# Bruckner Symphonies — General Discussion



## Waehnen

I listened to 3 Bruckner Symphonies today: 9, 8 and 7. I must say I was happy with my pickings.

In my ears Bruckner is foremost a creator of _noble_ music. It is as though he took the atmosphere of some Wagner, like Lohengring, Tannhäuser and Parcifal, and started to make symphonies. There is something mythical, uplifting and even sacred in the music.

In my ears Bruckner of the later symphonies is never banal or cheap. He knew what he was doing.

Somehow I do not feel the 9th Symphony incomplete.

Which recordings mean the most to you?


----------



## RobertJTh

Bruckner is one of my desert island composers, I never grow tired of his music.

Sadly, he's one of the most maltreated composers in history, initially being misunderstood and getting "corrected" by his well-meaning supporters, then being the object of a quasi-religious cult, with conductors competing to deliver the most "profound" (read: slow, stolid, disjointed and boring) performances - and finally, being mangled by the Bruckner Scholars, who blatantly disrespect the composer by publishing dozens of inferior early and intermediate versions of his symphonies.

So, in short, what I like in Bruckner is:

performances of the versions sanctioned by Bruckner himself, which are invariably and objectively the best. We know which ones those are, it's not nearly as complicated as the "experts" make you think.
performances that keep the flow and motion of the music intact and don't wallow in sonic misconceptions like a "cathedral sound". I mistrust any Bruckner 8 that doesn't fit on a single cd.


----------



## EvaBaron

Would you say Guilini’s Bruckner 9th is slow? It’s the only performance of that symphony I have heard and to me it seems nicely paced


----------



## RobertJTh

EvaBaron said:


> Would you say Guilini’s Bruckner 9th is slow? It’s the only performance of that symphony I have heard and to me it seems nicely paced


Chicago or VPO? If it's the VPO, it's great, praised as one of the great 9ths, but it isn't my kind of Bruckner. People rave over Abbado's last recording as well, but I find it horrible.
My choice 9th is Schuricht (EMI)*, with the same orchestra, but 12 minutes (!) faster than Guilini. Enormous tension, forward propulsion, a strong horizontality, everything that I miss in performances by the "cathedral sound" school.

*or Furtwängler's 1944 recording, which is of course sonically limited but remains one of the greatest recordings of anything by anyone.


----------



## Waehnen

I have Brucker only by Karajan, Baremboim, Jochum and then a bunch of oldies from collection boxes, like Furtwängler.


----------



## Knorf

I agree with the "noble music" but please, don't neglect a thorough consideration of other dimensions present as important influences in Bruckner's music. In particular, I'm thinking of a Schubertian sense of rusticity, of folk rhythms both dancing and stomping, but also the spinning melodic line, the ever-present _Gesangsperiode. _


----------



## RobertJTh

Waehnen said:


> I have Brucker only by Karajan, Baremboim, Jochum and then a bunch of oldies from collection boxes, like Furtwängler.


Karajan's Bruckner I find problematic, but that's just silly old me. Barenboim is excellent in Chicago (specially in the early symphonies, those never sounded better!), a bit less so in his later Berlin cycles.
Jochum is of course indispensable, both Berlin and Dresden, and one of the few conductors that make occasionally slow tempi work for me (that Tahra 1986 CGO 5th!) He "gets" Bruckner like no-one else.



Knorf said:


> I agree with the "noble music" but please, don't neglect a thorough consideration of other dimensions present as important influences in Bruckner's music. In particular, I'm thinking of a Schubertian sense of rusticity, of folk rhythms both dancing and stomping, but also the spinning melodic line, the ever-present _Gesangsperiode. _


Schubert's influence on Bruckner was significant and it's one of the keys to understanding his style.


----------



## mbhaub

Waehnen said:


> I listened to 3 Bruckner Symphonies today: 9, 8 and 7. I must say I was happy with my pickings.
> 
> In my ears Bruckner is foremost a creator of _noble_ music. It is as though he took the atmosphere of some Wagner, like Lohengring, Tannhäuser and Parcifal, and started to make symphonies. There is something mythical, uplifting and even sacred in the music.
> 
> In my ears Bruckner of the later symphonies is never banal or cheap. He knew what he was doing.
> 
> Somehow I do not feel the 9th Symphony incomplete.
> 
> Which recordings mean the most to you?


For what my opinion is worth:
Yes, he wrote noble music, there is nothing cheap, tawdry or silly. It's all very serious.

The 9th is clearly incomplete: Bruckner himself struggled to finish it, but didn't. You may be satisfied with the three movement torso; many people have been. I like the 4-movement work but I'm not sure whose version I prefer.

I have too much Bruckne that's for sure. That music demands superb recorded sound, so despite the importance of people like Furtwangler, Knappertsbusch and others in that pre-stereo era, it's not sonically able to really reveal the music. And, too many conductors treat this music like it's some hallowed religious experience. It's not. Bruckner was a Romantic. He wrote five symphonies before Brahms even wrote one. His music should be played like a product of its time; it needs to move and have a certain freedom of expression. It needs to roar at times. I do not like slow, monumental Bruckner at all. My favorite set is a 30 year old one on the Camerata label with Eichorn and Sieghardt conducting the Bruckner Linz Orchestra. They're thrillingly played, conducted and the recorded sound is terrific. Everything just sounds "right". Next up is Solti/Chicago. Some think it's too loud and glib. I don't: Solti makes them exciting and really ratchets up the excitement. The third set I love is Karajan; if anyone knew the music he did. If there's a problem, it's the DG recorded sound.

What must be kept in mind is that Bruckner wanted people to like his music and he wanted it to have some entertainment value - what composer didn't? So play the music to the hilt! 

And the standard editions (Nowak or Haas) are generally just fine. Except the 9th; that's another discussion.


----------



## Waehnen

mbhaub said:


> Next up is Solti/Chicago. Some think it's too loud and glib. I don't: Solti makes them exciting and really ratchets up the excitement.


Solti knows how to do that for sure!

Thanks everyone so far!

Any experiences on Haitink´s Bruckner?

I will have to contemplate on this and do some research.


