# Where to Begin with Bruckner



## mahlernerd

Hello! I have to make a confession in that in all of the orchestral music that I love to death, there is still one composer that I can’t really wrap my head around and connect with, and that composer is Anton Bruckner. I really want to be able to enjoy Bruckner’s music, but I guess because of my lack of knowledge and minimal listening experience with Bruckner (compared to other composers anyway), I don’t really know where to start


Disregard this thread. Just a mistake I made. The real thread is titled Where to Begin with Bruckner. Sorry about that!


----------



## david johnson

Sym 9 and 3 are worth a shot


----------



## superhorn

Bruckner symphonies 4 and 7 are probably the best way to start . Any of the recordings by these renowned conductors do them real justice : Abbado, Barenboim, Boehm, Haitink, Bochum, Karajan, Klemperer, 
Muti, Rattle, Solti, Skrowaczewski, Tennstedt and Wand .


----------



## SONNET CLV

superhorn said:


> Bruckner symphonies 4 and 7 are probably the best way to start . Any of the recordings by these renowned conductors do them real justice : Abbado, Barenboim, Boehm, Haitink, Bochum, Karajan, Klemperer,
> Muti, Rattle, Solti, Skrowaczewski, Tennstedt and Wand .


I heartily agree. The 4th and 7th are supreme Bruckner works, my two favorite of his symphonies, and either one should make it or break it for you as a Mahler fan.

If I had to choose just one, I'd go with the 7th. The opening movement is stunning, from the first measures to the last. The second movement may be Bruckner's strongest orchestral statement. And that third movement .... Why, that's my absolute favorite piece by Bruckner. I often play it out of context of the symphony; that is, I play just that movement, cranking up the volume of the stereo to get those trumpets blasting into my ears. As for the final movement .... If the first three don't sell this work, you needn't bother. But it is a stunner!

Give Bruckner a try, through the 7th (or 4th). You may, like me, become a Brucknerian for life.


----------



## BoggyB

superhorn said:


> Bruckner symphonies 4 and 7 are probably the best way to start . Any of the recordings by these renowned conductors do them real justice : Abbado, Barenboim, Boehm, Haitink, Bochum, Karajan, Klemperer,
> Muti, Rattle, Solti, Skrowaczewski, Tennstedt and Wand .


+1

(more words to make the post long enough to be accepted)


----------



## Art Rock

mahlernerd said:


> Disregard this thread. Just a mistake I made. The real thread is titled Where to Begin with Bruckner. Sorry about that!


Fixed it for you.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Another vote for either 4 or 7. I think the conductor makes a difference also. My first exposure to Bruckner was Solti's 5th, and I hated it. I stumbled on Georg Tintner's Naxos cycle, which emphasizes the spirituality in Bruckner, which is what I was interested in, and Bruckner became one of my favorite composers.


----------



## Heck148

I started with #7...then went to #4...Walter for both....


----------



## Knorf

For me, the gateway to Bruckner was No. 6. And then No. 8 was the first one I became obsessed with listening to over and over.

To this day I don't understand why No. 6 is not recommended more. Its proportions are the most listener-friendly among the mature Bruckner symphonies, and it is really beautiful and powerful. YMMV


----------



## HenryPenfold

4 then 7

is my

suggestio

n


----------



## Ned Low

Either begin with his most popular works, 4th and 7th, or start from the first great symphony he wrote, his 3rd .
The first Bruckner symphony i listened to was the scherzo of the 9th symphony and i instantly fell in love with it. What i did was to listen to symphonies 3 to 9 respectively .Hes my favourite composer at the moment and my favourite symphony is his 5th. Oh boy. Did Bruckner compose sth better than his 5th symphony? I was even a bit disappointed when i heard his 6th because i expected so much after that monumental work. The counterpoint is phenomenal especially in the finale. Wand(NDR), Abbado(Vienna) and Skrowaczewski are my favourite recordings.


