# I've begun a journey through Bruckner's Symphonies!



## macgeek2005

I long suspected that I would love Bruckner's symphonies when I finally get around to familiarizing myself with them, and that time has finally come. I've listened to the 1st and 2nd symphonies about six times each in the last five days, as well as one listening of the 3rd symphony.

I know that his later symphonies are way better than the earlier ones, but I'm going in order and getting to know the music and the man as I go along. I'm very excited, and am enjoying this a lot! When I read things about certain movements of his later symphonies and how unbelievable they are, it feels like I'm reading a spoiler about a future episode of something that I'm currently only at the beginning of. There's that same sense of excitement and epic scope of the journey still ahead.

Just wanted to share!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

No. 4! No. 4! No. 4! Celibidache! Celibidache! Celibidache!


----------



## elgar's ghost

I'm glad that you are both enjoying them and taking them in order - the earlier symphonies are mostly very good and offer some clues and you are right - from the 4th onwards you have a fantastic journey ahead of you. It's really good to read of your anticipation and excitement so don't forget to offer further bulletins as you make your leisurely way through them.


----------



## superhorn

Even though the later symphonies may be "greater" than the first three, I still love them .
I've never been able to understand the neglect of the first symphony, for example . It's the shortest of the 9, and no longer than the thrice familiar Brahms first . The second is the most gentle and intimate of the nine, and more evocative of the rolling plains of the Austrian countryside than mountains or cathedrals ; it's also very underrated .
The so-called "symphony number zero" is also well-worth trying .


----------



## macgeek2005

Yes, I have been enjoying these first two symphonies very much, which makes me even more excited about what's to come!



ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> No. 4! No. 4! No. 4! Celibidache! Celibidache! Celibidache!


All I have at the moment are the recordings with Karajan/Berlin from the Karajan Symphony Edition. Is the Celibidache that much better for No. 4?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I haven't heard Karajan's 4th but Celibidache is probably much slower


----------



## chalkpie

Funny.....I am currently just starting to explore Bruckner myself, although I am all over the map and just trying random symphonies. The first thing I heard was the adagio to B8 and I was sold instantly. As a fan of Mahler and Wagner (his more preludes and overtures), Bruckner is a logical choice. 

I am also "revisiting" Sibelius and really digging him as well. 

The other 'problem' is that I am jonesing to do another complete Shostakovich cycle.......too much amazing music.....not enough time! What a problem to have


----------



## Manxfeeder

Hey, good listening to you! If I were you, I'd save Celibidache for after you're familiar with the more "standard" recordings. The thing about Bruckner is, he can be taken different ways - lighter and Schubertian, as with Herreweghe, or profound, like Jochum or Celibidache. And there are various shades in between. And I hope you'll meet Furtwangler eventually, especially on the 8th. 

I started with Tinter's set on Naxos. Of course, it was dirt cheap back then; I don't think it is now. But he doesn't play much with the tempi, just takes the pieces as they're written. After that, I could branch out and see what the other conductors were doing in contrast. 

Anyway, that was my journey. But it's still ongoing.


----------



## Faville

I am taking my Bruckner journey slowly and enjoying all of it. I remember starting with a library copy of the 8th with Haitink/Concertebouw around 1992 and that was sufficient enough to propel me on. My girlfriend (now wife) bought me the 8th shortly thereafter with Gunter Wand and the NDR Sinfonie at Lubeck Cathedral (1990) which is my favorite so far. I have the complete cycle on Naxos with Tintner, which is an excellent "cheap" set done by someone devoted to Bruckner's original visions, and it's great to compare Bruckner's originals next to edited versions.

I really should invest in another complete cycle. I've got random conductors/orchestras on many. The 5th with Barenboim and Berlin is immense, and I am also fond of the 7th with Skrowaczewski/Saarbrucken.

I don't think there's a single Bruckner symphony I don't like, though I feel like I'm still far from knowing all of the nooks and crannies of each one, and I frankly want to keep discovering forever.


----------



## Arsakes

Listen to No.3,5,6,7 and listen again!

No.4 isn't bad, No.9 didn't attracted me and I should give No.8 another chance.


----------



## Frasier

macgeek2005 said:


> Yes, I have been enjoying these first two symphonies very much, which makes me even more excited about what's to come!
> 
> All I have at the moment are the recordings with Karajan/Berlin from the Karajan Symphony Edition. Is the Celibidache that much better for No. 4?


I found the Celibidache incredibly slow - it must be the slowest in the market. VERY luxurious until the last movement and that seemed to drag. He certainly has his fans and he knows what he's doing and it's definitely worth hearing but I suggest listening to a few to compare - it isn't one of the longer ones (except Celibidache's that lasts almost 1hr 20mins). Karajan is ok, so is Wand. Klemperer is unusual: he takes the work at a fair pace except the scherzo and that he seems to drag out! Inbal does a nice recording with the 1874 version.

Nice though. I also love Bruckner's work and hope you continue to enjoy it.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Faville said:


> My girlfriend (now wife) bought me the 8th shortly thereafter with Gunter Wand and the NDR Sinfonie at Lubeck Cathedral (1990) which is my favorite so far.


Wow! If she weren't already your wife, I'd suggest she should be!


----------



## Tombstoner

I've been slowly making my way through them myself. I started with Nos. 9 and 8 (starting with later works is just how I've always begun listening to composers,) and have since heard through the first four.

The eighth is undoubtedly my favorite so far. Instead of just creating music, it creates a world in which the listener can be immersed. The last two movements especially are my favorites, though I feel the first two are completely necessary as well. The symphony has incredible drama, and at the same time, an overall positive aura. Hearing the last movement makes me feel a very peculiar way which no other music has made me feel.

Another notable movement is the Adagio of the 9th...oh man. I relatively dislike the 9th overall, and even this movement is a mixed bag for me. However, there's no denying the incredible tension it builds up through various means, all leading up to...well, I'll let you hear it for yourself. Like it or not, you will not forget the Adagio of the Ninth.


----------



## davinci

New member here and I'm glad to have found this thread. Been loving Bruckner for a couple years and have several cycles on CD and vinyl. For me #8 is his masterpiece. The later symphonies seem to be the most popular, and maybe I'm in the minority but I feel Symphony #2 is absolutely brilliant as it shows a very different side of the man.


----------



## macgeek2005

I just discovered that the Seattle Symphony is doing No. 4 in April. I haven't heard one note of it yet, but I know that by April I'll know it inside out, so I'm excited!

By the way, where I'm at now is.. I've listened to the 1st symphony fifteen times, following along with the score on one of those times.

I'm currently in the twelfth listening of the 2nd symphony, and will go through it at least once with the score before capping it off for now at fifteen listenings as well before moving onto the 3rd.

The 3rd I have listened to three times already.. basically preliminary listenings so that the symphony already rings a bell for me when I come to get to know it.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

No. 4, one of the most beautiful openings of any symphony:


----------



## macgeek2005

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> No. 4, one of the most beautiful openings of any symphony:


I'll come back and listen to this one after I've listened to my Karajan recording. And since I've never ever heard this opening before, I don't want to spoil it since I don't know No. 3 very well yet.


----------



## Xaltotun

I'm always glad when people take early Bruckner seriously, because that stuff is needlessly neglected and just a slight bit less inspired than his late greatness. Also, Karajan is always excellent with Bruckner, so that's all you'll need for now, perhaps ever. Enjoy your Bruckner journey - music does not get much better than that!


----------



## bigshot

Karajan and Wand are the goto guys for Bruckner


----------



## Manxfeeder

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> No. 4, one of the most beautiful openings of any symphony:


Yeah. Someone said this is one of the deepest and instantly compelling openings since Beethoven. From the nebulous tremolos, the horn rises, then a dialogue with the woodwinds like the call and response of a priest and congregants. But this isn't so much happening in a church; it harkens back farther than that, back to the forest, which, as Kretzschmar noted, was the first cathedral God built.


