# Order of Bruckner Symphonies for Someone New...



## Bevo (Feb 22, 2015)

First let me clarify, I'm not new to Classical music. I've been listening to it for years, and have in the Tens-of-thousands of tracks in the genre. I've always known of Bruckner, but never really got into him. I have heard some movements from his 1st, 4th, and 9th (yes I know it wasn't finished), and I like some of what I heard (especially the 4th). Anyways, for someone who isn't too experienced in his Symphonies, what order would you recommend listening to them in? Chronological (including the study and no. 0) or in a different order? Oh, and just a side question, which has the best Scherzo? I LOVE those things!! Thanks!!


----------



## R3PL4Y (Jan 21, 2016)

I would recommend that you start with the fifth, although if you are interested in scherzos, I really like the one in the 7th. However, Bruckner's style does not change as much between symphonies as some other composers, so the order in which you listen to them is not that important.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I recommend the chronological approach. That way, you'll get to experience Bruckner's progression as a symphonist.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Just don't start with the Study Symphony, it bored me to death when I first tried to get into Bruckner and I did it chronologically.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

I think the 4th is the easiest to like. Then the 7th. The 6th and 9th after that.


----------



## Boldertism (May 21, 2015)

Start with 8, when in doubt listen to the 3rd movement if you need convincing.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

The 1st is one of my favorite Bruckner symphonies, and I wish I had started there! But once you start with no. 1, 4 is a good one to get into. Then, a good go at 6, 7, and 8 will really get you deeper into the Bruckner experience(not that 1 and 4 won't already be doing that). From then you can either try out the 9th or just sample it(scherzo is a great one to sample), or you can go for 2, 3, and 5, in whatever order. That is my doctor's recommendation.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Boldertism said:


> Start with 8, when in doubt listen to the 3rd movement if you need convincing.


Celibidache is best in this adagio IMO


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Also the adagio from the 7th is absolutely gorgeous


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

The problem with listening in chronological order is the inevitable Bruckner version bugbear, i.e. there are numerous versions of some symphonies, some of which postdate the later symphonies. An example is the 3rd which is available in versions from 1873, 1876, 1877-1878, 1889. And just to make things interesting, the so-called #0 was composed between #1 & #2!


----------



## Xenakiboy (May 8, 2016)

Maybe this thread is for me because I've been thinking about Bruckner lately, though I haven't really heard much of his work yet. He does intriguing me, what should I start with? Symphony no 1? :tiphat:


----------



## kajackson (Jul 19, 2016)

When I was a Bruckner novice 30 years ago I was hooked by the Scherzo of the 9th symphony.
Very modern sound for the 19th century. Powerful like rock and roll with an orchestra.At the time it was Giulini and Chicago symphony.


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

IMO, I think 4th and 7th are the easiest to start with. But I would not recommend Bruckner to someone until he/she is quite familiar with the genre (especially the first three movements of beethoven's ninth), and has general sense on things like motif, sequence, cadence, theme group, modulating bridge, key area, sonata form, fugato etc. Otherwise, it is very likely to get lost when listening to the "boa constrictor"-like music.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> I recommend the chronological approach. That way, you'll get to experience Bruckner's progression as a symphonists.


I second this . :tiphat:


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Fwiw, I had listened to 4,5 , 7, and 8 before I ever heard 9, but it was 9 that caused me to love Bruckner. Once I fully absorbed 9 then I got into 6, and from there the rest of the canon. I never have cared for 3


----------



## Boldertism (May 21, 2015)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Also the adagio from the 7th is absolutely gorgeous


Definitely, the Munich Philharmonic sounds really good.


----------



## AndorFoldes (Aug 25, 2012)

Try 8-4-7-2-9-1-3-6-5. The first three or four are perhaps the easiest to get into. The fifth is saved for last as a sort of culmination of the whole journey.

If you are really dedicated and in it for the long haul you can do 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2016)

Well, prompted by a thread about the 5th, I thought I'd start with that...but so far (10 minutes in), it hasn't got going. If he couldn't make his mind up what he was writing, how are we supposed to make up our minds about listening?


