# Bruckner Symphonies



## manueelster (Feb 7, 2013)

Any recommendation about a Bruckner Symphony to start with? So far it has been so difficult to listen to his music


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

manueelster said:


> Any recommendation about a Bruckner Symphony to start with? So far it has been so difficult to listen to his music


Well, I'll need more information. What other music (of the period) do you enjoy? What Bruckner symphonies have you heard? What did you find difficult about them?


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

For what it's worth, I started with the 4th, and to this day, much as I have come to love others, particularly the 8th and 9th, even more, I still find the 4th the most easily accessible.


----------



## Alydon (May 16, 2012)

manueelster said:


> Any recommendation about a Bruckner Symphony to start with? So far it has been so difficult to listen to his music


I began my Bruckner listening with the 9th (the classic Jochum recording on DG) which may sound contradictory beginning with the last symphony, but found it to be an easier work to fathom than some of the other symphonies. Certainly no.4 is always popular and also a good starting point.
There are many bargain sets out there but is better to hand pick the best recommended recordings and build up your collection that way.


----------



## DrKilroy (Sep 29, 2012)

Chronological order is not exactly the best, as Bruckner's early symphonies may be a little less enjoyable than others. Reverse chronological is much better.  On the other hand, I started in the middle, by No. 5, and found it very enjoyable.

Best regards, Dr


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Try the Seventh. The Fourth would also be a good starting point, but above all I'd recommend the Seventh.


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

I second the recommendation for the 7th. If you like chamber music, try his string quintet. I found it more accessible than his symphonies when I was first getting into his music.


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2013)

The 4th is where I started, and what got me interested in Bruckner. I would start there. There are 2 recordings that I highly recommend, and are so different that it almost is like listening to 2 different symphonies. The first, and possibly the more approachable, is the recording by Gunther Wand with the Berlin Philharmonic on RCA. The second is Celibidache with the Munich Philharmonic on EMI.

After the 4th, I really enjoy the 9th. The recording by Harnoncourt is a great one.

After that, I would recommend the 6th, and Klemperer on EMI is my go-to recording. 

Start with those - if you like them, explore the rest.


----------



## Musician (Jul 25, 2013)

I have no desire or interest in this composer. Don't know why, but am I missing anything substantial?


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

Yes, but never mind.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The seventh - Karajan's final recorded version - is a good place to start. I started with an ancient Jochum recording of the 9th. I now have Jochum's Dresden 9th. The fourth is also very amenable.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Musician said:


> I have no desire or interest in this composer. Don't know why, but am I missing anything substantial?


I felt the same way for a long time. Then one day, it clicked. I hope that day is in your future also.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Another vote for the 4th or the 7th. But initially they seem long (funny, they don't seem long to me anymore), so a guidebook might be helpful or at least good liner notes so you don't get lost.

If you think of the symphonies as orchestrated organ pieces, it might help you see where he's coming from - silences, blocks of instrumentation contrasted with other blocks, and contrasts in volume.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

I will repeat what a few others have and suggest either 4 or 7.


----------



## Stargazer (Nov 9, 2011)

Seven was my launching pad into the rest of them


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Manxfeeder said:


> I felt the same way for a long time. Then one day, it clicked.


It happened that way for me, too. I went through 30+ years of dedicated and eclectic "classical" listening, but Bruckner did nothing for me at all... and this despite being a lover of Wagner, Mahler and (R.) Strauss. About 5 years ago, that all changed when I bought a Celibidache recording of the 8th. It was sloooooow, craggy, monumental, but it won me over. I adore Bruckner now.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Depends on what might get you into him. The Ninth is more like music you're used to hearing. The Fourth and Seventh are more traditionally Brucknerian -- which I defined in my earlier years as "not going anywhere in particular, slowly."


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Bruckner's bombast gets on my nerves, but he keeps me listening for the beautiful passages. I do like the blowing brass in the scherzo from no. 4. I have the Rogner CD on Berlin Classics, and the sound is great.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

You should also try the great choral works, such as the exultant Te Deum, the three Masses , Psalm 150, the motets etc.
The Jochum recordings of these on DG are unbeatble .


