# Bruckner Symphonies Underrated?



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Maybe because he didn’t have lyrics and his Symphony length was too long for some people, it isn’t as popular as could be. But I think he wrote some amazing music. As did his student Franz Schmidt.


----------



## Scherzi Cat (8 mo ago)

I don't think I would agree that they are "underrated". Bruckner's symphonies are generally rated pretty highly in the classical music community. He doesn't have as many fans as Mahler but he has a lot. I especially like No. 8.


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

I wouldn't call them underrated, not at all. Maybe in his own time, yes. But today, Bruckner's symphonies are among the most well-known of the 19th century, at least 4, 7, 8 and 9. 1, 2, 5 and 6 are less popular but there are plenty of individual recordings and full cycles. Maybe even too many - there's a plethora of bad, misguided Bruckner out there, played too slow and reverently, or by conductors who do the composer a disservice by unearthing all kinds of inferior "original" versions.

Schmidt was long neglected but he has a lot of advocates now. There are at least 5 or 6 full cycles of his symphonies available now. But you're looking for "Brucknerian" and "underrated", look no further than Richard Wetz. His 3 symphonies, violin concerto and Requiem are still waiting for a performance by a top orchestra and conductor (Erich Peter did a passable 3rd for Sterling, but the cpo cycle is defintely 2nd rate). There's not a single recording of his 1st string quartet, his violin solo sonata or most of his choral works.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Underrated? And who in the noble thread opener's highly appreciated opinion is underrating Bruckner's symphonies?

What is the subject in the phrase "Bruckners symphonies are underrated"? Who is underrating?


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Not underated by any measure. But I do think they're largely misunderstood. Too many conductors and listeners seem to think they have to be played in some mystical, quasi-religious manner; like God is speaking through the music. Bruckner wrote five symphonies before Brahms wrote one; they should be played like a typical mid-19th symphoniy - they have to move, not trudge like sludge that is so often done. Bruckner, like any composer, wanted his music to be liked but audiences. Maybe that's why Solti, Jochum, Venzago and ones like them are so appealing to me.


----------



## PeterKC (Dec 30, 2016)

He is certainly the one composer over analyzed.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Bruckner is about as highly rated as he could be, given his meagre output. He isn't popular among the general CM-listening public, but is popular among enthusiasts and very popular among conductors and orchestras given his huge discography.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

The OP wonders if he would be more popular if he wrote songs but it seems to me that songs and singers have a harder time that Bruckner as far as popularity is concerned. Bruckner is generally very highly rated.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

ORigel said:


> Bruckner is about as highly rated as he could be, given his meagre output. He isn't popular among the general CM-listening public, but is popular among enthusiasts and very popular among conductors and orchestras given his huge discography.


Yes. And if one bothered to analyse the discography (and programmes and comments in magazines etc.) one would realize that Bruckner's reputation has magnified manifold in the last 50 years. People talk about the rise of Mahler symphonies since the 1960s but basically the same was true for Bruckner. I myself remember that Bruckner was even in Germany (maybe not in Austria but certainly almost anywhere else) considered on the margins of the mainstream/standard rep in the mid-late 1980s. Sure, Karajan had recorded all the symphonies (although I think he did only at most a handful in concert) but they were considered "heavy" and an acquired taste by many listeners.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

He couldn't have been too much on the margins as Klemperer and Walter were recording him for major labels in the 60s. Also other conductors (e.g. Barbirolli) were conducting the symphonies in concert during the same time.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

These conductors and others also recorded Mahler (actually rather more than Bruckner) and nevertheless people find it worth pointing out that Mahler symphonies gained a lot in popularity since the late 1960s.
Walter recorded all of 3? or 4 Bruckner symphonies? 
As late as the mid-1970s there were AFAIK all of two complete recordings (without 0, 00 or alternative versions...), i.e. Jochum/DG and one piecemeal on Decca. Compare this to Brahms 1970 or Bruckner 2020. 
Margins not compared to Franz Schmidt or Zemlinsky, of course. 
But compared to late Mozart, Schubert 5//8/9, Beethoven, Brahms, Franck (this was 1960 far more central repertoire than any Bruckner symphony, completely flipped around since then) , PIT 4-6 etc.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Last.fm stats.
Chopin 1.65 million listeners
Grieg 971,000+ listeners
Bruckner 262,000+ listeners


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

I think CM fans in the 60s looked around found nothing like Bruckner symphonies to fill the niche (however we describe that niche). I'm very glad that they did raise the exposure level and popularity.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Becca said:


> He couldn't have been too much on the margins as Klemperer and Walter were recording him for major labels in the 60s. Also other conductors (e.g. Barbirolli) were conducting the symphonies in concert during the same time.