----------



## AndorFoldes (Aug 25, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Well, prompted by a thread about the 5th, I thought I'd start with that...but so far (10 minutes in), it hasn't got going. If he couldn't make his mind up what he was writing, how are we supposed to make up our minds about listening?


The fifth is not one of the easiest symphonies to get into. In fact, as you can see from my list, I would save it for last.

An important thing to keep in mind with Bruckner is that he is, in the words of Herbert Blomstedt, long-breathed. Bruckner is not in a rush to get somewhere, he takes his time.

Having mentioned that, recordings also differ. Which one are you listening to?


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2016)

AndorFoldes said:


> Having mentioned that, recordings also differ. Which one are you listening to?


Wand/BPO (live) (original version, 1875-1878)


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Well, prompted by a thread about the 5th, I thought I'd start with that...but so far (10 minutes in), it hasn't got going. If he couldn't make his mind up what he was writing, how are we supposed to make up our minds about listening?


Strange as it might sound, the first movement of the Fifth is actually very tightly structured, it's just that the sense of continuity is completely different from any other composer's. Bruckner's sudden juxtapositions and changes in direction aren't supposed to sound random or stream-of-consciousness at all, but they can certainly give that impression before the overall direction and harmonic/melodic flow of the music becomes apparent.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2016)

Mahlerian said:


> Strange as it might sound, the first movement of the Fifth is actually very tightly structured, it's just that the sense of continuity is completely different from any other composer's. *Bruckner's sudden juxtapositions and changes in direction* aren't supposed to sound random or stream-of-consciousness at all, but they can certainly give that impression before *the overall direction and harmonic/melodic flow of the music becomes apparent*.


I'm reassured that my ears weren't deceiving me...and I'm sure that it will become apparent too.

You might remember what I said about Sibelius' 4th before it all became apparent and I fell in love with it!


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

I bought the Jochum Dresden set and started with 4, on the recommendation of some users. It was okay at first and I worked back. Still just okay and too much brass. Then I got into 7 and loved it, listening to it 3 or 4 times a week. Then the same with 5. Then with 9. Then I moved to the masses and then back to the earlier symphonies. Now I bounce around often and am looking for another set or possibly individual symphonies so I can enjoy Symphonies 0 and 00.

What's the point? I don't know, maybe just that you can start where ever so long as you don't let one symphony stop you. He has a similar style that you notice first because it's so unique and I am not sure what other symphonist I could even compare to his style, but doubtless other more listened users know a few. But beyond that I find great variety in his symphonies.


----------



## BoggyB (May 6, 2016)

Bevo said:


> Oh, and just a side question, which has the best Scherzo? I LOVE those things!! Thanks!!


Yep. In his non-zero symphonies and with the exception of number 2, you _always_ get a good scherzo off Bruckner.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Back in the day it was the 7th that grabbed me (Furtwängler!!!). Once you've been grabbed for his style you can really go anywhere.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Celibidache is best in this adagio IMO


Wand is perfect (and in much better sound)




I listened to Celibidache 8th first, then to Wand, now I can't stand Celibidache anymore. Why exaggerate tempo when the composer already takes so much time with his music.


----------



## ViatorDei (May 19, 2016)

I agree, Wand has the best Adagio for the 8th. 

As for the original question about the order to explore Bruckner... I'm still in the process myself after a year of falling in love with his music. I had always enjoyed the first and third movements of the 4th quite a bit, but was pretty much indifferent to the rest of his work until something clicked with the (very popular) adagio from the 7th. The 3rd and the 9th then started growing on me. Then the 8th. Then the 5th. Then the 6th. That's where I'm at now. I should mention though, that I am an ardent admirer of the 8th. It's his greatest masterpiece IMO. Truly awe-some.


----------



## Lenny (Jul 19, 2016)

Maybe this can also be approached from a bit different angle. If you want to start with most Bruckner, I'd also say 8th. It has lots of repetition and it sounds like nothing else, from another world in all of its glorious, massive waves (yes, the 2nd movement!). But if you are more familiar with for example Brahms, I'd start with 2nd, to my ears it has this kind of brahmsian vibe. 7th is a more wagnerian style imo.

