# Yay Bruckner! What next?



## nefigah

I can safely say that Bruckner is awesome. That
opinion took the better part of a year and lots of repeated listenings to formulate, though  

I have symphonies 4 and 7, and I'd like some recommendations about which to get next (and good recordings to look for). 

(side question that's been on my mind: I've heard it said several times that his symphonies are "orchestrated organ music." Anyone care to expound? I don't really understand this statement.)


----------



## Guest

I can safely say that you could go practically anywhere. The closest thing Bruckner wrote to a dud was the seventh, I think.* Since you already have that and like it, you're not likely to be too disappointed with anything else. And even if you do dislike some things at first, well, you already know what can happen with that!

The bulk of my collection is with Haitink. I have Jochum for some, especially the fifth, which is the pick of the lot, I think. I just heard Haitink's 9th for the first time today. Amazing that I'd never heard that back when I was actively seeking out Bruckner. (I had Horenstein's to start.)

I've heard Wand in some things. I don't get as excited as others do about him, but I think he's fine. Others here will be much more knowledgeable than I about recordings, so I'll leave it at that. Jochum, Haitink, Horenstein. (Get the BBC Horenstein's. They're much better than any of the other Horenstein's, sonically and musically.)

So what's next? In short, OO, O, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, Te deum, Masses 1, 2, and 3, and a quintet. 

*BTW, the seventh is NOT a dud!!


----------



## Dim7

some guy said:


> I can safely say that you could go practically anywhere. The closest thing Bruckner wrote to a dud was the seventh, I think.* Since you already have that and like it, you're not likely to be too disappointed with anything else.


Seventh is a popular one, not usually considered the worst but one of the best Bruckner symphonies. So while the conclusion is not necessarily wrong, your logic is a bit weird here; popular opinion rather than your opinion is more relevant if we're going to make this kind of probabilistic claims.

It's true though that Bruckner didn't change much stylistically, so at least nefigah won't be disappointed in the sense of getting something completely different from what he expected. It's still probably good to know that symphonies 4,7,8,9 are his most popular ones. 8th and 9th are both in minor keys so not so surprisingly they have a darker character. Eight is however perhaps more "crushing" while the ninth is dark in a more mysterious, creepy way. Of the rest, fifth perhaps stands out the most, I hear every now and then it praised. It is perhaps the most polyphonic of Bruckner symphonies and I've heard that it's the least "Wagnerian" but to me it doesn't sound that different from the others. Nos. 1,2,3 & 6 seem to be rather neglected, though I personally like the third the at least, others I haven't much listened to. He also wrote two other symphonies, "No. 0" and "Study Symphony" (also called No. 00) which he didn't consider worth publishing, which doesn't really encourage to listen to them.


----------



## Art Rock

The ninth is my favourite, followed by the eighth. But after that, listen to them all, although the 0 and 00 are not numbered for a reason.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I would move to symphonies number 8 & 9 followed by the choral works (masses, Te Deum, motets). Or jump right into the complete symphonies box set on DG conducted by Eugen Jochum which is quite inexpensive... and certainly quite good... although later on you may wish to seek out performances of favorite works by another composer. By the way... I concur that the 7th is among the absolute best of Bruckner's works... especially by Karajan.


----------



## World Violist

Asahina Bruckner 8 and 9. If you can't find them (they're on Amazon download if you do downloads), just go for the 8th symphony. If you liked the adagio of the 7th symphony you're going to love the adagio of the 8th. The first two movements are very existential; the last two are heavenly.


----------



## Artemis

I'm slightly surprised it took a year of intensive listening for anyone to come to appreciate a couple of Bruckner's symphonies. His Symphony No 4 ("Romantic") is very accessible and is the one that people normally latch onto the most easily. After that in terms of popularity, it's probably Nos 7, 8, 9 with little to choose between them, followed by No 5, and then Nos 3 & 6. The others aren't up to much in my opinion. 

I was fonder of Bruckner at an earlier time than I am now. However, I still take an interest in what's considered to be best of his symphonic art, and If I haven't got it I will normally go out and buy it. I would say that to hear Bruckner at his best you can't do better than the BPO, which orchestra seems to excel here. My "favourite" recording of No 4 is BPO/Wand, No 5 BPO/Barenboim, No 7 BPO/Barenboim, No 8 BPO/Maazel, No 9 BPO/Barenboim. For No 3, I have a nice recording by Cleveland/Szell.


