gliere
Lyatoshynsky
Bax
Vaughan Williams
Madetoja
Melartin
Rakov
Borodin
Ives
Roussel
Hanson
Dohnanyi (brilliant yet bold)
Langgaard (discursive, but it has its moments)
Braga-Santos
Draeseke
Any ideas?
:)
Please note: I have cut the above list to encompass only those composers who conform with our remit. Please could participants in this thread bear in mind this remit when they post. Details here:
http://www.unsungcomposers.com/forum/index.php/topic,3681.0.html (http://www.unsungcomposers.com/forum/index.php/topic,3681.0.html)
I largely agree with your list, Dave. I have always thought Langaard's First to be one of the most accomplished works written by a teenager! I would also add Elgar (though he was 51 when he wrote it), Tubin (does his early style fall within UC's remit?), Maliszewski (found it on YouTube-gorgeous work!), and Alnaes. I'm sure there are others I'm forgetting!
Dear Mr. Howe:
Please note (and I'm saying that respectfully) that many of the composers you erased continued on with the Romantic tradition, especially in their earlier compositional efforts (Skulte, Tubin, Diamond, Popov (who continued on the tradition of Glazunov/Borodin), Shebalin, Revutsky, Goossens, Jacob, and so forth). For instance, Goossens is hardly more modern than Bax. You kept Rakov, but deleted Shebalin, despite the fact the latter's work is an earlier piece very much in line with Myaskovsky's tonal language. You may have also overlooked the fact that Ukraine was late in emerging into (at least) a viable classical music tradition (like Estonia, Latvia, and even Finland in fact). So it's music is comparatively anachronistic even by the 1920s (you curiously kept Lyatoshynsky, but deleted Revutsky, whose emergence is quite similar to his earlier on). Boiko is mentioned in this forum, whose music is very Russian, tonal and accessible. But is his music less tonal and accessible than Khachaturian's or Khrennikov's First Symphonies also originally mentioned?
I read the link, but at the same time, there is quite a bit of a grey area given the nature of the works written, by whom, when (what period(s) in relations to their respective countries' classical music evolution), under what political/social/personal conditions and/or circumstances, if any (Stalin's Russia for instance), and from where. Bortkiewicz (Ukrainian) is a compelling example of this. His two symphonies were written in 1933 and 1934, and yet the idiom is very much late 1880s, 1890s. Mikhail Nosyrev's (1924-1981) ballet "Song of Triumphant Love" is very much in the tradition of Glazunov, Gliere, Nikolai Tcherepnin, Ravel and the French, and yet it was written in 1968-1969 after he spent over a decade in the gulag, thus robbing him of his musical development, which was promising earlier on.
Just some thoughts.
Quote from: LateRomantic75 on Friday 15 November 2013, 00:24
I largely agree with your list, Dave. I have always thought Langaard's First to be one of the most accomplished works written by a teenager! I would also add Elgar (though he was 51 when he wrote it), Tubin (does his early style fall within UC's remit?), Maliszewski (found it on YouTube-gorgeous work!), and Alnaes. I'm sure there are others I'm forgetting!
Elgar, I agree (but he's so far from being lesser known). But Vermeulen's first effort is quite something.
Quote from: Dave on Friday 15 November 2013, 00:59
Elgar, I agree (but he's so far from being lesser known). But Vermeulen's first effort is quite something.
Certainly! Vermeulen's First is a stunning work which is easier to assimilate than his later symphonies.
Dave,
Could you PM me your original list? I've been exploring a number of the composers you mention (and a few others besides), and I do find their work quite romantic and compelling and I want to check them off against your list. I am aware that many Ukranian composers kept a late romantic language after other national tendencies tended towards atonality.
Thanks.
Rachmaninoff is lesser known? Wow! On what planet?
Well, whatever. I'd add Zemlinsky and Chausson.
Chausson? I think the point of the list might be to avoid symphonies by composers who only composed one, but...
Anyhow, I'd suggest Rangstrom, Myaskovsky and Raff (though his 1st is "only" impressive) - also Berwald and maybe also Gernsheim.
well, in small defense, Chausson did sketch out his Symphony No. 2 in 1899 (not sure how much is there, or if it is performable).