IMHO also the 5th is a good starting point, but as other have pointed out, it is a bit difficult to follow in the beginning.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

4, 6, 7.
The first three are finding their way.
5 is very stop/start for me, even after all these years.
9 and 8 are the masterpieces you should work up to.
(8 might just be the greatest symphony ever written. It's that good...)
Graeme


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I would recommend that one listen to them in reverse order: I started with Tintner’s Ninth and worked backward from there or it might be harder to appreciate his symphonies. I very much feel that these symphonies are worth it. In starting with Nine, I do not regret it.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

It was the 4th and 7th that got me hooked and from there number 8. Give it a try. Just don't start with the Study Symphony. I like it but it would put many off.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I also started with 4 and 7 ... and enjoyed them both greatly. But, then, _*I don't know what happened*_ but I just stopped enjoying Bruckner. I found his music often hectoring and ugly (with some very beautiful moments, I admit) and I loathed the scherzos! I tried and tried - I know all the symphonies from 3 onwards quite well and in quite a number of different performances - and do sometimes enjoy a Bruckner symphony these days. Mostly it was Celibidache (his Munich recordings) who called me back and I am still more likely to enjoy his Bruckner over any others. I do also like Furtwangler in Bruckner. I guess it is the last two symphonies that I most often enjoy - including Boulez in 8 and quite a few recordings of 9. But I really miss the feelings that 4 and 7 used to evoke in me when I first got to know them. I don't know what happened to them.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

After having got to know Bruckner 4, 7, 9, 5, 3 and 8 (I think it was this order), I learned to know and appreciate them either by taping radio broadcasts (mostly Haitink/Concertgebouw) and LP's (Jochum 4,5, Blomstedt 7) then CD (Karajan 1,3,5,7,8, Haitink 9).

Once I heard a concert with Munchner Celibidache in the Concertgebouw (4), which was a revelation. until then I often found that fast parts in Bruckner were too fast and ruined something of the experience. With a friend of mine I even travelled to Munich for another Celibidache/Bruckner concert. this unfortunately was not a good night, it somehow didn't work for him or us that night. Of course I have the Celibidache set on EMI, which still is good.

The last days I have discovered great recordings of the key Bruckner symfonies (4,5,7,8,9) and I have ordered them yesterday. these are the Live Berlin recordings with Gunter Wand/BPO. On Spotify these sounded pretty much as the ultimate Bruckner to me. I still like to buy CD's, so Amazon will deliver this set today:









In an interview issued online http://www.bruceduffie.com/wand.html the conductor Gunter Wand gives the following interesting observation:
QUOTE
I think they all - Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Schubert, Beethoven - have written music that gives the feeling of the time when they were living. The beginning of Beethoven was the French Revolution. It is absolutely clear what happened there, but the real great music is never private. Never! It's always a feeling of circumstances of the time, a feeling of the society. Haydn and Mozart, and then came the French Revolution with égalité, liberté, fraternité. In the First Symphony of Beethoven, you hear this idea in the music, but you do not hear the private feeling of Beethoven. He gives an impression of the feeling of a time. Bruckner gives the feeling of the cosmos. After Beethoven it began with Schumann and then Brahms and then Mahler to give the private feeling of the composer in the composition - his troubles, his love, his all. It was a time when one human being seemed to be so important that his own feeling is most important. Now we have self-awareness, the importance of my person!
UNQUOTE

I think this is a very relevant Bruckner set and I look forward to start to know these works even better!


----------



## dismrwonderful (May 5, 2013)

I've listened to Bruckner extensively and started out with the 4th and 7th. In hindsight I would have started with the 2nd because it is the best model of a Bruckner symphony. After that I would have gone with 7th, 8th [original version], 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 9th. After all of that and you still love Bruckner, then the other symphonies can be listened to.

Dan


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Start with 4, then 7, then 3, then 9. If you're still with it move onto 8 and see if you can get through it. If so go to 1, 2, 6 and 5. The first and fifth are very unlike the others for different reasons: No. 1 is classical in design, not late romantic, and No. 5 is highly contrapuntal, the only one like it Bruckner wrote.

If you play a couple and find yourself being immersed deeper than you like, try No. 6. Its countenance is light and airy compared to the others.

I'd say skip the two without numbers, the so-called Die Nulte and double ought.


----------