----------



## neoshredder

@The OP. Did you make it out alive?


----------



## davinci

The Gunter Wand/Bruckner cycle on RCA Red Seal CD (DDD) is worth collecting. It features excellent modern-day sonics by a master Bruckner conductor. Forgot to mention it's with the BPO.


----------



## Lukecash12

Manxfeeder said:


> Hey, good listening to you! If I were you, I'd save Celibidache for after you're familiar with the more "standard" recordings. The thing about Bruckner is, he can be taken different ways - lighter and Schubertian, as with Herreweghe, or profound, like Jochum or Celibidache. And there are various shades in between. And I hope you'll meet Furtwangler eventually, especially on the 8th.
> 
> I started with Tinter's set on Naxos. Of course, it was dirt cheap back then; I don't think it is now. But he doesn't play much with the tempi, just takes the pieces as they're written. After that, I could branch out and see what the other conductors were doing in contrast.
> 
> Anyway, that was my journey. But it's still ongoing.


Tinter does seem like an appropriate start to me.


----------



## macgeek2005

neoshredder said:


> @The OP. Did you make it out alive?


Make it out alive from what?

Anyways, I'm nearing the end of my time with the 2nd symphony. I'm surprised that none of the codas from these first two symphonies have been used in movie trailers. You know how at the end of a trailer, often there will be 20 or 30 seconds of really intense, fast-moving action, before the film title smashes onto the screen? The coda of the third movement of the 2nd symphony, for example, would be phenomenal for that. Or the coda of the first movement.

Just a random thought.


----------



## neoshredder

It was a joke. You mentioned journey. So...


----------



## macgeek2005

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

One more hearing of the 2nd (following the score with the fourth movement) before I get to know the 3rd better! I'm excited about that because he wrote it for Wagner.


----------



## bigshot

You've got some mighty fine listening racked up there, Mac. Wait till you get to the 4th! I remember about 30 years ago when I got a box set of Bohm conducting 7 and 8. Man! I played the living daylights out of those records! It was right after Wagner made me a classical music fan for life.


----------



## Andreas

Frasier said:


> I found the Celibidache incredibly slow - it must be the slowest in the market.


In terms of total running time, yes. But as far as the first movement is concerned, Christoph Eschenbach's recording for Ondine with the Orchestre de Paris is even slower. Only by a good half minute, which is barely noticeable alright, but still.

What first got me into Bruckner was the demonic opening the scherzo of the Third, 1873 version. The short string motif conversing with the bass pizzicati. I had received the CD as a gift and listened to it somewhat unattentively, but as the scherzo began, I thought, Wait a second, what was that?

It doesn't seem as spine-tingling anymore, but I'll always remember that.


----------



## macgeek2005

Andreas said:


> In terms of total running time, yes. But as far as the first movement is concerned, Christoph Eschenbach's recording for Ondine with the Orchestre de Paris is even slower. Only by a good half minute, which is barely noticeable alright, but still.
> 
> What first got me into Bruckner was the demonic opening the scherzo of the Third, 1873 version. The short string motif conversing with the bass pizzicati. I had received the CD as a gift and listened to it somewhat unattentively, but as the scherzo began, I thought, Wait a second, what was that?
> 
> It doesn't seem as spine-tingling anymore, but I'll always remember that.


This reminds me of that moment in the 4th movement of Schumann 4, which got me listening to the whole symphony. That unison brass statement, followed by that terrifying, crescendoing V9 chord... I was like "what just happened!??" and then I got to know the whole symphony, haha.


----------



## davinci

macgeek2005 said:


> Uploaded with ImageShack.us
> 
> One more hearing of the 2nd (following the score with the fourth movement) before I get to know the 3rd better! I'm excited about that because he wrote it for Wagner.


If you like Wagner, you will like the increased role of the horns in the 3rd. But you'll be blown away when you get to symphs 7, 8, 9. Thats when Bruckner discovered the Wagner Tuba.


----------



## Lukecash12

And they say Tchaikovsky had a lot of color. Bruckner takes that to another level, using many more timbral effects.


----------



## neoshredder

Tchaikovsky>Bruckner


----------



## elgar's ghost

neoshredder said:


> Tchaikovsky>Bruckner


Uh-uh - not when it comes to Bruckner's symphonies as an overall entity he doesn't.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

neoshredder said:


> Tchaikovsky>Bruckner


Well, your opinion is *WRONG.*TM


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Lukecash12 said:


> And they say Tchaikovsky had a lot of color. Bruckner takes that to another level, using many more timbral effects.


Really? Bruckner's orchestration is based on the organ and in all it's very conventional. I'd describe his use of orchestral colour as Schumann on a larger scale (but not too large).


----------



## neoshredder

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Well, your opinion is *WRONG.*TM


Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, and Sibelius is the height of Late Romanticism.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

neoshredder said:


> Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, and Sibelius is the height of Late Romanticism.


Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Brahms, Bruckner and Mahler are the height of Late Romanticism.


----------



## neoshredder

Uh you should listen more to Dvorak and Sibelius.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

neoshredder said:


> Uh you should listen more to Dvorak and Sibelius.


I like Dvorák. Sibelius is ridiculed by many people where I live. This is what people say where I come from: "What do you sing on Chopin's birthday?" "_Happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you happy birthday dear Chopin, happy birthday to (then a Chopinesque embellishment) you!_" "And what do you sing on Sibelius' birthday?" "Nothing."


----------



## macgeek2005

I have to say, I'm not liking the third symphony as much as the first two yet. I still have a lot more listening to go with it though.. so that will probably change!


----------



## Sonata

I've listened to symphonies 1 & 4 so far. Both Guntar Wand (I doubt I'll delve into various interpretations. I don't often puruse multiple versions, with the exception of Mahler, Brahms' Requiem, and perhaps when I take the plunge, Beethoven's piano sonatas)

4th is great. I must ammend a previous comment from the current listenig thread. I said the third movment is the only one I really like from the 1st symphony. It turns out the 4th movement's pretty good too. So I like the second half basically.


----------



## neoshredder

This is how a Bruckner Symphony sounds to. Soft part, loud part, soft part, loud part with little memorable melodies to go with it. I guess this was common for late Romantic German Composers. Just not my thing.


----------



## macgeek2005

neoshredder said:


> This is how a Bruckner Symphony sounds to. Soft part, loud part, soft part, loud part with little memorable melodies to go with it. I guess this was common for late Romantic German Composers. Just not my thing.


Have you ever listened to a late Romantic symphony 10+ times through? Because I feel the same way you do when I listen to a new romantic symphony just once, or twice, or even three times.

But when you listen to it a Lot, the sound waves start to carve neural pathways of familiarity through your brain, and once you know it well enough to anticipate what is coming (harmonically, melodically, rhythmically) then you can follow along and actually hear what the composer is trying to say.

Granted, I feel that music that can be enjoyed on the first listening is superior to such music, but the enjoyment of these symphonies once you know them is worth the toil taken to get there, for me at least.


