# Bruckner's Completed Ninth



## tahnak

The D Minor Symphony with its finale completed from sketches of Bruckner by Samale-Phillips-Cohrs-Mazzuca with their revisions of 1996: I have heard it for the first time yesterday performed by the Westphalia Symphony under Johannes Wildner.
This is my honest opinion:
Bruckner woud have done well to burn the pages and announce that the final symphony that he dedicated to "The Lord" would be only in three movements rather than announcing that the Te Deum to be played as the finale.
Having said that, the work on the final sketches is short of inspiration partly from the composer and more so by the orchestrators. Barring the opening passages for the first three minutes and the magnificent coda and the closing passage starting from the recapitulation of the opening movement theme at the eighteenth to the twenty fourth minute are indeed worth the effort and dedication. But the weaving from the fourth minute to the seventeenth minute is quite insipid.
If I were conducting this symphony, I would play the first two movements spatially followed by the final movement, Te Deum and close with the Adagio with its ethereal horn fermata conclusion. That is in essence extend his final offering to five movements incorporating the Te Deum as per his wish as the fourth movement.


----------



## Art Rock

It is perfect as it is as far as I am concerned.

I have not heard the "completed version", but I did hear the completed version of my favourite symphony, Schubert's Unvollendete. Blasphemy.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

The projected Finale for Bruckner's Ninth consists of incomplete sketches which are not 'completable' by anyone else; therefore, there's no way I could give credence to a 'completed' version.

The Ninth is perfect as it stands (as is Schubert's b-minor Symphony).

Bruckner merely suggested the possiblilty that the C-major (wrong key) Te Deum might serve as a Finale in concert.

He didn't firmly endorse such a procedure.


----------



## Delicious Manager

I'm a bit of a sucker for 'completions'. Some people claim not to like them, yet are very happy to listen to Mozart's _Requiem_ (of which very little was actually completed by Mozart), completed and tinkered with by various hands since 1792 and Puccini's _Turandot_ as completed by Franco Alfano. People also seem not to object to Borodin's _Prince Igor_ (finished by Glazunov and Rimsky-Korsakov) and various of Musorgsky's works as 'sanitised' by Rimsky. But Mahler 10 (much more 'complete' than any of the above works), Schubert _Unfinished_ or No 10, or Elgar 3? No, I think not.

I have to agree with Art Rock about the Newbould completetion of Schubert's _Unfinished_ (is it No 7 or No 8 nowadays?). While I quite enjoy the _Scherzo_ (some of which Schubert actually sketched), I find the gluring-on of one of the _Rosamunde_ entr'actes as a finale very unsatisfactory. I would urge people to listen to the fascinating solution offered to Schubert's unifinished Tenth Symphony (or is is 9 now?)(also completed by Newbould) by Luciano Berio in his _Rendering_ of 1989, where Berio simply allows the extant parts of the Schubert to be played 'straight' and fills-in the gaps with music that is entirely Berio, with a celestial celeste very prominent.

As an advocate of both Mahler 10 and Elgar/Payne 3, I was surprised to realise that my acquaintance with the reconstructed finale of Bruckner 9 was sparse at best, so I have reacquainted myself with it. It doesn't help this Bruckner 9 finale's cause that there is still no 'standardised' version of it; every recording uses a different edition and the length varies between 20 and just over 30 minutes. However, despite a few longeurs, there is Bruckner music here that really deserves to be heard, with a magnificent _coda_ that I'm glad I didn't die before hearing.

To use the _Te Deum_ as a finale is simply wrong and obviously a suggestion of desperation from a semi-senile Bruckner who knew he just wasn't going to finish the intended finale.


----------



## Rangstrom

As far as I've read the sketches are fairly advanced and pretty detailed. There are two missing sections (probably removed by some of Bruckner's friends shortly after his death) and a lot of the wind orchestration has to be extrapolated from other parts of the movement. I've listened to the Wildner performance twice and it is a cogent and listenable movement. Does it change how one listens to the 9th? Of course. The emotional impact of the 3rd movement is diminished and for that reason may not appeal to some listeners. I think the piece will be conducted differently with the 4th movement coming: less of the languor and weight of approaching death. 

I'm still not completely sold and plan to give the whole piece a few more spins this week. I think it is more successful (a less of a stretch) than the Elgar 3rd, for example. It is definitely a more rewarding experience than the Schubert 8th completion which, if I remember correctly, had little to work with for the 3rd movement and nothing for the 4th.

The Wildner performance of the whole symphony is darn good and at the Naxos price point should be heard by anyone interested in Bruckner. There is more of a mythical appeal to torso, but the whole 9th may be a better symphony.


----------



## superhorn

I haven't heard the Naxos version of the completed 9th,but I have heard the Teldec one with Inbal and the Frankfurt RSO, and previously,the William Caragan version on LP with Yoav Talmi and the Oslo Philharmonic on Chandos.
I could not disagree more about the finale; I find both versions entirely plausible and the music extraordinary. In fact, I am no longer satisfied with hearing only the first three movements and wish that more conductors would include the finale both live and recorded.
The program of the finale seems to be Bruckner's triumphant entry into heaven,and the finale 
resolves the terror and anguish of the first movement and the pain and longing of the slow movement very effectively.It brngs the symphony to a thrilling conclusion.
How about it, Danny Barenboim, Yannick Nezet-Seguin, Lorin Maazel, Kurt Masur, Riccardo Chailly, 
Zubin, Claudio Abbado, etc? 
The spurious completion of the Schubert unfinished is a entirely different matter. Schubert left only sketches for the beginning of the scherzo, and nothing at all for a finale, unlike the finale of the Bruckner 9th,which was actually much more worked out than was previously believed.


----------



## World Violist

Hearing the Harnoncourt CD (shame he didn't just have the symphony as four movements, though the talk was extraordinary), I really want to hear the whole thing now. Turns out, Bruckner finished the whole finale as far as musical content is concerned, just didn't orchestrate all of it. It's just that someone scattered the pages to students of Bruckner who didn't care what became of their teacher's final symphony. In my mind, this is almost as great a tragedy as Sibelius' 8th symphony, if not as great.

From what I've read, though, several of the completions are by people who indulge a bit much, as in putting in 100 bars when only 8 bars are missing, etc. So I'm kinda curious about an edition that actually follows what Bruckner wrote. Does anyone know if Wildner's recording/completion is faithful?


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

I heard the completed finale. In my opinion it stands on its own, but when added to the symphony it makes the symphony too long, cumbersome and unsustained.
The 3 movements should be considered a complete work.


----------



## brianwalker

I've listened to the Rattle recording. I was not blown away by any means but you have to remind yourself that Bruckner finales are not great in general.


----------



## Art Rock

Since I first posted I also listened to the Rattle performance. NO.


----------



## joen_cph

> I've listened to the Rattle recording. I was not blown away by any means but *you have to remind yourself that Bruckner finales are not great in general. *


?! ???????? ?????? ????????? ???????????? ?????????????????????? ??????? ???????????? ? ?


----------



## Andreas

I know the Wildner recording as well as the Harnoncourt one. I find them both extraordinary. It's fascinating to know that Bruckner completed the entire exposition. So given the nature of Bruckner's recapitulations, as well as the near complete piano score of the development section, the finale (as completed by Samale/Mazzuca/Phillips/Cohrs) is probably about 90% "pure" Bruckner.

I hope Rattle's effort spark's a new trend of recordings and performancec of the Ninth with the finale. In my opinion, it would do Bruckner more justice than the pseudo-spiritual fare-well-to-life readings of the adagio.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Perhaps doubts are also cast over a 'complete' 9th because we have been 'conditioned' over the years into hearing it as a three-movement work? I have the Wildner discs and I myself don't think the 9th with the finale is overly long, disjointed or whatever - it does take a while to get used to but I think the four-movement work is valid if only to obtain an alternative overview. Had Bruckner died earlier without managing a thorough completion the finale of his 8th I wonder if similar reservations may have applied? Of course, if more conductors end up recording the finale of the 9th from now on the option remains to stop listening once the third movement has finished if a four-movement entity fails to satisfy.


----------



## superhorn

The Te Deum does not make a satisfactory conclusion to the 9th symphony at all. For example, it is in C major, and the 9th is in D minor . The only recent performance in our time to do this whoich I know of was when Michael Tilson Thomas and the San Francisco symphony tried this several years ago .
I don't agree at all about the Bruckner finales "not being great ". In fact, they are so fascinating because of their structural unorthodoxy . How could anyone dismiss the mighty fugal finale of the 5th as "not being great"? I haven't heard the Rattle or Wildner recordings with the complete finale, but am curious to do so.
My first expose to a completion was many years ago on a Chandos LP (yes, they used to put some out ) with Yoav Talmi and the Oslo Philharmonic using the version by William Caragan . 
I was fascinated and thrilled by the music , and I repeat - I'm no longer satisfied with the torso version .


----------



## Tombstoner

Personally, I love the reconstructed finale. When I took time to listen to it for myself as true Bruckner, I found that it excellently ties up the symphony. I don't mean to sound condescending, but did those of you who disapprove of it read the publication by the reconstruction team?


----------



## Laudemont

There are actually three-plus completions of the 4th movement of the 9th. Carragan's original completion has been worked over in at least one subsequent version. Then there is the one referred to in the initial post by the "gang of four." Then there is one by Nors. S. Josephson, completed in 1992. I have heard all three (and possess recordings) but need to listen again before expressing an opinion. There is a downloadable essay by Carragan about his initial completion effort here: http://www.abruckner.com/articles/articlesEnglish/carraganwilliamess/


----------



## Rach Man

I just noticed this thread. Listening to the 9th symphony (unfinished) today, I was curious as to how the 4th movement would have progressed. Would anyone, in 2017, like to chime in? I am very curious as to how it is supposed to be finished. And what the talkclassical people think of any of the recorded versions.

BTW, I really do like Bruckner's 9th and I am quite content with the adagio ending the piece. But I feel that Bruckner would have preferred a fourth movement and I would appreciate any facts or opinions on the finale of this great symphony.


----------



## DavidA

Rattle has recorded it with the last mpvment completed but the performance does not show him as a great Brucknerian


----------



## Art Rock

My personal opinion: the 3-movement version is a completed masterpiece, for me the most beautiful symphony of all time, with a fitting ending after movement 3. Adding the fourth movement, no matter how close this may (or may not) be to Bruckner's intentions, spoils it (I have the Rattle CD).


----------



## Pesaro

I agree with Art, the three movement Bruckner 9th is one of the most beautiful works in the entire symphonic repertoire, especially the third movement. I have heard the Rattle completion and found it to be quite boring, a term I rarely use when it comes to classical music.


----------



## Becca

It may be "_one of the most beautiful works in the entire symphonic repertoire_" but it is NOT what Bruckner wanted. Just the fact that he even considered using the _Te Deum_ as a last movement should show how serious he was about not leaving a 3 movement torso, so who are we to second-guess his wishes? The biggest performance issue is that the 3rd movement needs to be handled very differently if it is the finale vs being followed by the 4th and that difference seems to be what upsets many. Just ask yourself how you would feel about the Beethoven 9th if only the first 3 movements existed and then someone put together the 4th movement from sketches.


----------



## mbhaub

I can contribute to this in a very personal way: I participated in the world-premiere performance of Dr. Carragan's 3rd edition of the completed ninth - I played 3rd bassoon & contrabassoon. There are some who consider the 3-movement symphony a masterwork as it is - but it is incomplete and no matter how beautiful it is, that 75% sure needs a finale. Sometimes completions work and in this case I think it really does. Much of the material and the layout is Bruckner's. It's only near the coda - those marvels of architecture that Bruckner did so well - that the thread was lost, the pages missing. Carragan did a stellar job in putting a coda together that sounds like the master and brings the symphony to a satisfying and thrilling conclusion. As a non-professional musician and physics professor, Carragan earns our respect and gratitude for bringing this movement to life. Of course it's not what Bruckner would have written and no one would claim it is - but it sure works. The performance was a great experience that I'll never forget. Now, when I listen to the 9th, I cannot abide the 3-movement version; the 4th movement just needs to be there.

