# Why don't I like the finale of Bruckner 5?



## BoggyB

I'm a huge fan of Bruckner's symphonies, mainly 4-9, but among all the movements, there's one I actually dislike, and it is the finale of number 5. To me it's as if he'd run out of ideas and just knocked something up, drawing from material from the first movement. I've listened to a few different recordings and I've given it second chances, but to no avail. I just don't geddit.

What do other Brucknerians think? I've read something about a fugue or fugue-esque structure in the movement, and I wonder if that's the essence of this, for I don't care much for those fancy intellectual Baroque forms.


----------



## helenora

will listen to it again tomorrow and I´ll let you know my ideas on this subject


----------



## elgar's ghost

I respect your opinion but I have to disagree - I think the way in which the final movement revisits material from the monumental first movement in order to round the symphony off is both satisfying and - in the structural context of the whole work - logical.


----------



## Mahlerian

It's one of the best movements in Bruckner's output, if not the best. There are several fugues in the movement, but it's primarily structured in sonata form, the same as Bruckner's other finales. The way its intricate counterpoint adds more and more layers until the final chorale makes for a breathtaking display of contrapuntal virtuosity. The inevitability of the climax makes it all the more overwhelming.

Incidentally, the movement not only revisits material from the first movement, but from the inner movements as well, with a brief reference to their opening ostinati in dialogue with the clarinet that will become the driving theme of the first section, a la Beethoven's Ninth.


----------



## Pugg

elgars ghost said:


> I respect your opinion but I have to disagree - I think the way in which the final movement revisits material from the monumental first movement in order to round the symphony off is both satisfying and - in the structural context of the whole work - logical.


Amen to this answer:tiphat:


----------



## Guest

BoggyB said:


> I'm a huge fan of Bruckner's symphonies, mainly 4-9, but among all the movements, there's one I actually dislike, and it is the finale of number 5. To me it's as if he'd run out of ideas and just knocked something up, drawing from material from the first movement. I've listened to a few different recordings and I've given it second chances, but to no avail. I just don't geddit.
> 
> What do other Brucknerians think? I've read something about a fugue or fugue-esque structure in the movement, and I wonder if that's the essence of this, for I don't care much for those fancy intellectual Baroque forms.


If it's any consolation, I have yet to be 'bitten' by Bruckner at all.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Pugg said:


> Amen to this answer:tiphat:


Thank you, and also thanks to Mahlerian for his excellent response.


----------



## BoggyB

Thanks for the replies.



Mahlerian said:


> It's one of the best movements in Bruckner's output, if not the best. There are several fugues in the movement, but it's primarily structured in sonata form, the same as Bruckner's other finales. The way its intricate counterpoint adds more and more layers until the final chorale makes for a breathtaking display of contrapuntal virtuosity. The inevitability of the climax makes it all the more overwhelming.


This interests me greatly, the fact that a Mahlerian rates the movement so highly when I myself don't "get" most of Mahler's music. It isn't just random liking and disliking. I wonder which Mahler symphonies are most appreciated by Brucknerians? For me, it's number 2.



> Incidentally, the movement not only revisits material from the first movement, but from the inner movements as well, with a brief reference to their opening ostinati in dialogue with the clarinet that will become the driving theme of the first section, a la Beethoven's Ninth.


(Yes, I remember that too.)


----------



## helenora

I've refreshed my memory 

well, I don't think we should try to explain something in terms of forms or structure of thems and how brilliantly it was composed ( or not brilliantly, just joking) , but my point is that analysis hardly even can explain why it is beautiful or valuable ( if we would like to use this word), because saying the same words, giving an example of the same analysis we could have come to an absolutely different conclusion ...because many other composers and less known have used fugue forms, may be not in Finale, but anyway, they used instruments "dialogues" - it's one of the most common "tools" composers of all nationalities and talents use....etc, etc, therefore by saying it's great and beautiful, etc because of this and that doesn't explain why one should like this work.....and should one? why? 

in fact it is true for any art forms: if in painting one artist began to use "perspective" one day and sort of revolutionized this type of art, it doesn't deny the "greatness" and " value" of previous artists who didn't use "perspective", the same as new tendency doesn't negate greatness and beauty of the others....but well, ok, here it's about style, it's not about forms and compositions, or any other factors , etc.....But what I'm trying to point to is that our subjective opinions of greatness/beauty and significance of any work of art can't be explained in technical terms to which forms, composition, style, orchestration, etc belong. 