----------



## RobertJTh

As a Dutchman I should be more proud of my country's national heroes, but frankly, Haitink bores me to death. I just don't know what it is with this conductor. He must know pieces like the 8th better than anyone else, made a dozen of recordings of it with the greatest orchestras and yet it sounds like he's sleepwalking through the score. I saw him do the 8th with the EU Youth Orchestra, and I found it hard to believe that such young and energetic people could deliver such a profoundly dull performance.
He wasn't always like this - his first cycle with the CGO had a couple of damn good performances, like the 5th, which was one of the great 5th's of its time. Maybe the orchestra thought it was still playing for Jochum? Then there's that 1978 7th, also with the CGO in amazing sound. But after he left the CGO, he gradually became slower and duller. Same story with his Mahler. And of course the media spun it that his interpretations "deepened" and became more "mature". Yeah, no.

Solti... I don't associate him with Bruckner, they don't seem to be on the same spiritual wavelength, no matter how technically accomplished and exciting his performances are.

As for historical mono recordings, as much as I prefer stereo, I don't see a problem with enjoying those. Bruckner isn't Richard Strauss, his music isn't texturally layered to the degree that you miss meaningful details in all but the most perfect recordings. It can be complex, yes, but the complexity is achieved by relatively simple and transparent means.
As a Bruckner aficionado I couldn't live without Furtwängler, G.L. Jochum, Abendroth, Andreae, Kabasta...


----------



## Aries

Waehnen said:


> Somehow I do not feel the 9th Symphony incomplete.
> 
> Which recordings mean the most to you?


The overall best recording of the 9th is that of Kurt Eichhorn with the Bruckner Orchestra Linz. For example the Adagio is very distinctly and elaborately played. And it has the reconstructed Finale in the best interpretation. Its 30 minutes long in that recording and the highlight of the symphony. Beside that I tend to like older recordings more, and I think it is because of at least the influence of Ferdiand Löwe if not his version. He was the first who conducted the symphony at the beginning of the 20th century in his own version. He made some adjustments especially at the end of the first movement, and some of them are big improvements imo. The codetta and coda of the first movement are basically more clear and powerful. Knappertsbusch and Krips recorded the symphony in that version and even tough the sound quality is bad, the structure of the music develops much more power imo. Recordings of Furtwängler and Schuricht for example seem to be still influenced by ideas of Löwe even tough they don't play his version. They were probably much influenced by the listening experience of the Löwe version which was the only published version for a long time.

In case of the 8th there are many good recordings, no clear preference.

In case of the 7th Celibidache is great at the end of the first movement (probably the place where his slow tempo is the most beneficial), Böhm as well. Furtwängler does the climax of the Adagio best.


----------



## RobertJTh

Aries said:


> Furtwängler does the climax of the Adagio best.


Which one? I always thought the 1949 BPO 7th is the only Bruckner recording by Furtwängler that can rival his 1944 9th. Beautiful, intense - and in pretty good sound. Better than the two 1951 versions (Rome and Cairo), i.m.o.
But there's also that famous 1942 adagio that's even more chilling...


----------



## Aries

Waehnen said:


> Any experiences on Haitink´s Bruckner?


If I could only recommend one recording of the 3rd symphony I would probably recommend Haitinks with the VPO: Link

I would recommend other recordings mainly because of different versions of the symphony, but for this 1878 version with Scherzo-Coda (which is maybe the best), there is not much room for improvement compared to the Haitink recording imo. The brass sounds really harsh, but the calm and sweet sections sound calm and sweet, so Haitink brings the contrasts good to the bear. The character and athmosphere is great.



RobertJTh said:


> Which one? I always thought the 1949 BPO 7th is the only Bruckner recording by Furtwängler that can rival his 1944 9th. Beautiful, intense - and in pretty good sound. Better than the two 1951 versions (Rome and Cairo), i.m.o.
> But there's also that famous 1942 adagio that's even more chilling...


I had the 1949 BPO version in mind, but all these recordings have special Furtwängler qualities.


----------



## Waehnen

RobertJTh said:


> As a Dutchman I should be more proud of my country's national heroes, but frankly, Haitink bores me to death. I just don't know what it is with this conductor. He must know pieces like the 8th better than anyone else, made a dozen of recordings of it with the greatest orchestras and yet it sounds like he's sleepwalking through the score. I saw him do the 8th with the EU Youth Orchestra, and I found it hard to believe that such young and energetic people could deliver such a profoundly dull performance.
> He wasn't always like this - his first cycle with the CGO had a couple of damn good performances, like the 5th, which was one of the great 5th's of its time. Maybe the orchestra thought it was still playing for Jochum? Then there's that 1978 7th, also with the CGO in amazing sound. But after he left the CGO, he gradually became slower and duller. Same story with his Mahler. And of course the media spun it that his interpretations "deepened" and became more "mature". Yeah, no.
> 
> Solti... I don't associate him with Bruckner, they don't seem to be on the same spiritual wavelength, no matter how technically accomplished and exciting his performances are.
> 
> As for historical mono recordings, as much as I prefer stereo, I don't see a problem with enjoying those. Bruckner isn't Richard Strauss, his music isn't texturally layered to the degree that you miss meaningful details in all but the most perfect recordings. It can be complex, yes, but the complexity is achieved by relatively simple and transparent means.
> As a Bruckner aficionado I couldn't live without Furtwängler, G.L. Jochum, Abendroth, Andreae, Kabasta...


I have a theory atm without having ever heard Haitink’s Bruckner. But could it be that the solid and stable character of Haitink balances the ”hysteria of Mahler” to the benefit of both, resulting in great recordings?

But in Bruckner there is not so much for Haitink to balance, their characters are more alike to begin with, and so the results are more ”boring”?

I think temperament is an important factor in music making.

On the Schubertian elements: listening to the 4th by Jochum/Berlin and the second theme / countertheme of the first movement is indeed VERY Schubert-like if not borrowed from Schubert.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Bruckner was probably closer to Austrian rural/folk music than Schubert (who lived mostly near/in Vienna), so many of such influences might be directly from this, not via Schubert. But it is very likely that the breadth and scope of Schubert's Great C major also was an important factor.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Noble isn't a word I'd associate with Bruckner's music, at least not in any fundamental way (given the actual meaning of the word). In fact I consider it disparaging . Awe-inspiring, modern (in its time), forward looking and compelling spring to mind.........

As far as preferred recordings go, lately I've been quite taken by Karajan's 1976 live VPO #9 on Deutsche Grammophon.


