# Getting into Bruckner?



## Celloissimo

I've been looking to getting into Bruckner, but I'm not sure where to start. I always fell bad because I have neglected him, and have never really given him a good listen. Is there a particular symphony of his I should jump into first?


----------



## Andreas

Try the Seventh. Or the Fourth. They are both great starting points. But especially the Seventh.


----------



## Feathers

Andreas said:


> Try the Seventh. Or the Fourth. They are both great starting points. But especially the Seventh.


I second this. The Fourth was the first one I heard and I liked it, but it was the Seventh that really opened my ears to Bruckner.


----------



## Art Rock

In this order I would recommend: 4 -> 7 -> 8 -> 9


----------



## AClockworkOrange

From my own experience, I started with the 8th and 4th around the same time. I would suggest the 4th Symphony as a good starting point. I found it to be more accessible and from my own experience I enjoyed the 8th more after listening to and getting to know the 4th.

That said, the 8th is also heavier going depending on you approach to the music - such as what other works you enjoy. So the 8th may not be the best starting point but different people respond differently to pieces.

I've just started listening to the 7th myself so I am not familiar enough to comment too far beyond saying that so far I am enjoying it so far.

Overall the 4th would be my suggestion. As far as versions go, I enjoy the Wand/Berlin Philharmoniker, Tennsteadt/LPO and if you don't mind older mono recordings the Furtwangler/Berlin Philharmoniker is very rewarding too.


----------



## Guest

My opinion is that your 'entry' into Bruckner depends to some extent what your 'symphonic' experience has been prior to the Bruckner epiphany. If you're used to 'lightweight' stuff (no names, no rancor) you'll have a challenge ahead of you. If you've already 'done' Mahler, Shosty, Sibelius ... then dive in where you want! It's a shame that Bruckner's earlier stuff gets sidelined, as the 1st, 2nd & 3rd symphonies are well worth it. Please note that I am not going to enter into the 'versions' argument.


----------



## Xaltotun

Hearing Furtwängler tackle the 7th got me into Bruckner, and there's no going back. Like others have said, the 4th and the 7th have an immediacy that's good for newcomers. After that... you'll hopefully get into all of his other symphonies as well and realize that they're all masterpieces, like I and others have done.

Schubertians, Mozarteans and such people might rather start with Bruckner's 1st, though.


----------



## elgar's ghost

I started with the 5th which isn't usually recommended as the opening movement does have a very singular structure - thankfully I loved it and never looked back. However, I agree with the majority who suggest starting with the 4th. The 4th is considered his first truly great symphony and Xaltoun uses a good descriptive word for it - immediacy. It is of epic proportions but easily digested. If you like the 4th then reinforce your opinion with the hefty but beautiful 7th and then, if you're hooked, start plugging the gaps. For this I would probably start with the earlier ones first as the 8th and 9th are so magical that it seems appropriate to hear the final stages of Bruckner's epic journey last of all. 

Two things I would mention here is that a) most of Bruckner's symphonies have more than one edition but as you're a newbie I definitely wouldn't get hung up on that particular hornets nest and b) there are two symphonies designated '0' and '00' which might be worth knowing about in advance. The '0' - also called 'die Nullte' (Bruckner wrote a zero with a stroke through it which was his way of deeming the work annulled) was probably composed between the 'official' 1st and 2nd symphonies but suppressed by the composer. '00' is the earliest work, also called the 'study symphony', where we hear Bruckner cutting his teeth with symphonic form. Also suppressed during Bruckner's lifetime, it was posthumously designated as '00' because '0' had been discovered first and had already been allocated the number. 

The 4th is blessed with many fine recordings if that's where you decide to start - for a good central recommendation I would choose either Jochum's DG account with the berlin PO or Wand's RCA recording, also with Berlin. If you do follow it up with the 7th I would suggest either Wand again with the Berlin PO or Bohms's DG recording with the Vienna PO.


----------



## Celloissimo

I have been through all of Shostakovich's symphonies and they hold a special place in my life, especially the 14th, which I was lucky enough to see performed. For Mahler I have heard the 1st, 5th and 2nd, all beautiful experiences. I should probably start with 4th? And thank you for all the feedback, I feel bad for having neglected this genius.


----------



## Mahlerian

Bruckner is an entirely singular composer, and while there are comparisons to be made between his music and that of Schubert (especially the 9th), Mahler, Sibelius, and Shostakovich, it still will take some adjustment to really "get". That isn't to say you definitely won't enjoy it; I enjoyed Bruckner's music the very first time I heard it (the 3rd), but you probably will find it does plenty of things you don't understand immediately.