----------



## principe

Bruckner is like a great, maybe brilliant, architect. He knows how to build magnificent cathedrals, but they are always...empty. Magnificent edifices, but not much to fill them up. His obsession with God deprived him of expressing all the possible human feelings about the various aspects of Life. In the end, even his immense and devoted love for God is not actually depicted in his Symphonies. However, for those who like to enjoy the architecture of magnificent and splendid cathedrals, Bruckner is the man for you.
As for his orchestration, I can agree with Composer of AvantGarde. Bruckner used a very identical, monotonous way of the same almost instruments, in a very austere and narrowly strict way. Tchaikovsky, apart from colour, he could use the different instruments in such an inventive way (one has not to go that far; just check the short scherzo of the 4th Symphony: it couldn't be more creative, innovative, original and fresh, using the intruments of the orchestra so sparingly, but so effectively).
As for the Symphonies per se, I don't think one has to exclude anyone of them. If you know how one works, it is worth enough to try to follow all the others. It is a journey of a majestic creation of immense architectural nature. Even the "poor" 6th, squeezed between the monumental 5th and the sublimely superb 7th, is a great work for its own merits: one of the few Symphonies written in A major (already, something unique in character), a very creative and advance Scherzo and a writing that takes care of the size in favour of substance.

Principe


----------



## Sonata

Very interesting take on the symphonies, and the man himself, principe


----------



## Andreas

principe said:


> His obsession with God deprived him of expressing all the possible human feelings about the various aspects of Life.


Even if that were true (and I think one could make a case for as well as against it): no harm done. If one's looking for musical expressions of human emotions, there are plenty of composers who specialize in that field.

Bruckner always put great emphasis on form and structure. His themes are often somewhat schematically based on triads, semitones and octaves. These themes almost seem like they write themselves, without much human in(ter)vention. I feel that's a strong classicist element in him.

His approach became even more severe after 1875-77, while he was working on his Fifth. But take a look at the original versions of his earlier symphonies. To me, they feel less restraint and more romantic, if you like, than the revised versions.

Post 1875-77, Bruckner found his definitive style, but it's surely not for everybody. I always wonder why Bruckner and Mahler are often mentioned in one breath. At the heart of it - and this is perhaps what principe was referring to - they couldn't be more different.


----------



## neoshredder

Listened to Symphony 8 with a fresh mind. After the first 2 movements, my mind was firied. I don't have an attention span to last more than 40 minutes for a Symphony. I feel burned out after 80 minutes. Need a break from music. So I guess the main thing is I prefer shorter Symphonies.


----------



## Arsakes

If people see insanity and madness as the purest emotion, you should avoid looking at 18th and 19th centuries and stick to 20th century. 

I prefer composers who focus on other emotions (happiness, sadness, glory etc.) rather than madness.


----------



## Vaneyes

macgeek2005 said:


> I long suspected that I would love Bruckner's symphonies when I finally get around to familiarizing myself with them, and that time has finally come. I've listened to the 1st and 2nd symphonies about six times each in the last five days, as well as one listening of the 3rd symphony.
> 
> I know that his later symphonies are way better than the earlier ones, but I'm going in order and getting to know the music and the man as I go along. I'm very excited, and am enjoying this a lot! When I read things about certain movements of his later symphonies and how unbelievable they are, it feels like I'm reading a spoiler about a future episode of something that I'm currently only at the beginning of. There's that same sense of excitement and epic scope of the journey still ahead.
> 
> Just wanted to share!


Thanks for sharing.

Though Sawallisch and Giulini do some nice things with 1 & 2 respectively, the game really begins with 3. Enjoy your journey.

Suggestions...

3. Barenboim (Teldec)
4. Jochum (DG)
5. Horenstein (BBC Legends)
6. Nagano (naive)
7. Karajan (DG, 1989)
8. Jochum (DG)
9. Jochum (EMI)

And do try to stay away from Celi.


----------



## davinci

"Though Sawallisch and Giulini do some nice things with 1 & 2 respectively, the game really begins with 3. Enjoy your journey."

Agree with Vaneyes, (although Guilini's 2nd is one of my favorite symphonies). When people think of Bruckner's style and his body of work, I believe it starts at #3 although with #4 he begins to show his maturity.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Vaneyes said:


> And do try to stay away from Celi.


I generally do not like Celibidache (especially for Mozart) but for Bruckner he can make his orchestras sound absolutely magical while still being ridiculously slow.


----------



## principe

Try also Van Zveden on Exton and Simone Young on Oehms. Some fresh, bright, well detailed and solid performances in superlative recordings. Somehow, Janowski is moving along this way, in some stunning recordings for Pentatone.

Principe


----------



## macgeek2005

I'm in the seventh listening of #3 now, and I'm still not loving it.... there are parts that stand out to me as magnificent, but overall it just doesn't have the dramatic intensity that #2 had.

Does this mean I won't enjoy 4 through 9 either?


----------



## samurai

neoshredder said:


> Listened to Symphony 8 with a fresh mind. After the first 2 movements, my mind was firied. I don't have an attention span to last more than 40 minutes for a Symphony. I feel burned out after 80 minutes. Need a break from music. So I guess the main thing is I prefer shorter Symphonies.


Neo, Don't you find the second movement of Bruckner's *Eighth* to be utterly refreshing and delightful? In my own case, it alone kind of got me hooked on wanting to hear the rest of his symphonies, so I sprang for a cheap box set {not the Karajan. obviously :lol:}.


----------



## samurai

@ Macgeek2005, I think the short answer to your question is a resounding NO. I have gotten to really like his 8th and 9th Symphonies. Some of the others I'm still working on, though, especially some of the earlier ones.


----------



## neoshredder

The first 2 movements were pretty good. Not great imo. The last 2 movements were boring to me. Sorry to say. Bruckner just isn't my style I guess. But I'll give it another listen.


----------



## samurai

Honestly, he's not really my "cup of tea" either; the length of most of his symphonies is enough to deter one from further exploration. However, coupled with the fact that I have heard some things in his music which interest me and that I was able to purchase that cheap German import box set of the complete cycle, I thought it might be worth my time and effort to explore him a little further. I'll see if the journey proves fruitful or not. As with Mahler, I've been trying to take him in small doses rather than in one big gulp, which I seem to be able to do with many other composers. On the whole, though, I have found Mahler to be more accessible--albeit often very lengthy as well--than Bruckner.


----------



## macgeek2005

The third symphony is starting to grow on me finally. In the 8th hearing of it, it's starting to come together in my mind.. the dramatic flow of it starting to crystalize.


----------



## davinci

macgeek2005 said:


> The third symphony is starting to grow on me finally. In the 8th hearing of it, it's starting to come together in my mind.. the dramatic flow of it starting to crystalize.


IMO, the 3rd is not typical Bruckner, kind of unrefined, somewhat experimental. Since u liked #1 and 2, I believe u will love the 4th....at this point he has now found himself. The 4th is widely performed by all the major symphonies.


----------



## macgeek2005

davinci said:


> IMO, the 3rd is not typical Bruckner, kind of unrefined, somewhat experimental. Since u liked #1 and 2, I believe u will love the 4th....at this point he has now found himself. The 4th is widely performed by all the major symphonies.


Good to hear that!


----------



## Lukecash12

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I generally do not like Celibidache (especially for Mozart) but for Bruckner he can make his orchestras sound absolutely magical while still being ridiculously slow.


Sadly, that is just one of those schools of thought that I can't tolerate enough to listen to, sometimes. It's just too far from what I want out of the music. It's nice to see the conductor's work and ideas, but I'd prefer it if the composer wasn't off in the horizon while the conductor does his work.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Lukecash12 said:


> Sadly, that is just one of those schools of thought that I can't tolerate enough to listen to, sometimes. It's just too far from what I want out of the music. It's nice to see the conductor's work and ideas, but I'd prefer it if the composer wasn't off in the horizon while the conductor does his work.


I agree with this, but even though Celibidache was quite eccentric in his interpretation and definitley not what the composer wanted his interpretations of Bruckner are very enjoyable for me. I prefer either a very good standard interpretation, the composer's own interpretation (or a recording supervised by the composer) or a historically informed interpretation most of the time. I always put the composer's work before the performers' work.