And *Herbert Von Karajan *first performed Das Lied Von Der Erde in *1960* and 5 years earlier in *1955* he performed Lieder Eines Fahrenden Gesellen


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

HenryPenfold said:


> And *Herbert Von Karajan *first performed Das Lied Von Der Erde in *1960* and 5 years earlier in *1955* he performed Lieder Eines Fahrenden Gesellen


I thought that the topic was Bruckner not Mahler.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Bruckner's symphonies aren't underrated. Have you actually seen this composer's discography? It's vast. Just an example, although perhaps not the most precise example, but just by typing in Bruckner in an Amazon search there were 7,000 results. His symphonies have seen more recordings in the past 2-3 years than many other popular Romantic Era composers.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

His 2nd and 3rd symphony are underrated.


----------



## dko22 (Jun 22, 2021)

for me he's unquestionable the greatest symphonist to have lived but the fact that even critial opinion and the number of recordings would surely put him in the top 10 hardly suggests neglect to me. Perhaps his early symphonies are still to some extent -- entirely agree with Aries on nos 2 and 3 -- both wonderful works.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Becca said:


> I thought that the topic was Bruckner not Mahler.


Of course I knew that, I just wanted to see if you were paying attention...... 🤪

Moving swiftly on........


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Aries said:


> His 2nd and 3rd symphony are underrated.


You're right about no.2 and I get what you mean about no.3, but it is rated as one of his best by many people, but that is a recent (last 25 years?) phenomenon.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Bruckner's symphonies are par-rated.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

dko22 said:


> for me he's unquestionable the greatest symphonist to have lived but the fact that even critial opinion and the number of recordings would surely put him in the top 10 hardly suggests neglect to me. Perhaps his early symphonies are still to some extent -- entirely agree with Aries on nos 2 and 3 -- both wonderful works.


Same here, just ahead of Beethoven and Mahler.

Last month I attended performances of Bruckner 9 (4 movement version) and Mahler 9 in London, LPO, Robin Ticciati and Vladimir Jurowski respectively. What was interesting was that although on both occasions there were a fair few empty seats (something I can't get my head around) the Mahler show was far more fully attended. Both conductors are a fairly equal draw and the shows were only a week apart. Mahler seems to be more popular than Bruckner in London and he gets more Proms schedules too.

P.S. concert planners should avoid scheduling Mahler 9 in November at the height of the 'flu season. There were 3 or four persistent coughers who did rather ruin it in places. I always take a packet of throat sweets just in case I get a tickle in the throat. I understand that the BPO in Karajan's time used to give lozenges to the audience on the way in.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Bruckner is not ahead of Beethoven. No one is. He is behind Beethoven, Brahms and Sibelius.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Bruckner is not ahead of Beethoven. No one is. He is behind Beethoven, Brahms and Sibelius.


I only have Wagner ahead of him! 😉


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Bruckner is not ahead of Beethoven. No one is. He is behind Beethoven, Brahms and Sibelius.


I never understood the obsession with the ranking of composers and pieces at this forum. When I'm listening to Bruckner I'm into the music so Sibelius or another composer doesn't matter at the moment.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

starthrower said:


> I never understood the obsession with the ranking of composers and pieces at this forum. When I'm listening to Bruckner I'm into the music so Sibelius or another composer doesn't matter at the moment.


Don't forget, _listening_ to music and _talking_ about music may be two different things for some people. I know it is with me.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

starthrower said:


> I never understood the obsession with the ranking of composers and pieces at this forum. When I'm listening to Bruckner I'm into the music so Sibelius or another composer doesn't matter at the moment.


Good point. In my defense, I was responding to a previous post that had a ranking and felt obliged to chime in. I agree with your sentiment completely.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Good point. In my defense, I was responding to a previous post that had a ranking and felt obliged to chime in. I agree with your sentiment completely.


you're blaming me?