A few things:
1) Bruckner's music moves somewhat slowly. Even in his allegros, the macro-pacing is not terribly fast. That said, a good performance of one of his works shouldn't drag.
2) Bruckner's orchestra has a somewhat harsh, brassy sheen on it during tutti sections, and he likes to split the orchestra into sections (brass, woodwinds, strings) for chorale passages, which are numerous.
3) Bruckner makes prominent use of terraced dynamics, so the orchestra moves suddenly from piano to fortissimo or vice versa. He generally does this to highlight an important shift of some kind in the music (change of key, new theme, or an intensification of an earlier theme).
4) In line with the previous, Bruckner often wrote "generalpausen" after climactic moments, where the orchestra is completely tacet for a bar or so. These correspond to the same types of shifts listed above. A good performance should make these feel necessary to the structure, not like breaks in it.

These are the things that, I think, bother a lot of people about this music.


----------



## mmsbls

I had the same introduction that so many others above did (or suggested). I started with the 4th which I liked immediately. I next went to the 8th which I did not like right away but I think is the next popular after the 4th. After a while I bought the Wand/Berlin Philharmoniker set and listened to all 9. I found I liked all of them including the 8th. In my opinion the 7th is the most beautiful so overall I would recommend what essentially everyone else has - 4, 8, and 7.


----------



## palJacky

I started listening to Bruckner in high school(c.1975).
I heard the finale of the seventh and I ended up racing to get a recording.
(walter 2lp coupled with 'te deum')
I could not make sense at first EXCEPT for that last movement which I then heard several times.
THen I turned my attention to the scherzo and listened to that a few times....then the first movement and then finally the adagio,

Once I got the individual movements down, I was able to string them together and then the whole thing started to make 'sense'.

I didn't need to do that with the other symphonies(or at least to that extent).
My experience is that Bruckner is one of those composers that it pays off to 'learn' one work really well before starting in the other works.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Xaltotun said:


> Hearing Furtwängler tackle the 7th got me into Bruckner, and there's no going back. Like others have said, the 4th and the 7th have an immediacy that's good for newcomers. After that... you'll hopefully get into all of his other symphonies as well and realize that they're all masterpieces, like I and others have done.
> 
> Schubertians, Mozarteans and such people might rather start with Bruckner's 1st, though.


And Wagnerians should start with the 7th and the 3rd. Are you not by any chance a Wagnerian, *Celloissimo*?


----------



## Celloissimo

SiegendesLicht said:


> And Wagnerians should start with the 7th and the 3rd. Are you not by any chance a Wagnerian, *Celloissimo*?


I am a devout Wagnerian and if I remember correctly Bruckner was as well. I was lucky enough to have seen Der Fliegende Hollander, which was responsible for converting me. Also have pulled various all-nighters watching Met recordings of the Ring Cycle my good friend had lent me, whose niece is a mezzo-soprano singer.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Celloissimo said:


> I am a devout Wagnerian and if I remember correctly Bruckner was as well.


In this case:



> Wilkommen! Wilkommen! Wilkommen!


And yes, Bruckner was such a devout Wagnerian that he dedicated his 3rd symphony to the Master, and it was the one I started getting to know Bruckner with and fell in love with his music at once.


----------



## Celloissimo

SiegendesLicht said:


> In this case:
> 
> And yes, Bruckner was such a devout Wagnerian that he dedicated his 3rd symphony to the Master, and it was the one I started getting to know Bruckner with and fell in love with his music at once.


I'm going to start with Symphony 4 as sugested. Thanks for all the feedback, I've always wanted to get into Bruckner.

Also SiegendesLicht, wir diskutieren bald unsere liebliche Komponist!


----------



## DavidA

For starting Bruckner the 4th or 7th are probably best. Mind you, I started with the 9th as you could get Jochum's old (mono) recording on a single LP. In those days Bruckner was expensive to collect. How times have changed!


----------



## davinci

*Celloissimo*... You've gotten some excellent advice. BTW, the 4th and the 7th are the most widely performed by the major symphonies (in the US).
Also check out some of the recent Bruckner threads especially _I've begun a journey through Bruckner's Symphonies!_

http://www.talkclassical.com/21815-ive-begun-journey-through.html


----------



## Vaneyes

Celloissimo said:


> I've been looking to getting into Bruckner, but I'm not sure where to start. I always fell bad because I have neglected him, and have never really given him a good listen. Is there a particular symphony of his I should jump into first?