Martucci
Sgambati
Fibich
Gade
d'Indy (among the numbered ones, it is the "Cevenole")
Bizet (if "Roma" is the Second)
I delete Bizet, as sung (not as often as I would)
d'Indy's first symphony is his Italienne in A minor, not his Cenevole. It's now been recorded once or twice.
Wouldn't d'Indy's Jean Hundaye symphony, op 5 be the second? (1875). I haven't seen it recorded.
Quote from: Amphissa on Friday 15 November 2013, 04:30
Rachmaninoff is lesser known? Wow! On what planet?
Well, whatever. I'd add Zemlinsky and Chausson.
You're quite right. My error (though not as famous as Tchaikovsky).
Didn't even know of the d'Indy Op.5, btw. Can put that with Moszkowski's (no doubt rather different) ms symphony among works to bother and irritate the editors to typeset and the recording companies to record... :)
Re: d'Indy.
I rated (maybe wrongly) the "Cevenole" (op.25) as his First "numbered" Symphony (as. op.61 is known as Second).
I know the "Italian" (certainly left unpublished; recently recorded twice). I could deem it "impressive"(not "very").
I wrote : among the numbered ones.
I don't think the Cevenole was given a number by the composer even after the 2nd symphony was published (leave alone before- of course few first symphonies are actually called "symphony no.1" or "first symphony" :) ) - so his first numbered symphony would be the indeed very impressive 2nd symphony in B-flat :)
(just as Vaughan Williams didn't number any of his symphonies until fairly late in the game - no.9, I think even, when "Symphony in E minor" was no longer an unambiguous descriptor/referent/whatever they're calling them now? :D )
Jan Koetsier's Symphony No. 1 is mighty impressive.
Thanks Balapoel for posting that on YouTube.
:)
Quote from: Dave on Friday 15 November 2013, 15:57
Quote from: Amphissa on Friday 15 November 2013, 04:30
Rachmaninoff is lesser known? Wow! On what planet?
Well, whatever. I'd add Zemlinsky and Chausson.
You're quite right. My error (though not as famous as Tchaikovsky).
Rachmaninoff is a "sung" by any standard.
The Symphony No. 1 of Ricardo Castro Herrera is really pretty impressive.
I actually enjoy Suk's 1st Symphony better than his later Asrael Symphony, despite the fact that it is a less mature work. Maybe I just like the innocence and simplicity of it.
QuoteChausson? I think the point of the list might be to avoid symphonies by composers who only composed one
Thanks for your interpretation of the original poster's intentions, Eric, as I didn't see that anywhere in his post. ;D
Quote from: Dave on Friday 15 November 2013, 18:26
Jan Koetsier's Symphony No. 1 is mighty impressive.
Thanks Balapoel for posting that on YouTube.
:)
Well, it's not my channel - but it is useful sometimes to get an idea about a piece before purchase.
Regarding d'Indy's works, this should be the sequence:
Symphony No. 1 in a minor 'Symphonie italienne' (1870-2)
Jean Hundaye, symphony, op 5 (1874-5)
Symponie sur un chant montagnard francais 'Symphonie cevenole' for piano and orchestra, op 25 (1886)
Symphony No. 2 in Bb, op 57 (1902-3)
Symphony No. 3 in D 'Sinfonia brevis de bello gallico', op 70 (1916-8)
Of course, all have been recorded many times except the op. 5.
Quote from: Amphissa on Friday 15 November 2013, 04:30
Rachmaninoff is lesser known? Wow! On what planet?
His First Symphony isn't exactly well-known to the average concert-goer. I would go so far as to say it's a rather underrated work, in fact. The finale, especially, is magnificent and prefigures Shostakovich!
I would also add Bortkiewicz. Both of his symphonies are melodically inspired works which are loaded with Slavic melancholy and passion.
I'm with you on Lyatoshynsky, Dave, but I'm not sure he belongs in this forum. Of the composers in your list, I respond strongly to the first symphonies of Balakirev, Bax, Draeseke, Dohnanyi, Nielsen, Rachmaninoff, Roussel, Scriabin, and Stenhammar.
