For my 1000th post, I decided to start a topic I’ve been mulling over for a while. We have lots of “recommend some classical music” threads but not very much in-depth discussion. The twist here is that, instead of a free-for-all, I was planning to talk about symphonies in numerical order, i.e. we’d talk about different first symphonies in this thread, then after a while I’ll start a new thread for second symphonies, and so on. Provided the discussion lasts that long, that is. Hopefully this will provide useful recommendations to musical neophytes and maybe even draw in new posters.
So let’s jump right into the thick of it, with the Symphony #1 in D of Gustav Mahler, subtitled “The Titan.” Titanic it is, at about 50 minutes it’s the shortest of Mahler’s symphonies, but probably the most approachable. I’ve read somewhere that the work is supposed to programmatically depict the life of a hunter who dies and is resurrected in the second symphony, but I’m getting ahead of myself. The first movement undoubtedly reflects nature, with its quiet, ethereal opening and the sounds of birdcalls in the woodwinds. The lively dance themes of the second movement provides an effective “split” between the two halves of the symphony. Mahler had originally intended the work to be a symphonic poem in two parts but instead chose to remove some programmatic descriptions and let the music speak for itself.
The plodding third movement, with the minor-key rendition of “Frere Jacques” could be interpreted as a foreshadowing funeral march, previewing the actual death of the character described in the rest of the work. Then the tone abruptly shifts to a parody of a Bohemian-style folk tune with a garish orchestration that sharply contrasts the gloomy melodies bookending the movement. The fourth movement opens with a feverish outburst from the entire orchestra (waking up anyone who’d drifted off during the third movement). The entire movement is conflicted, shifting back and forth between the fast themes and slow, almost tender passages. Finally, the triumphant wins out with a burst of fanfares from the brass, bringing the work to its satisfying conclusion.
So, let’s take it from here! Feel free to discuss this or other First Symphonies. I’ll keep adding other examples as I think of them.
I actually don’t have anything to say, except this: Damn you! I haven’t heard the third movement of Mahlers #1 in years; now it’s stuck in my head. Sigh. Now I’ll have to listen to the whole thing and hope it runs itself out.
A couple of years ago I got to play Mozart’s First Symphony.
I gotta tell ya. It’s pretty lame, as Mozart goes. Very trite and extremely simple. Really none of the charm he developed later on.
Sure, he was six years old. But it briefly gives us the idea that Mozart was not totally superhuman after all, which is some comfort for those of us who haven’t yet finished our First Symphonies.
I don’t have a copy with more or I’d discuss it more, but Prokofiev’s Symphony #1 has wonderful energy, bursts of humor, and tight construction. Terrific fun.
I love Mahler’s First, but it definitely feels less mature than the rest of his symphonies. He really settles into his style in the Second.
Now Brahms on the other hand, delivered a fully mature work in his First Symphony. In fact, I think you could arguably call it his best symphony. Some people like to refer to it as “Beethoven’s 10th”, but I reject that. In a lot of ways, Beethoven and Brahms are polar opposites. Brahms’ music has a dark, earthy, organic quality, with rich, thick sonorities and an intricately crafted, seamless quality. The First Symphony feels to me to be meticulously crafted, with every note feeling as though it inevitably belongs exactly where it is, with nothing wasted and nothing lacking. In the slow movement, sublime melodies emerge from each other as though all are connected by some unseen force.
Other composers’ first attempts at symphonies weren’t too good. Dvorak didn’t get it right until the 4th. His early symphonies rarely even get played. Tchaikovsky’s 1st pales in comparison to his 4th, 5th, & 6th - it sounds downright amateurish at times. Schumann’s 1st is a little immature sounding as well.
How about Howard Hanson’s 1st. It is not one of his most respected works but it is certainly an indicator of his greatness to come – and it is an enjoyable piece as well. Known as the “Nordic” symphony is reminds the listener of a Sibelius symphony stripped down to its basics. The sounds are sturdy and stern and it runs along with a series of easy-to-follow melodies that are fully romantic without any romantic flourish. In this work Hanson begins to show his incredible ability to create beautifully haunting melodies from a stark Bartokian chromaticism, which creates a melodic style that is inimitable.