I suggest taking them in order, 1 through 9. For now, don't be bothered with the different editions (usually small changes) of each, nor a particular conductor or orchestra. Enjoy! :tiphat:


----------



## Sorin

I reccomend start with the 7th Simphony - ideally, with the Bruckner sound delivered by Sergiu Celibidache with Munchner Orchestra 1994 / EMI Classics. 

Very good also with Furtwangler or Jochum, but personally think that Celibidache has something extra on Bruckner masterpieces vs. the other 2 great conductors. Enjoy it !


----------



## Itullian

mho
Get the Jochum set on DGG. good price, great Bruckner.
And start at the beginning.
Or maybe with 4 which I think is the most accessible.


----------



## Celloissimo

So last night, after careful consideration based on all your excellent feedback, I decided to listen to the fourth. It was a beautiful experience, although at times I was not found of the terraced dynamics as one previously mentioned, but I was still ready for them. I am now going to try plunging into the third or fifth. Thanks!!


----------



## Mahlerian

Celloissimo said:


> So last night, after careful consideration based on all your excellent feedback, I decided to listen to the fourth. It was a beautiful experience, although at times I was not found of the terraced dynamics as one previously mentioned, but I was still ready for them. I am now going to try plunging into the third or fifth. Thanks!!


The terraced dynamics tend to bother people just hearing the music for the first time, because you don't necessarily understand why they're there. If you know Bruckner's style well, they seem less weird and off-putting.

If I may ask (as a Bruckner-phile who knows the details of the various versions), which recording of the 4th did you listen to?


----------



## Celloissimo

I listened to Karajan's recording with the Berlin Phillarmhonic (I figured I couldn't go wrong with that combinatioN! ) and the edition was ed. Robert Haas


----------



## Mahlerian

Celloissimo said:


> I listened to Karajan's recording with the Berlin Phillarmhonic (I figured I couldn't go wrong with that combinatioN! ) and the edition was ed. Robert Haas


I know that recording. It was one of the first I heard of the 4th, and I feel that Karajan's style fits Bruckner better than Mahler. Thanks for the info.

On a side note, I recently heard a live performance of the 4th, and they used the Haas 1881 edition as well.

(I feel that the 1880/1881 version of the 4th is the best. The 1874 version is intriguing but less refined, and the 1888 version changes the orchestration too much.)


----------



## Celloissimo

Karajan is fantastic with Dvorak and for now at least Bruckner, but is kind of average with Mahler. I tried ed. Haas in order to listen to the most unadulterated version of the symphony due to the fact it was my first time listening. I'm sure that sentence can arouse debate among some circles but those were my thoughts, those of a Bruckner beginner.


----------



## Guest

Vaneyes said:


> I suggest taking them in order, 1 through 9. For now, don't be bothered with the different editions (usually small changes) of each, nor a particular conductor or orchestra. Enjoy! :tiphat:


OK, let's not argue the 'details' concerning the different versions for the moment, as that is just a needless distraction for those new to Bruckner. Nevertheless, dear Vaneyes, there are rather *huge differences* between versions of the 3rd, 4th and 8th symphonies!


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian said:


> I know that recording. It was one of the first I heard of the 4th, and I feel that Karajan's style fits Bruckner better than Mahler. Thanks for the info.
> 
> On a side note, I recently heard a live performance of the 4th, and they used the Haas 1881 edition as well.
> 
> (I feel that the 1880/1881 version of the 4th is the best. The 1874 version is intriguing but less refined, and the 1888 version changes the orchestration too much.)


Dear Mahlerian,
I detect a kindred soul (I nearly wrote sole, but there are no sea fish in Upper Austria). I don't know if we have the same Karajan recording, but the one I have of Bruckner's 4th takes a couple of (Haasian) liberties with the score. I have to say that putting aside the Haas polemic, it's a pretty convincing reading.


----------



## Guest

And may I bring upon my head the 'Vesuvius of all opprobium' for stating that I am so glad a bunch of musos (= musicologists) has attempted the latest 'reconstruction' of the finale of Bruckner's Ninth.


----------



## Mahlerian

TalkingHead said:


> Dear Mahlerian,
> I detect a kindred soul (I nearly wrote sole, but there are no sea fish in Upper Austria). I don't know if we have the same Karajan recording, but the one I have of Bruckner's 4th takes a couple of (Haasian) liberties with the score. I have to say that putting aside the Haas polemic, it's a pretty convincing reading.