It's about what an artist say and how it resonates in you, for yourself , in your life, etc
So, some things are to be "understood" appreciated at certain moments, or in other words some works of art speak to us when we are ready to listen to them ( here "listen" is not in musical sense ). If Bruckner's finale of this symphony or any other work isn't yet "yours", no need to force yourself in an attempt to get it, to like it, let alone to compare yourself/ your taste with tastes of others, because for each person it will be different, we all have different experiences, including experience as listeners. No need to worry about this symphony or any other. Time will come and this music will speak to you and you'll understand that it was not about being fugue or non-fugue, or else and then when you understand it and it will be a revelation for you....


----------



## BoggyB

helenora said:


> I've refreshed my memory
> 
> well, I don't think we should try to explain something in terms of forms or structure of thems and how brilliantly it was composed ( or not brilliantly, just joking) , but my point is that analysis hardly even can explain why it is beautiful or valuable ( if we would like to use this word), because saying the same words, giving an example of the same analysis we could have come to an absolutely different conclusion ...because many other composers and less known have used fugue forms, may be not in Finale, but anyway, they used instruments "dialogues" - it's one of the most common "tools" composers of all nationalities and talents use....etc, etc, therefore by saying it's great and beautiful, etc because of this and that doesn't explain why one should like this work.....and should one? why?
> 
> in fact it is true for any art forms: if in painting one artist began to use "perspective" one day and sort of revolutionized this type of art, it doesn't deny the "greatness" and " value" of previous artists who didn't use "perspective", the same as new tendency doesn't negate greatness and beauty of the others....but well, ok, here it's about style, it's not about forms and compositions, or any other factors , etc.....But what I'm trying to point to is that our subjective opinions of greatness/beauty and significance of any work of art can't be explained in technical terms to which forms, composition, style, orchestration, etc belong.
> 
> It's about what an artist say and how it resonates in you, for yourself , in your life, etc
> So, some things are to be "understood" appreciated at certain moments, or in other words some works of art speak to us when we are ready to listen to them ( here "listen" is not in musical sense ). If Bruckner's finale of this symphony or any other work isn't yet "yours", no need to force yourself in an attempt to get it, to like it, let alone to compare yourself/ your taste with tastes of others, because for each person it will be different, we all have different experiences, including experience as listeners. No need to worry about this symphony or any other. Time will come and this music will speak to you and you'll understand that it was not about being fugue or non-fugue, or else and then when you understand it and it will be a revelation for you....


Thanks for the long reply - although you seemingly didn't need to refresh yourself 

I agree with what you say, that the music "in itself" is what counts rather than structure, although some listeners find that structure/form enhances the effect, and indeed I have a theory that some mathematically/logically minded people go on structure quite heavily. I'm a romanticist in this respect, in that I like it good, raw. If a composer wants to conform to all kinds of rules, he must make sure that the end product sounds good to a person who is ignorant of the rules. This was or is sort of my theory about this particular movement.