----------



## dmg

I'm going against the grain here by saying his 2nd is my favorite. And I'm not just saying that, because it is my favorite.


----------



## GraemeG

The first movement on No 0 is absolutely worthy of Bruckner, even if the rest is less inspired.

The 6th is unjustly neglected. It's the shortest of the mature symphonies, has a magically inventive 1st movement including one of the finest codas he ever wrote, and a majestically emotional slow movement which, in Robert Simpson's words "with withstand the slowest tempo that technique will allow". Too many conductors ruin the piece by rushing the finale, which consequently sounds all chopped up and bitty. Jochum is terrible here. I haven't found a recording that gets it right (not that I've been looking much lately). And, in fact, the tempo relationships are crucial to the piece's sense of integrity. When things have to fit properly with something that happened a quarter of an hour ago, it's no surprise that sloppy or ignorant conductors tend to hash things up.

So, without being able to offer a recomendation for a recording, I'll say try the 6th. It may not quite scale the heights of 8 or 9, but I prefer it to 7. And it's a more interesting work than anything prior to 5.
cheers,
Graeme


----------



## Sid James

GraemeG said:


> The first movement on No 0 is absolutely worthy of Bruckner, even if the rest is less inspired...
> 
> The 6th is unjustly neglected...I haven't found a recording that gets it right (not that I've been looking much lately)...


Bruckner's Symphonies Nos. 0 & 6 are probably my favourites, and I agree that the latter is unjustly neglected, as you say. Bruckner said this was his lightest symphony, but it doesn't lack depth. Good recordings I would recommend are by Horst Stein & especially Wolfgang Sawallisch...


----------



## nefigah

Thank you for the replies, all. Seems like it'll be pretty hard to go wrong, especially with the later ones. 

I went looking for your suggestions, and spotted Barenboim 9th for only $2 on amazon... couldn't pass that up


----------



## handlebar

Thanks for clarifying that the 7th is NOT a dud. I admire it greatly.

My favs are" 8th,9th,7th,1st and 4th in that order. I would say the closest to a "dud" would be "00" and possibly "0". And they are not bad either.

Jim


----------



## Dim7

Seventh is definately the prettiest Bruckner symphony (which to me doesn't mean the same as "the best"). Well, at least when it comes to the first two movements. The two last don't really fit well with the first two, with their heavy brass noise. The scherzo is a typical annoying repetitive Bruckner scherzo, the finale is decent but not nearly as good as the two first movements.


----------



## tahnak

*Bruckner*



nefigah said:


> I can safely say that Bruckner is awesome. That
> opinion took the better part of a year and lots of repeated listenings to formulate, though
> 
> I have symphonies 4 and 7, and I'd like some recommendations about which to get next (and good recordings to look for).
> 
> (side question that's been on my mind: I've heard it said several times that his symphonies are "orchestrated organ music." Anyone care to expound? I don't really understand this statement.)


His symphonic expeditions are much more than orchestrated organ ... It is a brick by brick building of a Gothic Renaissance Cathedral.
Everything that Bruckner wrote is sublime and mostly his pages are dedicated to GOD.
I would recommend covering Bruckner in this path:

String Quintet
Three Masses
Helgoland
Psalms for chorus and Orchestra
Studiensinfonie
Die Nullte Sinfonie
Symphony No. 1
Symphony No. 2
Symphony No. 5
Symphony No. 6
'Wagner' Symphony No. 3
'Romantische' Symphony No. 4
'Lyrical' Symphony No. 7
'Apocalypse' symphony No. 8
Te Deum
'Divine' Symphony No. 9