I've also played the Payne reconstruction of the Elgar 3rd - that's much more questionable. It's interesting, but it's far less real Elgar than the Bruckner. There are a lot of works that we listen to that were not completed by the composer, and we'd be so much poorer if we just dismissed them out of hand.


----------



## Granate

Bruckner
_*Symphony No.9 in D minor*_
1992 Finale Version, Ed. Samale/Philips/Cohrs/Mazzuca
New Philharmonic Orchestra of Westphalia
*Johannes Wildner
Naxos (1998)*

Not only the best finale version, but one of the best No.9s I've ever listened to. Incredible Feierlich. This recording is timpani-filled and has its fair share of brass. It's only crime is to put the first three movements in Disc 1 and the completed fourth in Disc 2. It would be more natural to put two movements per disc and not break the normal continuity after a Bruckner Adagio.

I purchased this CD as soon as I could.









Bruckner
_*Symphony No.9 in D minor*_
1992 Finale Version, Ed. Samale/Philips/Cohrs/Mazzuca, 2012 Revision
Berliner Philharmoniker
*Simon Rattle
Warner Classics (2012)*

This recording is good in the Feierlich too, with Ok Scherzo and Adagio, but the Finale is not so well performed for me. Codas needed more loudness. It would be a great try if it wasn't for Wildner.


----------



## Becca

A Bruckner symphony is more than just "timpani-filled and has its fair share of brass". However the most important factor is that the Wildner recording is the 1996 version of the SMPC completion since which time more material has been found and there have been 3 subsequent revisions with the 'conclusive final' in 2011 which is what Rattle uses. In addition to the newly found material, the coda was reworked as a result of the previous performance experiences so I would argue that Wildner's performance, no matter how well performed, represents a more incomplete view of the 4th movement than does Rattle's.


----------



## Pesaro

Becca,

I am sort of a pragmatist. The 3 movement Bruckner 9th usually takes about an hour. The four movement version is closer to 90 minutes. Since the last movement, IMO, is nowhere near the same level of inspiration as the first three, most audiences would probably not enjoy it very much. The Mahler 3rd is also extremely long but its inspiration does not disappear in the finale.


----------



## Becca

Pesaro said:


> Becca,
> 
> I am sort of a pragmatist. The 3 movement Bruckner 9th usually takes about an hour. The four movement version is closer to 90 minutes. Since the last movement, IMO, is nowhere near the same level of inspiration as the first three, most audiences would probably not enjoy it very much. The Mahler 3rd is also extremely long but its inspiration does not disappear in the finale.


Which of the various completions are you familiar with? I would say that the coda of the SMPC completion, which is the one part that where there were few details for them to work with, is not as inspired as the rest but I can accept that as the price of hearing the work mostly as Bruckner intended.

With respect, it is quite a stretch to extrapolate from your opinion about the level of inspiration to saying that 'most audiences' would probably not enjoy it. Given a similar extrapolation from the response of audiences that I know have heard it live, I would say that most audiences probably would enjoy it. Also, IMO, most of Bruckner's scherzi are not nearly as inspired as the rest of the symphonies but I don't see that as impacting overall enjoyment.


----------



## SmokeyBarnable

personally I am fond of the SPCM completion, and as others have said the Wildner 1992 recording is absolutely superb...

but the rattle recording just sounds so incredibly...tentative. the man is not a brucknerian to begin with, and the finale as a result doesn't seem to hold its own against the other three movements. the strings in particular don't sound right...

No fans of the letocart completion here? 

Letocart's version comes on very strong, and might be accused of being the musical equivalent of fan fiction...but listening to the first 500 bars, in contrast to the rattle you don't get the feeling that the finale is any less ambitious or coherent musically than the other three movements. (partially perhaps this is due to letocart filling in some gaps in the orchestration, while SPCM don't add to bruckner's work?) on the contrary, at the very least, it holds its own against them, in fact bringing on whole new dimensions to the work. and the ambitious (flat-out titanic, in fact) coda sounds like something bruckner, maybe, might have written at the height of his powers....

Letocart's version desperately needs to be performed by a decent orchestra. it should stand with SPCM as a great alternative vision of the work IMO.


----------



## Pesaro

Becca, 

I have only heard the Rattle recording. Re: the Bruckner scherzos, I love them, especially the ones from 3, 4 and 8.


----------



## Manxfeeder

SmokeyBarnable said:


> Letocart's version comes on very strong, and might be accused of being the musical equivalent of fan fiction...but listening to the first 500 bars, in contrast to the rattle you don't get the feeling that the finale is any less ambitious or coherent musically than the other three movements.
> 
> Letocart's version desperately needs to be performed by a decent orchestra. it should stand with SPCM as a great alternative vision of the work IMO.


I agree with you there. I think the latest Samale/Mazucca/Phillips/Cohrs version is drawing closer to the original intentions, but Letocart is fun to hear as it is. Either way, someone said these "put the long-familiar first three movements into a scale and proportion that now seems as 'right' as it is new . . . Those who enter this music are advised that they will leave it a different size than when they came in."


----------



## Granate

Becca said:


> Also, IMO, most of Bruckner's scherzi are not nearly as inspired as the rest of the symphonies but I don't see that as impacting overall enjoyment.


Agree 90%. I expressed in the Mahler vs. Bruckner thread that many Bruckner sherzi are by-the-numbers for me. He excelled in Adagios. I'm very fond of 3, 8 and 9, just because they are the most memorable for me.


----------



## Josquin13

John Proffit, who is on the board of directors for the Bruckner Society of America, wrote an interesting review of conductor Gerd Schaller's 2nd Profil recording of the completed Bruckner 9th for The Bruckner Journal. The review was subsequently reproduced by MusicWeb International, and I think it's well informed & worth reading. Of particular interest, Profitt writes that Bruckner worked on the 4th movement to the "very day" of his death, and that "a substantial portion of the surviving manuscript is fully orchestrated"; though Bruckner would have likely worked further on it before publication, had he been able to do so. Profitt writes,

"The case for this Finale as a major representation of Bruckner's final thoughts as one of the 19th century's preeminent composers is clear. Despite his physical frailties, Bruckner worked assiduously on the Finale from 25 May 1895 to the very day of his death, 11 October 1896. A substantial portion of the surviving manuscript is fully orchestrated, with the sequentially numbered manuscript bifolios indicating an organic and substantially - perhaps fully - completed movement. Overall, the known sources comprise over 400 pages of material, including the fully orchestrated "late-stage" manuscript, representing about 600 bars of continuous music. Therefore it is inaccurate to describe the surviving material as a "sketch"-but rather as a torso, which has come down to us incomplete. Unfortunately, the manuscript is missing a number of pages - the numerical sequence is broken in five places - and the probable last pages, which would contain the Coda, are completely missing. It is possible that in the immediate days after Bruckner's death, visitors and well-wishers at the composer's apartment at Vienna's Castle Belvedere helped themselves to a souvenir or two in the form of a manuscript page in the composer's own handwriting, perhaps lifted right off of his piano where he had been working on that last day!"

Here's a link to the full review:

http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2017/Mar/Bruckner_sy9_PH16089.htm

Any opinions on either of Gerd Schaller's two recordings, relative to others?

Despite Proffit's strong advocacy, I don't plan to stop listening to my favorite 3 movement recordings of the 9th--from Eugen Jochum (in Berlin, Dresden & Munich) Wilhelm Fürtwangler, Carla Maria Giulini (in Vienna), and Sergui Celibidache, and especially Jochum's live 1983 Munich recording, which was hand picked for release by the conductor's pianist daughter, Veronica Jochum, from the Jochum recorded archives. It's very special (though the Staatskapelle Dresden 9th is probably the best played of Jochum's 9th recordings):

https://www.amazon.com/Bruckner-Symphony-Tristan-Munchner-Philharmoniker/dp/B00TTD1CEM/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1511206148&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=bruckner+wagner+eugen+jochum


----------



## R3PL4Y

The completed 4th movements are interesting to listen to on an intellectual level to get an idea of what Bruckner had already written of the movement, but if I am listening to this piece for my own enjoyment, I will always listen to the 3 movement version.


----------



## Granate

Josquin13 said:


> Any opinions on either of Gerd Schaller's two recordings, relative to others?


I've only listened to the second completion but the overall cycle is so well recorded, despite the use of some 1st versions I could do without, that anytime that it is released and on sale I want to get it.

I wasn't very convinced with the whole No.9 recording (not only the finale), but I don't notice massive differences between the SCPM and this one.


----------



## kangxi

I notice there is a 4 mvt recording from 1987 by Eliahu Inbal with the Frakfurt RSO, but I don't know whose completion is played. Does anyone on this forum know?
Also, mention was made of a completion by a certain Letocart. I haven't heard of this before: does anybody know who recorded it & which label?
So far I'm aware of completions played by Wildner (SPCM completion), Rattle (also SPCM completion),Inbal (as I said, I don't know whose) and a 22 min 'fragment' prepared by John A Phillips & recorded by Ricardo Luna.
Who recorded the Corrigan?

It would be nice if we could put together a complete list of 4th mvt versions & recordings. I'm with the camp that finds this last movement utterly fascinating and one which works on many levels.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Inbal uses the realization by Samale and Mazzuca - Early Draft 1984. As with any completion of this symphony, I remain unconvinced.

An interesting website for all this sort of stuff: Try the Bruckner Discography:

https://www.abruckner.com/discography/

full of fascinating lists, who uses which edition, etc etc, plus the occasional free non-commercial recording.


----------



## kangxi

Robert Pickett said:


> Inbal uses the realization by Samale and Mazzuca - Early Draft 1984. As with any completion of this symphony, I remain unconvinced.
> 
> An interesting website for all this sort of stuff: Try the Bruckner Discography:
> 
> https://www.abruckner.com/discography/
> 
> full of fascinating lists, who uses which edition, etc etc, plus the occasional free non-commercial recording.


Many thanks for the Inbal info - and for the site recommendation: as a rather obsessive Bruckner collector I shall descend on this site avidly (free downloads as well!)


----------



## Larkenfield

I've heard the Inbal and Rattle performances of two different completions and enjoyed them both, with the most impressive performance and version, to my ears, by Rattle. In fact, it's the most impressive Rattle I've ever heard.

I find both performance editions and orchestrations of the 4th movement entirely convincing as Bruckner, with the usual questions of what Bruckner might have preferred in a final edition had he lived to complete it.

But I'm entirely convinced by hearing what he left behind that he wanted a 4th movement because of the extensive efforts he put into his sketches and orchestration before he died.

My only reservation is about the very last part of the ending, which is not entirely satisfying to me and somehow doesn't sound final enough, ends too abruptly, and is something I feel Bruckner probably never got around to completing or revising to his own satisfaction. Nevertheless, I feel there's some magnificent and characteristic Bruckner writing found in the last movement and is very much worth hearing, though it takes some getting used to with regard to its relationship to the first three movements that are so well known.

I would not consider a symphony that lasts almost an hour-and-a-half out of the question. Mahler had already done so with his 3rd Symphony. Out of public curiosity, I foresee a greater and greater demand to hear the 4th movement.

I was also won over by the performance of the Westphalia New Philharmonic Orchestra and Johannes Wildner.


----------



## Azol

You might want to hear Sir Simon Rattle discussing the completed version of B9 in this video:

https://www.digitalconcerthall.com/en/interview/2516-2



Larkenfield said:


> In fact, it's the most impressive Rattle I've ever heard.


