# My first impressions of Bruckner



## Manok

So I began listening to Buckner today. My first impressions: epic and some happy place between classical and romantic. If you wanna know which, it was the first symphony.


----------



## Itullian

One thing wrong with Bruckner's symphonies, they're too short.


----------



## clavichorder

The first symphony is a great starting point. It has a fast paced feel to it, that the others don't, the first movement is quite a catch. I recommend the 6th and 7th, these are my favorites for now. I just heard the 7th live! That was an experience! The stupid audience however, insisted on clapping between movements.


----------



## Tapkaara

Never could get into Bruckner.


----------



## clavichorder

Tapkaara said:


> Never could get into Bruckner.


What pieces have you tried your hand at? What about his music has deterred you?


----------



## Tapkaara

clavichorder said:


> What pieces have you tried your hand at? What about his music has deterred you?


I have two Bruckner CDs. One of the 4th symphony and one of his 1st.

Both symphonies sound very similar...too similar. It's just a bunch of quiet LOUD quiet LOUD quiet LOUD with no good melody. Plus the symphonies are awfully long...too long for my attention to be held with nothing really compelling.


----------



## Manok

I agree the first was too short.


----------



## kv466

Bruckner? I thought we were talking about Buckner here?


----------



## bassClef

I like the brassiness of Bruckner, well because I used to play brass I guess. My favourite symphonies are 3,4,8 & 9. If you get into him, I would recommend the RCA recordings under Gunter Wand.

NB. I have two "study" symphonies by Bruckner as well as 1-9, numbered 0 and 00 - I don't know what the story is there!


----------



## Ukko

Tapkaara said:


> I have two Bruckner CDs. One of the 4th symphony and one of his 1st.
> 
> Both symphonies sound very similar...too similar. It's just a bunch of quiet LOUD quiet LOUD quiet LOUD with no good melody. Plus the symphonies are awfully long...too long for my attention to be held with nothing really compelling.


What you describe has historically been my problem with them too. There is a possible path for Brucknerite redemption though: Listen to the 3rd, with focused attention to detail. Treat each episode (yeah it's as episodic as the others) as a composition in itself. Somehow, you may recognize _connections_ between those episodes. The effects may be cumulative.

I suggest the 3rd because you haven't heard it, and because I think it is the most amenable to my recipe. If you manage to make those connections, they are easier to make in the other symphonies. Plus, the mental discipline involved could pay dividends in other music.


----------



## clavichorder

I make no claims as to this being a purely original thought on my part. I've talked about it with others and it makes sense to me: Bruckner is more of a classicist than Brahms in a way. He's in sonata form, but with more themes than usual, and he was raised in the countryside, musically educated by the teacher of Schubert and exposed to Masses of ancient and older composers like Michael Haydn and Renaissance composers. He was a master of counterpoint. I think his roots are further in the past than any other composer of the time and that makes him farther reaching. His music can be appreciated for its stucture and counterpoint as well its elemental themes. I'm not a total Brucknerite by any means, but I respect the fact that he was almost from another planet.

Try the opening to the 6th. That was the one that clicked for me, and then I eventually decided after listening to many Haydn symphonies, I could make my way through a massive version of one of them.


----------



## Tapkaara

Hilltroll72 said:


> What you describe has historically been my problem with them too. There is a possible path for Brucknerite redemption though: Listen to the 3rd, with focused attention to detail. Treat each episode (yeah it's as episodic as the others) as a composition in itself. Somehow, you may recognize _connections_ between those episodes. The effects may be cumulative.
> 
> I suggest the 3rd because you haven't heard it, and because I think it is the most amenable to my recipe. If you manage to make those connections, they are easier to make in the other symphonies. Plus, the mental discipline involved could pay dividends in other music.


I will take your suggestion to heart. But you recommend the Third...I am curious, since my first forays into Bruckner have been the 1st and 4th, why are they not as suitable for a first-timer as opposed to the third? In other words, what is wrong with those two symphonies?


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

kv466 said:


> Bruckner? I thought we were talking about Buckner here?