----------



## tahnak

*Performances*

Quintet - Vienna Quintet
Masses - Barenboim and Eugen Jochum
Studiensinfonie - Eliahu Inbal
Die Nullte - Zubin Mehta
Symphony No. 1 - Herbert Von Karajan 
Symphony No. 2 - Karajan and Giulini
Symphony No. 5 - Barenboim
Symphony No. 6 - Karajan and Jesus Lopez Cobos
Symphony No. 3 - Rozhdestvenksy and Eliahu Inbal
Symphony No. 4 - Sergiu Celibidache and Zubin Mehta
Symphony No. 7 - Eugen Jochum and Herbert Von Karajan
Symphony No. 8 - Wilhelm Furtwangler, Pierre Boulez and Zubin Mehta
Symphony No. 9 - Zubin Mehta and Sergiu Celibidache


----------



## GraemeG

tahnak said:


> String Quintet
> Three Masses
> Helgoland
> Psalms for chorus and Orchestra
> Studiensinfonie
> Die Nullte Sinfonie
> Symphony No. 1
> Symphony No. 2
> Symphony No. 5
> Symphony No. 6
> 'Wagner' Symphony No. 3
> 'Romantische' Symphony No. 4
> 'Lyrical' Symphony No. 7
> 'Apocalypse' symphony No. 8
> Te Deum
> 'Divine' Symphony No. 9


Your recommended sequence makes no sense at all from the perspective of a new listener to Bruckner. It might be the sequence that a musicologist wishing to demonstrate progress in style would offer (although symphonies 5,6,3,4 is a funny sequence by any measure), but that's no use to anyone else.
And PLEASE don't use spurious names for Bruckner symphonies. Apocalypse? Did you make that up?
Graeme


----------



## PartisanRanger

GraemeG said:


> Your recommended sequence makes no sense at all from the perspective of a new listener to Bruckner. It might be the sequence that a musicologist wishing to demonstrate progress in style would offer (although symphonies 5,6,3,4 is a funny sequence by any measure), but that's no use to anyone else.
> And PLEASE don't use spurious names for Bruckner symphonies. Apocalypse? Did you make that up?
> Graeme


I've heard of the 8th refered to in such a way.


----------



## tahnak

GraemeG said:


> Your recommended sequence makes no sense at all from the perspective of a new listener to Bruckner. It might be the sequence that a musicologist wishing to demonstrate progress in style would offer (although symphonies 5,6,3,4 is a funny sequence by any measure), but that's no use to anyone else.
> And PLEASE don't use spurious names for Bruckner symphonies. Apocalypse? Did you make that up?
> Graeme


Don't jump to conclusions when you read something. Read and absorb first. It is particularly for a beginner that I have listed out Bruckner's works to be heard in that order in spirit for him to understand the evolution of Bruckner's style. It is supposed to be an aid for a spiritual understanding of Bruckner's growth.

Secondly, I am not marketing any spurious nicknames. Visit a wikipedia site or any site on Bruckner's eighth and learn for yourself whether 'Apocalypse' features or not as an addendum to the symphony.

Rather than pointing fingers, absorb. learning is a daily process.!


----------



## GraemeG

tahnak said:


> Don't jump to conclusions when you read something. Read and absorb first. It is particularly for a beginner that I have listed out Bruckner's works to be heard in that order in spirit for him to understand the evolution of Bruckner's style. It is supposed to be an aid for a spiritual understanding of Bruckner's growth.


Sorry, but the first poster came to enjoy Bruckner's music via the 4th and the 7th symphonies - exactly the way most people have. You list pre-supposes a musical expert with no previous knowledge of Bruckner. It's an academic focus, and I believe in no way answers the question. If someone posted that they've enjoyed the 'Entry into Valhalla' from Rheingold, what are you going to recommend next - _Die Feen_ and the student symphony?



> Secondly, I am not marketing any spurious nicknames. Visit a wikipedia site or any site on Bruckner's eighth and learn for yourself whether 'Apocalypse' features or not as an addendum to the symphony.


Your list does not distinguish between the official 'Romantic' name for the 4th, and the cobbled-together names you've dredged up for the rest. I've heard the fifth referred to as the 'Gothic' from time to time as well, but so what? Passing references in ancient textbooks - and it is a passing reference to 'Apocalypse' in a 50-year-old book - in no way constitute an authentic source for appending a nickname to a work - and certainly not as officially as you have done. It's not on the score, it's never been on any professional record jacket I've seen, nor any programme note I've read. It's not in the writings of Cooke, or Simpson. I'll check my old Grove. Sorry, but a bunch of dodgy listings on download music websites just doesn't cut it. And, flimsy as the evidence is for the 8th being named, it's even scantier for the 7th & 9th symphonies. Wikipedia on the 7th: "The symphony is sometimes referred to as the "Lyric", though the appellation is not the composer's own, and is seldom used." No citation. Well, that's hardly authoritative.