----------



## BoggyB

Knorf said:


> To this day I don't understand why No. 6 is not recommended more. Its proportions are the most listener-friendly among the mature Bruckner symphonies, and it is really beautiful and powerful. YMMV


YES YES YES.

Bruckner 6 is criminally underrated.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Ned Low said:


> Either begin with his most popular works, 4th and 7th, or start from the first great symphony he wrote, his 3rd .
> The first Bruckner symphony i listened to was the scherzo of the 9th symphony and i instantly fell in love with it. What i did was to listen to symphonies 3 to 9 respectively .Hes my favourite composer at the moment and my favourite symphony is his 5th. Oh boy. Did Bruckner compose sth better than his 5th symphony? I was even a bit disappointed when i heard his 6th because i expected so much after that monumental work. The counterpoint is phenomenal especially in the finale. Wand(NDR), Abbado(Vienna) and Skrowaczewski are my favourite recordings.


Yes, the 3rd is also a very good place to start - in fact, that's what I was going to suggest at first, but I thought it slightly too personal a recommendation.


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate

I feel like we just had this exact same thread.

The 4th is an excellent place to start, and I recommend Wand, but Tintner is also good. Once you know you love it, try Celibidache.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

I started listening to Bruckner when I was in my teens (Knorf posted a B4 recording in another thread that was a blast from the past actually) and I remember how I was struck by this bizarre paradox: I didn't really get his music, it made my scratch my head, it seemed bland and repetive and make me not get the point, but at the same time there was something awe inspiring, otherwordly and beautiful about it that struck a chord with me and made me determined to keep listening dilligently until it clicked because I knew there was something there with his music. Bruckner is incredibly enigmatic and a tough nut to crack, but once you do it's so rewarding.

I've read that the invention of recording technology benefitted the popularity of his music greatly, because even though all good music requires multiple listens to truly get it, I believe Bruckner takes that to the max. There's so muc subtely of the writing, labyrinthine nature of the connections between the material and the sections and subsections of each movement, how on Earth do you get all that on one listen?

One thing I struggled with for a while was the seemingly tautalogous repetitions, which I came to realize are integral to the structure of the piece. A user on here, can't remember who, made the very keen insight that each repetition is like counting the beads of a rosary.

I think all the suggestions above are great places to start. Though ultimately you have to find your own way as it's your own musical journey. You'll be floored by the dramatic, abrupt surge in quality from the 1, 0, 2 ---> 3. They all have their moments, but 3 is when he truly matured as a composer and displayed his full potential.

I can't project my personal taste and experience onto others, but I wouldn't reccomend Bruckner 5 as a starting point. There's something idiosyncratic about it that makes it stand out from the others and I personally think it's just a very _weird_ symphony for a lot of reasons. It ends with an absurdly complex double fugue that's the culmination of all the symphony's thematic material, which is also all very interconnected itself across movements, but I'd be lying if I said I liked it. Tons of people love it to bits though


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Knorf said:


> To this day I don't understand why No. 6 is not recommended more. Its proportions are the most listener-friendly among the mature Bruckner symphonies, and it is really beautiful and powerful. YMMV


Could you elaborate on that some? To me B6 has the exact same proportions as B7 in duration and character (heavy and emotionally draining first 2 movements, the latter two sprightlier and less taxing). I agree that it's criminally underatted. I wonder if whatever critic/academic that called it the Ugly Duckling just gave it a self-perpetuating rep for no reason. No. 5 is more of the black sheep in my opinion, per my above post. Without making value judgements, it's hard to argue it stands out from the rest very clearly.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

IMO, 7 is the best place to start hands-down, with a practically perfect first three movements and a tidy, none-too-lengthy finale (Bruckner finales are usually the toughest for me to crack). 4 is also a good recommendation, though I don’t think the Adagio is as profound, lyrical, and “cosmic” as the great slow movements in all the other mature symphonies. 

As for personal experience, the first movement of 4 and the Adagio of 7 were my twin entry points into Bruckner, moving me to the brink of tears. I think the 8th was the first complete symphony of his that I heard, and it absolutely enraptured me. It remains my favorite symphony by any composer.