Okay, okay... I'll fix- which should at least spare us the 1986 World Series references...


----------



## clavichorder

It really depends on what kind of music you like, for what your entry point with any given composer will be. Since I know you like Sibelius, maybe I'd actually recommend the 7th or the 9th of Bruckner, I'm not sure why, they just seem the most profound of his works.


----------



## Tapkaara

clavichorder said:


> It really depends on what kind of music you like, for what your entry point with any given composer will be. Since I know you like Sibelius, maybe I'd actually recommend the 7th or the 9th of Bruckner, I'm not sure why, they just seem the most profound of his works.


Well, thank you for saying, in a round-about way, that Sibelius is profound!


----------



## Weston

kv466 said:


> Bruckner? I thought we were talking about Buckner here?


Buckner was a great Hammond organist. I didn't care much for his piano music though.

The thing about Bruckner that is both frustrating and cool is there are so many authorized versions of his symphonies. He kept revising them. It sure makes cataloging a mess, but it's like you have more symphonies to chose from.


----------



## Guest

I'd recommend that people stop talking about their personal problems as if it were someone else's fault. And someone who's dead, what's more and can't defend himself. 

Anyway, I agree that most of Bruckner's symphonies are too short. Not all of them, but most of them.

The story about 0 and 00 is this. Bruckner referred to the symphony that precedes his first as "Die Nullte." The earlier symphony (one of the ones that's too long!) started to be referred to as 00 by some anonymous wag or other and has stuck. Given the sense of humor revealed by "Die Nullte," I suppose that Bruckner would have found "00" to be equally amusing.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Manok said:


> So I began listening to Buckner today. My first impressions: epic and some happy place between classical and romantic. If you wanna know which, it was the first symphony.


I'm glad it was a happy discovery. A bad performance can ruin his composer in particular. My first exposure was a bad recording of the 5th symphony; it ruined me for his music until I stumbled on George Tintner's box set. Now he's one of my favorite composers.


----------



## clavichorder

Tapkaara said:


> Well, thank you for saying, in a round-about way, that Sibelius is profound!


Don't know Sibelius enough to make such claims. He does have this hard to penetrate and subtle style that I would equate with profound. But perhaps I'm just being a good salesmen appealing to your Sibelius pride.


----------



## peeyaj

If you want to discover Bruckner's development as a symphonist, listen to Schubert's *Great C Major Symphony*. Bruckner patterned his compositional style in this symphony such as long melodic lines, key relationships and ''heavenly length''.

Schubert is one of the bigger influences of Bruckner, aside from Wagner, of course.


----------



## Manok

Well at the very end I found out it was a live recording of the first. There's something about a performance vs a recording.


----------



## Evelina

My first impression of Bruckner was similar to Tapkaara's observation about his symphonies being "quiet LOUD quiet LOUD quiet LOUD." _But_ that's part of what I like about him! Sometimes I get a little shock if I'm in the middle of writing something and suddenly my earphones just about explode after a long quiet spell. 

And personally I don't see why length should really factor into an impression of Bruckner. I could see people arguing against that, but I figure if somebody loves a piece of music, they very often (but not always!) wish it would be longer. I feel that way about Brahms' 4th, for sure.

Karajan's recording of Bruckner's 7th is my favorite. I find Bruckner's symphonies to be very offbeat and packed with emotion. A little moody and just wicked in the hands of a great orchestra/conductor.


----------



## Tapkaara

Evelina said:


> And personally I don't see why length should really factor into an impression of Bruckner. I could see people arguing against that, but I figure if somebody loves a piece of music, they very often (but not always!) wish it would be longer. I feel that way about Brahms' 4th, for sure.


I know a conductor (who used to frequent this forum) with whom I was having a discussion about Mahler. I made some sort of comment that Mahler's symphonies would be better if they were shorter. I argued there was a lot of fat that could be cut from them and not only would the quality of the music remain but it would be better. (Again, I really have a thing for "getting to the point" in music.) He argued, though, that the long length is absolutely essential to Mahler otherwise it would not be Mahler. The length is one of the main aspects of his music...everything has to be big. To shorten anything is taking away from the purpose of the music.