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

manueelster said:


> Any recommendation about a Bruckner Symphony to start with? So far it has been so difficult to listen to his music


Start with 4, not with 7.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Definitely 4. . . . . . .


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Gotta be 4.........................


----------



## Centropolis (Jul 8, 2013)

I am in the same boat as you. I still cannot get into Bruckner's music yet. Hope one day my light bulb will turn on for him.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

On the _Bruckner Problem_: Bruckner revised the Fourth perhaps seven times and Mahler re-orchestrated it, too. Which version is the one for get? The final revision?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

brotagonist said:


> On the _Bruckner Problem_: Bruckner revised the Fourth perhaps seven times and Mahler re-orchestrated it, too. Which version is the one for get? The final revision?


Mahler's version is based on the last revision, which was the first published version, and he also cut it in addition to changing the orchestration.

The best one by general consensus is the middle version of 1878/80 (Nowak or Haas, not too much difference). The later revision of 1889 is completely reorchestrated (sometimes in completely inane ways), perhaps with influence from another hand(s), but also has cuts that weaken the structure of the finale in particular. The first version of 1874 is practically a different piece that is not without interest, but is not as satisfying as the second version overall (many people cite the "hunting horn" scherzo, which was written for the second version, as the deciding factor, but for me it's the bridge between the first and second theme groups of the finale that clinches it).

Most recordings are of the middle versions, fortunately.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I enjoyed Bruckner's symphonies right from the beginning, but I first heard them when I was younger and liked almost anything loud, large and majestic. It wasn't any specific symphony I recall liking the best; it was the scherzos. I still look forward to the scherzos as they seem to have the most memorable themes for me. But really all of his work seems more an intuitive than a difficult listening experience. I just let the sound wash over me.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I'm really fond of 6, I don't know why its not more popular.


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

9 & 6 are the ones that spurred my interest in Bruckner's music


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

For Bruckner you definitely need a conductor knows where he is going and is good at taking the architecture in one swoop. Else it seems fragmented or seems to be going nowhere in particular. 
The eighth is a mighty work. Karajan's first version with the BPO is slow, gaunt and inexorable. Superb in some moods. But his valedictory performance with the VPO manages to do all that with added humanity. Really astonishing performance although the eighth has been very lucky on record with superb performances.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Mahler's version is based on the last revision, which was the first published version, and he also cut it in addition to changing the orchestration.
> 
> The best one by general consensus is the middle version of 1878/80 (Nowak or Haas, not too much difference). The later revision of 1889 is completely reorchestrated (sometimes in completely inane ways), perhaps with influence from another hand(s), but also has cuts that weaken the structure of the finale in particular. The first version of 1874 is practically a different piece that is not without interest, but is not as satisfying as the second version overall (many people cite the "hunting horn" scherzo, which was written for the second version, as the deciding factor, but for me it's the bridge between the first and second theme groups of the finale that clinches it).
> 
> Most recordings are of the middle versions, fortunately.


Amazing that Bruckner was so uncertain that he was influenced by his friends and his own doubts into constant revisions. The story when he met Wagner was that he fell down before him in worship and refused to sit down in the Masters presence. Gives an idea of one man's insecurity and another's ego!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Just listening to Rattle's recording of the reconstruction of the last movement of the ninth symphony. Pretty disappointing affair I would say. Better to have left well alone.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Harnoncourt's recording of the Ninth (a great performance in itself) comes with an illustrated talk on the fragments of the 4th movement. Engagingly told by Harnoncourt himself, and illustrated with orchestral excerpts, this set is worth getting for the lecture alone.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

^^^^
The list price is also very low for that deluxe hybrid SACD edition.