----------



## GraemeG

Considering how many of Bruckner's tempi include the phrase "doch nicht zu schnell" I should think he would have been delighted with Celibidache.
Actually, Bruckner would have been thrilled to know how much time and effort goes towards his works nowadays.
GG


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

GraemeG said:


> Considering how many of Bruckner's tempi include the phrase "doch nicht zu schnell" I should think he would have been delighted with Celibidache.
> Actually, Bruckner would have been thrilled to know how much time and effort goes towards his works nowadays.
> GG


I wonder if he would be glad that Symphony no. 0 is more popular today than it was back then?


----------



## macgeek2005

I'm familiar with Celibidache's Mozart Requiem, and I have to say, I enjoy listening to it as a kind of experimental alternative to the norm, but if I want to hear what Mozart wrote, I can't in all seriousness go to Celibidache's recording. It's amazing that he can pull it off as slowly as he does, and it's beautiful, but it's more than twice as slow as anyone would have played it in Mozart's day. It can't seriously be taken as anything more than an interesting experiment.


----------



## Tombstoner

The third was not really my thing either. The fourth takes on a more heroic and upbeat mood, while using some of the "weight" (for lack of a better word) apparent in the third.

The only other ones I can speak for are the eighth and ninth. Both of these have that same "weight" about them. The eighth, however, comes across as a much more positive work in my eyes than the ninth and third, though given the "Apocalyptic" nickname I doubt too many others would agree.

I gave the first another listen last night. This thread has increased my interest in Bruckner, especially the earlier stuff. I admit I still find the finale slightly redundant, but then again, as you've said, with this kind of music you need many listens to truly comprehend it.


----------



## macgeek2005

Well, I'm on the 15th and final listening (for now) of the third symphony. I enjoy it now, but still not as much as the first two.

But I'll be moving on to No. 4 very soon!


----------



## Vaneyes

macgeek2005 said:


> Well, I'm on the 15th and final listening (for now) of the third symphony. I enjoy it now, but still not as much as the first two.
> 
> But I'll be moving on to No. 4 very soon!


Yes, 3 can be drudgery in the wrong hands. I like BPO/Barenboim (Teldec), but VPO/Schuricht may be more approachable for many.


----------



## macgeek2005

Enjoying No. 4 very much on the first listening! I wish it was in a minor key.. I tend to prefer minor keys for dramatic romantic symphonies.. but I've been enjoying it nonetheless.


----------



## davinci

macgeek2005 said:


> Enjoying No. 4 very much on the first listening! I wish it was in a minor key.. I tend to prefer minor keys for dramatic romantic symphonies.. but I've been enjoying it nonetheless.


You're right about the minor key; other Bruckner symphs are in minor. I dont think you've told us who you've been listening to for B1 to B4. Also is it CD or LP?


----------



## macgeek2005

davinci said:


> You're right about the minor key; other Bruckner symphs are in minor. I dont think you've told us who you've been listening to for B1 to B4. Also is it CD or LP?


I'm listening to Karajan/Berlin for all of them.

Symphonies 4 through 7 are all in major keys. Overall the symphonies are half and half major and minor, but the majority of the minors are on the early end.

And I'm listening in iTunes.. I bought the Karajan Symphony edition from the iTunes Store.


----------



## davinci

macgeek2005...I forgot to mention this when we were discussing B3. At some point in your Bruckner journey you must check out the original version of #3. It is dedicated to Wagner and is superior to the revised versions that are performed today. It is true Bruckner.


----------



## Farmaggedon

I'm new here, and I've recently acquired a lot of new Bruckner, so I've been re-visiting Bruckner as well. When I first heard Bruckner, I was very new to classical music, and I did not like the way his symphonies seemed to change momentum so abruptly. After numerous patient listenings, I began to really appreciate every symphony from 0-9. That said, I spend most of my time nowadays with 5, 7, 8, and 9. 

For what it's worth, I like Karajan/BPO and Jochum/Staatskapelle Dresden best as cycles. I end up being most satisfied with Karajan/VPO (last recording), Karajan/BPO, and Karajan/VPO (1950s) best in symphonies 7, 8, and 9, respectively. Tintner does some great things with the earlier symphonies.


----------



## macgeek2005

Well, I'm near the end of my time with the 4th symphony. Overall I like it even a bit less than #3... so I'm not sure where this is going.

However, toward the very end of the 4th symphony, when it gets really quiet, and then goes into that thing with the erie horn motive, before building up again for the ending... that's one of those moments that gives me the impression that Bruckner is a god, and that if I only spend more time with the rest of the symphony, I'll recognize that genius throughout.


----------



## Andreas

macgeek2005 said:


> However, toward the very end of the 4th symphony, when it gets really quiet, and then goes into that thing with the erie horn motive, before building up again for the ending... that's one of those moments that gives me the impression that Bruckner is a god, and that if I only spend more time with the rest of the symphony, I'll recognize that genius throughout.


Yes, it's one of the greatest and most sublime moments in Bruckner. Perhaps you might enjoy Celibidache's final take on this coda.


----------



## Vaneyes

Farmaggedon, re "change in momentum," much of this is due to conductors ineptness, rather than Anton's writing. What say you, Anton?

My favorite HvK Bruckner, as pictured. I haven't seen any live on DVD...must do that.

View attachment 9443
View attachment 9444


Anyone, has this HvK 9 (c1976) been newly-remastered since its Galleria reissue? Guessing, maybe Japan, and elsewhere for a DG box set?

"You are correct, Van."

View attachment 9445


----------



## Manxfeeder

macgeek2005 said:


> That's one of those moments that gives me the impression that Bruckner is a god.


I think he'd correct you and say that he just opened a window to let you see God.


----------



## GraemeG

macgeek2005 said:


> Well, I'm near the end of my time with the 4th symphony. Overall I like it even a bit less than #3... so I'm not sure where this is going.
> 
> However, toward the very end of the 4th symphony, when it gets really quiet, and then goes into that thing with the erie horn motive, before building up again for the ending... that's one of those moments that gives me the impression that Bruckner is a god, and that if I only spend more time with the rest of the symphony, I'll recognize that genius throughout.


As his symphonic style matures, the works repay ever more study, contemplation and familiarity. The wonders of 4-9 need years to sit with your own consciousness. Even intensive, repeated listening - useful though it is - can't make up for that.
GG


----------



## macgeek2005

Liking No. 5 a lot more than No. 4, and I'm only a little way into the second movement on my first hearing!


----------



## Andreas

Vaneyes said:


> Anyone, has this HvK 9 (c1976) been newly-remastered since its Galleria reissue? Guessing, maybe Japan, and elsewhere for a DG box set?


This website lists a 1996 release of the Bruckner Ninth, though no mention whether it's a different remastering than the 1991 Galleria release.

DG has recently released a set of all Karajan recordings from the 1960s. However, I don't know if they've been remastered too.

By the way, that Galleria re-issue was originally recorded in 1966. However, there is also a 1976 live recording with the Vienna Philharmonic. Not to be confused with the 1978 live recording that's available on DVD.


----------



## Manxfeeder

macgeek2005 said:


> Liking No. 5 a lot more than No. 4, and I'm only a little way into the second movement on my first hearing!


I hope the version you're hearing has a lighthearted last movement. Some conductors think they're playing Bach and make it too slow and serious.


----------



## Vaneyes

Andreas said:


> This website lists a 1996 release of the Bruckner Ninth, though no mention whether it's a different remastering than the 1991 Galleria release.
> 
> DG has recently released a set of all Karajan recordings from the 1960s. However, I don't know if they've been remastered too.
> 
> By the way, that Galleria re-issue was originally recorded in 1966. However, there is also a 1976 live recording with the Vienna Philharmonic. Not to be confused with the 1978 live recording that's available on DVD.