----------



## helenora

BoggyB said:


> Thanks for the long reply - although you seemingly didn't need to refresh yourself
> 
> I agree with what you say, that the music "in itself" is what counts rather than structure, although some listeners find that structure/form enhances the effect, and indeed I have a theory that some mathematically/logically minded people go on structure quite heavily. I'm a romanticist in this respect, in that I like it good, raw. If a composer wants to conform to all kinds of rules, he must make sure that the end product sounds good to a person who is ignorant of the rules. This was or is sort of my theory about this particular movement.


quite. Form and style and all the rest they are all means of expression of an idea, sentiments or anything else , they are to serve, to help an artist to express what he wanted to express and for us to understand. That´s exactly what you've said, that even not a very experienced in those existing rules should be able to understand it without going deep into analyzing a structure of a piece. I understand this fascination and charm of digging deep into a particular piece of music, it´s natural as well, it enhances our experience, it´s fun, but definitely it´s not a necessity and it shouldn't be an objective necessity for understanding music and in many cases it comes naturally , the more one listens more details, comparisons and similarities one can see and learn that even between styles and epochs are interconnected not only through ideas , but through musical material as well.


----------



## znapschatz

MacLeod said:


> If it's any consolation, I have yet to be 'bitten' by Bruckner at all.


Same here. I try to keep an open mind, but so far, no love. I have read that Bruckner's work was tampered with, and/or requires more finesse than many of its interpretations can muster, so I am hoping that someday, I'll "get" his work. But for now, that's the best I can muster.


----------



## Manxfeeder

znapschatz said:


> Same here. I try to keep an open mind, but so far, no love. I have read that Bruckner's work was tampered with, and/or requires more finesse than many of its interpretations can muster, so I am hoping that someday, I'll "get" his work. But for now, that's the best I can muster.


I'll have to admit, the first time I heard the 5th, or anything by Bruckner, it was a recording by Solti, and I hated it, thinking life's too short for Bruckner. So I can relate to your experience. It wasn't until I stumbled onto Tintner's box set that his music made sense. Now I'm in the Bruckner fanatic camp. I find myself somewhat unwittingly accumulating Bruckner symphony cycles.

For me, the right recording made all the difference, and I hope you find the one that opens your ears.


----------



## Mahlerian

BoggyB said:


> This interests me greatly, the fact that a Mahlerian rates the movement so highly when I myself don't "get" most of Mahler's music. It isn't just random liking and disliking. I wonder which Mahler symphonies are most appreciated by Brucknerians? For me, it's number 2.


Well, I am a Brucknerian too, though to a lesser extent than I am a Mahlerian. I think that Bruckner's best symphonies are the Third (1873 only), Fourth (1880), Fifth, Eighth (1890), and Ninth. The Sixth and Seventh both have a great first two movements followed by lesser scherzos and finales. I think that the most Brucknerian movement in all of Mahler is the scherzo of the First:






It is certainly true that the more Mahler developed, the less Brucknerian (and more modernist) he became, though I've long felt that the finale of the Ninth contains a reference to the adagio of Bruckner's Ninth with its opening gesture spanning a minor ninth.



BoggyB said:


> I agree with what you say, that the music "in itself" is what counts rather than structure, although some listeners find that structure/form enhances the effect, and indeed I have a theory that some mathematically/logically minded people go on structure quite heavily. I'm a romanticist in this respect, in that I like it good, raw. If a composer wants to conform to all kinds of rules, he must make sure that the end product sounds good to a person who is ignorant of the rules. This was or is sort of my theory about this particular movement.


You're missing the point of theory. Structure is merely a description of what you're hearing. All of theory ideally acts as nothing more than a way of codifying the experience of a piece of music. Obviously the way it sounds is the thing that matters, but there's no separation between the form of the music and the music as sounding (although there can be differences between those and the music as perceived).

I'm not aware of any music that requires awareness of "rules" for enjoyment (nor any strict rules that apply to music).