----------



## Waehnen

HenryPenfold said:


> Noble isn't a word I'd associate with Bruckner's music, at least not in any fundamental way (given the actual meaning of the word). In fact I consider it disparaging . Awe-inspiring, modern (in its time), forward looking and compelling spring to mind.........


In Finnish the word is ylevä, and there are the English translations! But I am happy to trust you English speakers on this. I still remember the failure of a thread of mine in which I used the word graceful incorrectly.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Waehnen said:


> In Finnish the word is ylevä, and there are the English translations! But I am happy to trust you English speakers on this. I still remember the failure of a thread of mine in which I used the word graceful incorrectly.
> View attachment 172220


_Au contraire_, some might agree that Nobel is a fitting adjective.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Waehnen said:


> Somehow I do not feel the 9th Symphony incomplete.


I wholeheartedly agree with you.

The music that has been reconstructed from the sketches that Bruckner left strikes me as below par for Bruckner, uninteresting and unmoving; not his usual standard. I'm surprised that so many notable musicians (Rattle, Schaller, Harnoncourt et al) spend so much time on it).

Unlike Mahler 10, the work on which by many outstanding musicians, is an entirely valid and rewarding enterprise.


----------



## OCEANE

..


----------



## haziz

mbhaub said:


> For what my opinion is worth:
> Yes, he wrote noble music, there is nothing cheap, tawdry or silly. It's all very serious.
> 
> The 9th is clearly incomplete: Bruckner himself struggled to finish it, but didn't. You may be satisfied with the three movement torso; many people have been. I like the 4-movement work but I'm not sure whose version I prefer.
> 
> I have too much Bruckne that's for sure. That music demands superb recorded sound, so despite the importance of people like Furtwangler, Knappertsbusch and others in that pre-stereo era, it's not sonically able to really reveal the music. And, too many conductors treat this music like it's some hallowed religious experience. It's not. Bruckner was a Romantic. He wrote five symphonies before Brahms even wrote one. His music should be played like a product of its time; it needs to move and have a certain freedom of expression. It needs to roar at times. I do not like slow, monumental Bruckner at all. My favorite set is a 30 year old one on the Camerata label with Eichorn and Sieghardt conducting the Bruckner Linz Orchestra. They're thrillingly played, conducted and the recorded sound is terrific. Everything just sounds "right". Next up is Solti/Chicago. Some think it's too loud and glib. I don't: Solti makes them exciting and really ratchets up the excitement. The third set I love is Karajan; if anyone knew the music he did. If there's a problem, it's the DG recorded sound.
> 
> What must be kept in mind is that Bruckner wanted people to like his music and he wanted it to have some entertainment value - what composer didn't? So play the music to the hilt!
> 
> And the standard editions (Nowak or Haas) are generally just fine. Except the 9th; that's another discussion.



Thanks to the recommendation from MBHaub. Bruckner in "small" bites, possibly making him a little bit more palatable for me. For a composer I dislike, for some reason I seem fixated on repeatedly returning to brave and usually futile attempts to understand or even like his music. Maybe because the Romantic era is my favorite musical stomping ground, I feel like I "should" appreciate this composer, except that I never have. Mahler is another composer that I find difficult to comprehend, but at least with Mahler I do find one or two of his symphonies enjoyable (mainly a bleeding chunk of #2 and all of #4). I adore the 19th century Russian romantics.


Currently playing:

*Bruckner: Symphony No. 9 in D minor, WAB 109* (first movement - Feierlich, Misterioso)
_Eichhorn - Bruckner Orchestra Linz_


----------



## Waehnen

Bruckner complete symphonies cycle by Jochum/Dresdner was only 14,99€ on iTunes. Based on reviews, it is as good as the DG cycle with Berliner.

I was not able to pass this bargain!

Listening to my favourite now, the 7th. Works well indeed. Communicating energy through the rhythms is vital to Bruckner, yes! And that requires suitable tempos.

For a long time I thought I did not like Sibelius’ 1st Symphony — until I heard a quicker version of the 1st Movement and felt the energy and joy of the Allegro Energico (Not Allegro Monumental). ”This is how it is supposed to be done” I remember thinking. Same here — you should not make Bruckner too monumental but let the ”energico” come through.


----------



## Philidor

Waehnen said:


> Bruckner complete symphonies cycle by Jochum/Dresdner


A mixed bag, imho. In my listening minutes (it is just an excel file), I found the 7th outstanding and the 5th and 9th good. The 8th was disappointing, - In the DG set, I appreciated the 8th ...


----------



## RobertJTh

I would recommend the Jochum Dresden cycle as the most overall satisfying one, though. It's not perfect, but no complete cycle is or can ever be. But I can't think of another conductor who recorded Bruckner with such natural authority, expressiveness and impeccable feeling for the needs of the music.
I do find the early symphonies better in the DG cycle, more fresh and lively, maybe the 8th too, indeed. But 4-7 and 9 are legendary in Dresden, the 5th maybe being the greatest of them all.
There's also some even earlier Jochum Bruckner in mono, from as early as 1938 - and of course the two legendary 5th's with the Concertgebouw Orchestra, from 1964 and 1988 that rival the official studio recordings.


----------



## mbhaub

HenryPenfold said:


> I wholeheartedly agree with you.
> 
> The music that has been reconstructed from the sketches that Bruckner left strikes me as below par for Bruckner, uninteresting and unmoving; not his usual standard. I'm surprised that so many notable musicians (Rattle, Schaller, Harnoncourt et al) spend so much time on it).
> 
> Unlike Mahler 10, the work on which by many outstanding musicians, is an entirely valid and rewarding enterprise.


But the Bruckner 9th finale is far, far more complete in the composer's own hand than the Mahler. Something like 90% is his Bruckner's own work. Only the ending has had to be reconstructed and written by others. Is the 90% that's there top-notch Bruckner? Maybe not. He was very ill and mentally unbalanced. But it's still his work. I have (I think) all the different versions, and I played in the premiere performance of the Carrigan third version, and the question is: which sounds the most like Bruckner? I suppose it's Samale, Phillips, Cohrs, and Mazzuca that Rattle recorded; the Eichorn is superb too, it a slightly earlier edition.