I guess the same could also be said for Bruckner. But I am afraid that this will be a deterrent no matter what. As my musical taste and philosophy continues to "mature," for lack of a better term, I am discovering that I like Mahler less and less. Part of the reason is the (overly) sprawling nature of his music. I get bored. So far, Bruckner has had the same effect.

But music is all about discovery and rediscovery. I am not going to rush to get a recording of the 3rd Symphony right now, but i will return to the recordings I do have and I'll see what I can do!


----------



## Manxfeeder

Tapkaara, your post reminded me of a quote by Mahler: "Cuts make a work longer rather than make it shorter."


----------



## Machiavel

Cathedral-like symphony, Romantic, Big landscapes as far as the eye cans see! I have to admit I felt it was tooooooooooo Longgggggggg!

I would put it in my top 10 symphonist if I had such a list. I think his motets and masses are not to be neglected!




Facto: The favorite and close to heart composer to Kent Nagano!


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

I started with Bruckners 4th and never looked back


----------



## NightHawk

Hahahaha. My first impression of Bruckner was 90 lb., scores with lots of double whole notes and endless fermatas (you know how pipe organists just LOVE to hold the last note of some 'organic orgasmic' event to the point that it starts to sound like a dominant)?!



Itullian said:


> One thing wrong with Bruckner's symphonies, they're too short.


----------



## NightHawk

Didn't your mother warn you?



ScipioAfricanus said:


> I started with Bruckners 4th and never looked back


----------



## Frasier

bassClef said:


> I like the brassiness of Bruckner, well because I used to play brass I guess. My favourite symphonies are 3,4,8 & 9. If you get into him, I would recommend the RCA recordings under Gunter Wand.
> 
> NB. I have two "study" symphonies by Bruckner as well as 1-9, numbered 0 and 00 - I don't know what the story is there!


The Study Symphony started in 1863 was written as an exercise. I think he was studying under Kitzler at the time. It was never performed in Bruckner's lifetime.

The D minor 'Nullte', 0, is more interesting. He started composing it just after the 00 but set it aside long enough to complete his 1st (numbered) Symphony in C minor. It was after completion of No. 1 that he finished the Nullte (0). It was to be his first put-down. He showed it to a conductor (one, Otto Dessof) who made such disparaging remarks that Bruckner canned it, and started on his officially numbered 2!

But for the nasty crit, the 0 might have been his #2.

They are pleasant, satisfactory works.

One headache about Bruckner is obviously the editions and versions. He was an obsessive reviser. He revised his Symphonies 1, 2 and 3 some way during the 8th and 9th. The versions are different. And an argument remains over which to listen to. I'd suggest both but...there are those who feel that pure, unadulterated 'first thoughts' are where we should be; and those who think the later thoughts, when he revisited the works with musical maturity, are more satisfactory.

The 8th is also a problem: Haas (who was appointed by Goebbels) took a little more license than he should while editing the 8th, making a few bars up, himself. This has been "corrected" although a first-thoughts score has also been produced. Bruckner himself scotched and rewrote the first thoughts score after a rejection, trying to get it performed.

There's been a mass of literature from the musicology industry over all this - and people are still criticising each other, pointing out this and that. Superb symphonies, though. The 7th & 8th are solid works, the 5th is difficult at first, the 6th is fine but please try to listen to Klemperer's reading. It really is one of the best.


----------



## Frasier

More problems hang over Bruckner symphonies - the adjustments made by the Schalk bros and Loewe who rewrote the 9th to be more acceptable to the people of the time! The version is still available and can be heard in a historical recording by Knappertsbusch but the original score was tidied up and is what we know today. Several instances can't be resolved - whether amendments in alien handwriting (eg Schalk) were approved by Bruckner or not - and if not, was he even aware of the changes?