----------



## SIoannou (Oct 6, 2013)

I started with the 9th. A recording of Celibidache with the RSO Stuttgart. Have been hooked on Bruckner ever since. I do think the 9th is the easiest to start. It is short (at least for a Bruckner symphony) and it is one of my all time favourite pieces


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I'm liking no. 8 by Boulez.


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

I listened to the fourth yesterday - Böhm - with the volume at a tremendously high level. It was one great experience.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

starthrower said:


> I'm liking no. 8 by Boulez.


I've listened to that recording numerous times: it's probably my favorite version, though I've got five or so I can't do without. It's my favorite Bruckner symphony.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Well, no accounting for taste. But I wouldn't call you names just because you disagree with me. We just have different opinions.


I have no tolerance for the degrading of at least one of Bruckners best movements. I fight against such opinions, because the movement needs help.

Maybe you have heared a wrong interpretation. I have found recently a comparison of two recordings, which shows how important the interpretation is in this case: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4MRT0Zg0uI#t=9m35s


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Aries said:


> I have no tolerance for the degrading of at least one of Bruckners best movements. I fight against such opinions, because the movement needs help.
> 
> Maybe you have heared a wrong interpretation. I have found recently a comparison of two recordings, which shows how important the interpretation is in this case: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4MRT0Zg0uI#t=9m35s


I was not downgrading one Bruckner's best movements, but rather the completion of what he never got round to doing. Just how true it is to Bruckner's intentions I have no idea but it is certainly not one of his best. Whatever, you do need to realise that you will not improve the music by calling people names.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

So far I've only listened one or two times to 7 and 8. I like them, but I'll have to relisten and explore some of the others. At this rate I'm not sure I'll ever really get into this composer. I need more free time for long symphonies.  There's so much great music to listen to and time is precious...


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

DavidA said:


> I was not downgrading one Bruckner's best movements, but rather the completion of what he never got round to doing.


Bruckner was not that type of composer, for which it is important, that a work is 'perfect'. He changed most of his symphonys after completion. He would have changed many symphonies an other time, if he would have lived longer. The reconstruction is like an early version of a movement of his later reversed symphonys. Is not in the finished form, but Bruckner never got really finished with any work. That does not impugn the music.



DavidA said:


> Just how true it is to Bruckner's intentions I have no idea but it is certainly not one of his best.


It is one of his best. I can not understand you. Is it evil will, bad taste or unbrucknerian taste?


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

The ninth ends perfectly without a finale, I find. But maybe others like the reconstructed finale. Certainly, all this name calling is silly.

For mine, I'd start with the fourth, 8+9 are great, 7 is overrated, rest not worth it. But don't ignore the choral works!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

dgee said:


> For mine, I'd start with the fourth, 8+9 are great, 7 is overrated, rest not worth it. But don't ignore the choral works!


The Fifth and original Third are certainly worth it!


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

dgee said:


> The ninth ends perfectly without a finale, I find.


The adagios of the eighth, seventh and some other symphonys would be also great ends to these symphonys. But there is also a finale. Bruckner want that every of his symphonys ends with a finale, and he has wrote finales for all of them.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Aries said:


> Bruckner was not that type of composer, for which it is important, that a work is 'perfect'. He changed most of his symphonys after completion. He would have changed many symphonies an other time, if he would have lived longer. The reconstruction is like an early version of a movement of his later reversed symphonys. Is not in the finished form, but Bruckner never got really finished with any work. That does not impugn the music.
> 
> It is one of his best. I can not understand you. Is it evil will, bad taste or unbrucknerian taste?


None of these. I enjoy Bruckner and have all his symphonies. Just that I have the temerity to disagree with you!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

dgee said:


> The ninth ends perfectly without a finale, I find. But maybe others like the reconstructed finale. Certainly, all this name calling is silly.
> 
> !


Agreed! Also about the name calling. It changes nothing.