Did you happen to hear or hear about the incident last year (correction: 2011) at a concert of the 1888 version of Bruckner's 4th under the direction of Osmo Vanska? A man in the audience stood up during the last movement, infuriated, and shouted to everyone how terrible the performance was: "they're dragging!"

He continued to try to defend himself by saying that the conductor had butchered the score, and had used the "wrong" version. I have a little sympathy for his view, and having heard a bootleg of the performance in question, it certainly wasn't very good, but that really doesn't justify disrupting the performance.


----------



## Guest

Celloissimo said:


> Karajan is fantastic with Dvorak and for now at least Bruckner, but is kind of average with Mahler. I tried ed. Haas in order to listen to the most unadulterated version of the symphony due to the fact it was my first time listening. I'm sure that sentence can arouse debate among some circles but those were my thoughts, those of a Bruckner beginner.


Dear Celloissimo,
I have never heard Karajan with Dvorak nor Mahler, so I look to you for a bit of guidance there! As to Haas and "unadulterated" Bruckner, please understand that there is a huge polemic surrounding this issue. It seems that his editorial approach is less than exemplary, with Nowak holding the moral high ground, though he is not beyond reproach either! The thing is, there are several conductors (including Boulez) who favour Haas over Nowak. I love Bruckner (the music, not the man!), but I curse him (as I would a wayward brother) for causing us all this fuss!


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian said:


> Did you happen to hear or hear about the incident last year (correction: 2011) at a concert of the 1888 version of Bruckner's 4th under the direction of Osmo Vanska? A man in the audience stood up during the last movement, infuriated, and shouted to everyone how terrible the performance was: "they're dragging!"
> 
> He continued to try to defend himself by saying that the conductor had butchered the score, and had used the "wrong" version. I have a little sympathy for his view, and having heard a bootleg of the performance in question, it certainly wasn't very good, but that really doesn't justify disrupting the performance.


Hello Mahlerian. No, that story is new to me,, but I am not surprised as it has a precedent. Perhaps you know the story of Sibelius who attended the premier of Bruckner's 8th and got into a fight with some of his detractors. Apparently he had a limp ever after.


----------



## Celloissimo

TalkingHead said:


> Dear Celloissimo,
> I have never heard Karajan with Dvorak nor Mahler, so I look to you for a bit of guidance there! As to Haas and "unadulterated" Bruckner, please understand that there is a huge polemic surrounding this issue. It seems that his editorial approach is less than exemplary, with Nowak holding the moral high ground, though he is not beyond reproach either! The thing is, there are several conductors (including Boulez) who favour Haas over Nowak. I love Bruckner (the music, not the man!), but I curse him (as I would a wayward brother) for causing us all this fuss!


Ah I understand. I was partially aware of the Polemic and was looking at a few of the versions to see which was best for starting out. Prior to my listening, it appeared to me that Haas appeared to stay most unadulterated, although I must be excused for my research was brief and cursory.


----------



## Mahlerian

Celloissimo said:


> Ah I understand. I was partially aware of the Polemic and was looking at a few of the versions to see which was best for starting out. Prior to my listening, it appeared to me that Haas appeared to stay most unadulterated, although I must be excused for my research was brief and cursory.


Haas's 4th is not that controversial. It's Haas's 8th that some have qualms with, because he took the two versions and stitched them together, more or less.


----------



## Celloissimo

*TalkingHead*, now that you ask,I also do particularly favor Karajan when it comes to Dvorak's symphonies and concerti. A CD of his recordings of 8&9 is what first had me enamored in the conductor.


----------



## Guest

Celloissimo said:


> Ah I understand. I was partially aware of the Polemic and was looking at a few of the versions to see which was best for starting out. Prior to my listening, it appeared to me that Haas appeared to stay most unadulterated, although I must be excused for my research was brief and cursory.


Dear Celloissimo, as Mahlerian has said (I think) and as I have said (I know), don't worry for now about the Haas/Nowak polemic. It *is* a huge issue, but one that can be on the back-burner for now. We have time. Are you in a rush? I'm not.


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian said:


> Haas's 4th is not that controversial. It's Haas's 8th that some have qualms with, because he took the two versions and stitched them together, more or less.


Dear Mahlerian, you're quite right, the Haas 4th is hardly that controversial apart from a few 'touch ups' here and there, and which I have to say are musically quite effective. I know Bruckner's first version of the 4th and I say to you it is a lesser work. That of course has nothing to do with Haas, and I don't want to confuse Celloissimo.
It is, as you say, the 8th where Haas was most 'interventionist', not only stitching together passages from the first and second versions but also actually himself composing 16 or so bars to facilitate what he thought of as 'Bruckner's real intentions'.
Quite unforgivable.