----------



## Ned Low

The adagio of his 7th is so sublime. (Only the adagio of his 5th can rival it in spirituality. )Haitink and Venzago are two fantastic recordings with the best adagios of the 7th I've listened to.


----------



## ORigel

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> Could you elaborate on that some? To me B6 has the exact same proportions as B7 in duration and character (heavy and emotionally draining first 2 movements, the latter two sprightlier and less taxing). I agree that it's criminally underatted. I wonder if whatever critic/academic that called it the Ugly Duckling just gave it a self-perpetuating rep for no reason. No. 5 is more of the black sheep in my opinion, per my above post. Without making value judgements, it's hard to argue it stands out from the rest very clearly.


I love the slow movement of #5.


----------



## ORigel

Ned Low said:


> The adagio of his 7th is so sublime. (Only the adagio of his 5th can rival it in spirituality. )Haitink and Venzago are two fantastic recordings with the best adagios of the 7th I've listened to.


The adagio of the 8th is equal to both of them, IMO.


----------



## Zhdanov

a very good recording of Bruckner 4th by Heinz Rogner & Berlin Radio SO -


----------



## Totenfeier

I've recently become fixated on Takashi Asahina's Bruckner interpretations - highly lyrical, and with that "X-ray of the score" quality. What he can get his woodwinds and brass to do is amazing.

As for symphony recommendations, I see that a lot of the usual suspects have already been mentioned, so I'll just pipe up as an advocate for #1 and #2 - both fine works.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

I started with 4 a long time ago, but have never particularly cared for it. I would go with No. 7.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Totenfeier said:


> I've recently become fixated on Takashi Asahina's Bruckner interpretations - highly lyrical, and with that "X-ray of the score" quality. What he can get his woodwinds and brass to do is amazing.
> 
> As for symphony recommendations, I see that a lot of the usual suspects have already been mentioned, so I'll just pipe up as an advocate for #1 and #2 - both fine works.


I love the 1st movement of Bruckner 2.


----------



## MarkW

Just sit on your couch in the dark and hit yourself on the head with a rubber mallet every twelve seconds, and it will come to you.


----------



## amfortas

So many recommendations! Still so much confusion!

Nonetheless, don't lose heart; you're not alone. I'm sure "Where to Begin with Bruckner?" was something his exasperated mother used to say.


----------



## Totenfeier

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I love the 1st movement of Bruckner 2.


And I the second.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Totenfeier said:


> And I the second.


I like the Adagio too, though you can tell it's nowhere near what is later to come. I find the tranquil, serene nature of it really relaxing and puts my mind at ease. However, I think it suffers from too much repetition and lack of development. The repetition doesn't enhance the music here the way Bruckner employs it in his mature form, IMHO.


----------



## starthrower

amfortas said:


> So many recommendations! Still so much confusion!
> 
> Nonetheless, don't lose heart; you're not alone. I'm sure "Where to Begin with Bruckner?" was something his exasperated mother used to say.


What did timid classical music acolytes do before the internet? Write to Dear Abbey?


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

I'm listening to 00 right now for the first time. I actually really like it!


----------



## Knorf

starthrower said:


> What did timid classical music acolytes do before the internet? Write to Dear Abbey?


I mean, that's what I did. Be-otch never responded!


There were various books on classical music that were very popular back in the day, when people used to do stuff like go to concerts and borrow books from the library.


----------



## Merl

Knorf said:


> I mean, that's what I did. Be-otch never responded!
> 
> 
> There were various books on classical music that were very popular back in the day, when people used to do stuff like go to concerts and borrow books from the library.


In the days before t'internet I just used to borrow shedloads of classical discs from Manchester public libraries. My first Bruckner borrows were probably Karajan, Bernstein and Jochum. Then i moved onto Tintner (I think).