----------



## julianoq (Jan 29, 2013)

I like both versions of the 9th, with or without the reconstructed finale. I use to listen more frequently to the three movements version since I found is satisfying enough. It is interesting to note that on three movement records, the conductors place much more emphasis on the Adagio, and it indeed feels like a perfect finale, but on the records with the 4th reconstructed movement (like the great Harnoncourt record already mentioned) the adagio is less "forced" and I feel that the 4th movement is indeed necessary.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

DavidA said:


> For Bruckner you definitely need a conductor knows where he is going and is good at taking the architecture in one swoop. Else it seems fragmented or seems to be going nowhere in particular.


I'm just a few weeks into exploring various Bruckner symphonies by various conductors, and your observation sums up my experience so far. I found myself impatient at times when the music seemed to be constantly vacillating from loud to soft, but not taking me anywhere. I'm presently listening to Chailly's recording of no. 7, and this one seems to have a good flow and continuity.

There's a recurring theme of just a few notes in the 2nd movement that sounds very familiar. I think maybe Schnittke quoted this in one of his works?

But overall, in my preliminary listening experience, I'm drawn to the lush, quiet, and beautiful passages of all these works, as opposed to the loud brass sections.


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

I listened to the ninth several times recently - Wand, Furtwängler, Bernstein. Wand is great, but Furtwängler nears transcendence: and his other Bruckner recordings are far from my favourites. A studio recording too, for those who hate noise - 1944. Apparently he never programmed the symphony again after that recording, despite it being one of his favorites.


----------



## manueelster (Feb 7, 2013)

Great advise! I started with the 4th and now I am really involved. Actually, I've purchased some recordings and cannot stop listening them. Do you have some similar advise with Shostakovich symphonies?


----------



## kyf (Feb 1, 2017)

Maybe you will find this article helpful : http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/39/09/pearlman/

This article is about the connection between Bruckner and Heavy Metal and Death Metal music. Sandy Pearlman was a music producer who had inside knowledge of the music trade. It also talks about people who perform both in Death Metal bands and choirs.

A passage from the article: After McLean has pointed out that one of Bruckner's biggest fans was fellow Austrian Adolf Hitler, Pearlman elaborates. "We owe the creation of heavy metal to the Third Reich," he says, "because a lot of the Jewish composers who left Europe went on to compose for Hollywood horror films. They exposed kids to a Brucknerian vocabulary and it subsequently morphed into heavy metal."

Because Bruckner is so odd/unique in "Classical" music; so it may be difficult to find more similar pieces to listen to. People who like Bruckner should try some other "Headbanging," Heavy Metal, or Death Metal music. May like them better.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

I've just downloaded this. Opinions please from all you knowledgable Brucknerians?


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Heck, I feel like reviving this.

Start with the 4th. That's the most spine-tinglingly triumphant from the very start. It's probably the archetypal Bruckner symphony: it's got the muscular fanfares, the lilting chamber music-esque sweetness. It's got one of the best scherzos, too. 

The Georg Tintner recording of the 3rd for Naxos which uses the most original, untouched edition is seriously impressive. 77 minutes and grand as hell.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

DeepR said:


> So far I've only listened one or two times to 7 and 8. I like them, but I'll have to relisten and explore some of the others. At this rate I'm not sure I'll ever really get into this composer. I need more free time for long symphonies.  There's so much great music to listen to and time is precious...


Ugh... 2013 !!? 
Anyway, I still have to listen to half of the symphonies. :lol: But I'm glad I persevered. The 8th has become one of my favorite pieces of music (the adagio in particular) and I'm currently processing the 9th.


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

Barbebleu said:


> View attachment 92097
> 
> 
> I've just downloaded this. Opinions please from all you knowledgable Brucknerians?


His worst. Not terrible, but fairly below Chicago and Berlin.
I was also tempted to consider it, but the most appaling problem is the sound quality. Even ADD Haitink sounds better.

Keep the No.3 and No.7. Real treats.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

DeepR said:


> Anyway, I still have to listen to half of the symphonies. :lol: But I'm glad I persevered. The 8th has become one of my favorite pieces of music (the adagio in particular) and I'm currently processing the 9th.