Quote from: chill319 on Saturday 16 November 2013, 04:05
I'm with you on Lyatoshynsky, Dave, but I'm not sure he belongs in this forum. Of the composers in your list, I respond strongly to the first symphonies of Balakirev, Bax, Draeseke, Dohnanyi, Nielsen, Rachmaninoff, Roussel, Scriabin, and Stenhammar.
Oh no, I think Lyatoshynsky belongs on this forum, for his First Symphony sort of takes off where Scriabin, Rachmaninoff, and Gliere leave off. His Second Symphony and later ones are quite a different story though.
Quote from: LateRomantic75 on Friday 15 November 2013, 23:58
Quote from: Amphissa on Friday 15 November 2013, 04:30
Rachmaninoff is lesser known? Wow! On what planet?
His First Symphony isn't exactly well-known to the average concert-goer. I would go so far as to say it's a rather underrated work, in fact. The finale, especially, is magnificent and prefigures Shostakovich!
That's certainly true. However, the subject of the thread was titled "Great ... First Symphonies of the ... lesser known", which I
think was referring to lesser known composers, not lesser known first symphonies by the major sung composers. Maybe I was wrong in my interpretation of the intent of the thread. I'll defer to Eric for a ruling ;D
QuoteOh no, I think Lyatoshynsky belongs on this forum, for his First Symphony sort of takes off where Scriabin, Rachmaninoff, and Gliere leave off. His Second Symphony and later ones are quite a different story though.
Fair enough. It's a bit of a grey area. Was just listening to an early Hindemith Viola sonata that was pleasantly tonal.
Well, Hindemith's "Lustige Sinfonietta" would fit in this category if he were still "relatively lesser known"... :)
(And if you mean the viola sonata Op.11 No.4 - which seems to near-quote, at length, the opening movement of Brahms' 2nd violin sonata???? (same place, end of the first movement exposition of each...) - it certainly does seem to fall in that category. Download a CCommons recording from here (http://traffic.libsyn.com/gardnermuseum/Hindemith_op11no4_GutermanPorat.mp3)...)
(Edit: whoops, I meant the first movement of Op.11 No.1, the violin sonata, which I have in a (good) not-so-free Oistrakh/Yampolsky broadcast recording now available on Brilliant Classics... - good set, also includes Catoire sonatas, etc.)
If I knew Grimm's symphony I'd nominate it too, I expect. I'm waiting for someone who -does- know it to do so :) Hrrrrrrmm. What 1st symphonies are really pushing at my attention as missing from this list- (no, not Brian's Gothic- which was his 2nd, really, anyway, even if I could make a case for including it here at all, which I probably couldn't.)
Quote from: Dave on Friday 15 November 2013, 00:34
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.>>
Quote from: Alan Howe on Sunday 17 November 2013, 19:25
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!
Alan - I find this statement rather confusing and a little embarrassing considering the topic as stated by the original poster is "FIRST" symphonies. Is any more detail needed if that is the topic? Just need a composer's name as far as I can tell.
Kevin
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...
Quote from: Alan Howe on Sunday 17 November 2013, 19:25
Quote from: Dave on Friday 15 November 2013, 00:34
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.
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.
Explanations is (more than) reasonable, of course. The suitability part, well, I digress.
Explanations will help us decide whether particular suggestions are suitable, or not.
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.
Quote from: Kevin Pearson on Monday 18 November 2013, 01:07
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...
Frederic Cliffe Symphony in C minor should be mentioned. Hope they will record his second in the future too.
In regards that, you may be interested in this thread (http://www.unsungcomposers.com/forum/index.php?topic=1972.0). (Also see this thread (http://www.unsungcomposers.com/forum/index.php/topic,902.msg12800.html#msg12800). The link in the above thread doesn't work, so that's the link that's wanted :) :) ) & this (http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/33182853/) (a description of the 1892 premiere from a contemporary newspaper), and lastly from me on the subject, this (http://www.musicweb-international.com/cliffe/).
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)...
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.
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.
Quote from: John H White on Wednesday 25 December 2013, 18:54
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.
http://sdtom.wordpress.com/2013/08/04/symphony-no-1ippolitov-ivanov/ (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