:tiphat:


----------



## Becca

Larkenfield said:


> I was also won over by the performance of the Westphalia New Philharmonic Orchestra and Johannes Wildner.


As I noted earlier, the Wildner is a much earlier version of the SMPC completion that Rattle used but prior to a number of the original folios being discovered and so is less representative of where Bruckner was going with the movement.


----------



## Granate

Becca said:


> As I noted earlier, the Wildner is a much earlier version of the SMPC completion that Rattle used but prior to a number of the original folios being discovered and so is less representative of where Bruckner was going with the movement.


With all my curiosity and respect:

What do you think of Knappertsbusch and his Bruckner Edition choices?


----------



## Becca

Granate said:


> With all my curiosity and respect:
> 
> What do you think of Knappertsbusch and his Bruckner Edition choices?


I have not listened to them.


----------



## Granate

Becca said:


> I have not listened to them.


Thank you. We'll leave it like that.
(I'm really, really containing myself)


----------



## Larkenfield

Azol said:


> You might want to hear Sir Simon Rattle discussing the completed version of B9 in this video:
> 
> https://www.digitalconcerthall.com/en/interview/2516-2
> 
> :tiphat:


 Thank you for mentioning the interview.


----------



## SmokeyBarnable

here is a link to the letocart completion.


----------



## DavidA

I have the Rattle version. I don't think Rattle can compare as a Bruckner conductor with the best but it is interesting. I must confess, however, that for me the ninth is better left as it is. Maybe an emotional response but it does seem that slow movement is something for bruckner to go out on.


----------



## SmokeyBarnable

but there is some awesome music in the finale.

the 'cross' motif in the beginning.

the mighty chorale

many other moments..

'judgment day set to music'. 

but to each his own.


----------



## Larkenfield

I believe the 4th movement will eventually be accepted but it has a great deal of catching up to do. It's perhaps more difficult to accept because the first three movements are already about an hour long and then more is added. Nevertheless, the 4th movement sounds like authentic Bruckner to me and he put in a great deal of effort.


----------



## Becca

The most convincing last movement that I have heard is the recently released Gerd Schaller version. Note that he had previously done the Carragan version but this is a revised version of his own completion.


----------



## mbhaub

Several years back I had a thrilling time playing William Carragan's third version of the completed 9th with Musica Nova at a concert in the Scottsdale Center for the Arts. It was tough getting your head around the finale and at that time Samale, Phillips, Cohrs nad Mazzuca hadn't yet released their latest version. In any event, I am absolutely convinced that the 9th should now always be performed in the four movement version, in either completion (and maybe there are others?). It will be interesting to see which completion becomes the reigning champ. Just based on Rattle's superb recording, I'd bet on the SCPM. One big difference: Carragan wrote the third bassoon to double on contra which is what I played. Bruckner never used the contra in any symphony, and neither do SCPM. And Carragan, for all his dedication, insight and hard work is not a composer - he's a great physicist and teacher. His version was also quite exciting,


----------



## Becca

As I noted above, Schaller had also done the Carragan but subsequently decided to work on his own completion. I suggest that you sample it, it is on Spotify. I would be interested in your comments on it. Otherwise I am in total agreement with you.


----------



## mbhaub

Becca said:


> As I noted above, Schaller had also done the Carragan but subsequently decided to work on his own completion. I suggest that you sample it, it is on Spotify. I would be interested in your comments on it. Otherwise I am in total agreement with you.


I'd forgotten the Schaller. Will order today. Thanks for the reminder.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Becca said:


> The most convincing last movement that I have heard is the recently released Gerd Schaller version. Note that he had previously done the Carragan version but this is a revised version of his own completion.
> 
> View attachment 121212


There are actually three complete Ninths by Schaller, The last two recordings being of his original completion (2015, in the big box as is the 2010 Carragan), and the recording you highlight, which was only done last year, with his revised completion. It is more convincing than others, but it still has failed to win me over.


----------



## cyberstudio

I listened to Rattle's finale again and it almost brought me to tears (in a good way) until the point when the menacing 1st movement 1st theme returned. Then it restarted with some ultra-long crescendo. Both were very Brucknerian cliches but together sounded very wrong. The final bars were satisfying and partially redeemed the fault. I was shaking my head, Bruckner, Bruckner, who stole your final pages? But then maybe in his state of health and the unpolished state of his work it might not have been any better, after all. This was so much worse than listening to any Mahler 10 completion, but still IMO better than 3 mvts.


----------



## Knorf

Anyone who thinks Bruckner's Ninth is satisfying at the end of the 3rd movement is listening with post-tonal ears. Tonality and harmonic progression are everything to Bruckner. To say you don't need to return to D as tonic is to say you don't believe in large scale tonal thinking. And frankly I have to doubt you understand Bruckner or tonality in any deep way.

Bruckner is not late Mahler. Bruckner is not post-tonal.

For the same reason, the Te Deum is not acceptable. There are other reasons it doesn't work as well.

Having a completion by someone else is much less than if Bruckner himself had finished it. But there is more authentic Bruckner in the best completions than there is in Mozart's Requiem, comparably as much as with Mahler 10, Bartók's Viola Concerto, or Berg's Lulu, and much more than in Elgar 3 or the various completions of the Schubert B-minor. 

We have much better than no fourth movement, in short.

To anyone who doubts this material, I urge them to listen to Nicolaus Harnoncourt's lecture/performance with the Wiener Philharmoniker. If that doesn't convince you, I suppose nothing will.


----------



## mbhaub

Knorf said:


> I have to doubt you understand Bruckner or tonality in any deep way.


You do realize that the vast, vast majority of listeners couldn't identify or tell what the tonality is at any given moment? That includes practically all professional musicians. Most people are lucky if they can follow a thematic strand, but asking people to come to terms with a tonal center, and where it's headed or lacking is asking a lot! Mahler used progressive tonality in several symphonies - ending in a different key than he began. How many people do you think are really aware of that? In short, most people don't give a rat's behind.

Now I've lived with several completions of the 9th for some time. I've played on - Carragan's latest. All i can say is that for me, hearing the 9th without someone's finale is not acceptable - the score demands it. And it makes wonderful listening.


----------



## cyberstudio

During his lifetime, Bruckner would rather endure cuts and modifications than for his works to not get performed. So I think he would have been happy to see his 9th's finale getting performed with the various different completions today.


----------



## damian101

The Josephson completion is my favorite, for me it has the most satisfying ending and sounds less generic than most of the other completions. The recording I've listened to is the 2015 Aarhus Symphony Orchestra recording, its overall very nice, can recommend.


----------



## brucknerian1874

If you want Schaller's most recent thoughts on the completion it's this disc that you need.








Personally, I find this thoroughly convincing, as far as it goes. We need to remember that even if Bruckner had completed the finale himself, he would have immediately set about revising it. He was an inveterate tinkerer, usually arriving at his destination only after several detours. And, even then...


----------



## Azol

I listened to both the original and revised Schaller's version of the Finale and it's definitely one of the most successful ones. Must get some more listens to detect all the differences between these two. The original one is in the Complete Symphonies 18-CD boxset on Profil and the revised one is available separately.
I also enjoy spinning from time to time the SPMC 2012 completion as recorded by Rattle/BPO. Very satisfying performance!
But the main 3-movement torso of the Ninth is what I prefer most of the time. Finale just does not work the way it should have, so it's almost always a separate listen for me these days.


----------



## Ned Low

I read somewhere that William Carragan made his only completion of the 9th and Schaller conducted it. So i don't think it as Bruckner's 9th finale. I prefer the unfinished version. It's complete as such.


----------



## Azol

Ned Low said:


> I read somewhere that William Carragan made his only completion of the 9th and Schaller conducted it.


That he did. The 18-CD boxset actually contains both versions of completed Finale - by Carragan and by Schaller, latter being much more successful one. I don't believe I would want to hear Carragan's Finale ever again.


----------



## mbhaub

Carragan has made several revisions to his finale and they get better and better. I had the pleasure of playing in the premiere performance of version 3. He was there for the rehearsals, I was on bassoon 3, when he asked me if I had access to a contrabassoon. No problem and he revised the part on the spot to add a very un-Brucknerian contra part. The guy's a genius; a physics professor by profession and Bruckner scholar by love.


----------



## Becca

mbhaub said:


> Carragan has made several revisions to his finale and they get better and better. I had the pleasure of playing in the premiere performance of version 3. He was there for the rehearsals, I was on bassoon 3, when he asked me if I had access to a contrabassoon. No problem and he revised the part on the spot to add a very un-Brucknerian contra part. The guy's a genius; a physics professor by profession and Bruckner scholar by love.


I realize that it is a rather hazy line but is this the Carragan-Bruckner 9th whereas I thought it was supposed to be Bruckner (compl. Carragan)! As noted elsewhere I will stick with the revised Schaller completion.


----------



## DeepR

It is one of my favorite symphonies and so far I have only listened to it in 3 movements. I didn't care much for the idea of a completion, but this talk by Simon Rattle got me interested. 
Since a large part is Bruckner's original work, it can't be all that bad. In fact I am now looking forward to it.
It should also be interesting to compare the different completions, based on nothing but my own musical intuition and thoughts about the work, even without in depth technical knowledge.


----------



## Azol

By all the completions available today, Rattle (SPMC Finale) and Schaller (Schaller Finale) are the ones I listen to most exclusively (when I'm in the mood for B9 Finale, that is). I cannot quite decide which one I like better but actually I don't have to!  Both are within the reach of my hand so... These two are "nice to have", but the "must have" is still the undisputed (for me) Giulini VPO B9 in 3 movements.


----------



## RobertJTh

The various completions that I listened to have one thing in common: a jarring dichotomy between the genuine Bruckner material up to the coda - and the coda itself, with its conjectural combinations of all those themes that sound completely unconvincing or reasonably satisfying, depending on the version.
That dichotomy is worsened by the fact that the various codas have little in common with the atmosphere of the rest of the Finale, and just attempt to provide a cliched triumphal ending for what's possibly Bruckner's bleakest symphonic movement.

The biggest question for me is: why not try and present the material that is "echt", authentic Bruckner alone, without an attempt to add an inauthentic tacked-on coda? That could be done by giving the movement a "diminuendo" ending at the end of the re-exposition, and make it end quietly.

If people argue that such an ending would be anti-Brucknerian, just take a look at the first movement of the 8th. In the first version, that had the standard big blaze-out ending, but Bruckner (wisely!) decided to replace it with the famous and very original (for him) quiet ending.
Who can in all honesty assert that Bruckner couldn't have done the same with the finale of the 9th? When you compare both movements - the 8th's first movement and the 9th's finale, they have a lot in common, most strikingly the tragic, depressed mood. Bruckner realized that a triumphant ending for the first movement of the 8th was a wrong choice. Couldn't he have felt the same about the 9th?
Sure, it would be revolutionary and completely unexpected for him, but so was the quiet ending in the 8th, and no-one complains about that being un-Brucknerian.
That's the problem with musicologists who try to figure out what Bruckner may have meant or planned. They only look at the past, at his previous decisions. They never take into account that he could have done something completely unexpected and original. "He was going to combine all previous themes in the coda, because that's what he always does." Rubbish. Yes, we have a 2nd-hand account of Bruckner saying something about the coda being some sort of "Halleluia" - but that proves little, and he could easily have changed his mind, just like he did with the 8th. Unless those lost manuscript pages miraculously resurface, we're completely in the dark about what shape the coda would have taken.

In the years 1894-1896, when the finale was composed, Bruckner wasn't a healthy man, and he suffered from depressions, delusions and an array of physical problems. We must realize that all of the music for the finale was composed AFTER Bruckner got administered the last rites in 1894. It's really music written in "borrowed time", with one foot already in the grave.
Of course it's dangerous to connect music, and specially music of such an abstract nature as Bruckner's, to a composer's life events and personal circumstances, but to me, the surviving music for the 9th's finale says something about those troublesome 2 last years of Bruckner's life. It's not happy music, it's full of tragedy, darkness and doubt (some biographers claim that Bruckner lost his faith at the very end of his life, probably untrue, but there were signs that he wasn't content anymore with the dogmas of his faith, and maybe (but that's pure speculation) with the way he expressed that faith in his music in the past).