About 50 years ago Sir John Barbirolli was flying to Houston in the company of Andre Previn when their plane encountered severe turbulence. Sir John: I can't die yet, I haven't conducted all the Bruckner symphonies.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

How about that insanely epic ending of the 1st movement of the 9th?





Starts here at 25:49. A little surprise at 27:15 and then comes the bang at 27:21. If that moment doesn't call for maximum volume and jumping out of your seat, I don't know what will.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

I think 1st symphony is a pretty good effort. I love the finale and the rousing conclusion.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Much as I have liked his 4th symphony for 40 years, I started in Bruckner (whom I adore) with the 1st and 2nd symphonies played by Jochum from his DG set. Jochum's way with Bruckner is unlike any other conductor other than his brother, Georg-Ludwig, and Wilhelm Furtwangler. Compared to these three conductors, all other Bruckner practitioners are, to my mind, unimaginative time beaters.

Jochum believed in two things out of fashion today: the Nowak editions from the 1950s and flexibility in tempo and dynamics. For me, this makes the music far more exciting than any of today's time beaters, especially those that insist on playing what are now called Bruckner's "first thought" editions. There is a reason Bruckner's symphonies have multiple ediitions; you only need to hear one of the first thought versions to find it.

Anyway, the first symphony is far more classically inclined than Bruckner's later stuff and the second begins to show movement toward his mature style. Both are very exciting, especially under Jochum. I also adore the Third Symphony in the Raetting edition played by either Jochum or Carl Schuricht and the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra, which was released for a short time by Japan EMI in a super audio edition that exposes more of the score that other recordings of that music.

The 4th is great musicmaking and most people do it well. Furtwangler's recording of the Loewe version edited by Gutmann is different than any other you will hear because of Furtwangler's individual musicmaking and the edition itself which includes a movement you won't hear in other versions.

No one should begin a Bruckner quest with the Fifth Symphony but everyone should learn to love it. It is the composer's greatest work of counterpoint, especially the long double fugue in the finale and the incredibly heroic ending at the coda. I am partial to Jascha Horenstein's version with the BBC Symphony Orchestra. Horenstein was a remarkable interpreter of Bruckner and Mahler that never disappoints. His Fifth is perhaps the greatest recording of his long and distinguished career.

I have less to say about the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th symphonies -- an oddity and three warhorses. The adagio of the 7th was famously played in Berlin when they learned Hitler had died. The adagio from the 8th is equally as sincere. However, the adagio from Bruckner's Symphony No. 1 is pretty good, too, but people without intimate knowledge of the composer don't seem to know that. It's a reason why I'd say start with No. 1 and 2 and move on.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

larold said:


> Much as I have liked his 4th symphony for 40 years, I started in Bruckner (whom I adore) with the 1st and 2nd symphonies played by Jochum from his DG set. Jochum's way with Bruckner is unlike any other conductor other than his brother, Georg-Ludwig, and Wilhelm Furtwangler. Compared to these three conductors, all other Bruckner practitioners are, to my mind, unimaginative time beaters.
> 
> Jochum believed in two things out of fashion today: the Nowak editions from the 1950s and flexibility in tempo and dynamics. For me, this makes the music far more exciting than any of today's time beaters, especially those that insist on playing what are now called Bruckner's "first thought" editions. There is a reason Bruckner's symphonies have multiple ediitions; you only need to hear one of the first thought versions to find it.
> 
> ...


Fully agree with you there. I love every symphony that Bruckner composed even the 0 and the study one. I first listened to the 4th like most people have but I remember time after time borrowing the cassette of Bruckner's 1st from the library in the early 90s. And that was that until I discovered him again in 2012 and I can easily listen to all 11 symphonies in one go and then go back to the start again. I don't know what it is about him, I can't explain why his music has a certain effect on me like it obviously does with others.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

As most people have said, start with the 4th and 7th and then go anywhere from there. Once you get yer foot in the Bruckner door you'll want to investigate what's inside. It's worth it.