----------



## Mahlerian

TalkingHead said:


> Dear Mahlerian, you're quite right, the Haas 4th is hardly that controversial apart from a few 'touch ups' here and there, and which I have to say are musically quite effective. I know Bruckner's first version of the 4th and I say to you it is a lesser work.


I don't find it as fully convincing as the revision, that's for sure. That said, it's interesting to have, because he mostly covers the same territory in a different way. I feel more or less the same about the first version of the 8th. The 3rd, on the other hand, I prefer the original to the revisions.


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian said:


> I don't find it as fully convincing as the revision, that's for sure. That said, it's interesting to have, because he mostly covers the same territory in a different way. I feel more or less the same about the first version of the 8th. The 3rd, on the other hand, I prefer the original to the revisions.


In a way, thank God we have both versions of the 4th for comparison. I am perfectly happy to listen (to pay for a ticket to listen) to the 'original' 4th, but I find the earlier version less 'rounded', and the later scherzo (the one we all know) is a knock-out! For the 8th, it's mainly the first movement that differs (with of course major differences in orchestration in the Adagio), and once again I have to thank Schalk (more probably the conductor who rejected it, forgotten his name) for the second version. But here's the joy: I can get to hear two relatively quite different versions of the 'same' symphony. Talk about value for money !!


----------



## Celloissimo

I just finished listening to the 2nd. I took a bit of an unorthodox approach by listening to a recording by Solti I suppose, but in any case I enjoyed it. While the impressions are fresh in my mind, I found the entire symphony quite pleasing and riveting, although the 1st movement dragged a bit in my opinion. Overall I enjoyed this symphony more than I did the 4th: is this opinion uncommon or probably the mistake of a Bruckner amateur with little listening experience and appreciation?


----------



## davinci

Celloissimo said:


> So last night, after careful consideration based on all your excellent feedback, I decided to listen to the fourth. It was a beautiful experience, although at times I was not found of the terraced dynamics as one previously mentioned, but I was still ready for them. I am now going to try plunging into the third or fifth. Thanks!!


Celloissimo...Here's my 2 cents; since u like the 4th, dont move on to the 3rd yet. It is a very different style, there are too many versions and revisions, and it would not be a progression for you. The only version of the 3rd that makes sense is the original, which only a handful of conductors have recorded. 
I think move forward or maybe give a listen to No. 1 to see how far Bruckner has matured in his later symphonies. I also suggest reading the history behind the writing of the 3rd...it is dedicated to Wagner and is a monumental work, but being a little bit informed might help u make sense of it. I was lost on the first listen, put the CD back on the shelf and then bought the original version.


----------



## davinci

Celloissimo said:


> I just finished listening to the 2nd. I took a bit of an unorthodox approach by listening to a recording by Solti I suppose, but in any case I enjoyed it. While the impressions are fresh in my mind, I found the entire symphony quite pleasing and riveting, although the 1st movement dragged a bit in my opinion. Overall I enjoyed this symphony more than I did the 4th: is this opinion uncommon or probably the mistake of a Bruckner amateur with little listening experience and appreciation?


Me again... I think the 2nd is not typical of Bruckner, but shows brilliance. It's one of my favorites.


----------



## Guest

Celloissimo said:


> I just finished listening to the 2nd. I took a bit of an unorthodox approach by listening to a recording by Solti I suppose, but in any case I enjoyed it. While the impressions are fresh in my mind, I found the entire symphony quite pleasing and riveting, although the 1st movement dragged a bit in my opinion. Overall I enjoyed this symphony more than I did the 4th: is this opinion uncommon or probably the mistake of a Bruckner amateur with little listening experience and appreciation?


Whether or not your opinion is uncommon is beside the point, Celloissimo. You now prefer the 2nd to the 4th. Fine! Maybe Solti isn't the best advocate of Bruckner? Keep going! But you are a 'cellist, surely? Plenty of 'cello work in the 2nd and the 4th !!!


----------



## Guest

davinci said:


> Celloissimo...Here's my 2 cents; since u like the 4th, dont move on to the 3rd yet. It is a very different style, there are too many versions and revisions, and it would not be a progression for you. The only version of the 3rd that makes sense is the original, which only a handful of conductors have recorded.
> I think move forward or maybe give a listen to No. 1 to see how far Bruckner has matured in his later symphonies. I also suggest reading the history behind the writing of the 3rd...it is dedicated to Wagner and is a monumental work, but being a little bit informed might help u make sense of it. I was lost on the first listen, put the CD back on the shelf and then bought the original version.