You might as well start to refer to Beethoven's 7th as the 'Dance' symphony if you're going to call Bruckner's 8th the Apocalypse.
The time for naming anything written by someone who died more than 20 years ago is past. That's got to be a rule. Otherwise people are going to start making up names just for the sake of confusion. Everyone wants to be as clever as the guy who named the 'Jupiter'. What is the statute of limitations on these things?

Graeme


----------



## anon2k2

World Violist said:


> Asahina Bruckner 8 and 9. If you can't find them (they're on Amazon download if you do downloads), just go for the 8th symphony. If you liked the adagio of the 7th symphony you're going to love the adagio of the 8th. The first two movements are very existential; the last two are heavenly.


I haven't heard Asahina's 8 or 9, but yesterday I got to listen to his 7th and was pretty disappointed. Especially the Adagio. His tempos are so slow that the phrases just get broken. There's no sweeping architecture going on, it just seems like each note has to stand on its own, and there's no compelling "drive." Just my opinion.


----------



## World Violist

anon2k2 said:


> I haven't heard Asahina's 8 or 9, but yesterday I got to listen to his 7th and was pretty disappointed. Especially the Adagio. His tempos are so slow that the phrases just get broken. There's no sweeping architecture going on, it just seems like each note has to stand on its own, and there's no compelling "drive." Just my opinion.


I suppose I'm a bit less impressed by his recording of the ninth now that I've heard some other versions, but it's still quite good. I'm most impressed by how strong the lower registers of the orchestra are. The chords have a lot of power.

Of course, Asahina will always have his champions who will give educated reasons as to why. I don't think I'm quite capable of doing that yet, so my opinions of him should be taken with a grain of salt.


----------



## PoliteNewYorker

I sat next to a woman who claimed to be Bruckner's great-great granddaughter on a flight from Paris to Tunis....


----------



## World Violist

PoliteNewYorker said:


> I sat next to a woman who claimed to be Bruckner's great-great granddaughter on a flight from Paris to Tunis....


That would be very odd, especially because I don't think Bruckner had any children...

OR DID HE?


----------



## handlebar

World Violist said:


> That would be very odd, especially because I don't think Bruckner had any children...
> 
> OR DID HE?


Heaven forbid!!!!!! He was rather childlike himself and even though he adored women he didn't have much success in that dept. 

When a person comes to really appreciate Bruckner and understands more thematic material and reads music, the book of Bruckner's symphonies by Robert Simpson is a must. It is the best Bruckner book written IMHO. I finally found a first edition of this great book and recommend it most assuredly.

BTW, as a side note: Robert Simpson's symphonies are indeed very Brucknerian and like AB he loves brass!!Check out the Hyperion series of his symphonies.

Jim


----------



## World Violist

handlebar said:


> BTW, as a side note: Robert Simpson's symphonies are indeed very Brucknerian and like AB he loves brass!!Check out the Hyperion series of his symphonies.


Yeah, I've read about how Simpson's 9th especially resembles Bruckner's sound world.

I've heard about that book, as well. That man was amazing. BBC producer, composer, author, and whatever else he did. He seems like the mirror of Bernstein or something.


----------



## PoliteNewYorker

Well now, this is really interesting. All I can say is that the lady did indeed claim to be Bruckner's great-great granddaughter. She was older, in her 70s probably, and said she was from Vienna. We talked a bit about the VPO and she said how much she hated Barenboim. Probably just some crazy lady...


----------



## handlebar

PoliteNewYorker said:


> Well now, this is really interesting. All I can say is that the lady did indeed claim to be Bruckner's great-great granddaughter. She was older, in her 70s probably, and said she was from Vienna. We talked a bit about the VPO and she said how much she hated Barenboim. Probably just some crazy lady...


I seriously doubt Herr Bruckner ever got close enough to a girl to get more than a kiss.
Contemporary accounts are fascinating in describing his antics at wooing women.
Check out the book "Remembering Bruckner" .