Andreas, thank you for your help. The Bruckner 9 in question is indeed part of the "limited' 1960's 82-CD boxset issued in May 2012 (and maybe 2011 in Japan). Pics below. Some of these recs. have been reissued previously as singles in cardboard sleeves, with new remasterings. So, I have hope that this Bruckner 9 will eventually be reissued as such.

Re BPO/HvK Bruckner 9 CD cover with the wings. I've read it is a 1975 performance.

View attachment 9510
View attachment 9509


----------



## Faville

Browsing this thread inspired me to put on my CD of Tintner with the 3rd symphony. I don't really listen to Bruckner the same way I listen to other symphonists. I'm impressed by people that can actually discern and analyze the structures by listening alone. I've been listening to Bruckner symphonies for about twenty years now and I probably couldn't tell you a thing about them structurally. I listen to them and just let myself go in the sound and love the snapshots from moment to moment as well as the giant buildups or singular melodies. The moment I start to impose my needs and expectations on it I get bored. 

I also lack the ability to listen to them in clusters. I listen to a single symphony, maybe even only a movement or two, and then will go a few months before tackling a different one. I just can't cram music like that, of any composer or genre. Space for absorption and thought is needed.
Also have never really liked Karajan, but I've only heard his 7th and 8th of Bruckner. Tintner, Skrowaczewzki, Sinopoli, Wand, Barenboim, Haitink and Walter have been my main listens with some others peppered here and there.


----------



## macgeek2005

The second movement of the 5th symphony is definitely my favorite second movement so far. Wow. It's like an endless flowing river of gorgeous, satisfying harmonic sequences.. almost reminiscent of Bach....


----------



## Andreas

Faville said:


> Browsing this thread inspired me to put on my CD of Tintner with the 3rd symphony. I don't really listen to Bruckner the same way I listen to other symphonists. I'm impressed by people that can actually discern and analyze the structures by listening alone. I've been listening to Bruckner symphonies for about twenty years now and I probably couldn't tell you a thing about them structurally. I listen to them and just let myself go in the sound and love the snapshots from moment to moment as well as the giant buildups or singular melodies. The moment I start to impose my needs and expectations on it I get bored.


When I first stated listening to Bruckner, I kept getting completely lost. Today I think his structures are wonderfully clear-cut, but back then I had trouble figuring out where new themes were coming in, where the exposition ended, where the recapitulation began, etc.

I knew Bruckner was expanding the classical sonata allegro form to three themes, with each of which usually further divided into several sub-themes. But it was really difficult navigating through these immense soundscapes. Over time, though, things were clearing up. I listened to Bruckner a lot, almost exclusively for perhaps half a year or so, so that helped a great deal.


----------



## macgeek2005

I'm actually nowhere near to figuring out the structures of the movements. I haven't even been listening for that. I just like to get familiar with the way the pieces sound so that I can begin to hear them more clearly. I guess understanding the structure would be an immense aid to that though.


----------



## Arsakes

*A Question*: Since when the recording became noiseless and with good quality?

My experience on 50s music shows that they didn't have good quality, but they're acceptable (not as bad as 40s recordings). I've listened to late 50s and 60s recordings that are quite good.

And I've noticed two kind of microphones one from 30s and 40s and another from 50s. It seems the earlier is the cause of bad quality of around world war recorded music.


----------



## Andreas

Arsakes said:


> *A Question*: Since when the recording became noiseless and with good quality?
> 
> My experience on 50s music shows that they didn't have good quality, but they're acceptable (not as bad as 40s recordings). I've listened to late 50s and 60s recordings that are quite good.
> 
> And I've noticed two kind of microphones one from 30s and 40s and another from 50s. It seems the earlier is the cause of bad quality of around world war recorded music.


I think microphone technology was getting better and better all the time, but the most important thing (besides the step from mono to stereo) happened in the mid-60s when Dolby was invented. When you listen to early 60s classical albums and you turn up the volume you can hear a lot of hiss and noise (of the magnetic tape). Dolby got rid of that.


----------



## Vaneyes

Andreas said:


> I think microphone technology was getting better and better all the time, but the most important thing (besides the step from mono to stereo) happened in the mid-60s when Dolby was invented. When you listen to early 60s classical albums and you turn up the volume you can hear a lot of hiss and noise (of the magnetic tape). Dolby got rid of that.


Yes, it helped some with cassette tapes, but those nasty things had other problems. I eventually threw my entire batch away.


----------



## davinci

Vaneyes said:


> Yes, it helped some with cassette tapes, but those nasty things had other problems. I eventually threw my entire batch away.


Cassettes were a poor quality format, but Andreas is referring to Dolby noise reduction on the master tapes, yes? And I agree that noise reduction used in classical music was a major improvement in the quality of recording.
Microphone technology was improving in the 50s and 60s, but also the mic'ing techniques, such as the Decca Tree (a 3 mic device) was able to improve the spacial sonics of the orchestra. Left, right, middle, and audience were recorded together and the result was the sense of space in the concert hall.


----------



## macgeek2005

I'm still battling my way through the 5th symphony. The only movement I like so far is the 2nd, and I like it a lot!

The others I'm still putting on mostly while doing other things, to let the sound get into my brain in a subconscious way so it'll sound familiar when I start paying attention to it while listening. But the 2nd movement has already stood out to me and demanded my attention.


----------



## davinci

macgeek2005 said:


> I'm still battling my way through the 5th symphony. The only movement I like so far is the 2nd, and I like it a lot!
> 
> The others I'm still putting on mostly while doing other things, to let the sound get into my brain in a subconscious way so it'll sound familiar when I start paying attention to it while listening. But the 2nd movement has already stood out to me and demanded my attention.


you need to get to 7th and 8th, that's when you'll become a Brucknerian.


----------



## macgeek2005

davinci said:


> you need to get to 7th and 8th, that's when you'll become a Brucknerian.


Yes, I'm very much looking forward to those. Unfortunately I'm still with the 5th at the moment.. as I haven't been listening to it as quickly as the others. But I'm still plowing through, rest assured!

I just bought my tickets for Gerard Schwarz conducting the fourth in April!


----------



## davinci

macgeek2005 said:


> Yes, I'm very much looking forward to those. Unfortunately I'm still with the 5th at the moment.. as I haven't been listening to it as quickly as the others. But I'm still plowing through, rest assured!
> 
> I just bought my tickets for Gerard Schwarz conducting the fourth in April!


I have tix to see Bruckner's 7th in January. (Yannick/Phila. Orch.) Can't wait, I hope they use Wagner tubas.


----------



## Sonata

Started the fifth myself today, just the first movement so far. By no means essential but I enjoyed it. I'd rank it above the first two movements of symphony 1, but behind all of 2-4. The first two minutes, the opener was great, then not quite as enjoyable. A bit much of the loud-soft-loud. Still the brass did not trouble me as much as brass usually does.


----------



## Sonata

So I enjoyed the first three movements of the fifth, but the final movement is rather tiresome.


----------



## Mahlerian

Why do you find it tiresome? All those fugues? The frequent changes of key?


----------



## Sonata

I don't really understand what a fugue is yet, so I couldn't say. A little too brass and trumpet heavy....which I know he does that in a lot of his symphonies, and it has worked ok so far. But they seemed to carry on for longer this time.


----------



## Mahlerian

Sonata said:


> I don't really understand what a fugue is yet, so I couldn't say. A little too brass and trumpet heavy....which I know he does that in a lot of his symphonies, and it has worked ok so far. But they seemed to carry on for longer this time.


This is a great, concise example of a fugue. Just keep track of how the "theme" (usually a different term is used in scholarly literature) comes back in different places, while other parts do their own individual thing. It can be tracked visually, too.