There's also the matter that Bruckner did revise details on printers' proofs of published scores. They were not copied back to the original manuscripts. Thus the pursuit of absolute Bruckner originals may omit some of his last minute thoughts. So, though the first printed editions (containing details that still need sorting out) were for some time discredited in favour of Haas or Nowak editions, they are being reappraised.


----------



## Kalervonpoika

For many years I only listened to his fourth symphony in a recording by Ormandy and I thought about it as boring, heavy and loud. Later I discovered the other ones (beginning with the ninth) and not surprisingly today the fourth symphony is the one I like the least.


----------



## Vaneyes

peeyaj said:


> If you want to discover Bruckner's development as a symphonist, listen to Schubert's *Great C Major Symphony*. Bruckner patterned his compositional style in this symphony such as long melodic lines, key relationships and ''heavenly length''.
> 
> Schubert is one of the bigger influences of Bruckner, aside from Wagner, of course.


Bruckner studied Schubert's secular works. Thankfully, he stayed away from the symphonies.


----------



## Xaltotun

Vaneyes said:


> Bruckner studied Schubert's secular works. Thankfully, he stayed away from the symphonies.


What are you talking about? I have read from many sources that Schubert's 9th symphony was a major inspiration for Bruckner.


----------



## brianwalker

Don't get dejected guys, when I first started listening to Bruckner I was lying on the floor with my eyes closed in the middle of the summer afternoon.

I started with the first, which was a big mistake.

I fell asleep every damn time. 

I put Bruckner aside for some time, then came across an except of his from Bergman's Sarabande, the 2nd movement from the 9th, and it blew me again.

I worked backwards, listening to thte 8th, 7th, etc. 

Not all of his symphonies are masterpiece's like Mahler's, so don't listen to it all in a linear fashion.


----------



## elgar's ghost

My first Bruckner was Abbado conducting the 5th. I've heard it said that the 5th isn't often the best way in but when I first heard the brass kicking in after the pause in the first movement I knew I wanted this man's music in my life.


----------



## Crudblud

I started with the first and actually enjoyed it more than many of the subsequent symphonies.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

The only Bruckner I've heard is that symphony that apparently has some sort of trumpet theme in it... Can't remember which one it is.


----------



## Xaltotun

brianwalker said:


> Not all of his symphonies are masterpiece's like Mahler's, so don't listen to it all in a linear fashion.


But they are!  Seriously, I think that each and every one of them is a total masterpiece. The 1st is like a companion piece to Schubert's 9th, the 2nd is cosmic, the 3rd is a powerhouse, the 4th is visual, the 5th is transcendental, the 6th is concentrated, the 7th is like an opera, the 8th is triumphant, and the 9th is like the Apocalypse. To each his own, though, of course.


----------



## clavichorder

The other day, with my new routine of listening to pieces with my iPod set on shuffle, I heard Bruckner's 6th symphony's 2nd movement and was blown away. I had heard it before, but never like _heard_ it just then.

Currently, I enjoy the sixth the most for its epic beginning, but I enjoy the 7th more overall. I look forward to getting more in touch with Bruckner, I like him better than Mahler generally.


----------



## violadude

I'd say that all the symphonies from 5 onward are really great, and the first 4 are just good, but he was still trying to get into his groove.


----------



## violadude

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> The only Bruckner I've heard is that symphony that apparently has some sort of trumpet theme in it... Can't remember which one it is.


That....could be anything.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

violadude said:


> That....could be anything.


Well, I know that Wagner liked it. Does that help?


----------



## Xaltotun

violadude said:


> I'd say that all the symphonies from 5 onward are really great, and the first 4 are just good, but he was still trying to get into his groove.


This I can sort of agree with. He was definitely still trying to find his own thing in the first 4 (or the first 3), and the subsequent ones are completely and utterly "Brucknerisch". I'd just say that the first ones are only marginally inferior to the later ones - and still better than most other symphonies of most other composers


----------



## Xaltotun

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Well, I know that Wagner liked it. Does that help?


Then it might be the 3rd, the so-called "Wagner symphony"... Wagner gave his approval to use his name there, he apparently liked it better than the other candidate (the 2nd).