Jim


----------



## Romantic Geek

Is it sad I've never heard of Bruckner before? Can someone give me a list of things I should go check out on Naxos?...because the acclaim this guy is getting on this forum makes me real intrigued!


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

Romantic Geek I first came across Bruckner whilst typing a college paper. I was using Microsoft Encyclopedia on a windows 95 operating system in 1996. Microsoft would give small samples of composers music. They had the opening of his 4th symphony, and I was immediately hooked. After the 4th, I got the 5th, then 3rd and 8th, then the 7th, then the 9th, then the 2nd and the 1st to complete his numbered symphonies. I got so hooked on the poor guy that I got my then girlfriend a copy of his 4th symphony.
Sad to say I do not have any of his symphonies under the naxos label. But I would highly suggest you get a copy of the Eugene Ormandy conduction his 4th with the Philadelphia Orchestra. This symphony is on the sony label and is very cheap.


----------



## anon2k2

Romantic Geek, prepare to be wowed. There's a complete (I think) Bruckner cycle on Naxos with Tintner conducting, and as a whole it is fairly solid. #4 is the "most accessible" way to start, in my opinion, but 7, 8, 9 is a amazing block of music that ranks up there with any group of symphonies by any composer.


----------



## World Violist

anon2k2 said:


> Romantic Geek, prepare to be wowed. There's a complete (I think) Bruckner cycle on Naxos with Tintner conducting, and as a whole it is fairly solid. #4 is the "most accessible" way to start, in my opinion, but 7, 8, 9 is a amazing block of music that ranks up there with any group of symphonies by any composer.


The only "problem" with Tintner's cycle is that he uses a lot of the original scores, which aren't generally as good as the latest ones.

Is Tinter's #4 one of the standard editions? Just wondering.


----------



## anon2k2

If I recall off the top of my head (I'm at work right now) Tintner's 4th is the Haas. Funny thing, we have an internet block on amazon.com so I can't look it up, but we allow talkclassical.com to come through.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Well I just listened to the 1st symphony. First two movements are nothing very special. Third movement was probably the best in that symphony. The finale was pretty solid orchestration. Overall, it was ok. I'm guessing it gets a bit better from this point on though?


----------



## GraemeG

Yes, I believe Tintner's cycle is originals of all pieces, thus; 3rd movm't of No 4, original ending to 1st mov't in No 8, and so on.
However, in joining the others and throwing my lot in with Robert Simpson, it seems that the most convincing version of the 3rd was in fact the original longer (1873) version. Simpson seems to argue that each of the subsequent four revisions simply made things worse. It was always a bit flawed to start with, but first thoughts are best in this case. (Not so with 4 and 8.) Interesting.

Rom Geek, start with 4, 6 and 7 - the most user-friendly ways to enter Bruckner's world.

There's plenty of specualtion about Bruckner's (presumably rather dull) personal life, but I'm not aware that anyone even contemplates the notion he had children. Just a crazy lady...

cheers,
Graeme


----------



## superhorn

I love all nine canonical Bruckner symphonies. No 0 is not bad but more of a study for the mature symphonies than a masterpiece in its own wright. 
The first is the shortest of the nine, only about the length of Brahms' first, and a sadly neglected work which deserves to be heard more often. 
No 2 is perhaps the most gentle and pastoral of the symphonies, and also undeservedly neglected.
And do not miss a hearing recordings one of the finished versions of the finale of the ninth by either William Caragan or the Italian musicologists Samale and Mazzuca. 
It was long thougt that the skethces for the finale were too limited and fragmentary for completion, but this has been proved to be false by these completions, which are fascinating,and show that the finale is an extraordinary movement which brings the symphony to a triumphant close after the anguished first movement and the adagio third. 
Try the Chandos recording with Yoav Talmi and the Oslo Philharmonic, or the one with Eliahu Inbal and the Frankfurt RSO on Teldec. I haven't heard the recordings by Daniel Harding,Kurt 
Eichhorn or Johannes Wildner, but would like to. 
I'm no longer satisfied with just hearing the first three movements, and am convinced that the ninth should always be performed and recorded with it.


----------