So, in short, I'm convinced that a completion modeled after the structure of the first movement of the 8th, with an ending consisting of, for instance repeating motives from the end of the re-exposition, played diminuendo and morendo. Or maybe, even more radical, just let the music at the end of the re-exposition slow down and gently fade out. Yes, it would sounds strange and it would disappoint people who expect an affirmative, blazing major key conclusion like in the finale of the 8th, but the finale of the 9th is of a diametrically different nature than that of the 9th, and, like I argued above, a "combined themes" ending that fitted the 8th so well sounds completely out of place in the 9th.

I believe the thoughts that I have expressed aren't esoteric or far-fetched, so I wonder why no-one has yet attempted a completion on the conditions that I described above?


----------



## mbhaub

Not trying to be snotty or rude, but since you have strong ideas on how it should be done, go for it and show us! Make your own version of the finale, get it performed, or even recorded, and let the world hear what you've done. This is not something one takes up casually. Given the several completions done now, there's no surprise that the guys who did them came up with differing solutions. And none of them are what Bruckner would have done. But I have to tell you this: when you bury yourself so deeply into a composer's work there comes a time when suddenly the lights come on. Aha! You sIuddenly see what the composer was doing and somehow - maybe even supernaturally - you "get it". You know exactly what the composer was doing and you let that guide you the rest of the way. If you would copy out - by hand - the entire score as Bruckner left it, including the extant finale up to where he stopped I believe you would gain an insight as to where Bruckner was headed and realize that your proposed solutions are wrong. For me, having heard the four-movement version, I simply cannot hear the first three movements only in the same way ever again, and Carragan, Schaller or the others are all ok.


----------



## Dimace

One way or an other, Bruckner wasn't Finale Composer. (as Beethoven was) He was straggling with them, and only with the 8th he managed to produced a convincing (for this standards) one. What I could say is that Bruckner is perfect through his imperfections. His music has such a stellar caliber throughout that at the end nothing technical matters and his greatness shines like the sun to the eternity. Having listened more than 100 recordings from this ultimate work, I can say that every single one of them was great. It doesn't matter who made the finale. It doesn't matter if other people helped the completion etc. What matters is the music. And Bruckner's 9th is (maybe) the best symphony in the history of music.


----------



## RobertJTh

mbhaub said:


> Not trying to be snotty or rude, but since you have strong ideas on how it should be done, go for it and show us! Make your own version of the finale, get it performed, or even recorded, and let the world hear what you've done.


When Schoenberg was asked to complete Mahler's 10th he declined - not because he wasn't capable in a technical sense but because he was foremost a composer, not an "administrator" of other people's ideas. If he would have done it, it would have become a Mahler/Schoenberg hybrid, instead of more or less "pure" Mahler.
It tells you something that the most convincing completions are done by scholars and theorists, not composers. Deryk Cooke is perhaps the best example.

Given enough time to study Bruckner's scores, to immerse myself completely in his style the technical aspects of his composing process, I would probably be able to take the challenge. It helps that he's one of a handful of favorite composers that I feel a spiritual connection with. But it wouldn't help that I'm a composer myself, and at some point I'm sure preferences based on my own compositional style instead of Bruckner scholarship would start to influence my decisions.

And of course you're right, a challenge like this isn't done easily. It'd mean years of work without any guarantee of success, or even financial compensation for the invested time and effort. Because what you need beforehand is contacts and contracts, and as a simple church organist annex obscure composer, I don't have those.

So yes, I very much respect the work of Carragan, Schaller and others, because I realize how much honest labour of love they invested in their project. But that doesn't mean I agree with the solutions they came up with for the coda problem.



Dimace said:


> One way or an other, Bruckner wasn't Finale Composer. (as Beethoven was) He was straggling with them, and only with the 8th he managed to produced a convincing (for this standards) one.


I'd say the 4th (in its 1881 version) and the 5th have splendid finales, and to me, the finale of the 8th is far less convincing than those two.


----------



## DeepR

What about the eye witness account that Rattle mentions at 10:48 in the video above? Does that mean Bruckner had already worked out in his mind how it was going to end?
If someone had heard Bruckner playing it on the organ and made a detailed account of that then surely that is a strong indication on how the symphony should end.


----------



## Aries

RobertJTh said:


> The various completions that I listened to have one thing in common: a jarring dichotomy between the genuine Bruckner material up to the coda - and the coda itself, with its conjectural combinations of all those themes that sound completely unconvincing or reasonably satisfying, depending on the version.
> That dichotomy is worsened by the fact that the various codas have little in common with the atmosphere of the rest of the Finale, and just attempt to provide a cliched triumphal ending for what's possibly Bruckner's bleakest symphonic movement.


Bruckners personal doctor Richard Heller reported that Bruckner played the Coda for him on the piano. He said that a canticle in D major was intended for the end.

An interessting detail is that the used motif in the coda which is similar to the main theme of the 7th symphony was also used by Bruckner at the end of the adagio.

Compare:











RobertJTh said:


> The biggest question for me is: why not try and present the material that is "echt", authentic Bruckner alone, without an attempt to add an inauthentic tacked-on coda? That could be done by giving the movement a "diminuendo" ending at the end of the re-exposition, and make it end quietly.
> 
> If people argue that such an ending would be anti-Brucknerian, just take a look at the first movement of the 8th. In the first version, that had the standard big blaze-out ending, but Bruckner (wisely!) decided to replace it with the famous and very original (for him) quiet ending.
> Who can in all honesty assert that Bruckner couldn't have done the same with the finale of the 9th?


First movements and finales are different things. Every Bruckner finale ends in major and fortissimo. I think Bruckner wanted a positive and representative ending for all of his symphonies because of his faith. An ending with a dejected, doubting character which the first movement of the 8th has for dramaturgical reasons is rather unthinkable for Bruckner as a last statement imo.



RobertJTh said:


> When you compare both movements - the 8th's first movement and the 9th's finale, they have a lot in common, most strikingly the tragic, depressed mood. Bruckner realized that a triumphant ending for the first movement of the 8th was a wrong choice.


I don't think that it is wrong. Both endings are good, one maybe a bit better. But you can only have one at a time.



RobertJTh said:


> Couldn't he have felt the same about the 9th?
> Sure, it would be revolutionary and completely unexpected for him, but so was the quiet ending in the 8th, and no-one complains about that being un-Brucknerian.
> That's the problem with musicologists who try to figure out what Bruckner may have meant or planned. They only look at the past, at his previous decisions. They never take into account that he could have done something completely unexpected and original.


But there is also the statement of Richard Heller and if I remember it correctly some kind of sketch of the bass line survived including the last bars. But I think I read that years ago.



RobertJTh said:


> "He was going to combine all previous themes in the coda, because that's what he always does." Rubbish. Yes, we have a 2nd-hand account of Bruckner saying something about the coda being some sort of "Halleluia" - but that proves little, and he could easily have changed his mind, just like he did with the 8th.


Yes, but speculation should be reduced as much as possible. We know which concept Bruckner had in mind at some point. It is possible that his ideas would have changed in the finishing process or even afterwards for a second version of the symphony. But I am not convinced that it is a good idea, that everyone now comes up with his own ideas.



RobertJTh said:


> So, in short, I'm convinced that a completion modeled after the structure of the first movement of the 8th, with an ending consisting of, for instance repeating motives from the end of the re-exposition, played diminuendo and morendo. Or maybe, even more radical, just let the music at the end of the re-exposition slow down and gently fade out. Yes, it would sounds strange and it would disappoint people who expect an affirmative, blazing major key conclusion like in the finale of the 8th, but the finale of the 9th is of a diametrically different nature than that of the 9th, and, like I argued above, a "combined themes" ending that fitted the 8th so well sounds completely out of place in the 9th.


To be honest, the coda of the Samale/Phillips/Mazzuca/Cohrs versions doesn't sound wrong for me. I like it.



Dimace said:


> One way or an other, Bruckner wasn't Finale Composer. (as Beethoven was) He was straggling with them, and only with the 8th he managed to produced a convincing (for this standards) one.


Most of his symphonies have the emphasis on the first movement. I often hear such comments about the finales, but which finales are actually weak? Imo the finales of the 7th and the 3rd stand very much in the shadow of the first movements. But I don't see a general problem with finales. Aren't the finales of the 4th, 5th and 8th great? And imo there is a lot of greatness in the finale of the 9th too. The chorale at the end of the exposition or the fugue in the development.


----------



## superhorn

OOPs ! I goofed ! I have heard the Naxos recording of the four movement 9th with Johannes Wildner and the Westphalian symphony orchestra on Youtube , and it's a first rate performance which I would recommend to anyone who loves Bruckner .


----------



## SanAntone

Most conductors choose to record the three movements Bruckner completed. I only have seen a few that included the 4th movement completed by William Carragan or the one by committee (Inbal, Rattle, and Wildner) - but I don't have an exhaustive knowledge of Bruckner recordings. I read where Bruckner once suggested using the _Te Deum_ as the 4th movement, a hommage to Beethoven's 9th, but the key is not right and would need some transitional material added anyway. That never happened.

I am fine with the three movements; and have never been interested in other composers "completing" a work the composer left unfinished at his death (Süssmayr's completion of the Mozart Requiem is so lodged in the repertory it is an exception). I love it when listening to the Art of Fugue and the music just stops mid-thought.

I realize that Bruckner left a large amount of music in sketch form, but that is only half the battle.


----------



## Knorf

SanAntone said:


> I realize that Bruckner left a large amount of music in sketch form, but that is only half the battle.


This is not quite correct. What Bruckner left of the fourth movement is an essentially complete short score*, excepting most of the coda, and a few pages here and there that are missing because "well wishers" walked off with them as mementos.

*For those not in the know, a "short score" is more or less a score of four or so staves that include the complete principal melodic ideas, harmony, as much counterpoint as is practical, and orchestration notes. For Bruckner, short score to full score was a relatively small step.

ETA: all of the completed versions include as much of Bruckner's short score, intact, as it exists.

In short, the fourth movement of Bruckner's Ninth Symphony was far more complete than Mozart's Requiem Mass, than Berg's _Lulu_, than Bartók's Viola Concerto, and far, far, FAR more complete than Elgar's Third Symphony. It's completeness was in fact very comparable to Bartók's Third Concerto.


----------



## SanAntone

Knorf said:


> This is not quite correct. What Bruckner left of the fourth movement is an essentially complete short score*, excepting most of the coda, and a few pages here and there that are missing because "well wishers" walked off with them as mementos.
> 
> *For those not in the know, a "short score" is more or less a score of four or so staves that include the complete principal melodic ideas, harmony, as much counterpoint as is practical, and orchestration notes. For Bruckner, short score to full score was a relatively small step.
> 
> ETA: all of the completed versions include as much of Bruckner's short score, intact, as it exists.
> 
> In short, the fourth movement of Bruckner's Ninth Symphony was far more complete than Mozart's Requiem Mass, than Berg's _Lulu_, than Bartók's Viola Concerto, and far, far, FAR more complete than Elgar's Third Symphony. It's completeness was in fact very comparable to Bartók's Third Concerto.


I know what a short score is but my understanding had been that what existed was more in the nature of a rough draft. In any event, most conductors do not include the 4th movement. I suppose they are unconvinced of the completion and consider the three movements sufficient.


----------



## Knorf

SanAntone said:


> I know what a short score is but my understanding had been that what existed was more in the nature of a rough draft. In any event, most conductors do not include the 4th movement. I suppose they are unconvinced of the completion and consider the three movements sufficient.


