# Why Isn't Bruckner's First Symphony Played More often ?



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Bruckner's 1st symphony, which exists in the original Linz and the revised Vienna versions ,
is a terrific symphony , and by far the shortest of the nine , only about 47 minutes in the original ,
same as the Brahms 1st . (The Vienna version is somewhat longer ) . 
It contains the roots of the later symphonies umistakably , but is much more "concise" let us say .
So why don't more conductors program it on concerts ? I've never been able to understand .
The symphony has also not received as many recordings as the others , and most are parts of
cycles of all nine symphonies . So Jochum,Karajan , Solti, Wand, Barenboim, Inbal , Chailly ,Mzel,Blomstedt,
Tintner, Haitink , Skrrowaczewski , Masur , Rozhdestvesky , and a few others have recorded it ,
but not other eminent Brucknerians such as Walter, Knappertsbusch , Celibidache , and others, who
never touched it as far as I know . 
Abbado has recorded it twice, both with the Vienna Phil, for Decca and DG . 
I'm sure audiences would love the Bruckner first if they just got a chance to hear it live .
Most Bruckner fans and experts prefer the original version, including me , but the Vienna 
version is not without interest .


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I quite like it too, and I only got acquainted with it fairly recently, about a year ago. I got it on Eloquence with Vienna PO under Claudio Abbado, coupled with Beethoven's Symphony #8. My thoughts on it are here and I notice I said its a dark horse! I think that the coupling is kind of apt because both these symphonies have elements of innovation, and are just interesting in themselves, but are not taken as seriously as others in their respective cycles.

In terms of Bruckner, this symphony already lays down the basic template he'd follow for all his symphonies to come after. He wrote it not long after hearing Wagner's _Tannhauser_ which had a huge impact on him, as did his early life being steeped in choral music and his work as an organist. All these would come together to make that unique Bruckner sound and they are all apparent in his first published symphony.

The premiere of Bruckner's _Symphony #1_ was a flop, it was poorly attended and the orchestra was simply not up to the challenges of this complex and for the time unorthodox piece. The previous day a bridge over the Danube River in Linz had collapsed and the citizens of the city went en masse to see the destroyed bridge rather than go to the concert. Bruckner had to pay for the whole thing out of his own pocket and not long after this he had a nervous breakdown. He was in a sanatorium for several months after until he recovered. Sadly, this aspect of being rejected would continue, even though Bruckner had a good deal of success much later with his _Symphony #7_.

As to your question as to why its not that popular, maybe it is its sameness with the symphonies either side of it - the so called No. 0 (die nulte) or No. 2. But that can be said of all Bruckner's symphonies that abut eachother, they tend to have similarities. Eg. I hear aspects of symphonies 6 and 7 to have commonalities, and not surprisingly they where written pretty close apart, one coming not long after the other. And both of those have some things in common with No. 4, all these being the ones in major keys.

Having said that, _Symphony #1_ can be played with a Brahms sized orchestra (or thereabouts?) and as you say its length is only 45 minutes. So it may be an easy way to get into Bruckner for those who don't like symphonies of mammoth length like his later ones.


----------