The sometimes abrupt transitions seem to bother some people, but later on in his career he ends up making these breaks a signature of his works – it is nice to see in this work where many of his signature traits began to develop.
It is a great example of the neo-romantic style (even though Hanson rejected that term) and a great introduction to Hanson, one of America’s musical geniuses.
Jpeg Jones, I’ve heard *Mozart’s 1st symphony, and yes, there’s not much there. Of course, I wasn’t writing music at six years old, so I probably shouldn’t be making fun. Wait, are you writing a symphony?
I was hoping someone would mention Prokofiev’s Classical Symphony. The local radio station plays it fairly often, and I confess to turning it down half the time because I get sick of it. I also find myself wondering what about it is “Classical,” besides the form and instrumentation. For trivialists out there, Prokofiev must have liked the third movement, the Gavotte, so much that he re-used it in Act I, Scene 2 of his ballet “Romeo and Juliet.” I guess Baroque composers weren’t the only ones to self-plagarize.
I’ve played parts of Hanson’s Second, but I can’t remember if I’ve heard the First at all. Obviously if there was a second, there was a first. I’ll have to go hunting for recordings.
*-I don’t plan on creating 41 threads just to cover all of Mozart’s symphonies or 103 to cover Haydn’s, in case anyone was concerned.
I haven’t heard Mozart’s 1st - I’ll have to try and find it - I did recently hear his Regina Coeli a choral piece written at the age of 15, written in C major/common time, and it had pretty simple melody over some really blocky harmony. Its funny to think of it as the beginning of the middle of his career but it sounds pretty immature (for Mozart). At age fifteen I the only thing I could create was a grilled cheese sandwich and a cloud of smoke.
I’ll also have to go out and find Brahms 1st - I haven’t heard it in years. I’ve been listening to his Ein Deutsches Requiem and I agree with Blowero that the best description of Brahms more “serious” works is dark, earthy, and rich. It is really the most personal Requiem I have heard - I love it.
of course, it should be mentioned that Brahms spent many years writing his first symphony (1 of only 4), because he was so in awe of what Beethoven had done. I’ve heard the opening typani described as the plodding steps of a giant. That giant being Beethoven.
If you think Mozart’s 1st symphony was underwhelming, wait’ll you get a load of Haydn’s 1st Symphony. I think all four movements combined last for a grand total of 5 minutes.
Sorry, been away from a computer for most of the weekend…
I’m somewhat partial to Robert Schumann’s 1st, the “Spring” symphony, though maybe just because the local station plays it all the time. It is a bit simplistic in form, but the simple themes serve to link the entire work together.
Nobody’s mentioned Beethoven’s 1st. Even though it’s an odd-numbered symphony, there’s not a whole lot memorable about it, besides the fact that it sounds an awful lot like Mozart, but not enough to actually be Mozart. It’s one of those pieces you hear on the radio and say, “I know what this is but I just can’t place it,” and once they identify it you say, “Oh, didn’t guess that.” At least, that’s been my experience.
How about Bruckner or Vaughan-Williams? Each of them wrote 8-9 symphonies; is anyone here familiar with them, since I’m not?
Coincidentally, I saw a live performance of Mahler’s 1st last night. The orchestra was excellent.
However, I was not overly impressed by the music itself. To be perfectly honest, I’ve not liistened much to Mahler. In fact, my major reference to Mahler is in Tom Lerher’s song about the life and loves of his (third?) wife, Alma (“You should have a statute in bronze, for bagging Gustaf (Mahler), Walter (Groupius) and Franz (Werfel)”).
While the symphony has its moments, overall it seemed ponderous. Also, its various themes didn’t seem to relate to each other, so the work didn’t to form a unified whole. I much prefer Beethoven and especially Brahms.
But then, I tend to be fairly conservative musically. My take on it is that there is Bach, and then there is everybody else…
As Brahms was considered unabashedly ‘old school’ at his time, many of his contemporaries referred to his first Symphony as “Beethoven’s Tenth”.
Although there aren’t as many memorable hooks as the more famous symphonies, the depth of the sectional interactions reflected a maturity lacking in almost all other composers’ first. As well as it should; he was 43 when he finished it, after all.