Bruckner's Ninth fourth movement was all but complete in short score at his death. Way, way more than just sketches.

As for why conductors haven't taken it up, that's rooted far more mythology, especially bullshirt about the "curse of the Ninth" than it is anything substantive. I recommend listening to Harnoncourt's concert/lecture about this, for more information.


----------



## SanAntone

Knorf said:


> Bruckner's Ninth fourth movement was all but complete in short score at his death. Way, way more than just sketches.
> 
> As for why conductors haven't taken it up, that's rooted far more mythology, especially bullshirt about the "curse of the Ninth" than it is anything substantive. I recommend listening to Harnoncourt's concert/lecture about this, for more information.


I would like to, is it available on YouTube? But interestingly, he recorded just the three movements.


----------



## Knorf

SanAntone said:


> I would like to, is it available on YouTube? But interestingly, he recorded just the three movements.


He included all of fourth movement in his recording with the concert/lecture minus the missing gaps where the original short score pages are still missing. But the solid attempts at completion came after his recording.


----------



## SanAntone

Knorf said:


> He included all of fourth movement in his recording with the concert/lecture minus the missing gaps where the original short score pages are still missing. But the solid attempts at completion came after his recording.


Oh, okay, I found that recording on Spotify and listened to his opening remarks and then part of the first section. I need to listen to the entire tracks, but from what I did hear, it sounds patchy. There's often texture missing, and probably some of the transitional music between thematic material. It sounds unfinished. And with the missing pages, any further completion would rely upon speculation about what Bruckner would have done.

Harnoncourt seems to only wish to perform what Bruckner left behind and not deal with the various completions. When you say "solid attempts at completion" what exactly are you referring to? The Samale-Mazzuca-Phillips-Cohrs completion (1992; revised 1996, 2005, 2007, 2012 and 2021)?

Here's a summary of their methodology given in the article on Wikipedia



> Nicola Samale and Benjamin-Gunnar Cohrs compare in their preface to the study score of the completed performance version of Samale-Phillips-Cohrs-Mazzuca (2008) the reconstruction of a musical work with methods of reconstruction of plastic surgery, forensic pathology, aetiology and fine art:
> 
> For this purpose, techniques of reconstruction are required that are not only legitimate in the natural sciences, but vital if one wishes to demonstrate certain processes. Unfortunately, in other fields such reconstruction techniques are accepted much more than in music: In medicine, victims of accidents are more than grateful for the possibility of replacing lost parts of their body by plastic surgery. Also, in forensic pathology, such reconstructions are of value. This was demonstrated very effectively in 1977, when in the eponymous TV series Dr. Quincy reconstructed from a single femur not only the general appearance of the deceased but also his murderer ("The Thigh Bone's Connected to the Knee Bone" by Lou Shaw, also available as a novel by Thom Racina). Reconstructions are also well known in the fine arts and archaeology. Paintings, torsi of sculptures, mosaics and fresco, shipwrecks, castles, theatres (Venice), Churches (Dresden), and even entire ancient villages have been successfully reconstructed.


It is interesting from a musicological standpoint but I'm not sure if it will ever be satisfactory or even accepted by a majority of conductors. Not sure if using Quincy as a proof text is convincing.


----------



## Knorf

The Harnoncourt recording is 2003. The "completions" available at that time were a bit more sketchy. A lot of work was done since, and as I recall even a page or two more recovered. The other leading "completions" are Carragan and Schaller.

As with Mahler 10, which was less complete in its finale than Bruckner 9, we will never have a Bruckner completion. He died; it can't happen. The question is, can we fight the myth that it was "just sketches," and have a performing version that is enjoyable, even satisfying? Emphatically, yes, in my opinion.

I don't see why Mahler 10 somehow has acceptance, or the Bartók Viola Concerto, or Berg's _Lulu_, never mind the unbearably patchy Mozart Requiem and Mass in C minor, or the extremely wishful Elgar Third, but a four-movement Bruckner can't. It's illogical and inconsistent.


----------



## SanAntone

Knorf said:


> The Harnoncourt recording is 2003. The "completions" available at that time were a bit more sketchy. A lot of work was done since, and as I recall even a page or two more recovered. The other leading "completions" are Carragan and Schaller.
> 
> As with Mahler 10, which was less complete in its finale than Bruckner 9, we will never have a Bruckner completion. He died; it can't happen. The question is, can we fight the myth that it was "just sketches," and have a performing version that is enjoyable, even satisfying? Emphatically, yes, in my opinion.
> 
> I don't see why Mahler 10 somehow has acceptance, or the Bartók Viola Concerto, or Berg's _Lulu_, never mind the unbearably patchy Mozart Requiem and Mass in C minor, or the extremely wishful Elgar Third, but a four-movement Bruckner can't. It's illogical and inconsistent.


Well, you are arguing from the point of view as an advocate whereas I am standing at an arm's length and just looking at the feasibility of the project. The question come down to this: is the 9th with only three movements a satisfying musical experience? I think the answer to that is yes.


----------



## Becca

SanAntone said:


> Well, you are arguing from the point of view as an advocate whereas I am standing at an arm's length and just looking at the feasibility of the project. T_*he question come down to this: is the 9th with only three movements a satisfying musical experience? *_ I think the answer to that is yes.


The question is actually is that what Bruckner wanted and the answer is emphatically no. Given that he came so close to finishing it and we have the majority of the orchestrated score, then we can best respect the composer by not talking in terms of a three movement torso being an acceptable experience, no matter how much people think that it is 'satisfying'.

Incidentally, try comparing the main completions ... Carragan, Schaller and Samale et.al, and notice just how close they are to each other, that alone should serve to refute the 'sketches' argument.


----------



## Woodduck

Having heard only the Carragan 4th movement, which is OK but which I'd sooner do without, the question for me is whether Bruckner himself would have written a final movement worthy of the other three. A similar question hovers over other unfinished works, and for some of them we may have reasonable doubts. Puccini wanted the final scene of _Turandot_ to be a grand love duet surpassing everything he had ever done and resolving the plot in a satisfying way, but anyone who knows the problems posed by the opera's plot is justified in wondering whether that assignment could ever have been fulfilled. In Bruckner's case the doubts arise from his difficulty in giving his finales satisfying form. I find that his fourth movements tend to be structurally weaker than the preceding movements and thus somewhat anticlimactic; the finale of the 8th is particularly disappointing after the transcendental adagio. Whether he could have pulled off a miracle and made a finale for his 9th fully worthy of the rest of the work we'll never know, but I do know that Carragan didn't do it, and I doubt that the other versions manage it either. You can't really have an opera without an ending (although Toscanini did it, once, in tribute to Puccini and, probably, out of dissatisfaction with Alfano), but you can have a symphony in three movements, especially when the third movement is one of the most sublime in the repertoire.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Knorf said:


> As with Mahler 10, which was less complete in its finale than Bruckner 9, we will never have a Bruckner completion. He died; it can't happen. The question is, can we fight the myth that it was "just sketches," and have a performing version that is enjoyable, even satisfying? Emphatically, yes, in my opinion.
> 
> I don't see why Mahler 10 somehow has acceptance, or the Bartók Viola Concerto, or Berg's _Lulu_, never mind the unbearably patchy Mozart Requiem and Mass in C minor, or the extremely wishful Elgar Third, but a four-movement Bruckner can't. It's illogical and inconsistent.


This is very interesting; I only listened to it a couple of times but I was very happy when with Rattle/Berlin a big name finally recorded a 4 movement version. Despite some reading I never really understood how in/complete it was (Ben Cohrs posted for while in some fora I was following 10-15 years ago but he is not really unbiased... )

I tend to agree that in the somewhat "cultic" early Bruckner reception the mystery of the "perfect in three movements" arose and was perpetuated throughout the 20th century. But the discrepancy to e.g. Mahler's 10th is stunning.

It's a bit similar with Schubert's b minor fragment. Sure, the use of the somewhat square Entr'acte as a finale is dubious but the completion of the scherzo fairly straightforward, but the 4 movement reconstruction remains a rarity. Because it is "perfect in two movements"...


----------



## Azol

Woodduck said:


> Having heard only the Carragan 4th movement, which is OK but which I'd sooner do without


Any Finale completion remains more of a curiosity mostly aimed at Bruckner "completists" but nonetheless I'd say give Rattle/BPO a try because Carragan Finale in my opinion is one of the least satisfying ones when compared to latest SMPC or Schaller editions.
Again, just as a curiosity but Rattle really shines here (not something I would admit that freely with Sir Simon).


----------



## Aries

Woodduck said:


> Having heard only the Carragan 4th movement, which is OK but which I'd sooner do without, the question for me is whether Bruckner himself would have written a final movement worthy of the other three. A similar question hovers over other unfinished works, and for some of them we may have reasonable doubts. Puccini wanted the final scene of Turandot to be a grand love duet surpassing everything he had ever done and resolving the plot in a satisfying way, but anyone who knows the problems posed by the opera's plot is justified in wondering whether that assignment could ever have been fulfilled. In Bruckner's case the doubts arise from his difficulty in giving his finales satisfying form. I find that his fourth movements tend to be structurally weaker than the preceding movements and thus somewhat anticlimactic; the finale of the 8th is particularly disappointing after the transcendental adagio.


For me the music speaks for itself. When I heard the reconstructed finale the first time (it was the Kurt Eichhorn recording) I immediately knew for myself that this is a fully worth of a finale. But many others always seemed to have struggled more with it, and I can't really understand why.

Its interesting, that you have a more general problem with the finales. Dimace also said something like this:



Dimace said:


> One way or an other, Bruckner wasn't Finale Composer. (as Beethoven was) He was straggling with them, and only with the 8th he managed to produced a convincing (for this standards) one.


Although the finale of the 8th is a positive exception for him.

But if even the finale of the 8th is disappointing for you, I can't be surprised anymore. Bruckner mentioned that the finale of the 8th was his most important movement (and I think that was just reasonable evaluation).

So you critizise form and structure of the finale of the 8th. But what is even special about the form? It is a sonata form with three groups like usual for Bruckner. But it is filled in a really great way with great music imo.

I could understand if someone said that the codetta of the recapitulation and the coda of the finale of the 9th is less convincing than the exemplary ending of the 8th. But if the ending of the 8th is disappointing for you, then the overriding issue is probably a major fracture in the reception and understanding of Bruckner between listeners.

But Finales are an integral part of a Bruckner symphony. Without a finale it is not a finished Bruckner symphony. It is different to Schuberts "unfinished". Schubert did not die during composing it, he just decided to write no scherzo and finale.



Woodduck said:


> but you can have a symphony in three movements, especially when the third movement is one of the most sublime in the repertoire.


I think it is wrong to play off the adagios against the finales. They are too different and have different purposes.



Kreisler jr said:


> I tend to agree that in the somewhat "cultic" early Bruckner reception the mystery of the "perfect in three movements" arose and was perpetuated throughout the 20th century.


They even thought Bruckner was out of his mind at the end in the finale because of some dissonant passages. (And they also "corrected" the climax of the adagio.)

The first 3 movements alone are still great music. But someone could also end the 7th after 2 movements and say: "Isn't that great music?" But fact is that a Bruckner symphony has 4 movements.


----------



## Art Rock

Aries said:


> But someone could also end the 7th after 2 movements and say: "Isn't that great music?" But fact is that a Bruckner symphony has 4 movements.