----------



## Orfeo

Mahlerian said:


> Well, I am a Brucknerian too, though to a lesser extent than I am a Mahlerian. I think that Bruckner's best symphonies are the Third (1873 only), Fourth (1880), Fifth, Eighth (1890), and Ninth. The Sixth and Seventh both have a great first two movements followed by lesser scherzos and finales. I think that the most Brucknerian movement in all of Mahler is the scherzo of the First:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is certainly true that the more Mahler developed, the less Brucknerian (and more modernist) he became, though I've long felt that the finale of the Ninth contains a reference to the adagio of Bruckner's Ninth with its opening gesture spanning a minor ninth.
> 
> You're missing the point of theory. Structure is merely a description of what you're hearing. All of theory ideally acts as nothing more than a way of codifying the experience of a piece of music. Obviously the way it sounds is the thing that matters, but there's no separation between the form of the music and the music as sounding (although there can be differences between those and the music as perceived).
> 
> I'm not aware of any music that requires awareness of "rules" for enjoyment (nor any strict rules that apply to music).


Would you say that the finale of Mahler's Seventh Symphony has a certain Brucknerian feel to it at moments (the brass chorales for instance) or some of the rusticity yet nobleness of the strings, at say, 1:08:31 (can's pinpoint the bars or figures), but here's the Youtube performance:


----------



## helenora

Mahlerian said:


> You're missing the point of theory. Structure is merely a description of what you're hearing. All of theory ideally acts as nothing more than a way of codifying the experience of a piece of music. Obviously the way it sounds is the thing that matters, but there's no separation between the form of the music and the music as sounding (although there can be differences between those and the music as perceived).
> 
> I'm not aware of any music that requires awareness of "rules" for enjoyment (nor any strict rules that apply to music).


exactly , here it is the always present problem of a form vs content. right , in music the very form of expression becomes its content. even in other arts form can play part of a content, can at least contain or contribute to the content.....


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Manxfeeder said:


> For me, the right recording made all the difference, and I hope you find the one that opens your ears.


I needed around 30 years of listening to music before Bruckner bit me. I'd certainly been "bitten" by Beethoven, Wagner, Berlioz, Mahler, Shostakovich, Messiaen, Stockhausen and the entire Second Viennese School - so it wasn't as if I was immune to "difficult/serious" music in any way, shape or form. Then I heard Celibidache's recordings of Bruckner, and the penny finally dropped.


----------



## BoggyB

I've read about the Bruckner Thunderbolt, whereby people are instantly hooked, but I, like some others here, needed time to get into him. Indeed, when I heard his 6th symphony in my early-to-mid twenties I wasn't particularly impressed, but now I'm holding that up as possibly my favourite.

Funny how different people like different conductors/recordings. Manxfeeder mentioned Tintner, yet lots of reviewers regard those Naxos Australian recordings as ropey. I'm not _that_ sensitive to different recordings nor indeed different versions, finding that the speed is more important. The slow movement of number 6, for example, for me should last 18+ mins, not 15.

Mahlerian, I love that your list of favourites is more or less the whole suite from 3 to 9


----------



## Mahlerian

BoggyB said:


> Mahlerian, I love that your list of favourites is more or less the whole suite from 3 to 9


I told you I was a Brucknerian.


----------



## Mahlerian

Orfeo said:


> Would you say that the finale of Mahler's Seventh Symphony has a certain Brucknerian feel to it at moments (the brass chorales for instance) or some of the rusticity yet nobleness of the strings, at say, 1:08:31 (can's pinpoint the bars or figures), but here's the Youtube performance:


Maybe in texture or gesture, but certainly not on any other level. The harmony and the way the movement moves from one thing to another rapidly and unpredictably are alien to Bruckner's style.