----------



## Judith (Nov 11, 2015)

Hypothetical Question
If Bruckner had lived to compose the fourth movement, then how long would this symphony be?


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

Judith said:


> Hypothetical Question
> If Bruckner had lived to compose the fourth movement, then how long would this symphony be?


I usually had this question. (Having the Jochum Dresden Cycle as a reference, in Nowak Editions) At some point in his career, Bruckner found a balance between movements, always taking into account that the Scherzo lasted way less. It usually strikes me on repeated listen the balances in No.7 and No.8, *which timings could be divided in three parts of similar length:* I; II; III-IV for No.7 and I-II; III; IV for No.8. The Scherzo and the movement above or below get a similar length. I liked it because it had a numerical logic, like when Wagner in the Ring composes a prelude opera and three days, with _Walküre_ and _Siegfried_ having three acts. Then, _Götterdämmerung_, in the same way, has a prologue and three acts, like the Ring inside a part of the Ring. This formula was earlier tested in _Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg,_ which structure is quite similar to Bruckner No.8: Acts I & II last almost as long as Act III. _Parsifal_ had less of this balance between Act I and Acts II & III (there are a number of recordings on 3 CDs).

My thoughts and predictions for a complete No.9, revising the Jochum Dresden lengths, is to look at Bruckner No.5, his first "Long" symphony and the one with No.8 that sometimes is split in two discs.

No.5 Jochum SKD
*I. Allegro - 21:20
II. Adagio - 19:16
III. Scherzo - 13:03*
IV. Finale - 23:41

No.9 Jochum SKD
*I. Feierlich - 22:58
II. Scherzo - 9:49
III. Adagio - 27:39*

It's difficult to predict what could have happened. I would give two answers, a similar length to the Feierlich (20-10-30-20) like No.5, or to give mathematical balance and shock audiences with a scheme of 20-10-30-10, which would have been new, but never happened. Also, many of the "completions" are inclined for the first answer.

I just wanted to avoid replying like: "a Mahlerlian length, pal!".


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Judith said:


> Hypothetical Question
> If Bruckner had lived to compose the fourth movement, then how long would this symphony be?


Bruckner's working model was to define what he wanted and how long he wanted it to be. He even went so far as to lay out the blank folios and label them, so we know that he intended about 670 bars, i.e. what the approximate lengths of the completions.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Judith said:


> Hypothetical Question
> If Bruckner had lived to compose the fourth movement, then how long would this symphony be?


For a very detailed discussion of the 4th movement of the 9th...

https://www.abruckner.com/Data/articles/articlesEnglish/cohrsB9finale/BG_Cohrs_Introduction_SPCM2012.pdf


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

Just about 80-85 minutes, depending on broadness of tempi that conductor would choose, so not much longer than 8th.

From most to least favorite:

Sir Simon Rattle (SPCM 2012 edition) - 81:50
Johannes Wildner (SPCM 1996 edition) - 82:43
Gerd Schaller (Carragan 2010) - 83:41

Too lazy to look up the rest.


----------



## Guest (Dec 10, 2017)

Granate said:


> I usually had this question. (Having the Jochum Dresden Cycle as a reference, in Nowak Editions) At some point in his career, Bruckner found a balance between movements, always taking into account that the Scherzo lasted way less. It usually strikes me on repeated listen the balances in No.7 and No.8, *which timings could be divided in three parts of similar length:* I; II; III-IV for No.7 and I-II; III; IV for No.8. The Scherzo and the movement above or below get a similar length. I liked it because it had a numerical logic, like when Wagner in the Ring composes a prelude opera and three days, with _Walküre_ and _Siegfried_ having three acts. Then, _Götterdämmerung_, in the same way, has a prologue and three acts, like the Ring inside a part of the Ring. This formula was earlier tested in _Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg,_ which structure is quite similar to Bruckner No.8: Acts I & II last almost as long as Act III. _Parsifal_ had less of this balance between Act I and Acts II & III (there are a number of recordings on 3 CDs).
> 
> My thoughts and predictions for a complete No.9, revising the Jochum Dresden lengths, is to look at Bruckner No.5, his first "Long" symphony and the one with No.8 that sometimes is split in two discs.
> 
> ...