----------



## HenryPenfold

You were lucky!
We had it tough. We used to 'ave to get up out of shoebox at twelve o'clock at night and lick road clean wit' tongue. We had two bits of cold gravel, worked twenty-four hours a day at mill for sixpence every four years, and when we got home our Dad would slice us in two wit' bread knife and give us half a chewed TDK cassette of movements 1 & 2 of Die Nulte


----------



## GraemeG

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I'm listening to 00 right now for the first time. I actually really like it!


Symphony No 0 is hilarious enough. But for truly glorious numbering weirdness this one should have been called "Symphony No -1"


----------



## starthrower

I'm checking out No.5 by Sawallisch / Bayerisches Staatsorchester on the Orfeo label.


----------



## perempe

I saw a live performance of Bruckner's 8th in 2014 April in the The Hungarian State Opera House.
I really liked the scherzo. There were many empty seats, so here Bruckner isn't as popular.

I went to that performance without any previous listening experience.


----------



## Ned Low

..................


----------



## Ned Low

perempe said:


> I saw a live performance of Bruckner's 8th in 2014 April in the The Hungarian State Opera House.
> I really liked the scherzo. There were many empty seats, so here Bruckner isn't as popular.
> 
> I went to that performance without any previous listening experience.


The scherzo of the 8th symphony is the longest of his lyrical and beautiful scherzi that he composed, lasting around 15 or 16 minutes. Yet i personally prefer his other scherzi: like the scherzo of his 9th symphony or his 5th symphony.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

^^^ I took me a while to come around to the 5th Scherzo. I like it but still like it the least out of all the Scherzi. That abrupt stop-go transition from the main theme to the Ländler just weirds me out. I understand its there due to its greater role in the context of the inter-movement thematic structure, but every time I just hear that and go "uh...what? why? what are you smoking Bruckner?"


----------



## Ned Low

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> ^^^ I took me a while to come around to the 5th Scherzo. I like it but still like it the least out of all the Scherzi. That abrupt stop-go transition from the main theme to the Ländler just weirds me out. I understand its there due to its greater role in the context of the inter-movement thematic structure, but every time I just hear that and go "uh...what? why? what are you smoking Bruckner?"


I don't think he smoked anything but he certainly drank heavily .


----------



## Varick

I can relate to the OP. I still don't "get" Bruckner either, but I continue to listen waiting for it to click. So far, that "click" has eluded me. I didn't get Mahler for years, and then suddenly revelation! I'm hoping that happens to Bruckner for me. I hear repetition, aimlessness, and something trying to be better than it actually is. It's like when I see a movie like "Legends of the Fall:" It tries to be epic & grandiose, like a Dances With Wolves or Braveheart, but just fails for some reason.

This thread is good. I have two collections of his symphonies: Solti (which I received as a gift), which may be part of the problem. 
That was my first intro to Bruckner and according to many Brucknarians, he was not a great conductor for him. Then I bought HvK (unfortunately no # 0). Time to give him another listen starting with #s 4 & 7.

V


----------



## Heck148

Varick said:


> This thread is good. I have two collections of his symphonies: Solti (which I received as a gift), which may be part of the problem.
> That was my first intro to Bruckner and according to many Brucknarians, he was not a great conductor for him....V


Depends upon who you ask... Solti was a great Bruckner conductor...gets it to all flow together, not disjointed....probably my favorite...Walter, Barenboim(CSO) and von Matacic are excellent also.


----------



## starthrower

I don't hear aimlessness but I like symphonies with more development and less repetition. I listened to No.5 last night and while I enjoyed some beautiful passages, overall I came away less satisfied with the whole. Maybe the development is more subtle and my ears are just missing something? I have the Skrowaczewski set so I'll just keep chipping away at it. I also have No.9 by Wand so I'm going play that next.


----------



## Heck148

starthrower said:


> I don't hear aimlessness but I like symphonies with more development and less repetition. I listened to No.5 last night and while I enjoyed some beautiful passages, overall I came away less satisfied with the whole.