Intriguing. This is what I wrote many years ago about the 7th:

_One of his four most popular symphonies, and one of the best received in the composer's life time. The opening movement of 23 minutes is spellbinding and beautiful, and the following 23 minutes adagio offers some of the greatest melodic lines Bruckner ever composed. It is ironic that, had the composer been unable to finish the symphony after these two movements, I would probably have ranked it as one of the best ever. As is, the scherzo is not bad, but still a bit of a let down after those marvelous first two movements, and the same holds for the finale._


----------



## Kreisler jr

23 min. in the 7th is too long and too slow, it should be around 20 or a bit less for both movements. I think the finale of the 7th is brief (for Bruckner) but a stroke of genius and partly because of this it is my favorite Bruckner symphony. (If one looks at architecturally superior composers like Beethoven it is also not uncommon to have a considerably shorter finale, e.g. in the Eroica. And I think a symphony with the scherzo not being a "letdown" to some extent would have weak movements around the scherzo  However, I think the 6th's finale is comparably lame despite being short)

Bruckner is often overzealous with his finales trying for too much and even if they contain great music they are often just too damn long. And when he got uncertain, he cut out too much, like in the finale of the 1889? version of #3.

But I think most of this is beside the point. He was desperately trying to finish the finale of the 9th and got very far and a symphony without finale was apparently so unthinkable for Bruckner that he suggested to play the Te Deum instead! 
So to me it seems false piety to play three movements because only they are completely Bruckner while the wishes of the composer were to have any finale for closure, even the Te Deum.


----------



## Aries

Art Rock said:


> Intriguing. This is what I wrote many years ago about the 7th:
> 
> _One of his four most popular symphonies, and one of the best received in the composer's life time. The opening movement of 23 minutes is spellbinding and beautiful, and the following 23 minutes adagio offers some of the greatest melodic lines Bruckner ever composed. It is ironic that, had the composer been unable to finish the symphony after these two movements, I would probably have ranked it as one of the best ever. As is, the scherzo is not bad, but still a bit of a let down after those marvelous first two movements, and the same holds for the finale._


I think the scherzos are better placed before the slow movement. Bruckner already placed the scherzo of the second symphony at place 2 in the first version. Then he took it back to position 3 in the later versions. In the 8th and 9th he again came up with the idea to place it between the main movement and the adagio. But I think it is always better placed there.

Bruckners first movements are heavy movements and his adagios are heavy movements. The scherzo between these two movements provides more alternation and a better weight distribution for the symphony.



Kreisler jr said:


> 23 min. in the 7th is too long and too slow, it should be around 20 or a bit less for both movements. I think the finale of the 7th is brief (for Bruckner) but a stroke of genius and partly because of this it is my favorite Bruckner symphony. (If one looks at architecturally superior composers like Beethoven it is also not uncommon to have a considerably shorter finale, e.g. in the Eroica. And I think a symphony with the scherzo not being a "letdown" to some extent would have weak movements around the scherzo  However, I think the 6th's finale is comparably lame despite being short)
> 
> Bruckner is often overzealous with his finales trying for too much and even if they contain great music they are often just too damn long. And when he got uncertain, he cut out too much, like in the finale of the 1889? version of #3.


For me the weaker finales are the shorter ones. Yes, Bruckner tries for much in the finale, but he accomplishes it for me in the longer finales (No. 2, 4, 5, 8, 9).

But the finales of the symphonies 3, 6 and 7 have something of a cheap cast of the first movement. But I like the cute finale of the 6th althought I don't find it as great as finales of other symphonies. Bruckner worked very hard on the finale of the 3rd, and imo he made it finally convincing in the 1889 version. Yes it is shorter but homogeneous, but with many detail improvements and a great added violin line in the coda. I find the finale of the 7th not so homogeneous, its nice here and there and has a great coda, but imo it is actually weaker than the finales of other symphonies because the symphony wasn't revised by Bruckner unlike other symphonies. Many complain about the many versions of Bruckner symphonies, but I think we can see here the downside of just one version. The finale of the 4th had a similar problem in its first version imo.



Kreisler jr said:


> But I think most of this is beside the point. He was desperately trying to finish the finale of the 9th and got very far and a symphony without finale was apparently so unthinkable for Bruckner that he suggested to play the Te Deum instead!
> So to me it seems false piety to play three movements because only they are completely Bruckner while the wishes of the composer were to have any finale for closure, even the Te Deum.


Agree.


----------



## RobertJTh

Aries said:


> I think the scherzos are better placed before the slow movement. Bruckner already placed the scherzo of the second symphony at place 2 in the first version. Then he took it back to position 3 in the later versions. In the 8th and 9th he again came up with the idea to place it between the main movement and the adagio. But I think it is always better placed there.


Colin Davis tried that once, playing (and recording!) the 7th with the scherzo in 2nd place, and he was ridiculed for it.
Still I think it's an interesting experiment. One wonders why Bruckner changed the order of movements in the 2nd, it works very well in that first version. In fact, it's the only Bruckner symphony that I prefer in its initial disguise.


----------



## Knorf

I wrote this earlier in this thread, and it seems worth reprising here, my response to anyone who claims the three-movement torso of the Ninth is "satisfying" as it is, without any fourth movement. It is a symphony D minor. Ending in E major is entirely odds with tonality. Bruckner was above all a tonal composer. Unless you think Bruckner accidentally discovered against his own ethos what is known as "progressive tonality" (Mahler, Nielsen are two major examples of this), then ending the Ninth in E major should not satisfy.

We have options for the fourth movement. Good ones. There was so much more Bruckner himself left us, than "just sketches"!



Knorf said:


> Anyone who thinks Bruckner's Ninth is satisfying at the end of the 3rd movement is listening with post-tonal ears. *Tonality and harmonic progression are everything to Bruckner. To say you don't need to return to D as tonic is to say you don't believe in large scale tonal thinking*. And frankly I have to doubt you understand Bruckner or tonality in any deep way.
> 
> Bruckner is not late Mahler. Bruckner is not post-tonal.
> 
> For the same reason, the Te Deum is not acceptable. There are other reasons it doesn't work as well.
> 
> Having a completion by someone else is much less than if Bruckner himself had finished it. But there is more authentic Bruckner in the best completions than there is in Mozart's Requiem, comparably as much as with Mahler 10, Bartók's Viola Concerto, or Berg's Lulu, and much more than in Elgar 3 or the various completions of the Schubert B-minor.
> 
> We have much better than no fourth movement, in short.
> 
> To anyone who doubts this material, I urge them to listen to Nicolaus Harnoncourt's lecture/performance with the Wiener Philharmoniker. If that doesn't convince you, I suppose nothing will.


----------



## RobertJTh

Knorf said:


> As with Mahler 10, which was less complete in its finale than Bruckner 9 (...)


That's just not true. The difference being that Mahler's finale survives in one continuous, uninterrupted draft in short score. It's 100% complete, there's just some minor differences between the sketches and the following stage, the short score (most interesting, the ending in Bb major which was changed to F# major.
Of course there were still lost of things missing that would make it a real Mahler score: his inimitable orchestration and the contrapunctal complexity of his textures. But the essence is all there, and that's what makes the Deryk Cooke version so successful: if feels and sounds like real Mahler. Its place in the Mahler canon has been established and it's 100% justified.

Bruckner's finale is a collection of puzzle pieces which somehow can be arranged to form a more or less airtight whole before we reach the black hole of the coda. The sad reality is that there's less Bruckner in Bruckner/Carragan/Schaller/SPCM than there's Mahler in Mahler/Cooke.


----------



## Knorf

^ This is not true. Mahler's Tenth finale has a more or less complete melodic line, yes, but in many places _that's it._ No harmony, no counterpoint, no orchestration. Also Mahler typically did far more reworking from short score to full score than Bruckner did, in terms of modifications to the form and melodic changes as well as adding all the counterpoint and harmony that make it sound like him.

Bruckner's Ninth finale was complete in short score before people walked off with parts of it. And the existing chunks are much, much bigger than your "puzzle pieces" epithet suggests! And we know exactly what order they go in.

I don't know why people just refuse to give this a chance. I bet you wouldn't even be able to tell where the gaps are, in a blind listen, in any of the three major performing versions.

ETA: I stand by my statement that if you can accept a performing version of Mahler's Tenth, which has far more problems than just the finale, you should be able to accept a four-movement Bruckner Ninth.


----------



## RobertJTh

Knorf said:


> Mahler's Tenth finale has a more or less complete melodic line, yes, but in many places _that's it._ No harmony, no counterpoint, no orchestration.


Mahler's 10th was a further step in the evolution of his music that started with Das Lied, a thinning out of the voices, in favor of a more chamber-music like textures.
You argue that Mahler would have added a lot more than Bruckner in the process of converting his short scores into a full orchestration. That's probably true for the earlier part of his career. But look at the first and second movements of Mahler's 10th, that were almost completely orchestrated by the composer. There are still a lot of spots that sound pretty bare, specially in the strange "Stravinskyesque" first scherzo. But apparently Mahler intended them to be like that.

Of course there must have been a lot of places specially in the 4th and 5th movement, where Mahler would have added "filler", but I'm convinced that at this stage in his development he already stopped thinking in terms of traditional harmony. Which means that sometimes even when the textures are very thin, they're in no need of harmonic additions. In fact, Some of the most impressive moments in Cooke's performing version are very thinly scored. Take the transition from the 2nd scherzo to the finale.

But all that is of much less importance than the big elephant in the room: the missing coda in Bruckner's finale. That's the one element that voids all attempts of a completion or at least delegates them to the "controversy" department. Mahler has a complete movement, Bruckner hasn't. Ergo, Mahler wins.


----------



## Woodduck

Aries said:


> The first 3 movements alone are still great music. But someone could also end the 7th after 2 movements and say: "Isn't that great music?" But *fact is that a Bruckner symphony has 4 movements.*


Small correction: A Bruckner symphony has 4 movements _BY BRUCKNER._


----------



## Art Rock

My own personal feelings about the Bruckner 9/Mahler 10 comparison.

Bruckner 9 has been with us for a long time in the 3 movement version. I absolutely adore this symphony. That it is in 3 rather than 4 movements never bothered me. That it ends in E major is something I do not hear myself (and I'm sure that I'm not the only classical music lover who can't hear these things). I was very excited to hear that there was a (re)construction of the 4th movement finally available and I listened to it many times as the 'complete' 4 movements symphony. I don't like the final at all. Whether that is because of Bruckner himself or the people who made the sketches ready for performance is immaterial for me. Bottom line is that I find that the 4 movement version is not as good as the 3 movement version - and I will stick to the 3 movement one for my listening pleasure - it is perfect that way for me.

Mahler 10 was readily available as a first movement only, and most Mahler specialist conductors recorded it that way. I love this movement. When Rattle recorded one of the more popular (re)constructions of the complete 10th I was keen to buy the (double) CD - and I loved the complete symphony. The work in its completed form gives me a satisfying Mahler vibe, and I prefer the completed version (in all its variations) now over the stand alone Adagio.

So, based *purely on my own listening pleasure *(which is obviously paramount for me as a non-professional classical music lover), I embrace the Mahler 10th completion and reject the Bruckner 9 one.


----------



## Woodduck

Knorf said:


> I wrote this earlier in this thread, and it seems worth reprising here, my response to anyone who claims the three-movement torso of the Ninth is "satisfying" as it is, without any fourth movement. It is a symphony D minor. Ending in E major is entirely odds with tonality. Bruckner was above all a tonal composer. Unless you think Bruckner accidentally discovered against his own ethos what is known as "progressive tonality" (Mahler, Nielsen are two major examples of this), then ending the Ninth in E major should not satisfy.


This may appeal to the theoretical mind but has no significance for the ear. It isn't at odds with tonality to end a work in a different key, but merely with Bruckner's regular practice. No one, except possibly someone with perfect pitch, remembers, after three quarters of an hour of traversing a wide range of keys, what D as opposed to E sounds like. Similarly, there is no reason why a symphony in a minor key shouldn't end in a major key.

There may be valid aesthetic reasons for preferring a finale after the adagio, but concern for ending in the key of the symphony's beginning of an hour ago doesn't strike me as one of them.


----------



## Knorf

Sorry, that was ill tempered of me. 

