Composers whose subsequent symphonies never quite came up to the standard of their first published efforts in that field.
I'm thinking of people like Louise Farrenc, Friedrich Gernsheim and his good friend Brahms.
Cheers,
John.
I certainly wouldn't say that Brahms or Gernsheim didn't surpass their first efforts; I'd say Brahms' 4th was his greatest symphony and that Gernsheim's 2nd, 3rd and 4th surpass his 1st. But that's just my opinion...
I know Gade is sometimes, even often, held up as an example here/in this connection, so I'll mention him even know my own favorite and rather preferred Gade symphonies are probably 3, 5 and 6. Still, what I think and consensus should be separated conceptually (consensus among the smallish- though now growing- number who know the composer's music well; he's more sung nowadays, I know, and my local library has the BIS set of his complete symphonies and two copies of nos. 3&4 besides).
(Assuming the symphonies are numbered chronologically, which is not always the case, I find it hard to see a composer whose first symphony stands so far and above their rest that this would be a simple matter, anyways... excepting those who wrote two and the second - gah. There are things one can say reasonably objectively about music- the composer (appears to have) used this technique, and it (seems to have) achieved this result - and in fact one can work usefully that way- but ... :( ...)
The obvious answer here is Walton, though I guess he can't be mentioned.
I remember when listening to his 2nd sym. on the radio once though that something caught my attention so strongly I had to use an idea sort-of-like it in a piece of my own (and at a certain level of generality I did so. Never finished my piece, though in its unfinished state it's still my favorite of all my pieces, for what little that's worth. You're right about Walton 1 being better, but 2 is under-rated. Anyway. Dietrich 2 is probably not quite as good as 1 if only since no one's bothering to edit and resurrect it- well- who knows.)
Dietrich wrote a second symphony, Eric?
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 (http://opac.rism.info/search?documentid=300257497) - 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.)
I would indicate a xx century composer, but unashamedly romantic: Samuel Barber.
Barber himself withdrew his second symphony (except for the second movement, "Night Flight").
As for myself I like Barber second anyway, but it seems no match for the first one.
The Dietrich C major work appears to be by the composer familiar to us - trying clicking on his name on the page to which Eric directed us. However...
I certainly agree about Walton. I remember how disappointed I was when I heard the first broadcast performance of his No 2, after having had to wait so many years for a sequel to the magnificent No 1.
I forgot to mention Max Bruch, whose First symphony seems to me to completely overshadow Nos 2 & 3, just as with his violin concertos. However, on reflection, I'm inclined to agree that Brahms 4 is near enough on a par with his first symphony. Yet another symphonist I've just remembered who, in my opinion, falls into this category is John Knowles Paine.
Cheers,
John
Quote from: John H White on Monday 06 May 2013, 11:11... I forgot to mention Max Bruch, whose First symphony seems to me to completely overshadow Nos 2 & 3, just as with his violin concertos...
While Bruch's 1st symphony may overshadow his subsequent 2, I still consider his 2nd to be on its level of quality. The 3rd is good but not really on the same level with the first two. Maybe it's just that the 2nd was the first one I really got to know.
No, I agree, Jim. No.2 is Bruch's best - despite its slightly odd three-movement structure.
It's not so odd, Alan. After the first two movements a scherzo would have been out of place. I believe part of the reason why Bruch S2 works so well is the integrity of the emotional journey embodied in the 3 movements.
Couldn't agree more. Bruch's Second is a really fine, serious, dark-hued work and by far the best of the three in my book.
You're probably right, Jim. Glad we agree on its quality, though.
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.
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).
Quote from: eschiss1 on Monday 06 May 2013, 09:06
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 (http://opac.rism.info/search?documentid=300257497) - 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.)
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 (http://opac.rism.info/search?documentid=402004501) and RISM (parts) (http://opac.rism.info/search?documentid=402004727) 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.)
Quote from: mbhaub on Saturday 11 May 2013, 19:59
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.
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.
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...
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?
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.
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.