B5 is the one "mature" Bruckner symphony with which I've not really connected...it seems episodic, disconnected...Bruckner is always vulnerable to this charge, he likes stops, restarts, pauses, etc...so it's a challenge for the conductor to keep it flowing, and connected....for #5, I like Solti ok, he keeps it together, at least...I've heard lots of others that don't really do it for me....as you say, some wonderful passages, but somehow, for me, doesn't flow as well as some of his others...


----------



## Ned Low

Varick said:


> I can relate to the OP. I still don't "get" Bruckner either, but I continue to listen waiting for it to click. So far, that "click" has eluded me. I didn't get Mahler for years, and then suddenly revelation! I'm hoping that happens to Bruckner for me. I hear repetition, aimlessness, and something trying to be better than it actually is. It's like when I see a movie like "Legends of the Fall:" It tries to be epic & grandiose, like a Dances With Wolves or Braveheart, but just fails for some reason.
> 
> This thread is good. I have two collections of his symphonies: Solti (which I received as a gift), which may be part of the problem.
> That was my first intro to Bruckner and according to many Brucknarians, he was not a great conductor for him. Then I bought HvK (unfortunately no # 0). Time to give him another listen starting with #s 4 & 7.
> 
> V


Recordings are important when it comes to familiarising oneself with any composer. The first set that i listened to was Haitink's Royal Concertgebouw which is a good set for starters. But, it also has to be remembered that every set has some good performances and bad ones; like some conductors excelled in some spciefic pieces and totally screwed some.


----------



## Ned Low

starthrower said:


> I don't hear aimlessness but I like symphonies with more development and less repetition. I listened to No.5 last night and while I enjoyed some beautiful passages, overall I came away less satisfied with the whole. Maybe the development is more subtle and my ears are just missing something? I have the Skrowaczewski set so I'll just keep chipping away at it. I also have No.9 by Wand so I'm going play that next.


What an excellent recording Skrowaczewski's 5 is. It's the best finale of this symphony that I've listened to. Everything is clear in this recording. With the regards to maestro Wand, i've listened to three of his recordings of the very symphony : NDR Sinfonieorchester, Berliner Philharmoniker and Kolner RSO. And the one he did with NDR Sinfonieorchester is the one i love so much that it has been my favourite recording of this symphony since i saw it on youtube.


----------



## Bruckner Anton

I think his 4th symphony is most accessible. His 7th and 9th are also good ways to start.


----------



## pianozach

I did manage to get Bruckner's Symphonies 1-9 into my iTunes digital library by checking out the whole set from the local library. It's the "Berliner Philharmoniker, Herbert Blomstedt". No idea if it sucks or not. Already had Nos. 4, 5 (Günter Wand: Cologne Radio Symphony Orchestra), & 8 (Sergiu Celibidache: SWR Symphony Orchestra Stuttgart).

I've listened to the last mvt. of the *4th* the most.


----------



## brucknerian1874

Got me thinking what was my starting point with Bruckner? If memory serves (not a given, these days) it was in the days of cassette tapes and I'm pretty sure my first recordings were Karl Boehm's 4th and Bernard Haitink's 3rd. Took me a while to explore the rest.

Incidentally, I couldn't get on with the 5th at all to begin with. I think you have to have steeped yourself in all Bruckner has to offer before you can really appreciate the symphony that is "the most like Bruckner and the least like anyone else." It's now my favourite among the symphonies and I have more recordings of it than I'd like to admit to.


----------



## Ned Low

brucknerian1874 said:


> Got me thinking what was my starting point with Bruckner? If memory serves (not a given, these days) it was in the days of cassette tapes and I'm pretty sure my first recordings were Karl Boehm's 4th and Bernard Haitink's 3rd. Took me a while to explore the rest.
> 
> Incidentally, I couldn't get on with the 5th at all to begin with. I think you have to have steeped yourself in all Bruckner has to offer before you can really appreciate the symphony that is "*the most like Bruckner and the least like anyone else*." It's now my favourite among the symphonies and I have more recordings of it than I'd like to admit to.


Exactly. It's so unique among his oeuvre. I don't what to sound pretentious or something, but my soul breaths with every single note of the spiritual adagio. I just love it so much!


----------