Dear Davinci: I have a different opinion to yours! I agree that perhaps Celloissimo shouldn't move onto the 3rd just yet (Which version? Which orchestra? Which conductor?). Where I disagree is that only the 'original version' is valid. OK, I do prefer the first 'original' version, but I'm kind of glad that I have two other possible versions to digest. With all their structural faults.


----------



## Celloissimo

Indeed *TalkingHead*, I am a cellist, and in fact the cello work was one of the reasons the 2nd happened to appeal to me so much. Very beautiful and intricate passages in the 2nd movement. Do you happen to play an instrument?


----------



## Guest

Let it be a secret between you and I.


----------



## Celloissimo

You must play the viola. Or the trumpet. xD


----------



## Guest

B-C#-D#-B / B-A-F#-B /B-D#-F#-E-D#/(C-natural) crash-crash-crash-crash/ B ........


----------



## davinci

TalkingHead said:


> Dear Davinci: I have a different opinion to yours! I agree that perhaps Celloissimo shouldn't move onto the 3rd just yet (Which version? Which orchestra? Which conductor?). Where I disagree is that only the 'original version' is valid. OK, I do prefer the first 'original' version, but I'm kind of glad that I have two other possible versions to digest. With all their structural faults.


A point well taken.


----------



## Mahlerian

TalkingHead said:


> B-C#-D#-B / B-A-F#-B /B-D#-F#-E-D#/(C-natural) crash-crash-crash-crash/ B ........


Hey...you don't go bringing Dvorak into a Bruckner thread! 

As for Celloissimo, I'd recommend hearing the 7th soon. It's second in popularity after the 4th, and there's only one version (more or less).


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian said:


> Hey...you don't go bringing Dvorak into a Bruckner thread!


Sorry! Try this: E-flat pedal tremolo (strings) / solo horn (at pitch) : Bflat-Eflat-Bflat (hold...) ... Cflat-Eflat-Bflat (hold ...) ... continue for 1 hour ...


----------



## Celloissimo

I will probably look into the seventh next then. One thing I felt was a little odd about the second was that he often put arbitrary and, to me at least, needless caesuras in the middle of movements that interrupted the flow and didn't seem to serve any purpose. But again, this is simply the view of a beginner.


----------



## Bone

I'm a brass player and found it difficult to "get into" Bruckner. Sure, I enjoyed listening to the blasting brass in college but I never thought there was much music-making involved. I remember thinking Solti's Bruckner 4 with CSO was nothing but a series of "peering over the edge of a cliff" climaxes without any real substance (4 is still my favorite overall). HvK's 8 with VPO completely changed my opinion: that recording is probably my favorite single recording next to Kleiber's Brahms 4. 

I would recommend any of Tinter's Naxos recordings for newbies: for a small investment, you get some excellent, committed playing.


----------



## Mahlerian

Celloissimo said:


> I will probably look into the seventh next then. One thing I felt was a little odd about the second was that he often put arbitrary and, to me at least, needless caesuras in the middle of movements that interrupted the flow and didn't seem to serve any purpose. But again, this is simply the view of a beginner.


It was one of his stylistic tics. It bothered me more at first, and now it just fits right in in my mind. Anyway, the 2nd has the most of these, and it's gotten a nickname from it: "Pausen-Symphonie"!



Bone said:


> I would recommend any of Tinter's Naxos recordings for newbies: for a small investment, you get some excellent, committed playing.


I love Tintner's recording of the original 3rd, although the brass tend to dominate just about everything else in the acoustics (even more so than normal!)


----------



## Celloissimo

Mahlerian said:


> It was one of his stylistic tics. It bothered me more at first, and now it just fits right in in my mind. Anyway, the 2nd has the most of these, and it's gotten a nickname from it: "Pausen-Symphonie"!
> 
> I love Tintner's recording of the original 3rd, although the brass tend to dominate just about everything else in the acoustics (even more so than normal!)


That's fantastic! Pretty accurate in my opinion. I get the impression Bruckner has a whole hodgepodge of tics. xD They're a bit annoying to me, but they definitely don't drive me away.


----------



## Guest

Celloissimo said:


> I will probably look into the seventh next then. *One thing I felt was a little odd about the second was that he often put arbitrary and, to me at least, needless caesuras in the middle of movements that interrupted the flow and didn't seem to serve any purpose*. But again, this is simply the view of a beginner.