But I have little interest in infinitesmially splitting-hair debating, or engaging people who use their own ignorance as a supporting argument. 

I can only finish with that I hope enough people give the completed fourth of Bruckner's Ninth a fair listen. It deserves no less. At least I hope people will stop lying in saying that there is no fourth movement, or that it's "just sketches" or merely "puzzle pieces." Those are falsehoods, period.

The coda is an issue, I acknowledge, but Bruckner left clear details about his intentions. The existing solutions aren't perfect, but I'd argue are rather better than ending a tonal D minor symphony in E major and effectively saying, well my ears arent good enough to hear this so it's fine. (Of course we're over 100 years into the post-tonal era, and every one has post-tonal ears, but come on, people, make a effort. Its not even as hard as parsing Shakespearean English!)


----------



## hammeredklavier

Knorf said:


> Ending in E major is entirely odds with tonality. Bruckner was above all a tonal composer.


----------



## Knorf

And now we have an egregiously cherry-picked exception (from a totally different composer, no less, and a single piece from a cycle of pieces to boot) apparently as some sort of farcical, attempted rebuttal. Yeah, I'm done.


----------



## SanAntone

Knorf said:


> I wrote this earlier in this thread, and it seems worth reprising here, my response to anyone who claims the three-movement torso of the Ninth is "satisfying" as it is, without any fourth movement. It is a symphony D minor. Ending in E major is entirely odds with tonality. Bruckner was above all a tonal composer.


Unfortunately the man died before he could complete the finale. The small score is missing entire pages, texture, and orchestration. No matter how much care, thought, theory, and effort goes into reconstructing what Bruckner might have done - we will always be left with something other people completed instead of Bruckner.

Your point about the tonality is a concern for musicologists and theorists, not the majority of 21st century Classical music lovers. Arguably, further back in time when sonata form was more intrenched in the culture, audiences might have felt something incomplete from the E Major ending.

But today, that issue is moot, since as you say we listen with post-tonal ears. We _all_ do, including you.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Knorf said:


> And now we have an egregiously cherry-picked exception (from a totally different composer, no less, and a single piece from a cycle of pieces to boot) apparently as some sort of farcical, attempted rebuttal. Yeah, I'm done.


----------



## RobertJTh

Knorf said:


> But I have little interest in infinitesmially splitting-hair debating, or engaging people who use their own ignorance as a supporting argument.


I listened to most available versions of the completed 9th. I studied the sketches, listened to Harnoncourt's lecture and read several articles which go into detail about the material from the finale. Just because I love Bruckner and I find this subject really fascinating.
And after all that, I came to the conclusion that the finale completion is less convincing as a work of art that does justice to a great composer than for instance the performing version of Mahler's 10th. For reasons that I tried making clear in detail in my two posts above. Btw, it was you who came with the example of Mahler's 10th as a way to stir up the debate, not me.
So yeah, if you think I'm using my own ignorance as a supporting argument, I guess you're entitled to that view, but I find it unjustified and rather insulting.


----------



## Aries

RobertJTh said:


> But all that is of much less importance than the big elephant in the room: the missing coda in Bruckner's finale. That's the one element that voids all attempts of a completion or at least delegates them to the "controversy" department.


But we have some sketches of the coda and eyewitness accounts. So it is not like we have absolutely nothing.



Woodduck said:


> Small correction: A Bruckner symphony has 4 movements _BY BRUCKNER._


Is the Hass version of the 8th a Bruckner symphony? I think yes. Some want the music to be clinically pure Bruckner, but that doesn't help Bruckner imo. The Finale of the 9th is overall like 85%-90% true-Bruckner. By not playing it you don't just leave off the 10%-15% non-true-Bruckner but also the 85%-90% true-Bruckner. So what it the most minimally invasive practice? Imo to play the finale.

And there is also something different about Bruckner symphonies than about lets say Beethoven symphonies. Beethovens music is more about every specific detail solution, while Bruckners music is somewhat more about the spaces that can be filled with different detail solutions (like Bruckner himself did it in all the different versions). Uncertainty about some specific notes don't Bruckner works overall as much as Beethoven works.

What is the reason the finale is not played more often? The authenticity argument does not convince me. I think its more about habit and tradition. Mozarts completed Requiem is played because of habit and tradition, and Bruckners completed 9th isn't that much played because of habit and tradition. And maybe some just don't like the finale or his finales in general.

But thanks to Simon Rattle, as an important conductor he has helped a lot to draw more attention to this movement.


----------



## Kreisler jr

SanAntone said:


> Unfortunately the man died before he could complete the finale. The small score is missing entire pages, texture, and orchestration. *No matter how much care, thought, theory, and effort goes into reconstructing what Bruckner might have done - we will always be left with something other people completed instead of Bruckner.*


But this is a moot point because EXACTLY the same is true for the works by Mozart, Mahler, Bartok,... Knorf mentioned where we accept completed versions without any qualms.


----------



## SanAntone

Kreisler jr said:


> But this is a moot point because EXACTLY the same is true for the works by Mozart, Mahler, Bartok,... Knorf mentioned where we accept completed versions without any qualms.


Those works have their own history and are unrelated to the issues surrounding the Bruckner 9th. There may come a day when the reconstructed Bruckner finale is accepted as well. But we are not there yet, and may never get there.


----------



## RobertJTh

SanAntone said:


> There may come a day when the reconstructed Bruckner finale is accepted as well. But we are not there yet, and may never get there.


Acceptance of completions/reconstructions/performing versions of unfinished classical masterpieces seems to be a matter of luck, good public relations and the veneer of history (in the case of the Mozart Requiem).

Sometimes I wonder what people see in this stuff. I find Elgar's "completed" 3rd an insult to the composer, but there are lots of people who adore it. And it's a huge best-seller, the best thing that happened to Elgar marketing in decades, so who am I to complain about it being a tasteless hack job? So that one's probably gonna stay, like it or not.

Some others fared less well. Remember Beethoven's 10th? I was one of those suckers who fell for it and bought the cd when it came out. Sounded like bad Schubert sandwiching bad Beethoven.
And when was the last time you heard Schubert's 10th in the concert hall? Marriner and Batholomée recorded it, the former dry as dust, the latter much more sympathetic but sloppy and with questionable additions. And that more or less was it, the piece seems completely forgotten nowadays.


----------



## Kreisler jr

RobertJTh said:


> Acceptance of completions/reconstructions/performing versions of unfinished classical masterpieces seems to be a matter of luck, good public relations and the veneer of history (in the case of the Mozart Requiem).


Yes, it is mostly such external circumstances. 
One could probably write a case study for Mahler's 10th. Because it was not conducted by most "Mahlerians" in the 1970s (such as Bernstein, Kubelik, Haitink, Solti...) and only gained acceptance later. Even the Adagio was comparably exotic. When I started listening to Mahler around 1990, Mahler's 7th was exotic, not to mention the 10th. Whereas with Bruckner we have ~100 years performances of the 3 movements.
That's why I found it so important to have an "all star" recording with Berlin/Rattle, not some unknown Austrian with a Radio orchestra. Of course, it will depend on how many conductors follow, like with Mahler's 10th.


----------



## BoggyB

Newsflash: there's a development in the SPCM project:


----------



## RobertJTh

BoggyB said:


> Newsflash: there's a development in the SPCM project


Very interesting, thanks for the link.
Judging from that horrible MIDI rendition, it's a vast improvement over the previous versions, and I'm glad they finally, FINALLY saw the light and got rid of that idiotic idea of combining all 4 main themes. Now the coda seems to be more naturally integrated into the main body of the movement.

Which means we can all throw our Rattle cd's into the bin and wait for the next big profile conductor and orchestra to record this new edition.


----------



## Becca

Here is a link to Dr. Phillips' 31 October 2021 discussion of his latest revision along with the relevant paragraph...

https://www.abruckner.com/editorsnote/news/john-phillips-revision-to-the-smpc-bruckner-9th-fi/

_"The revised coda now embodies everything we know about it from Bruckner's own sketches and verbal statements; nothing more. No surviving sketches suggest the Finale included a combination of themes, as at X in the old score, only questionable and self-contradictory statements by Max Auer. What Samale and Mazzuca conceived in this regard was well intended, but wrenching the Adagio theme onto the tonic falsified its function; the timpani quotation of the Scherzo was tokenistic. The enigmatic tritone progression (Facsimile Edition, p. 6) used for the opening of the coda (letters W to X, 19'00-20'10) would also have led to a statement of the chorale, not to a combination of themes. Nowhere in Bruckner's score do such progressions lead into a D unison: in both exposition (letter G, 5'12) and reprise (letter U, 16'51) Bruckner arrives at the chorale via tertian progressions; in the coda F#6 to D6 (20'10). The moving chorale harmonisation Bruckner used at bars 441-444 (14'54) has now been restored here, along with improvements to counterpoint and voice-leading from hereon, re-establishing Bruckner's characteristic "separation of powers" between woodwind, brass and strings (as in the coda of the Fifth) previously missing from the score." _


----------



## Becca

While I will reserve judgement until I hear a full orchestral performance of this latest attempt, for now I still find Gerd Schaller's 2018 revision to be the most convincing realization of the movement.


----------



## Aries

BoggyB said:


> Newsflash: there's a development in the SPCM project:


The chorale straight after the enigmatic progression at the beginning of the coda sounds right. The way the following "extended harmonic sequence" develops is new and needs getting used too, but apparently it is based on subsequent Bruckner sketches they just could not decipher before. It seems to contain an overlapping of the main theme of the first movement and the main theme of the forth movement. Lets see how it sounds when a real orchestra plays it. Then afterwards the great Schreckensfanfare followed by the praise to the dear lord sounds even convincing in this midi version. The chances are good that the puzzle is solved now.

It is also mentioned that a passage in the fugue is changed back to its form in the early 90s for a good reason. I always liked the fugue in the Eichhorn recording from 1992 more, so that is a good change too.


----------



## Shea82821

I'll chime in here with my 2 cents regarding completions and reconstructions, generally speaking.

In regard to the 9th (Bruckner), I love it either way. The traditional 3-movement form is amongst the most sublime pieces in the German symphonic canon, and the reconstructed finale only serves to give a lasting close to that sublimity. That said: I know what state of the sketches are in, and how it makes a true "reconstruction" effectively a pipe dream. And both the reconstructions I've heard - those being the SPCM and Letocart versions - sound more like something he wrote in his youth, then tried to recompose in old-age. Least that's the impression I always get. I suppose, so to look on the bright side: it does invoke a foux-sensation of his style returning back whence it came. But I'll be honest, that the SPCM is a bit of a hot mess. I can only hope they do something to fix and revise it, à-la all the various revisions they've done to Cooke's 10th. One can but pray it's done, and done "right."

Mahler's 10th I have a lot less conflict on. I've consistently found myself only able to enjoy it by the completed form. Cooke's in particular, but I'm considering giving the Wheeler version a try soon. Listening to the opening Adagio alone has always brought upon a sense of disappointment and almost one of verbosity. As a kind-of "part II" to what I think is Mahler's greatest achievement: the Adagio from Symphony no.9. A part-II, I find, that only serves to cheapen and ruin the experience. As a collective whole, however, it doesn't give that sense. It invokes what I feel is the typical reaction to the work: despair. Not a continuation of what many call his swan-song, but as a self-contained piece that breathes and lives the despair of his last year. Fickle and problematic or not to what Mahler actually finished before his death, having it completed makes the piece worthwhile. In my opinion at least.