----------



## helenora

BoggyB said:


> I've read about the Bruckner Thunderbolt, whereby people are instantly hooked, but I, like some others here, needed time to get into him. Indeed, when I heard his 6th symphony in my early-to-mid twenties I wasn't particularly impressed, but now I'm holding that up as possibly my favourite.
> 
> Funny how different people like different conductors/recordings. Manxfeeder mentioned Tintner, yet lots of reviewers regard those Naxos Australian recordings as ropey. I'm not _that_ sensitive to different recordings nor indeed different versions, finding that the speed is more important. The slow movement of number 6, for example, for me should last 18+ mins, not 15.
> 
> Mahlerian, I love that your list of favourites is more or less the whole suite from 3 to 9


absolutely, tempo is a key point in performing Bruckner! 
the same for me , Adagio from 6th should be ADAGIO and not Moderato


----------



## Becca

_"For all conductors, performing Bruckner's symphonies is among the most demanding of tasks. It is easy to forget that due to their sheer duration alone, they also pose a great, physical challenge for orchestral musicians. Here, Matthew Hunter (viola), Thomas Leyendecker (trombone), Albrecht Mayer (principal oboe), Christian Stadelmann (leader of the second violins), Stefan de Leval Jezierski (horn), Máté Szűcs (1st principal viola) and Marlene Ito (second violins), all members of the Berliner Philharmoniker, talk about their experiences with the composer: the necessity for patience and the risk of exaggeration in interpreting these monumental symphonies, and of playing together with great Bruckner conductors such as Daniel Barenboim, Herbert Blomstedt, Sergiu Celibidache and Günter Wand."_

https://www.digitalconcerthall.com/en/interview/22410-5

(Access to this video is free but you do need to register which is also free)


----------



## znapschatz

helenora said:


> I've refreshed my memory
> 
> well, I don't think we should try to explain something in terms of forms or structure of thems and how brilliantly it was composed ( or not brilliantly, just joking) , but my point is that analysis hardly even can explain why it is beautiful or valuable ( if we would like to use this word), because saying the same words, giving an example of the same analysis we could have come to an absolutely different conclusion ...because many other composers and less known have used fugue forms, may be not in Finale, but anyway, they used instruments "dialogues" - it's one of the most common "tools" composers of all nationalities and talents use....etc, etc, therefore by saying it's great and beautiful, etc because of this and that doesn't explain why one should like this work.....and should one? why?
> 
> in fact it is true for any art forms: if in painting one artist began to use "perspective" one day and sort of revolutionized this type of art, it doesn't deny the "greatness" and " value" of previous artists who didn't use "perspective", the same as new tendency doesn't negate greatness and beauty of the others....but well, ok, here it's about style, it's not about forms and compositions, or any other factors , etc.....But what I'm trying to point to is that our subjective opinions of greatness/beauty and significance of any work of art can't be explained in technical terms to which forms, composition, style, orchestration, etc belong.
> 
> It's about what an artist say and how it resonates in you, for yourself , in your life, etc
> So, some things are to be "understood" appreciated at certain moments, or in other words some works of art speak to us when we are ready to listen to them ( here "listen" is not in musical sense ). If Bruckner's finale of this symphony or any other work isn't yet "yours", no need to force yourself in an attempt to get it, to like it, let alone to compare yourself/ your taste with tastes of others, because for each person it will be different, we all have different experiences, including experience as listeners. No need to worry about this symphony or any other. Time will come and this music will speak to you and you'll understand that it was not about being fugue or non-fugue, or else and then when you understand it and it will be a revelation for you....


Could happen. That's why I don't like to close doors.


----------



## Orfeo

Mahlerian said:


> Maybe in texture or gesture, but certainly not on any other level. The harmony and the way the movement moves from one thing to another rapidly and unpredictably are alien to Bruckner's style.


I see.
Thank you Mahlerian.


----------



## Xenakiboy

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


----------



## Pugg

znapschatz said:


> Could happen. That's why I don't like to close doors.


Every door can be opened , that is if you want to.