Bruckner is reported to have said : "When I have something important to say I like to stop, take a breath, and then continue ..."


----------



## Guest

Bone said:


> I'm a brass player and found it difficult to "get into" Bruckner. Sure, I enjoyed listening to the blasting brass in college but I never thought there was much music-making involved. I remember thinking Solti's Bruckner 4 with CSO was nothing but a series of "peering over the edge of a cliff" climaxes without any real substance (4 is still my favorite overall). HvK's 8 with VPO completely changed my opinion: that recording is probably my favorite single recording next to Kleiber's Brahms 4.
> 
> *I would recommend any of Tinter's Naxos recordings for newbies: for a small investment, you get some excellent, committed playing.*


Absoltely agree, Herr von Bone player !!!! What I like about the Naxos/Tintner box set is the fact it's not a first rank orchestra (not the Berlin Bootboys, not the Vienna Vandals, not the Amsterdam Amp-bashers) but the Scottish National Orchestra and the Irish band ... who make an excellent sound and give me plenty of excitement. As you said, some excellent and committed playing, and that does me plenty! Thank you for saying so. I kiss you (in the 18th century sense).


----------



## Manxfeeder

TalkingHead said:


> Absoltely agree, Herr von Bone player !!!! What I like about the Naxos/Tintner box set is the fact it's not a first rank orchestra (not the Berlin Bootboys, not the Vienna Vandals, not the Amsterdam Amp-bashers) but the Scottish National Orchestra and the Irish band ... who make an excellent sound and give me plenty of excitement. As you said, some excellent and committed playing, and that does me plenty! Thank you for saying so. I kiss you (in the 18th century sense).


It was Tinter who made me fall in love with Bruckner. There is a moment in the first movement of his recording of the 4th symphony which consistently, more than any other, brings me out of my seat and up into the clouds.


----------



## Guest

Likewise, Feeder-of-Manx, I kiss you in the 18th century sense for your wisdom and sensibility.
May I sing to you? Listen:
D minor string tremolo pedal / horn (at pitch) : D-D-D ... F- D ... / D-D-D ..... A - D .... / D-D-D .... E-D ... continues for a while until a seeming massive Neapolitan 6th, but my ears and memory deceive me ...


----------



## Mahlerian

TalkingHead said:


> Likewise, Feeder-of-Manx, I kiss you in the 18th century sense for your wisdom and sensibility.
> May I sing to you? Listen:
> D minor string tremolo pedal / horn (at pitch) : D-D-D ... F- D ... / D-D-D ..... A - D .... / D-D-D .... E-D ... continues for a while until a seeming massive Neapolitan 6th, but my ears and memory deceive me ...


Looking at the score, the progression moves to E-flat7 (in 3rd inversion), then C-flat major, then culminates in A-flat7.


----------



## Manxfeeder

TalkingHead said:


> May I sing to you? Listen:
> D minor string tremolo pedal / horn (at pitch) : D-D-D ... F- D ... / D-D-D ..... A - D .... / D-D-D .... E-D ... continues for a while until a seeming massive Neapolitan 6th, but my ears and memory deceive me ...


Yes, my friend, those notes are meant for God. We can only eavesdrop.


----------



## Guest

"Notes are meant for God". Oh this is a lovely thought, thanks Manxfeeder!! 

I've never been a real fan of Bruckner thinking it pompous and over-wrought, but I certainly appreciate the responses of others who do enjoy it. Whatever it takes, aye!!


----------



## Mahlerian

For the few interested, here's the part where the man walked out.






You can hear him say: "Rubbish! This is terrible! They're dragging! Why can't you be more [critical]?" The last word is cut off by the orchestra rising in volume.

To be fair, they were dragging, and Vanska's phrasing really doesn't make sense.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Wow! I do kind of appreciate his passion, though. You know he's paying attention.


----------



## zeszut

Mahlerian said:


> A few things:
> 1) Bruckner's music moves somewhat slowly. Even in his allegros, the macro-pacing is not terribly fast. That said, a good performance of one of his works shouldn't drag.
> 2) Bruckner's orchestra has a somewhat harsh, brassy sheen on it during tutti sections, and he likes to split the orchestra into sections (brass, woodwinds, strings) for chorale passages, which are numerous.
> 3) Bruckner makes prominent use of terraced dynamics, so the orchestra moves suddenly from piano to fortissimo or vice versa. He generally does this to highlight an important shift of some kind in the music (change of key, new theme, or an intensification of an earlier theme).
> 4) In line with the previous, Bruckner often wrote "generalpausen" after climactic moments, where the orchestra is completely tacet for a bar or so. These correspond to the same types of shifts listed above. A good performance should make these feel necessary to the structure, not like breaks in it.
> 
> These are the things that, I think, bother a lot of people about this music.


i always remember that bruckner was appointed teacher and organist at st florian in 1848. so in response to the four points above, think thick, lush organ works played in a large church with a long, full echo. think bach. to avoid sounding woof-y, such works cannot be too fast, use different registers for chorale parts, require silences after climaxes (allowing the echo to die), etc.

transfer such thinking to his orchestral works and they make full sense.