In the finale of the 5th, Bruckner uses a double fugue, which has two "themes" used and developed at the same time. Beethoven did this in the finale of his 9th, and Mahler did it in the first movement of his 8th. It's a staple of highly contrapuntal writing.

I can imagine that if you don't find the musical texture of the finale interesting, the outward texture, with all of its brass, can get to be tiring. My advice is to listen to other things for a while, then go back, rather than forcing it.


----------



## Vaneyes

macgeek2005 said:


> ....Unfortunately I'm still with the 5th at the moment.. as I haven't been listening to it as quickly as the others. But I'm still plowing through, rest assured!


Re Bruckner 5, may I suggest BBCSO/Horenstein (BBC Legends, rec. 1971). Drudgery does not exist in this performance. :tiphat:


----------



## Vaneyes

Sonata said:


> So I enjoyed the first three movements of the fifth, but the final movement is rather tiresome.


The aforenmentioned Horenstein rec. is for you, too, Sonata. :tiphat:


----------



## Wandering

This is an excellent site for Bruckner free downloads, listening and info, for those interested.

http://www.abruckner.com/discography


----------



## Vaneyes

For those interested, a Bruckner Tour in Sept./Oct. 2013.

http://www.abruckner.com//editorsnote/news/thebrucknertourofa/


----------



## Bone

Love reading this thread. Where are you now on your journey? HvK #8 just rules!


----------



## davinci

Bone said:


> Love reading this thread. Where are you now on your journey? HvK #8 just rules!


Love the 8th. Give a listen to Giulini/VPO (Nowack version). Just as powerful as Karajan, but Guilini brings out every nuance of the 8th.


----------



## Vaneyes

Bone said:


> Love reading this thread. Where are you now on your journey? HvK #8 just rules!


Which one? I gather the often-touted DG. It's good, but justa touch too expansive for my pref...two CDs afterall.

For 8, I'm still spinning BPO/Jochum (rec. 1964).


----------



## davinci

Vaneyes... As I delved deeper into Bruckner, the more I appreciated the Nowack version, specifically Jochum and Guilini (too bad he didn't do a cycle).


----------



## neoshredder

Time for the journey to end already.  How long does it take to listen to all of Bruckner's Symphonies if your are truly focused on doing so.?


----------



## sharik

macgeek2005 said:


> I've begun a journey through Bruckner's Symphonies


i go with his 7th.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Vaneyes said:


> Which one? I gather the often-touted DG. It's good, but justa touch too expansive for my pref...two CDs afterall.


Wow, I can't believe you said that out loud! (Okay, I feel the same way.)

And why does he take the third movement so slow? It's been described as God's Engine Room, for Heaven's sake.


----------



## Manxfeeder

davinci said:


> Love the 8th. Give a listen to Giulini/VPO (Nowack version). Just as powerful as Karajan, but Guilini brings out every nuance of the 8th.


I've noticed two recordings, one with the Vienna Phil and one with the Philharmonia. Do you have a preference between the two?


----------



## Arsakes

Start with his 5th or 6th. They're the best, then 7th and 8th (most epic).


----------



## Vaneyes

Manxfeeder said:


> I've noticed two recordings, one with the Vienna Phil and one with the Philharmonia. Do you have a preference between the two?


Of the three Giulini Bruckner 8s I've heard--w. Philharmonia (BBC), w. BPO (Testament), w. VPO (DG), the VPO reigns supreme. However, I beg to differ with davinci's comparison w. HvK. I think HvK's nuance is not an issue, and delivers more punch. Too, a li'l better sound (not that that matters). AND, I was remiss in not remembering that this HvK Bruckner 8 is now on one CD, courtesy of DG Originals. That, and "punch", may reduce the Giulini attraction.


----------



## Vaneyes

Manxfeeder said:


> Wow, I can't believe you said that out loud! (Okay, I feel the same way.)
> 
> And why does he take the third movement so slow? It's been described as God's Engine Room, for Heaven's sake.


VPO/Giulini's is even slower, though that's not too surprising.


----------



## Vaneyes

neoshredder said:


> Time for the journey to end already.  How long does it take to listen to all of Bruckner's Symphonies if your are truly focused on doing so.?


Only a lifetime.


----------



## Alydon

Getting to know Bruckner is a slow burn - for some reason I have never played his work very much (and I include the wonderful choral music here, as well as the symphonies) but he creates an amazing sound world which is all his own. I started off with the 9th, and worked backwards, but only ever play 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th and 9th. To play the whole series in one go probably would be overwhelming, but we all our own ways into new pieces.
I think Bruckner's work was once described as cathedrals in sound and that for me sums up these unique works and the times I do put on one of his works I am always in awe at the power and magnificence of what I'm hearing.


----------



## neoshredder

Alydon said:


> Getting to know Bruckner is a slow burn - for some reason I have never played his work very much (and I include the wonderful choral music here, as well as the symphonies) but he creates an amazing sound world which is all his own. I started off with the 9th, and worked backwards, but only ever play 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th and 9th. To play the whole series in one go probably would be overwhelming, but we all our own ways into new pieces.
> I think Bruckner's work was once described as cathedrals in sound and that for me sums up these unique works and the times I do put on one of his works I am always in awe at the power and magnificence of what I'm hearing.


Sounds like a more emphatic version of Baroque music.


----------



## davinci

Vaneyes said:


> Of the three Giulini Bruckner 8s I've heard--w. Philharmonia (BBC), w. BPO (Testament), w. VPO (DG), the VPO reigns supreme. However, I beg to differ with davinci's comparison w. HvK. I think HvK's nuance is not an issue, and delivers more punch. Too, a li'l better sound (not that that matters). AND, I was remiss in not remembering that this HvK Bruckner 8 is now on one CD, courtesy of DG Originals. That, and "punch", may reduce the Giulini attraction.


I should mention that I like Karajan very much, I just prefer the slower Nowack version by Guilini. Nuance is not the right word, sorry for that mistake, but it's hard to make a comparison between Karajan's powerful Haas with the Guilini Nowack version; also powerful. It's almost two different symphonies and both should be explored.


----------



## davinci

Manxfeeder said:


> I've noticed two recordings, one with the Vienna Phil and one with the Philharmonia. Do you have a preference between the two?


Wasn't aware of a Philharmonia version. There is Guilini/Berlin, but cd is very expensive, so I only have the Vienna.


----------



## Bone

Manxfeeder said:


> Wow, I can't believe you said that out loud! (Okay, I feel the same way.)
> 
> And why does he take the third movement so slow? It's been described as God's Engine Room, for Heaven's sake.


You've broken my heart - the "Adagio" is one of the most beautiful recordings ever made! I can hear angels singing about 14 minutes in!! Or maybe that's just voices in my head.....

If you start taking apart Celibidache next we're going to have cross words, sir.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Bone said:


> You've broken my heart - the "Adagio" is one of the most beautiful recordings ever made! I can hear angels singing about 14 minutes in!! Or maybe that's just voices in my head.....
> 
> If you start taking apart Celibidache next we're going to have cross words, sir.


OOPS! I meant the scherzo! That would be the SECOND movement. My bad.


----------



## mgj15

Since getting the HvK DG cycle for Xmas I've been going through them more closely myself. Amazing. Hadn't given the 6th much ear before this, and it's marvelous. A stand out in this set for me.


----------



## Cheyenne

I have Furtwänglers cycle, but it only includes symphonies 4 till 9. Should I get the earlier ones? The fourth symphony had great impact on me the first listening, and I will definitely be listening to that again soon.