----------



## helenora

Becca said:


> _"For all conductors, performing Bruckner's symphonies is among the most demanding of tasks. It is easy to forget that due to their sheer duration alone, they also pose a great, physical challenge for orchestral musicians. Here, Matthew Hunter (viola), Thomas Leyendecker (trombone), Albrecht Mayer (principal oboe), Christian Stadelmann (leader of the second violins), Stefan de Leval Jezierski (horn), Máté Szűcs (1st principal viola) and Marlene Ito (second violins), all members of the Berliner Philharmoniker, talk about their experiences with the composer: the necessity for patience and the risk of exaggeration in interpreting these monumental symphonies, and of playing together with great Bruckner conductors such as Daniel Barenboim, Herbert Blomstedt, Sergiu Celibidache and Günter Wand."_
> 
> https://www.digitalconcerthall.com/en/interview/22410-5
> 
> (Access to this video is free but you do need to register which is also free)


yes, as they say"the more I play , the more I like it".....it relates to a listener as well, the more I listen, the more I like it and want to listen to and see new things in the same composition.
It´s so true when they compare him with Schubert, it´s simple and clean.


----------



## superhorn

Boggy B, I agree totally with Mahlerian , and couldn't have described the music better myself . Thanks, dude . 
This movement is very long and complex , and not easy to digest by any means .Please, give it and the whole symphony repeated hearings, and it just might "click" with you . The Bruckner 5th is also the only movement in which he makes use of s slow introduction to the first movement . This is also true of the finale .


----------



## BoggyB

I haven't heard it for the last time, that's for sure.


----------



## Marsilius

I can't answer your question as to _why_ you don't like it. However, you might find that your opinion changes if you listen to the Schalk version. That's the first published version of the score and nowadays is often discounted as inauthentic. However, it's what most conductors played until the 1930s. The great Hans Knappertsbusch recorded a fantastic version with the Vienna Philharmonic in the 1950s and that's been regularly re-released by Decca ever since. Leon Botstein has also made a more modern recording. Schalk's is a far more (superficially) exciting, triumphalist and brass and percussion heavy version of the finale, especially in Knappertsbusch's recording.


----------



## Mahlerian

Marsilius said:


> I can't answer your question as to _why_ you don't like it. However, you might find that your opinion changes if you listen to the Schalk version. That's the first published version of the score and nowadays is often discounted as inauthentic. However, it's what most conductors played until the 1930s. The great Hans Knappertsbusch recorded a fantastic version with the Vienna Philharmonic in the 1950s and that's been regularly re-released by Decca ever since. Leon Botstein has also made a more modern recording. Schalk's is a far more (superficially) exciting, triumphalist and brass and percussion heavy version of the finale, especially in Knappertsbusch's recording.


Yeah, but it's also structurally hobbled by some major cuts that make the movement next to incoherent.


----------



## Merl

BoggyB said:


> Funny how different people like different conductors/recordings. Manxfeeder mentioned Tintner, yet lots of reviewers regard those Naxos Australian recordings as ropey.


All I had was a few of Inbal's recordings of Bruckner's symphonies (and didn't 'get' Bruckner) until about 10 years ago and I collected all of Tintner's set because Woolworths in Stockport were doing great deals on Naxos discs (5 for £5) when they were closing. I grabbed all of the Bruckner symphonies by Tintner ( I had to supplement one with an ex-local library copy) and I got him. I think it's a very good set.


----------



## Merl

Saying that, I prefer Skrowaczewski's account of the 5th to Tintner. :lol:


----------



## Marsilius

Mahlerian said:


> Yeah, but it's also structurally hobbled by some major cuts that make the movement next to incoherent.


...which won't necessarily, however, prevent the original poster from enjoying it in a purely visceral level.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

You know why. It should be easy for you to answer your own question. Why would you expect others to read your mind?


----------



## Larkenfield

Perhaps because the last movement can sound disjointed, episodic, two-steps forward and one step back, and the fugues can sound labored and heavy-ladened. It takes a great conductor to pull it off and get everything to hang together where it sounds like a cohesive whole. But I find great logic in Bruckner even if some of his movements seem to lack a steady momentum, such as the last movement of his 5th. When he turns on the power it's awesome, and there's also something triumphant when he turns on the full measure of his power at the end. Whew! He makes it.