----------



## HenryPenfold

HenryPenfold said:


> I wholeheartedly agree with you.
> 
> The music that has been reconstructed from the sketches that Bruckner left strikes me as below par for Bruckner, uninteresting and unmoving; not his usual standard. I'm surprised that so many notable musicians (Rattle, Schaller, Harnoncourt et al) spend so much time on it......





mbhaub said:


> But the Bruckner 9th finale is far, far more complete in the composer's own hand than the Mahler. Something like 90% is his Bruckner's own work. Only the ending has had to be reconstructed and written by others. Is the 90% that's there top-notch Bruckner? Maybe not. He was very ill and mentally unbalanced. But it's still his work. I have (I think) all the different versions, and I played in the premiere performance of the Carrigan third version, and the question is: which sounds the most like Bruckner? I suppose it's Samale, Phillips, Cohrs, and Mazzuca that Rattle recorded; the Eichorn is superb too, it a slightly earlier edition.


Eichorn head and shoulders above the rest. But, I shall be sticking with the normal 3 movement version for the rest of my days..........


----------



## RobertJTh

mbhaub said:


> (...) and the question is: which sounds the most like Bruckner? I suppose it's Samale, Phillips, Cohrs, and Mazzuca that Rattle recorded; the Eichorn is superb too, it a slightly earlier edition.


But even Rattle is old hat already, since there's a new SPCM version out there, one that mercifully cuts the passage with the 4 combined themes. For the first time the coda makes actual sense, sounds like Bruckner and not like bad fanfiction. Has this new version been recorded already?


----------



## Becca

mbhaub said:


> But the Bruckner 9th finale is far, far more complete in the composer's own hand than the Mahler. Something like 90% is his Bruckner's own work. Only the ending has had to be reconstructed and written by others. Is the 90% that's there top-notch Bruckner? Maybe not. He was very ill and mentally unbalanced. But it's still his work. I have (I think) all the different versions, and I played in the premiere performance of the Carrigan third version, *and the question is: which sounds the most like Bruckner?* I suppose it's Samale, Phillips, Cohrs, and Mazzuca that Rattle recorded; the Eichorn is superb too, it a slightly earlier edition.


Gerd Schaller's revised version.


----------



## N Fowleri

Has anybody listened to Honeck/Pittsburgh's 9th? Reactions?


----------



## N Fowleri

Sorry for double posting, but I went ahead and bought the Jochum/Dresdner download in CD quality for $15 (USD) from prestomusic.com. Also, because it was only $13.49 (USD), I bought the Berlin Phiharmoniker's Bruckner cycle in 24/48 hi-res featuring multiple composer from 7digital.com (a British company that mainly supplies music to other services). I am still eager to hear opinions, if any, on Honeck's recording of the 9th.


----------



## haziz

haziz said:


> Thanks to the recommendation from MBHaub. Bruckner in "small" bites, possibly making him a little bit more palatable for me. For a composer I dislike, for some reason I seem fixated on repeatedly returning to brave and usually futile attempts to understand or even like his music. Maybe because the Romantic era is my favorite musical stomping ground, I feel like I "should" appreciate this composer, except that I never have. Mahler is another composer that I find difficult to comprehend, but at least with Mahler I do find one or two of his symphonies enjoyable (mainly a bleeding chunk of #2 and all of #4). I adore the 19th century Russian romantics.
> 
> 
> Currently playing:
> 
> *Bruckner: Symphony No. 9 in D minor, WAB 109* (first movement - Feierlich, Misterioso)
> _Eichhorn - Bruckner Orchestra Linz_



I find the first movement of his 9th symphony to be quite listenable, having so far re-listened yesterday to the accounts of this movement, in isolation, conducted by Eichhorn, Jochum (with Dresden) and Rogner. 

Is there hope for me finally liking a composition by Bruckner?


----------



## Waehnen

haziz said:


> I find the first movement of his 9th symphony to be quite listenable, having so far re-listened yesterday to the accounts of this movement, in isolation, conducted by Eichhorn, Jochum (with Dresden) and Rogner.
> 
> Is there hope for me finally liking a composition by Bruckner?


If you do not like the 7th Symphony by Jochum/Dresdner, then you might not get to like Bruckner at all.

At least for me the 7th has been the key to Bruckner music along with the wonderful String Quintet.


----------



## haziz

Waehnen said:


> If you do not like the 7th Symphony by Jochum/Dresdner, then you might not get to like Bruckner at all.
> 
> At least for me the 7th has been the key to Bruckner music along with the wonderful String Quintet.



I relistened to the 7th with Jochum and Dresden. The first movement is listenable, even enjoyable. The second movement bores me to tears. Endless, meandering and rambling are words that come to mind regarding the second movement. I picked up a couple of performances of the seventh that play it at a faster tempo (55 to 57 minutes for the entire symphony) and that generally _move_, and have so far listened to the first movement played by the Gürzenich Orchestra Cologne conducted by François-Xavier Roth. Next will be the recording by the Budapest Festival Orchestra with Ivan Fischer, and the 1969 recording by the Philadelphia Orchestra with Ormandy, if I can find it (I am unable to track down the Ormandy recording on the three streaming services I subscribe to). We'll see if a faster tempo makes the composition more interesting.


----------



## Becca

If the 2nd movement seems to be "Endless, meandering and rambling", perhaps the 7th isn't for you at this time.

Regarding that movement, the Jochum and Roth are at opposite extremes in timing ... 25" vs 18"! The average of recommended recordings is around 21 to 23 minutes


----------



## haziz

Becca said:


> If the 2nd movement seems to be "Endless, meandering and rambling", perhaps the 7th isn't for you at this time.
> 
> Regarding that movement, the Jochum and Roth are at opposite extremes in timing ... 25" vs 18"! The average of recommended recordings is around 21 to 23 minutes



That is actually why I turned to the Roth and Fischer recordings. Both play the symphony in under 57 minutes. I definitely prefer the faster tempo. I don't think Bruckner will ever become one of my favorite composers, but just finding some of his movements listenable is a major change for me. Listening to Bruckner's fourth ('Romantic') played by Philadelphia and Ormandy, another relatively fast tempo recording.


----------



## bagpipers

RobertJTh said:


> Which one? I always thought the 1949 BPO 7th is the only Bruckner recording by Furtwängler that can rival his 1944 9th. Beautiful, intense - and in pretty good sound. Better than the two 1951 versions (Rome and Cairo), i.m.o.
> But there's also that famous 1942 adagio that's even more chilling...