----------



## Mahlerian

Cheyenne said:


> I have Furtwänglers cycle, but it only includes symphonies 4 till 9. Should I get the earlier ones? The fourth symphony had great impact on me the first listening, and I will definitely be listening to that again soon.


I recommend getting one of the 1873 versions of the third, at the least. I can't stand the revised version, but the original is great.

See here:
http://www.abruckner.com/discography/symphonyno3indmino/


----------



## davinci

This past weekend I went to see/hear Buckner's 7th... Yannick/Phila. Orch. Was an excellent performance; slow and sensitive with plenty of power (I've never seen Bruckner performed live) Running time was 68:00. 
The Phila. is not one of the majors since Muti left and is in bankruptcy, thus causing many cutbacks, but the large Brass section was most impressive; 9 (French) Horns with 4 doubling with Wager Tuba, 4 trombones, 3 trumpets, 1 tuba (tenor?).
I'll now have to check out his Bruckner on CD. Has anybody heard him with the Montreal?


----------



## davinci

What happened to macgeek2005 and his journey?


----------



## macgeek2005

I got bogged down in the 6th Symphony. I've listened to it only nine times and don't want to hear it anymore... and I am faced with the dilemma of whether I should continue onto the seventh, eighth and ninth without first giving the sixth its due.

Edit: Actually, to be more honest, what happened is that I have so many upcoming concerts that I spend most of my time listening to the music that I'm going to hear live. Especially after I subscribed to the 2013/2014 symphony season, I've been buying the music they'll be playing and getting familiar with it. I definitely intend to finish this Bruckner journey though.


----------



## Sonata

only nine times? That's quite a few. maybe you've been burning yourself out on Bruckner? sounds like a break may be a good thing. and I'd say when you do pick back up with him, move onto the last three. you don't "owe" anything to Bruckner or his 6th, and you'll probably enjoy the journey less if you're forcing it.


----------



## Vaneyes

macgeek2005 said:


> I got bogged down in the 6th Symphony. I've listened to it only nine times and don't want to hear it anymore... and I am faced with the dilemma of whether I should continue onto the seventh, eighth and ninth without first giving the sixth its due.
> 
> Edit: Actually, to be more honest, what happened is that I have so many upcoming concerts that I spend most of my time listening to the music that I'm going to hear live. Especially after I subscribed to the 2013/2014 symphony season, I've been buying the music they'll be playing and getting familiar with it. I definitely intend to finish this Bruckner journey though.


You should definitely continue through 7, 8, and 9. :tiphat:


----------



## julianoq

I am having a hard time "learning to like" Bruckner, and this coming from someone that learnt to love classical music listening to Mahler! I understand that many compositions must be learnt to be enjoyed, but so far I am not able to appreciate Bruckner symphonies  I heard the No. 8 played by Karajan two times and so far heard nothing but noise (I assume that it is my ignorance on the matter).

I will try the No. 1 now, let's see if it is more enjoyable to me.


----------



## Bone

julianoq said:


> I am having a hard time "learning to like" Bruckner, and this coming from someone that learnt to love classical music listening to Mahler! I understand that many compositions must be learnt to be enjoyed, but so far I am not able to appreciate Bruckner symphonies  I heard the No. 8 played by Karajan two times and so far heard nothing but noise (I assume that it is my ignorance on the matter).
> 
> I will try the No. 1 now, let's see if it is more enjoyable to me.


Nothing but noise....I am speechless. Perhaps it is your stereo???

Anyway, I'm not sure I've listened to #6 nine times in my life. The next 3 are definitely worth continuing.


----------



## davinci

macgeek2005 said:


> I got bogged down in the 6th Symphony. I've listened to it only nine times and don't want to hear it anymore... and I am faced with the dilemma of whether I should continue onto the seventh, eighth and ninth without first giving the sixth its due.
> 
> Edit: Actually, to be more honest, what happened is that I have so many upcoming concerts that I spend most of my time listening to the music that I'm going to hear live. Especially after I subscribed to the 2013/2014 symphony season, I've been buying the music they'll be playing and getting familiar with it. I definitely intend to finish this Bruckner journey though.


Lucky you with all the concerts. But when you're ready, go directly to Bruckner 7, 8, 9. He has fully evolved in his composition and the 3 symphonies work nicely as a trilogy.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Bone said:


> Anyway, I'm not sure I've listened to #6 nine times in my life. The next 3 are definitely worth continuing.


I just got Klemperer's recording, and I think I'm close to nine in a month. It opened up the piece to me, with all its rhythm shifts. Of course, then I had to listen to Jochum, Norrington, Furtwangler, and Tintner in comparison. I'm enjoying the piece more now than I ever have.


----------



## julianoq

Bone said:


> Nothing but noise....I am speechless. Perhaps it is your stereo???


OK maybe I was a little harsh  I heard some good melodies with a lot of noise between them 

I am listening to the No. 1 now and it sounds much better to me, more close to Schubert maybe. Maybe going to the No. 8 directly was my mistake.


----------



## davinci

Manxfeeder said:


> I just got Klemperer's recording, and I think I'm close to nine in a month. It opened up the piece to me, with all its rhythm shifts. Of course, then I had to listen to Jochum, Norrington, Furtwangler, and Tintner in comparison. I'm enjoying the piece more now than I ever have.


Yes, Klemperer's 6th is very good.


----------



## samurai

I would also highly recommend Bruckner *4 {"Romantic"} and 5.*


----------



## neoshredder

Yeah Bruckner's 5th is what Sibelius really liked. I need to give that a listen.


----------



## Bradius

Just got Wand's cycle. So far, I really like 1 & 3. Haven't gotten much beyond the first 3 yet.


----------



## davinci

Bradius said:


> Just got Wand's cycle. So far, I really like 1 & 3. Haven't gotten much beyond the first 3 yet.


Wand/Berlin is a very strong cycle. He and Jochum/Dresden are my are my "go to" Bruckner cycles.


----------



## Bradius

I got the Wand/Cologne. Seems fine. I like Jochum as well. Maybe even more than Wand.


----------



## macgeek2005

So I left No. 6 with ten listenings and have moved on to No. 7. I really like No. 7 even on the first listening! Thank god! I didn't particularly like anything in No. 4, No. 5 or No. 6 except for the second movement of No. 5. It seems that No. 7 will be my favorite so far out of them all, once I get to know it!


----------



## davinci

macgeek2005 said:


> So I left No. 6 with ten listenings and have moved on to No. 7. I really like No. 7 even on the first listening! Thank god! I didn't particularly like anything in No. 4, No. 5 or No. 6 except for the second movement of No. 5. It seems that No. 7 will be my favorite so far out of them all, once I get to know it!


We told you so. Looking forward to your review of 7 and especially #8.


----------



## Llyranor

I believe I've found the secret to unlocking Bruckner's symphonies. You need to air-conduct them.


----------



## Bone

Llyranor said:


> I believe I've found the secret to unlocking Bruckner's symphonies. You need to air-conduct them.


Genius! Or at least do some interpretive dance.


----------



## GraemeG

macgeek2005 said:


> ...I didn't particularly like anything in No. 4...


Wow. I don't even know how to respond to that...
GG


----------



## davinci

Quote Originally Posted by macgeek2005 View Post
_*...I didn't particularly like anything in No. 4...*_



GraemeG said:


> Wow. I don't even know how to respond to that...
> GG


macgeek, there's something wrong if u didn't like #4. It needed to be said.


----------



## neoshredder

How can anyone not like the first movement in Symphony 4? Oh well. Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## mgj15

I can't process that statement either.