Really first-rate analysis - as always! - allow me to extend my compliments and a long overdue apology... You're a better person than I'll ever be and you'll surely get to heaven a hell of a lot sooner than I will!

Also, you have my admiration for the work that you and Pugg do in welcoming newcomers to the board. I would join in the "welcoming" but I really don't trust myself to refrain from engaging in my patented cheerful high-spirited nonsense - no sense driving them off the forum before they've even arrived, eh?


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

Please, please, stop it... Also give credit to Becca's simple and informed reply (670 bars)!

Enjoy your Callas Studio box when it arrives. I got mine recently for 110€, not that I visit it often but I enjoy even the ones I overlooked before.

Now, Wagner marathon.


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

Double post bla bli blu blo ta dum!


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Merl said:


> As most people have said, start with the 4th and 7th and then go anywhere from there. Once you get yer foot in the Bruckner door you'll want to investigate what's inside. It's worth it.


This is pretty much what has happened. I've been persisting with Bruckner (whom I've never managed to appreciate) and it was repeatedly failing, but after several listens to the 4th during November I started to like it. Things went a bit awry with 5 and 6, but then I got to the seventh and those lovely, sonorous Wagner Tuben and that scherzo.

I've been listening to the set under Klemperer's baton from EMI (1950s-60s). Great recordings they are too.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Klemperer's 6th is exceptional, his 4th and 5th not quite so much. While I like his 7th, I wouldn't put into quite the same high category. Beware of his 8th where he made major cuts in the last movement.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

The 4th was my first Bruckner exposure but it was the The three movement 9th that really moved me.
Regarding finales, I think the Finale to both 7 and 8 are superfluous and anticlimactic, and the same with the completions of 9. It’s interesting to me how Bruckner and Mahler both composed large scale works that occasionally had dogs of last movements that follow splendid movements. Mahler 5 and 7 both have failed last movements as well.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

I love all Bruckner symphonies and did not need to "get into" Bruckner. I liked him from the start. However I wonder why there is no mention of Skrowaczewski in the whole thread? Of all the interpretations I heard he sounds the best to me.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Triplets said:


> The 4th was my first Bruckner exposure but it was the The three movement 9th that really moved me.
> Regarding finales, I think the Finale to both 7 and 8 are superfluous and anticlimactic, and the same with the completions of 9. It's interesting to me how Bruckner and Mahler both composed large scale works that occasionally had dogs of last movements that follow splendid movements. Mahler 5 and 7 both have failed last movements as well.


I totally disagree, they are nowhere near failures even though some conductors just don't 'get it'.


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

Granate said:


> FTS said:
> 
> 
> > The performances are quite good - I own 15 different box sets. However, as I was listening to the 8th with a score I forgot that the commentary notes that Klemperer cuts over 100 bars. I am appalled, to say the least. "Klemp" has been one of my favorite conductors for 50 years, but cutting 100+ bars is a sin which I will never forgive or forget. He should be ashamed.
> ...


Now that we are talking about Klemperer, I remembered this post.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Triplets said:


> Regarding finales, I think the Finale to both 7 and 8 are superfluous and anticlimactic, .........It's interesting to me how Bruckner and Mahler both composed large scale works that occasionally had dogs of last movements that follow splendid movements. Mahler 5 and 7 both have failed last movements as well.


I don't agree at all - I love the finales of Bruckner 7 and 8, and the Finale of Mahler 5 is one of the greatest, really superb....M #7/IV is a little tougher, it's more disjointed, episodic, but when done properly it comes off very well. both M5 and 7 finales are real _tours de force_ for orchestra...very difficult


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

2ble post, sorry, seems to be having a problem at the moment...


----------