I like Furtwangler for Bruckner too ,my favorite is the 8th(so cliche LOL)


----------



## RobertJTh

haziz said:


> That is actually why I turned to the Roth and Fischer recordings. Both play the symphony in under 57 minutes. I definitely prefer the faster tempo. I don't think Bruckner will ever become one of my favorite composers, but just finding some of his movements listenable is a major change for me. Listening to Bruckner's fourth ('Romantic') played by Philadelphia and Ormandy, another relatively fast tempo recording.


Nothing wrong with fast and furious Bruckner! Though I think it's mostly the outer movements that benefits from slightly faster tempi than usual - the adagios should never be hurried.
At abruckner.com, all existing recordings of the symphonies are listed, and it's interesting to compare the timings of the various 7ths.

Surprisingly, Celibidache isn't the record holder with 86 fun-filled minutes. That "honor" goes to Toshiyuki Kamioka (who?) who manged to break the 90 minutes barrier in Wupperthal. Amazing.
At the other end of the spectrum, Roth and Ormandy are extremely fast with 56 minutes. Of course there's nothing wrong with liking the way they do it, but it's not representative for the majority of the performances out there.

There's only four recordings that are faster. A certain Max Rudolf clipped a minute off Roth's time in Cincinnati. Norrington in Stuttgart and Bruno Walter in New York did the same, also doing the symphony in 55 minutes. But the Speedy Gonzalez of Bruckner's 7th is Leon Botstein with a lightening fast 52 minutes! (It's too fast for a cd, so it's only available as a download... ;P) Of course timings alone don't tell you everything, but that's almost 40 minutes (!) faster than that Japanese dude and 34 minutes speedier than Celi. In a single work, just let that sink in. Botstein can play Brahms 3 together with his Bruckner 7 and still end before Celi with the 7th alone.

Jochum got slower when he got older, his timings range from 63 minutes in 1939 to 76 minutes in 1986. usually it's around the 67-69 minutes mark. But he always had a pretty slow adagio - usually the first two movements are about the same length but with Jochum the adagio is always 3-4 minutes longer. Again, timings don't tell everything and the way Jochum creates tension by subtly manipulating the tempi makes that his performances are never boring, at least not to me.


----------



## haziz

RobertJTh said:


> Nothing wrong with fast and furious Bruckner! Though I think it's mostly the outer movements that benefits from slightly faster tempi than usual - the adagios should never be hurried.
> At abruckner.com, all existing recordings of the symphonies are listed, and it's interesting to compare the timings of the various 7ths.
> 
> Surprisingly, Celibidache isn't the record holder with 86 fun-filled minutes. That "honor" goes to Toshiyuki Kamioka (who?) who manged to break the 90 minutes barrier in Wupperthal. Amazing.
> At the other end of the spectrum, Roth and Ormandy are extremely fast with 56 minutes. Of course there's nothing wrong with liking the way they do it, but it's not representative for the majority of the performances out there.
> 
> There's only four recordings that are faster. A certain Max Rudolf clipped a minute off Roth's time in Cincinnati. Norrington in Stuttgart and Bruno Walter in New York did the same, also doing the symphony in 55 minutes. But the Speedy Gonzalez of Bruckner's 7th is Leon Botstein with a lightening fast 52 minutes! (It's too fast for a cd, so it's only available as a download... ;P) Of course timings alone don't tell you everything, but that's almost 40 minutes (!) faster than that Japanese dude and 34 minutes speedier than Celi. In a single work, just let that sink in. Botstein can play Brahms 3 together with his Bruckner 7 and still end before Celi with the 7th alone.
> 
> Jochum got slower when he got older, his timings range from 63 minutes in 1939 to 76 minutes in 1986. usually it's around the 67-69 minutes mark. But he always had a pretty slow adagio - usually the first two movements are about the same length but with Jochum the adagio is always 3-4 minutes longer. Again, timings don't tell everything and the way Jochum creates tension by subtly manipulating the tempi makes that his performances are never boring, at least not to me.



Currently playing:


----------



## RobertJTh

haziz said:


> Currently playing:


Tell us what you think about it!
Still I think that for a first exploration of what Bruckner has to offer, you shouldn't go for extremes in interpretation. They may appear attractive at first but will give you a distorted impression of what Bruckner's music is about.

Botstein gained some notoriety, btw, by recording the Schalk version of the 5th, that was used for the first performance and the first edition. Massive cuts and reorchestrations. This version was previously only recorded by Kanppertsbusch, who infamously kept using the first editions even when they were completely discredited. No surprise Botstein sets a speed record for the 5th too: 56 minutes! The average is about 75 minutes...
There's a 5th by Botstein at youtube which clocks in at a very reasonable 71 minutes - but I assume he's using the standard version there.


----------



## Ulrich

Waehnen said:


> In my ears Bruckner is foremost a creator of _noble_ music. It is as though he took the atmosphere of some Wagner


That is no coincidence, for Bruckner was indeed a great admirer of Wagner.
My personal favorite recordings are Barenboim with Chicago for the 4th and Tintner with New Zealand for the 6th. 
When it comes to whole Bruckner cycles, you can’t go wrong with either one from Jochum. But in my opinion with Bruckner (as with Mahler) you’re better off finding the best individual recordings for each symphony.


----------



## leonsm

What about Gielen's Bruckner cycle? I'm liking it very much (the 8th is monumental).


----------



## Waehnen

I have been listening to Bruckner Symphonies regularly lately. I like them all, especially from the 3rd onwards. At this moment I have yet to conceive in which way the 3rd is supposed to be worse than the 4th.

The 7th remains my favourite by a rather larger margin, followed by the rest as equals. The 6th I perceive as the most peculiar for some reason. I like it but I think the 7th executes similar things a bit better.

What comes to recordings, I have a full cycle by Jochum/Dresdner, 4-9 by Karajan/Berliner and 4 & 7 by Barenboim/Berliner. So far I consider all my recordings very good indeed.


----------



## RobertJTh

Jochum, Karajan and Barenboim are great (thought I prefer the latter in his Chicago cycle)
But here's a list of the symphonies in recordings that are a bit "off the beaten path", not done by the usual suspects, but splendid performances nevertheless. Could be fun exploring a couple of these!