🤣


----------



## dko22 (Jun 22, 2021)

RobertJTh said:


> or by conductors who do the composer a disservice by unearthing all kinds of inferior "original" versions


is it really necessary to give your opinion on this in every discussion on Bruckner? It can become a bit tiresome, especially as many, including myself, don't agree. The point on many conductors being too slow and over-reverential has more merit, though I'd probably rather have that than a superficial and over-fast "authentic" one.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

HenryPenfold said:


> you're blaming me?
> 
> 🤣


Yes


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

HenryPenfold said:


> Don't forget, _listening_ to music and _talking_ about music may be two different things for some people. I know it is with me.


This is true! I hate to say too much about music because my relationship with particular pieces and composers is changing all the time. It's taken me about three or four years to really get into Bruckner. I still don't love every movement of each symphony from beginning to end but I'm trying to listen closely each time to get some rewards from the parts that truly resonate. I've been doing this with no.8 lately.


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

dko22 said:


> is it really necessary to give your opinion on this in every discussion on Bruckner? It can become a bit tiresome, especially as many, including myself, don't agree. The point on many conductors being too slow and over-reverential has more merit, though I'd probably rather have that than a superficial and over-fast "authentic" one.


It's a bit of a pet peeve, but yeah, you're right - I'll shut up about it.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Aries said:


> His 2nd and 3rd symphony are underrated.


Underrated by whom?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Philidor said:


> Underrated by whom?


By those who rate them lower than their true rating, of course.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Bruckner is not ahead of Beethoven. No one is. He is behind Beethoven, Brahms and Sibelius.


For me, Bruckner is behind Mahler, Beethoven, and Haydn as a symphonist.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I have loved Bruckner for 50 year but if anything his symphonies are overrated. He never apperas in any "greatest" lists and in my poll of composers he came in No. 48 behind the likes of Purcell, Telemann and Copland among many others.

That's not to say they are inferior or deserve less attention than they get ... but they are talked about far more than played in concert. If not for all the arguments over his editions and the new wave of conductors recording his "original" or "first thought" (AKA not the best) scores he wouldn't be making much noise in the contemporary community either. I think generally speaking he is a composer far more talked about than listened to.

Also just FYI he even said his Te Deum was his greatest work, to which I would agree. Bruckner said if he were called before God to justify his existence on earth he'd show him the Te Deum.


----------



## Furtwrangler (12 mo ago)

Aries said:


> His 2nd and 3rd symphony are underrated.


The 2nd yes. But Szell did record the 3rd?


----------



## Furtwrangler (12 mo ago)

larold said:


> I have loved Bruckner for 50 year but if anything his symphonies are overrated. He never apperas in any "greatest" lists and in my poll of composers he came in No. 48 behind the likes of Purcell, Telemann and Copland among many others.
> 
> That's not to say they are inferior or deserve less attention than they get ... but they are talked about far more than played in concert. If not for all the arguments over his editions and the new wave of conductors recording his "original" or "first thought" (AKA not the best) scores he wouldn't be making much noise in the contemporary community either. I think generally speaking he is a composer far more talked about than listened to.
> 
> Also just FYI he even said his Te Deum was his greatest work, to which I would agree. Bruckner said if he were called before God to justify his existence on earth he'd show him the Te Deum.


Copland and Bruckner in the same row - does it make me laugh, or does it make me trash my keyboard?


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

HenryPenfold said:


> You're right about no.2 and I get what you mean about no.3, but it is rated as one of his best by many people, but that is a recent (last 25 years?) phenomenon.


My impression is that even the 3rd is often apprehended as an early symphony. Imo it is his first fully mature work and the 2nd is also closer related to the mature works than to the early symphonies 00,1 and 0, which have a different style (which some like more than his heavier later style).