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Xaltotun said:


> Then it might be the 3rd, the so-called "Wagner symphony"... Wagner gave his approval to use his name there, he apparently liked it better than the other candidate (the 2nd).


Must be that one then. Haha. Thanks.


----------



## Manok

I've now got the symphonies and am slowly working my way through, slowly because I don't have the time to listen to massive works anymore. They've been fun, I am not nearly as attached to Bruckner as I have been to Mahler, who is the closest person to Bruckner I can think of. He also has bits of Beethoven in him which is interesting.


----------



## Pestouille

I can understand someone not liking Bruckner, but I hate stupid statements about length of symphonies. It remembers me a certain 'Fred' stating about Mozart's music "... Too much notes, simply too much notes..." or a certain "Hanslick" making the same kind of statements about Bruckner Symphonies. 
There are a lot of false ideas about Bruckner and a lot of misunderstanding. Nobody would make the same comments on Beethoven or Mozart's music, why? Bruckner was certainly not the "Halb Trottel, Halb Genie" from Mahler (half idiot, half genius). He is one of the greatest symphonists (even the greatest, but that's subjective), he took over where Beethoven left. Brahms, Schubert tried but could not make it and they knew it. Bruckner did it, he took a lot of Beethoven and Schubert, and just a little bit of Wagner. It took him a life, a lot of bitterness to reach it.
Bruckner's music is not easy, it needs a lot of listening, it needs an open soul, let the waves flow and you will be rewarded. Bruckner thought music didn't need textual poetry and by essence music is poetry or drama. The symphony was "per se" the ultimate form of expression.
All the symphonies of Bruckner are pure masterpieces, there's no weak symphony. The symphonies are a whole and each symphony taken individually represents the whole.
Concerning the interpretation of the symphonies there's no evident choice (exception made for the second and ninth symphonies where Giulini is like an Extraterrestrial ) and a lot of good contenders among them:
Jochum
Karajan
Böhm
Wand
Celibidache
Tintner
Horenstein (5)
Boulez (8)
Van Beinum (8)
Klemperer (6)
Klaus Tennstedt (4)
Furtwängler (especially the 5th Live)

And certainly a lot of others... :angel:

I started Bruckner with the 8th by Jochum with the Philharmonisches Staatsorchester Hamburg and never stopped..


----------



## Manxfeeder

Pestouille said:


> I can understand someone not liking Bruckner, but I hate stupid statements about length of symphonies. It remembers me a certain 'Fred' stating about Mozart's music "... Too much notes, simply too much notes..." or a certain "Hanslick" making the same kind of statements about Bruckner Symphonies.


I remember once on KUSC radio, after playing a Bruckner symphony, Jim Svejda commented, "Once again we find the same fault in this symphony that is typical of all Bruckner's symphonies - it is too short."


----------



## Manok

The only person I have a length issue with is Wagner, other than that, I'll listen to most anything if it's got a good tune, or appeals to me in some way. I've listened to about 3 of the symphonies, instead of doing them in order, or even all at once, I figured a new approach would be to listen to them one at a time when the mood struck, to see if I have a more favorable impression. So far it seems to be working.


----------



## cunhaecouto

Bruckner has a big potential but he's too formal what provoke boring.
I think that best pieces from Bruckner are Symphony no.4 and the Symphony no.9.


----------



## afterpostjack

I had been listening to some of Bruckner's music from time to time. I didn't find it too special until I discovered the last movement of his 9th (november of last year), conducted by Giulini (VPO). I was blown away by its profundity, and from there on Bruckner has easily been my favorite symphonist, above Beethoven, Schubert, Mahler and Tchaikovsky (which I also really like). I finally understood Bruckner! I think his last 3 symphonies are the most accessible ones, you should familiarize yourself with these and then work your way toward the earlier ones. I think all of his symphonies are masterpieces.


----------



## ClassicalDJ

Tapkaara said:


> (Again, I really have a thing for "getting to the point" in music.)