1. Barenboim, CSO - I've got this one coupled with Helgoland, which is a must-hear for Brucknerians too (it's actually Bruckner's last completed work). Barenboim is stunning in the 1st. Remember that extremely strange trombone theme that concludes the exposition of the 1st movement? I always considered that one of the Great Bruckner Moments, and the Chicago brass nails it.

2. Georg-Ludwig Jochum, Bruckner Orchestra Linz. The first recording of the piece, conducted by Eugen's younger brother, who was just as great at Bruckner as his big bro, but never got much of a post-war career and fell into obscurity following his early death. His wartime 5th and 6th are superb as well, and well recorded for their age. Can be downloaded for free at Berksy's Bruckner site.

3. Let's go for Kubelik, Bavarian RSO. Never known as a great Brucknerian but here he gets the job done really nicely. Also, it's the 1878 version, so much better than the butchered 1889 version that Jochum prefered.

4. Klemperer! But wait, not the studio recording, great as it is. The live one with the Bavarian RSO offers just that little extra excitement and spontaneity. And if you want to go deeper down the rabbit hole, there's the historical (wartime) Kabasta/Munich - or my personal favorite 4th, Konwitschny/Leipzig - with the most amazing finale ever. (KonWhisky did another 4th with the Czech Phil, but it's mono and not as good as the stereo one with the Gewandhaus).

5. You can't spell "Bruckner's Fifth" without Jochum, so here he is, but not with his familiar Berlin, Dresden or Concertgebouw recordings. There's another live version with the Concertgebouworkest from the 80's, one of his last recordings, that seems to be the nec plus ultra. Yes, it's slow, and usually I'm opposed to slow Bruckner. But Jochum infuses the music with so much flexibility that the relaxed basic tempo doesn't matter in the slightest anymore.

6. My favorite Bruckner symphony. Sawallisch is my man, but there are so many great ones out there, not always from the people you'd expect. Keilberth's 6th is legendary, Leitner is very fine too - and his account comes with a magistral Hartmann 6th, that's one of the most satisfying cd couplings ever. And yes, there's Klemperer too of course.

7. Too many to list. There's one that could be interesting for you to try, the much praised Rosbaud/SWR, the only stereo recording from his cycle. It never did anything for me, I find it stiff, unidiomatic and unyielding, but many people swear by it. You could call it Bruckner seen through a modernist conductor's glasses, but it's not my Bruckner.

8. I keep saying it: people should try Schuricht's VPO 8th and 9th as examples of what Bruckner can sound like if you peel off all those layers of kitchy, misguided reverence. But beware: once you tried Schuricht and his fast, dramatic Bruckner, there's a serious risk you'll never want to return to the boring, turgid Bruckner by Haitink or Wand.

9. Furtwängler 1944, nuff said. Or Schuricht, see above.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Waehnen said:


> I have been listening to Bruckner Symphonies regularly lately. I like them all, especially from the 3rd onwards. At this moment I have yet to conceive in which way the 3rd is supposed to be worse than the 4th.
> 
> The 7th remains my favourite by a rather larger margin, followed by the rest as equals. The 6th I perceive as the most peculiar for some reason. I like it but I think the 7th executes similar things a bit better.
> 
> What comes to recordings, I have a full cycle by Jochum/Dresdner, 4-9 by Karajan/Berliner and 4 & 7 by Barenboim/Berliner. So far I consider all my recordings very good indeed.


I LOVE Bruckner's 6th. I actually prefer it to his more acclaimed 4th and 7th (as masterful as those symphonies are), but it's the 8th and 9th that "seal the deal" so to speak. The majestic 8th is in stark contrast to the apocalyptic, visionary 9th. In terms of conductors for Bruckner, it's difficult to best Karajan, Jochum, Wand and Celibidache. I also like Giulini and Karl Böhm.

This is the first Bruckner CD I ever bought and it remains my desert island pick for the 9th:


----------



## Waehnen

I have to get myself some Bruckner conducted by Klemperer! How do you see those recordings? Klemperer´s qualities suit Bruckner, I would say -- although I am yet to hear a single recording.

(There was a brief conversation on the matter, but I cannot remember where...)

Edit: *Got myself this!* I know what I will be listening tomorrow.


----------



## RobertJTh

Waehnen said:


> I have to get myself some Bruckner conducted by Klemperer! How do you see those recordings? Klemperer´s qualities suit Bruckner, I would say -- although I have yet to heard a single recording.
> (There was a brief conversation on the matter, but I cannot remember where...)


Klemperer's qualities do suit Bruckner - but in a peculiar way. There's the usual obsession with proportional tempo relationships, which sometimes lead to unidiomatic results. It's strange though. I can appreciate Klemperer's way with Bruckner even at his most inflexible moments, and at the same time I'm allergic to other Bruckner conductors who miss a single ritenuto, or give me the impression that they want to de-romanticize Bruckner (like Rosbaud).

4: The studio recording (EMI) is fantastic, one of the all-time great 4ths. But there's a live Bavarian Radio recording that's even more suspenseful and intense.
5: Late Klemperer, warts and all. I still like it for the grand vision it represents, but there are (much) better played versions.
6: One of the all-time great 6th's, maybe the best of them all. Glorious!
7: Not bad, but not very special or characteristic for Klemperer either.
8: VERY late Klemperer, controversy territory. Wouldn't bother with it, the defects outweigh the benefits.
9: Ditto, kind of. A mixed bag of inspired fragments and long stretches where the half of the orchestra goes on autopilot.

So it's just the 4th and 6th that are indispensable to me. The other ones are fine if you can tolerate Klemperer's ideosyncracies and/or the playing of the amateur orchestra that was the New Philharmonia ca. 1970.


----------



## starthrower

What exactly are the sound issues with the Karajan recordings? I've seen this mentioned a couple times.


----------



## Manxfeeder

RobertJTh said:


> So it's just the 4th and 6th that are indispensable to me.


That's my personal feeling also. And it bothers me, because I'm a Klemperer fan.


----------



## Kreisler jr

There are also a bunch of earlier (1950s) live/radio recordings with Klemperer, IIRC a blazingly fast 4th from the West German Radio. I don't think I ever heard his recordings of the 8th and 9th (or maybe the latter but ove 30 years ago). I also think the 4th and 6th are essential listening and the 5th and 7th worthwhile. I probably like these a bit more than RobertJTh does, especially the 7th. For all I know the "New Philharmonia" were mostly the same players as the "Philharmonia", the re-founding was due to contractual? reasons, but I am not sure and too lazy to find out.