Others are less successful, though. And I'll get it out of the way: Beethoven's 10th is beyond a joke. It's absurd, ridiculous, and nothing short of self-defeating. I'll say that the Cooper "completion" is a decent-enough piece in it's own right, but NOT in the slightest Beethoven. The AI project they've done recently, I see as even more silly. Impressive regarding the tech, musically worthless and facile. I'm okay with someone completing the Scherzo from Schubert 8th, but I see the finale choice as rather clumsy. The Newbould 10th is mediocre, yet still passable. The Elgar/Payne 3rd is without hesitation, one of the greatest abominations ever done in recent classical music history. However, I do get a somewhat twisted sense of amusement from it. A sort-of "so bad it's good" reaction. And I've heard mixed opinions on the completions of Enescu's 4th and 5th symphonies, but I haven't heard them yet.

TL;DR: Bruckner's 9th is ok but far from great and really is a mess. Mahler's 10th makes it whole and unified. Beethoven's 10th is beyond absurd or silly. Schubert's 8th and 10th are meh but perfectly passable. And Elgar's 3rd ought to be put out of it's misery.


----------



## Aries

Shea82821 said:


> In regard to the 9th (Bruckner), I love it either way. The traditional 3-movement form is amongst the most sublime pieces in the German symphonic canon, and the reconstructed finale only serves to give a lasting close to that sublimity. That said: I know what state of the sketches are in, and how it makes a true "reconstruction" effectively a pipe dream.


You mean the coda? Everything before is really not that speculative, and not about sketches only. And they got rid now of the speculative section in the coda with the overlay of themes.



Shea82821 said:


> And both the reconstructions I've heard - those being the SPCM and Letocart versions - sound more like something he wrote in his youth, then tried to recompose in old-age.


Can you explain which sections sound to you like that?

I think there are many very celebral sections in the finale that are typical for the symphony. The chorale theme or the recapitulation.

But there is something I don't like about interpretations of the finale. They are to fast, and this can make the music appear more lightweight and unclean. I recommend to listen to the recording of Kurt Eichhorn with the BOL. Doesn't the second theme of the recapitulation sound much different than his early symphonies? 




This recording is 30 minutes long. Every other recording so far needed less than 26 minutes. A mistake imo.



Shea82821 said:


> I can only hope they do something to fix and revise it, à-la all the various revisions they've done to Cooke's 10th. One can but pray it's done, and done "right."


Some changes were made this year, but they are not yet recorded.


----------



## Shea82821

Aries said:


> You mean the coda? Everything before is really not that speculative, and not about sketches only. And they got rid now of the speculative section in the coda with the overlay of themes.
> 
> Can you explain which sections sound to you like that?
> 
> I think there are many very celebral sections in the finale that are typical for the symphony. The chorale theme or the recapitulation.
> 
> But there is something I don't like about interpretations of the finale. They are to fast, and this can make the music appear more lightweight and unclean. I recommend to listen to the recording of Kurt Eichhorn with the BOL. Doesn't the second theme of the recapitulation sound much different than his early symphonies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This recording is 30 minutes long. Every other recording so far needed less than 26 minutes. A mistake imo.
> 
> Some changes were made this year, but they are not yet recorded.


In theory yes, but in practice not really. We all know Bruckner was particularly fiddly with his works, all the revisions and what not. I think most who've heard the reconstructions, can say to _some_ degree on what the movement was planned to be at the time he died, but who knows: he may have tossed it in the bin and redo everything from scratch. Maybe he may have just tinkered with what he had until it was more cohesive. All speculation, unfortunately. At least with Mahler, the basis is all there. The details are missing, but the foundation is more-or-less extant. Bruckner's 9th wasn't as fortunate.

Anyways: what sounds like that? Mainly the development. It seems to wander all over the place, at times making it seem like as cohesive a whole as his earlier works from that time. The opening few minutes, more-or-less up to the brass chorale (the "Resurrection Chorale" I like to call it) around 6 minutes in, sounds relatively consistent. Even in the SPCM. My guess is Bruckner had worked out enough on those parts before his death, but don't quote me on that, I know bugger all of musicology on the subject. Anyways, from there until the coda: I find it doesn't hold a lot to itself. It wanders hither and thither from one thing to the next, in a way that makes it stick out like a sore thumb, compared to the prior three movements.

As said, I still like the finale. I know a lot of people (lest we forget Hurwitz) love to crap on the finale's remnants, and it's reconstructions as terrible. But I find it perfectly acceptable. Is it as good as what he finished? Absolutely not. Is it just simply good? I'd say yes. And because the results sound as they do, I frame it this way for better pleasure in the music. I mentioned earlier that I like to call the chorale, the "Resurrection Chorale." Given it connotes to me the arising of the spirit into God's bounty. One could in a way, instead of this, interpret it not as a resurrection of the soul, but of style. Of him having reached the zenith of his skill, and thus now can only return back where he came. Least to some degree: I won't say it's anything identical to...say his first 3 or 4 symphonies (nos.00-2), but you get the idea: a call back to his "youth." I highly doubt it's anything alike what Bruckner had in mind for it. This is just how I make the finale more unified than what it is.

Oh and lastly about the changes: I heard about that. I saw there's a MIDI performance of it on YouTube (sort-of like what they did for Sorabji's Jami Symphony) and I do intend on listening to it. I will say this though with that in mind: what I said regarding those sections may very change after hearing the revision. Maybe they ended up fixing them a bit, maybe they screwed them over even more. I can't say either way yet. However it is, take it as you will. This is just what I've come to feel over the finale. Yes it's technically reconstructionable, but it won't be Bruckner in the same way as the rest. And if we had better versions available, it would help this matter. I agree on that. I just don't think it'll ever help the issues laid down, when he ceased work on the finale in...was it August 1896? I've read that was the latest date his sketches show, date wise.


----------



## Aries

Shea82821 said:


> In theory yes, but in practice not really. We all know Bruckner was particularly fiddly with his works, all the revisions and what not. I think most who've heard the reconstructions, can say to _some_ degree on what the movement was planned to be at the time he died, but who knows: he may have tossed it in the bin and redo everything from scratch. Maybe he may have just tinkered with what he had until it was more cohesive. All speculation, unfortunately.


It is absolutely possible that he would have redone things in the Finale. But it is also possible for the other movements. Many of his symphonies were basically works in progress after he finished them initially. He finished the 3rd in 1873 but worked on it again in 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877, 1878 and 1889. There are also 3-4 versions of the 8th. Its all possible, but I at least also like the first versions. I don't think that only one version is right.

I also wonder whether Bruckner would have accepted some of the suggestions of Ferdinand Löwe for the symphony, because not all of them are bad imo. He agreed to some ideas in the case of the first edition of the 4th and 8th. And Bruckner usually added many tempo indications when editions were published but not before. So there is a lack of tempo indications in the case of the 6th for example which was not published during his lifetime.



Shea82821 said:


> Anyways: what sounds like that? Mainly the development. It seems to wander all over the place, at times making it seem like as cohesive a whole as his earlier works from that time. The opening few minutes, more-or-less up to the brass chorale (the "Resurrection Chorale" I like to call it) around 6 minutes in, sounds relatively consistent. Even in the SPCM. My guess is Bruckner had worked out enough on those parts before his death, but don't quote me on that


He basically finished the exposition as far as I know. Also don't quote me on that but large parts of the development were almost finished if I remember it correctly. In the recapitulation it starts that we have less and here the bigger differences started between the early SPCM and Carragan versions. And for the coda we have just sketches and statements.


----------



## hammeredklavier

D minor is just as far away from E major as A minor is from B major on the Circle of Fifths, btw.


----------



## Shea82821

> It is absolutely possible that he would have redone things in the Finale. But it is also possible for the other movements. Many of his symphonies were basically works in progress after he finished them initially. He finished the 3rd in 1873 but worked on it again in 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877, 1878 and 1889. There are also 3-4 versions of the 8th. Its all possible, but I at least also like the first versions. I don't think that only one version is right.
> 
> I also wonder whether Bruckner would have accepted some of the suggestions of Ferdinand Löwe for the symphony, because not all of them are bad imo. He agreed to some ideas in the case of the first edition of the 4th and 8th. And Bruckner usually added many tempo indications when editions were published but not before. So there is a lack of tempo indications in the case of the 6th for example which was not published during his lifetime.


No doubt he would've. As said: everyone knows his picky perfectionism. I always used to think, actually, that even if one note wasn't right - he'd have to recompose the work. Kind-of like that old cartoon about Mahler's 6th. The one where he ponders over forgetting a car-horn, and declares he'll have to write another one. But I agree that no one version is right. Each has it's positives and negatives to some degree. I go back and forth with any. Nonetheless, with the 9th there isn't much of a choice, It's only final out of...well his own finality.

Now to the Lowe changes, I'm not really sure. It's possible, but again: picky picky picky. Inasmuch it's possible he would've accepted some changes, there's as high a chance of seeing them as repulsive sins against the score.



> He basically finished the exposition as far as I know. Also don't quote me on that but large parts of the development were almost finished if I remember it correctly. In the recapitulation it starts that we have less and here the bigger differences started between the early SPCM and Carragan versions. And for the coda we have just sketches and statements.


Anything I've read regarding it, seems to indicate that he _mostly_ finished at least some sort of draft-outline. Similar to the finale of Mahler's 10th, but of a more sketchy nature. The coda the same, least from the early-90's onward when they found the sketches. The big thing I see, conflict wise, is the degree. I've seen some say it's just random scribbles, others say there's enough to reconstruct it true to Bruckner's last intentions. As (hopefully) implied I take a middle ground: more than just mere scribbles but too little to warrant Bruckner's intention to being ever fully realized. Hence the whole thing about a "true" reconstruction being a folly.


----------



## Shea82821

hammeredklavier said:


> D minor is just as far away from E major as A minor is from B major on the Circle of Fifths, btw.


Uhh excuse me...there's a Mr. Havergal Brian for you on line 2...


----------



## BoggyB

How do you pronounce Havergal? Is it "HAV-egal" or "ha-VER-gal"?

I didn't really like the Payne Elgar 3 at first, but over time I've come to like it. Only the slow movement is disappointing to me now. Another composer or musicologist should "sex it up" somewhow.

Schubert 10 for me, despite the weak finale, is very good, especially the slow movement. It's better than the early symphonies and deserves to be more widely known.

In future centuries, people will look back on three-movement performances of Bruckner 9 in the way that people today look back on smoking


----------



## bassaliens22

hammeredklavier said:


> D minor is just as far away from E major as A minor is from B major on the Circle of Fifths, btw.


This post demonstrates an incredibly poor understanding of tonal harmony. First off, the Tristan prelude is not in A minor, despite the key signature. It's not in any real discernable key, and that's the point. There is no clear tonic-dominant relationship, and the lack of a decisive resolution is what makes the entire Tristan opera so (in)famous. This is not at all comparable to Bruckner's 9th, which opens on a clear D minor chord and has an extremely strong emphasis on D as the tonic throughout the distinctive first theme. In other words, there is no question that Bruckner's 9th is in D minor. There is plenty to suggest Tristan is not in any exact key in any given moment, namely the very chromatic harmony and the lack of strong cadences.

Secondly, the Liebestod finally resolving the Tristan chord to a B major is supposed to be analogous to a traditional cadence. In other words, the implication is that the whole thing all along was in B major, it was just being obfuscated by chromatic harmony. Of course, whether or not it's written this way and whether or not it makes sense from a traditional roman numeral analysis standpoint is entirely irrelevant, the point is that the B major serves as a tonic resolution to the Tristan chord, and therefore the whole opera. It does not mean that a piece in A minor that's not actually in A minor is resolving in B major which allows for a completely unrelated piece to have similar treatment applied.

Anyways, all this argument about symphonies not being allowed to end in E major is ridiculous, because it misses the forest for the trees. Bruckner intended for a Finale regardless of what one thinks of the quality of it, and that's all that really matters. Had he died before finishing the Adagio and left just the Scherzo, it would still be an invalid ending to the symphony regardless of key signature just simply on the basis that Bruckner intended for there to be a legitimate one. No further word needs to be said on this subject matter.


----------