I don't think Bruckner takes much time at all to "get to the point." I seems more to me that his music basks in these glorious "points" for far longer than most other composers would dare allow (do not mistake me for saying his music resembles minimalism, which I despise for the most part). I love Bruckner's symphonies; after reading this thread I am embarrassed that I have not heard the 1st or 2nd. Who can recommend to me a good recording of these?


----------



## Manxfeeder

ClassicalDJ said:


> I don't think Bruckner takes much time at all to "get to the point." It seems more to me that his music basks in these glorious "points" for far longer than most other composers would dare allow.


Well said. I'm really into glorious points.


----------



## davinci

ClassicalDJ said:


> I don't think Bruckner takes much time at all to "get to the point." I seems more to me that his music basks in these glorious "points" for far longer than most other composers would dare allow (do not mistake me for saying his music resembles minimalism, which I despise for the most part). I love Bruckner's symphonies; after reading this thread I am embarrassed that I have not heard the 1st or 2nd. Who can recommend to me a good recording of these?


B1... Daniel Barenboim / BPO on Teldec
B2...Carlo Maria Giulini / Vienna Symphony Orch. on Testament ( better than Karajan's #2)


----------



## Vaneyes

davinci said:


> B1... Daniel Barenboim / BPO on Teldec
> B2...Carlo Maria Giulini / Vienna Symphony Orch. on Testament ( better than Karajan's #2)


Good choices, and credit DB for coupling the 1st with Helgoland.

I also recommend Sawallisch's 1st (Orfeo).


----------



## PetrB

kv466 said:


> Bruckner? I thought we were talking about Buckner here?


Yep, good ole Anton, if you like it big, if you like it long, and if you like it loud; if you like the same theme _identically_ iterated in all keys over the span of one movement _(which reminds me of the 'follow the bouncing ball' singalongs in movie theaters)_ which some find annoyingly and flamingly obvious, while others glory in their recollection of it and its reappearance -- then you just might be really keen on Bruckner


----------



## Stargazer

I personally couldn't get into Bruckner for the longest time. But I recently listened to his 7th again, and it blew me away! I guess I was just in the wrong frame of mind the first time I heard it. Anyways, I've been getting into a few of his others from there as well, he writes a mean slow movement!


----------



## Andreas

Stargazer said:


> I personally couldn't get into Bruckner for the longest time. But I recently listened to his 7th again, and it blew me away! I guess I was just in the wrong frame of mind the first time I heard it. Anyways, I've been getting into a few of his others from there as well, he writes a mean slow movement!


You're in good company. Conductor Georg Solti didn't connect with Bruckner either, until his friend the German philosopher Adorno suggested he try the Seventh. Solti did, fell in love with it and went on to become a great Brucknerian.


----------



## davinci

Nuukeer said:


> I had been listening to some of Bruckner's music from time to time. I didn't find it too special until I discovered the last movement of his 9th (november of last year), conducted by Giulini (VPO). I was blown away by its profundity, and from there on Bruckner has easily been my favorite symphonist, above Beethoven, Schubert, Mahler and Tchaikovsky (which I also really like). I finally understood Bruckner! I think his last 3 symphonies are the most accessible ones, you should familiarize yourself with these and then work your way toward the earlier ones. I think all of his symphonies are masterpieces.


My discovery of Bruckner was similar to yours. I listened to #1 and liked it somewhat, but then I moved to #9 to see how this composer had matured and I was hooked. Following some Brucknerian's advice I then listened to #7, 8, 9 for weeks before completing the cycle.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Vaneyes said:


> Good choices, and credit DB for coupling the 1st with Helgoland.
> 
> I also recommend Sawallisch's 1st (Orfeo).


Amen to Giulini and Sawallisch. Skrowaczewski is also excellent in the early symphonies.


----------



## Lukecash12

Manok said:


> So I began listening to Buckner today. My first impressions: epic and some happy place between classical and romantic. If you wanna know which, it was the first symphony.


The first has to be my favorite, emotionally. Pastoral symphonies are a weakness of mine. But I didn't find his first to be the most interested. The verdict is still out for me when it comes to that.


----------