----------



## Becca

Kreisler jr said:


> There are also a bunch of earlier (1950s) live/radio recordings with Klemperer, IIRC a blazingly fast 4th from the West German Radio. I don't think I ever heard his recordings of the 8th and 9th (or maybe the latter but ove 30 years ago). I also think the 4th and 6th are essential listening and the 5th and 7th worthwhile. I probably like these a bit more than RobertJTh does, especially the 7th. For all I know the "New Philharmonia" were mostly the same players as the "Philharmonia", the re-founding was due to contractual? reasons, but I am not sure and too lazy to find out.


That is correct, after Walter Legge (EMI?) tried to 'pull the plug' on them, so they reorganized as a self-governing orchestra.

FWIW, giving due consideration to Klemperer's ill-advised cut in the last movement, his 8th isn't too bad, although personally I prefer Barbirolli's 8th.


----------



## RobertJTh

Kreisler jr said:


> There are also a bunch of earlier (1950s) live/radio recordings with Klemperer, IIRC a blazingly fast 4th from the West German Radio.


This page lists them all:






Search Discography - Anton Bruckner


Bruckner Discography



www.abruckner.com






5 recordings of the 4th, including that "gotta catch the 10pm" 1951 version. His 4th were always on the fast side though.
4 recordings of the 5th, with a VPO radio recording (on Testament) done after the EMI studio, which I haven't heard. Does anyone know this version?
3 recordings of the 6th, haven't heard the 2 live ones.
6 recordings of the 7th, with 5 (6) different orchestras! Would be interesting to know if any of the live versions beat the studio?
3 recordings of the 8th, and a 1924 adagio.
2 recordings of the 9th, the late 1970 and a NY Phil version from 1934.



Becca said:


> FWIW, giving due consideration to Klemperer's ill-advised cut in the last movement, his 8th isn't too bad, although personally I prefer Barbirolli's 8th.


I forgot about the cut, ill-advised indeed. What was he thinking? Barbirolli is splendid, agreed - specially the ink-black first movement.


----------



## Waehnen

So, today I had a day with Klemperer conducting Bruckner!

I started with the appraised 6th Symphony. From the very beginning the music was more convincing in my ears than ever before. Something about how Klemperer made the accompanying ostinatos carry momentum, maybe. There is a direction and purpose to the music, all the time. It is a very good performance indeed!

After that followed the 4th, 5th and the 8th. All of them were good in my ears, but for some reason the 8th had the greatest impact, as great as the 6th.

It is peculiar how different the Jochum, Klemperer and Karajan interpretations and recordings sound.

Jochum is regal, it has the sharp vision of an eagle, the sky is wide, the colour is silver and platinum.
Klemperer is deeply human with noble bronze statues reaching for the skies.
Karajan is atmospheric and shines with deep blue of the sky, and gold.


----------



## Waehnen

The 9th by Klemperer is also glorious! But Jochum is by far the better 7th!


----------



## EvaBaron

So yesterday evening while listening to Bruckner’s 8th and 9th symphony I was researching which recordings I should pick for all his other symphonies. I went down and stopped at 2 because then I was to tired. So maybe people here can give me recommendations for 00, 0 and 1. My research is really just typing in google ‘bruckner symphony no. (insert number) best recording. Then depending on how popular the work is you get multiple sources. Recurring sources I use in no particular order are often Gramophone, classicstoday, classic fm, presto music, the listeners club and of course I also use TC, the threads on the piece in question and if available for the work Trout’s blog is usually from where I start. Anyway now you know how I do it you can tell me if you think my choices are good
9: Giulini/VPO
7 & 8: Karajan/VPO
6: Klemperer/Philarmonia
5: Jochum/RCO (1964)
4: Böhm/VPO
3: Solti/CSO
2: Skrowaczewski/Saarbrücken


----------



## Becca

EvaBaron said:


> So yesterday evening while listening to Bruckner’s 8th and 9th symphony I was researching which recordings I should pick for all his other symphonies. I went down and stopped at 2 because then I was to tired. So maybe people here can give me recommendations for 00, 0 and 1. My research is really just typing in google ‘bruckner symphony no. (insert number) best recording. Then depending on how popular the work is you get multiple sources. Recurring sources I use in no particular order are often Gramophone, classicstoday, classic fm, presto music, the listeners club and of course I also use TC, the threads on the piece in question and if available for the work Trout’s blog is usually from where I start. Anyway now you know how I do it you can tell me if you think my choices are good


I wouldn't trust classicstoday but would suggest checking out musicweb-international.com, particularly reviews by Ralph Moore and Dan Morgan.


----------



## AndorFoldes

EvaBaron said:


> So yesterday evening while listening to Bruckner’s 8th and 9th symphony I was researching which recordings I should pick for all his other symphonies. I went down and stopped at 2 because then I was to tired. So maybe people here can give me recommendations for 00, 0 and 1.


For #1, try Jochum/BPO. No one else is even close.


----------



## Aries

I would recommend:

00: Rozhdestvensky (everyone else is too fast, what makes the symphony sound much more inferior imo, but all these fast guys will tell you that everyone does it too slow usually )
1: Rozhdestvensky, Vienna version (the accentuation of others is rather weak, it is important to get it right especially in the codetta of the 1st movement, the scherzo coda and the end of the Finale, these parts are also a big part of the reason why the vienna version is superior imo)
0: Haitink


----------



## Malx

I find Skrowaczewski is pretty reliable in all the symphonies prior to 2. But ultimately its down to your ears - enjoy discovering.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I am not a great fan of "early" (he was in his 40s) Bruckner but Skrowaczewski has also the advantage of being easily findable separately. Or Barenboim/DG.


----------



## HenryPenfold

leonsm said:


> What about Gielen's Bruckner cycle? I'm liking it very much (the 8th is monumental).


I bought that set about 5/6 years ago because it came up in a sale for about £10, IIRC. I only played a couple of symphonies from it at the time of purchase and haven't returned to it, despite having it on my to do list! When I get my act together, I'll listen to the 8th since you're quite positive about it.


----------



## Waehnen

What do you consider the most intensive, passionate and expressive Bruckner recording you have heard? 

I would like to try some extremes next. Jochum, Klemperer and Karajan are all very fine and balanced, I think.