----------



## Guest

What do people think of Bruckner's LONG andates? I found the second's second movement unbearable. What do you guys think?


----------



## elgar's ghost

Does anyone else find it puzzling that Bruckner contributed nothing really substantial to organ repertoire bearing in mind his playing and teaching credentials (similar to those of Cesar Franck's, who managed to produce a fine body of work)? I sometimes wonder why he didn't seem to make an effort to excel in this field unless his priorities lay elsewhere.


----------



## Mahlerian

karajan said:


> What do people think of Bruckner's LONG andates? I found the second's second movement unbearable. What do you guys think?


The slow movements of Bruckner's works can be difficult to grasp quickly, because their themes are quite lengthy and developed over significant stretches of time. I know on my part that I had to listen a few times to any of them before I understood their themes and structure.

That said, he wrote glorious slow movements in all of his symphonies, and they got better, seemingly, with each successive work.



elgars ghost said:


> Does anyone else find it puzzling that Bruckner contributed nothing really substantial to organ repertoire bearing in mind his playing and teaching credentials (similar to those of Cesar Franck's, who managed to produce a fine body of work)? I sometimes wonder why he didn't seem to make an effort to excel in this field unless his priorities lay elsewhere.


It's a little puzzling, I admit. We can only imagine what he could have contributed to the organ repertoire.


----------



## Celloissimo

karajan said:


> What do people think of Bruckner's LONG andates? I found the second's second movement unbearable. What do you guys think?


I personally love second movement of the 2nd. Although it's slow it gradually makes me melt with beauty.


----------



## Vaneyes

15M Bruckner Followers can't be wrong.


----------



## Arsakes

Vaneyes said:


> 15M Bruckner Followers can't be wrong.


Where are they?

And for the beginners ... start with Adagio/Andante parts of each symphony. Then Scherzo movements and the rest.


----------



## CyrilWashbrook

Arsakes said:


> Where are they?
> 
> And for the beginners ... start with Adagio/Andante parts of each symphony. Then Scherzo movements and the rest.


Why? I couldn't think of a worse way to listen to Bruckner 9 for the first time than in reverse order.


----------



## Tombstoner

I personally always began with the scherzos.



zeszut said:


> i always remember that bruckner was appointed teacher and organist at st florian in 1848. so in response to the four points above, think thick, lush organ works played in a large church with a long, full echo. think bach. to avoid sounding woof-y, such works cannot be too fast, use different registers for chorale parts, require silences after climaxes (allowing the echo to die), etc.
> 
> transfer such thinking to his orchestral works and they make full sense.


This is shockingly accurate, IMO. I was just listening to the adagio of the 7th, and I was able to perfectly picture parts of it being played on a large church organ. I'm probably going to keep this in mind whenever I listen to his work now.


----------



## Guest

Know that 'famous cymbal clash' in Bruckner 7? Well, here are 12 things that can go wrong if using the Nowak edition!


----------



## Guest

Of course, using the Haas edition would've given the guy a night off.


----------



## Tombstoner

TalkingHead said:


> Know that 'famous cymbal clash' in Bruckner 7? Well, here are 12 things that can go wrong if using the Nowak edition!


ROFL!  Real or not, that was a riot (I'm surprised the audience didn't start one, lol).


----------



## Mark Miller

Guest said:


> My opinion is that your 'entry' into Bruckner depends to some extent what your 'symphonic' experience has been prior to the Bruckner epiphany. If you're used to 'lightweight' stuff (no names, no rancor) you'll have a challenge ahead of you. If you've already 'done' Mahler, Shosty, Sibelius ... then dive in where you want! It's a shame that Bruckner's earlier stuff gets sidelined, as the 1st, 2nd & 3rd symphonies are well worth it. Please note that I am not going to enter into the 'versions' argument.


Your reply was perfect, at how to avoid offending anyone. I don't believe one should have to be so cautious (easy for me to say who never posts on these type discussions) but yours was so good I had to post.


----------