Ranking Bruckner to other composers is a matter of taste. He has specific qualities and if one perceives them I can easily see them ranking Bruckner as greatest composer as I do. But without sensing this he may be seen likely as an average composer or even a disturbing one. For example terrace dynamics - either you get it or you don't. Ranking Bruckner objectively to others makes even less sense than in the case of other composers.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

My favorite Bruckner symphonies are Nos. 1-3 and 5. I have heard 4, 7 and 8 too many times and in too many versions to any longer enjoy them and No. 9 has never registered with me. My favored vesions of my favorites are Jochum-Berlin for No. 1, Jochum-Bavarian Radio (DG) for No. 2, Schuricht-Vienna Phil on a Japanese SACD in No. 3 and Hermann Abendroth-Leipzig Radio's radio broadcast of No. 5 with Horenstein's BBC concert version almost as good and sounding better.

The thing I like most about *Jochum* is he combines the most compact Novak versions of Nos. 1 and 2 meaning the symphonies are logicallly presented and do not wander endlessly thus cutting back the repetition and needless note-spinning. I think of the Third Symphony more as a tryout for the Fourth than any "Wagner" symphony. The Fifth is a gargantuan thing, an endurance test for any conductor and audience. Played poorly or by someone lacking understanding it would be torment in the concert hall. It might be anyway.

For a lot of people Bruckner is always torment, the reason he ranks so far behind other composers like him. After first hearing the "Romantic" symphony in concert I went home and next day read the critic's review of it in the paper. He said, "Only a mother could love the Bruckner Fourth Symphony." 

Public Radio in USA never plays Bruckner. I only once in my life heard any of his symphonies played during the day -- the Third Symphony was played late in the afternoon one day. After it aired the disc jockey who played it (at someone's request) complained about its length and repetitive content. The guy that spun the CD!

Bruckner appeals to religious people and some others but I have learned most people that enjoy classical music don't enjoy him or his music.


----------



## AndorFoldes (Aug 25, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Last.fm stats.
> Chopin 1.65 million listeners
> Grieg 971,000+ listeners
> Bruckner 262,000+ listeners


Interesting numbers. Could it be that the more casual listeners want to hear Chopin's Barcarolle and Grieg's Peer Gynt suites, while there are no popular classics by Bruckner?


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

AndorFoldes said:


> Interesting numbers. Could it be that the more casual listeners want to hear Chopin's Barcarolle and Grieg's Peer Gynt suites, while there are no popular classics by Bruckner?


The first movement of Symphony 4 is a classic. Maybe not ultra popular. But quite memorable. I guess there is a big difference between the average listener and those that come to Talk Classical. Bruckner is not underrated on this forum. But is underrated to the average listener.


----------



## AndorFoldes (Aug 25, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> The first movement of Symphony 4 is a classic. Maybe not ultra popular. But quite memorable. I guess there is a big difference between the average listener and those that come to Talk Classical. Bruckner is not underrated on this forum. But is underrated to the average listener.


I think you hit the nail on the head here. That's it, the question has been settled.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Do opinions of Bruckner symphonies diverge widely among musicians, composers and casual listeners? I think it would be an interesting subject if we could poll for it. 
Maybe it's just an overall impression I get from earlier comments in other threads, but now my ears perk up about it after joining TC.

For me, Mahler's scores are more interesting to look at, but everyone has their own modes of listening. Bruckner is less brash...


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao (Nov 13, 2021)

larold said:


> For a lot of people Bruckner is always torment, the reason he ranks so far behind other composers like him. After first hearing the "Romantic" symphony in concert I went home and next day read the critic's review of it in the paper. He said, "Only a mother could love the Bruckner Fourth Symphony."





neoshredder said:


> The first movement of Symphony 4 is a classic. Maybe not ultra popular. But quite memorable. I guess there is a big difference between the average listener and those that come to Talk Classical. Bruckner is not underrated on this forum. But is underrated to the average listener.


I recently checked out his 4th - specifically this recording by Abbado:





The quiet tonic opening made a very strong impression, but then it quickly started feeling "random" - still great sounds etc. but lost the flow kind of;
then it led into an altered reprise of the opening - great again, and then proceeds to lose the thread once more.

Ultimately I paused and decided to revisit it at some later point.


Kinda felt like the opening's calling for some entirely different continuation and development, whereas the actual movement is just something written around it in order to make it a symphony movement, you know?


So not sure where this fits into the discussion on this thread, but that was my 1st conscious impression of a Bruckner; I'll see if it remains the same the next time (prb some time soon).


----------