----------



## Becca

Barbirolli's live Bruckner 8th from 1970.
From the Gramophone review, which I agree with...
_He died just 10 weeks later. ‘This might be the old man’s last‚ so let’s make it a good one‚’ the players were saying at the time. By all accounts‚ Karajan’s last live Bruckner Eighth was a lofty‚ outoflife experience. Barbirolli’s is the very opposite‚ a case of ‘Do not go gentle into that good night/Rage‚ rage against the dying of the light.’ It is a oneoff‚ eloquent beyond measure: the boldest‚ bravest Bruckner Eighth on record._


----------



## Waehnen

Becca said:


> Barbirolli's live Bruckner 8th from 1970.
> From the Gramophone review, which I agree with...
> _He died just 10 weeks later. ‘This might be the old man’s last‚ so let’s make it a good one‚’ the players were saying at the time. By all accounts‚ Karajan’s last live Bruckner Eighth was a lofty‚ outoflife experience. Barbirolli’s is the very opposite‚ a case of ‘Do not go gentle into that good night/Rage‚ rage against the dying of the light.’ It is a oneoff‚ eloquent beyond measure: the boldest‚ bravest Bruckner Eighth on record._


Wow! Thanks. I will look for this right away.


----------



## Waehnen

Becca said:


> Barbirolli's live Bruckner 8th from 1970.
> From the Gramophone review, which I agree with...
> _He died just 10 weeks later. ‘This might be the old man’s last‚ so let’s make it a good one‚’ the players were saying at the time. By all accounts‚ Karajan’s last live Bruckner Eighth was a lofty‚ outoflife experience. Barbirolli’s is the very opposite‚ a case of ‘Do not go gentle into that good night/Rage‚ rage against the dying of the light.’ It is a oneoff‚ eloquent beyond measure: the boldest‚ bravest Bruckner Eighth on record._


Unfortunately I wasn’t able to find this as a digital purchase.


----------



## LKB




----------



## Waehnen

LKB said:


>


I listened to the beginning and it sure had a lot of passion and energy.


----------



## dko22

RobertJTh said:


> I would recommend the Jochum Dresden cycle as the most overall satisfying one, though. It's not perfect, but no complete cycle is or can ever be. But I can't think of another conductor who recorded Bruckner with such natural authority, expressiveness and impeccable feeling for the needs of the music.
> I do find the early symphonies better in the DG cycle, more fresh and lively, maybe the 8th too, indeed. But 4-7 and 9 are legendary in Dresden, the 5th maybe being the greatest of them all.
> There's also some even earlier Jochum Bruckner in mono, from as early as 1938 - and of course the two legendary 5th's with the Concertgebouw Orchestra, from 1964 and 1988 that rival the official studio recordings.


Agree entirely. Although I wouldn't want to be without Tintner as I prefer his versions on the whole (and "Die Nullte" is definitely worth having), there is no conductor who just seems to "get" Bruckner like Jochum. The Dresden 5th and 6th are probably unrivalled and there's not a lot wrong with 9 either.


----------



## dko22

Waehnen said:


> The 6th I perceive as the most peculiar


and that's perhaps why it's my favourite. I find it has little in common with no. 7 which was not among my favourites until relatively recently - perhaps because I'd heard too many over-smooth and dull performances.


----------



## RobertJTh

Waehnen said:


> I listened to the beginning and it sure had a lot of passion and energy.


Barbirolli's 8th is incredible - if there's one recording that makes the symphony earn that stupid apocryphal nickname "Apocalyptic", it's this one. The first movement is a Faustian ride into hell, ending in pitch-black despair.
The scherzo is fine too, and there's some great lyricism in the adagio, trademark Barbirolli. But then in the finale cracks start to appear in the ensemble. It's probably the fault of the overloaded program that evening, with Nielsen's 5th (!) in the first half. But it's a small blemish.
And of course if Hurwitz rates it 5/5, you just know it's something special and recommendable.


----------



## Malx

RobertJTh said:


> And of course if Hurwitz rates it 5/5, you just know it's something special and recommendable.


I saw what you did there 🤣


----------



## Becca

RobertJTh said:


> Barbirolli's 8th is incredible - if there's one recording that makes the symphony earn that stupid apocryphal nickname "Apocalyptic", it's this one. The first movement is a Faustian ride into hell, ending in pitch-black despair.
> The scherzo is fine too, and there's some great lyricism in the adagio, trademark Barbirolli*. But then in the finale cracks start to appear in the ensemble. It's probably the fault of the overloaded program that evening, with Nielsen's 5th (!) in the first hal*f. But it's a small blemish.
> And of course if Hurwitz rates it 5/5, you just know it's something special and recommendable.


You are confusing it with the live Mahler 7th from 1960 where they did the Nielsen.


----------



## Waehnen

Becca said:


> You are confusing it with the live Mahler 7th from 1960 where they did the Nielsen.


You know the concert history like nobody! You also seem like a specialist on Barbirolli.


----------



## Becca

Waehnen said:


> You know the concert history like nobody! You also seem like a specialist on Barbirolli.


Not really although there are certainly many of his recordings which are high on my list. As to that particular concert, it is a bit remarkable for the juxtaposition of those two symphonies.

In more general terms, I grew up just outside Manchester when he was alive but unfortunately I was too young to be going to any concerts. It was only about 10 years later in California that I finally got to see him perform, the Mahler 9th with the LA Phil.


----------



## Alfacharger

Waehnen said:


> I listened to the beginning and it sure had a lot of passion and energy.


How about Klaus Tennstedt's performance of the 8th iwith BSO in 1974. This was considerd his break out to stardom.


----------



## Waehnen

I did some research on the matter and it seems the 8th Symphony is widely considered Bruckner´s greatest achievement. Both here on TC and on other medias there is one recording constantly on top for the 8th: Karajan with Wiener Philharmoniker. So I got myself that recording, and listened to the first movement yesterday -- and it does sound better than the Karajan version with the Berliner. It is a huge step towards similar approach as Barbirolli.

As time passes, I have learned to love and appreciate symphonies 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 to equal amount. The 8th now seems to be the special case for me, the one that seems to have maybe most layers to it. Intuitively I will select this the symphony to focus on particularly!


----------



## Waehnen

My random play just gave me the 5th Symphony Adagio by Klemperer… Beautiful!!! Lifts me up and brightens my spirit.


----------