----------



## AdamK

Newbie, here -- this is really interesting to me. I started getting into classical music, really for the first time, last year. Started with Beethoven (who I love) and kind of worked my way from there. Last September, I got Barenboim's Bruckner cycle, ripped it onto my music player, and gave it a few listens. Can't say it did much for me (I was also trying to get into Rattle's Mahler cycle) but only last week something...just clicked. I think it was the 7th that did it for me, even though I'd leap-frogged from the 5th to the 9th. The 7th was so beautiful, I listened to it twice, back to back, then went back to No. 1 and have started to work my way through again (I think I'm up to No. 6). So angry I'm missing Kurt Masur conducting a Beethoven and Bruckner double bill, and also somewhat confused that I also love Brahms (never realised they were such opposing forces until today, when I've been reading up on Bruckner the man). So, reading someone else's journey is interesting. I'll have to go back and start all over again! I'm thinking of getting a different version of the symphonies (I ended up getting about five different versions of the Beethoven cycle, which proved to be a bit excessive) and was leaning towards the Wand or Jochum. On the other hand, maybe I'll just stick with the Barenboim, which seems to be doing okay! Thanks for all the good reading...


----------



## Bone

AdamK said:


> Newbie, here -- this is really interesting to me. I started getting into classical music, really for the first time, last year. Started with Beethoven (who I love) and kind of worked my way from there. Last September, I got Barenboim's Bruckner cycle, ripped it onto my music player, and gave it a few listens. Can't say it did much for me (I was also trying to get into Rattle's Mahler cycle) but only last week something...just clicked. I think it was the 7th that did it for me, even though I'd leap-frogged from the 5th to the 9th. The 7th was so beautiful, I listened to it twice, back to back, then went back to No. 1 and have started to work my way through again (I think I'm up to No. 6). So angry I'm missing Kurt Masur conducting a Beethoven and Bruckner double bill, and also somewhat confused that I also love Brahms (never realised they were such opposing forces until today, when I've been reading up on Bruckner the man). So, reading someone else's journey is interesting. I'll have to go back and start all over again! I'm thinking of getting a different version of the symphonies (I ended up getting about five different versions of the Beethoven cycle, which proved to be a bit excessive) and was leaning towards the Wand or Jochum. On the other hand, maybe I'll just stick with the Barenboim, which seems to be doing okay! Thanks for all the good reading...


Very interesting that you're going for the single-conductor approach. I've done that inadvertently with Beethoven (Harnoncourt) and Vaughn Williams (Slatkin). I've never heard a Wand recording and I don't remember the Jochum very well (pretty sure I only listened to #4). HvK, Tinter, Inbal, and Celibidache are also good for individual recordings.


----------



## AdamK

I agree, my approach is one of the rather intimidated amateur: Maybe one day, once I feel more confident, I'll start hunting out individual artists for individual symphonies. For now, I feel it's a good way to get an overall feel of a composer's development. Oddly, Harnoncourt is my least favourite Beethoven set. I really wanted to like him, but I felt that his adagio movements were so sluggish they just lost all form. I prefer the Barenboim and Karajan, although I need to listen to the Gardiner and Van Immersael more (sorry if I spelt them wrongly).


----------



## Sonata

I did the one-stop shop thing for Bruckner as well Adam 19 bucks or so to get all but 0 and 00, and I've been pleased with the set so far. I am new enough, and maybe eventually I'll get around to exploring multiple interpretations but so far, I've been to focused with hearing different works rather than different versions of fewer.


----------



## davinci

AdamK said:


> I agree, my approach is one of the rather intimidated amateur: Maybe one day, once I feel more confident, I'll start hunting out individual artists for individual symphonies. For now, I feel it's a good way to get an overall feel of a composer's development. Oddly, Harnoncourt is my least favourite Beethoven set. I really wanted to like him, but I felt that his adagio movements were so sluggish they just lost all form. I prefer the Barenboim and Karajan, although I need to listen to the Gardiner and Van Immersael more (sorry if I spelt them wrongly).


Barenboim and Karajan's Beethoven are both excellent romantic, large orchestra interpretations. You need to compare them to Gardiner's more historically informed style... small orch, faster tempi (strictly following Beethoven's metronome markings). It's great that there are so many affordable LvB cycles.
As for Bruckner, like you, I started with No. 1, then jumped to 7, 8, 9 in order to understand him. Later I filled in the cycle. Now I have about 5 or 6 complete cycles and many many versions of 7 and 8.


----------



## Sudonim

I'm currently listening my way through Karajan's set, and I have a few other individual performances to which I have yet to listen (Celibidache and Böhm 4th, Wand 7th and 8th, and Giulini 9th). But I'm considering another complete set - either Jochum's or Wand's. Bruckner aficionados, which should it be?


----------



## Manxfeeder

Sudonim said:


> IBruckner aficionados, which should it be?


I think Bruckner aficionados would say both. Personally, I prefer Jochum on DG.


----------



## Xaltotun

Sudonim said:


> I'm currently listening my way through Karajan's set, and I have a few other individual performances to which I have yet to listen (Celibidache and Böhm 4th, Wand 7th and 8th, and Giulini 9th). But I'm considering another complete set - either Jochum's or Wand's. Bruckner aficionados, which should it be?


Either Jochum or Wand will be fine! That said, I might personally choose Wand - Jochum is sometimes a tiny bit too serene to my liking. His approach fits Bruckner's choral pieces extremely well, though.


----------



## GraemeG

Sudonim said:


> But I'm considering another complete set - either Jochum's or Wand's. Bruckner aficionados, which should it be?


Neither. Get the Celibidache 3-9 set.
You may never listen to anyone else's Bruckner again.
GG


----------



## davinci

Sudonim said:


> I'm currently listening my way through Karajan's set, and I have a few other individual performances to which I have yet to listen (Celibidache and Böhm 4th, Wand 7th and 8th, and Giulini 9th). But I'm considering another complete set - either Jochum's or Wand's. Bruckner aficionados, which should it be?


I think Wand is more dynamic to start with, and then Jochum once you are more experienced with Bruckner. (Jochum on DG is better than the EMI set.)


----------



## CyrilWashbrook

Sudonim said:


> But I'm considering another complete set - either Jochum's or Wand's. Bruckner aficionados, which should it be?


I prefer Wand, but as indicated by those above me, both should be fine. Also, on this:



> I'm currently listening my way through Karajan's set, and I have a few other individual performances to which I have *yet to listen* (Celibidache and Böhm 4th, Wand 7th and 8th, and *Giulini 9th*).


It's amazing. Listen to it ASAP.


----------



## Manxfeeder

CyrilWashbrook said:


> It's amazing. Listen to it ASAP.


I'd second the recommendation for Giulini's 9th.


----------



## davinci

Sudonim said:


> I'm currently listening my way through Karajan's set, and I have a few other individual performances to which I have yet to listen (Celibidache and Böhm 4th, Wand 7th and 8th, and Giulini 9th).


Don't dismiss Giulini 7, 8, 9 with VPO on DG. Also an excellent No. 2 w/ VPO on Testament.


----------



## tahnak

macgeek2005 said:


> I long suspected that I would love Bruckner's symphonies when I finally get around to familiarizing myself with them, and that time has finally come. I've listened to the 1st and 2nd symphonies about six times each in the last five days, as well as one listening of the 3rd symphony.]
> I am happy that you have gone over the first, second and third.
> This is my Bruckner schedule for you:Begin with his marches for large orchestra. Then, the String Quintet followed by:
> 1. Te Deum 2. Two Masses. 3. Helgoland
> 4. Studiensinfonie
> 5. Nullte Symphony
> 6. Symphony No. 1
> 7. Symphony No. 2
> 8. Symphony No. 5
> 9. Symphony no. 6
> 10. Symphony No. 3
> 11. Symphony No. 4
> 12. symphony No. 7
> 13. Symphony No. 8
> 14. Symphony No. 9 `Divine'.


----------