I also like the composer, despite everything, because I feel that he never wrote a dishonest note in his life. It all sounds so authentic and real against all the seemingly insurmountable obstacles he encountered while he was alive in getting performed. Its inner core of steel and spiritual certainty seemed to have been tempered by the repeated rejections in his personal and creative life until he was finally accepted.


----------



## SmokeyBarnable

I don't find myself listening to the finale much, except for the coda of course. But I've always thought this was due to my deficiencies in grasping the musical logic. Love the first three movements though, especially the first (when it's not over-brassed).


----------



## BenG

Check out the YouTube video YouTuber 'Richard Atkinson' made about it. Now you'll love it.


----------



## Manxfeeder

BenG said:


> Check out the YouTube video YouTuber 'Richard Atkinson' made about it. Now you'll love it.


Wow! Thanks for the link.


----------



## merlinus

I love the entire 5th symphony, especially the fugues and counterpoint in the last movement, with the amazing brass.

My favorite versions include Jochum/RCO (Dec. 1986), Celibidache/MPO, and Eichhorn/Linz.


----------



## cyberstudio

The 5th is my favourite at this moment but I still can't help but think the finale is a copycat of Beethoven's 9th - the way a new theme emerges from a reprise of previous movements.

Bruckner has been my favourite composer since I was young and back then it was the 8th. When Sibelius remarked to Mahler regarding the symphony's logic and inner connection Mahler retorted that the symphony should be like the world. Now, Bruckner's 8th is the world, from the abyss of the underworld to the triumphant finish and the long journey in between. The 5th on the other hand is filled with logic and inner connection, predating Sibelius by decades and more than doubling him on length, while still maintaining the same organic evolving qualities. The 5th is such a monolithic unity that it is hard to enjoy any movement in isolation.

I still haven't fully grasped the 5th yet, and it is going to take a long time. At this point I only have Carl Schuricht's 1963 VPO, Celibidache/Munich and Jochum/Dresden. Owing primarily to the lower recording quality I could not recommend Carl Schuricht and I did not really prefer any one of the remaining two over the other - they are good in different ways. Maybe Jochum edges out but he is too dense and does not have the 'breathing' space, which Celibidache gets just right. However, virtually everybody says Jochum's Concertgebouw is better than his Dresden. I am still waiting for my Wand/Munich live recording set which contains the 5th to arrive.


----------



## gellio

My single favorite movement of any Bruckner symphony is the IV movement of No. 5. To each his own.


----------



## Guest

gellio said:


> To each his own.


Quite. I had another go at this symphony this morning, but I can't get past the introduction which sounds more like a finale, followed by his changing his mind constantly on what theme he wants to expose (exposit?), never mind develop.


----------



## Azol

Linking here the aforementioned analysis video.

B5 Finale is one of the best finales of the whole symphony genre.


----------



## Art Rock

Bruckner 5 is my least favourite of the mature symphonies (2-9), and that holds for the finale as well. Never really got into this work.


----------



## Faville

The finale of the fifth symphony is one of my favorite movements of all his symphonies, but it is utterly dependent upon the interpretation. The recording I have of Tintner in the Naxos cycle is dreadfully pedantic and if that were the one I heard first I would never think anything special of it. However, Barenboim with Berlin Philharmonic is electric and glorious.


----------



## DeepR

Bruckner 5 finale has to be one of the greatest moments in music, with the most triumphant ending ever. It's utter genius. I've been enjoying it on a near daily basis in the last months. I also can't get its themes out of my head. 
Particularly, Günter Wand, right here:






I don't know how or why it works for me, but it simply does. The final minutes light me up inside like nothing else at the moment. All I can say is that I simply listen, listen, listen and then listen some more and meanwhile it becomes better, better and even better still!
Bruckner knew exactly what he was doing with his themes, and he all laid it out in a dazzling, complex way, yet in the end it feels very "logical" to me. I say, Bruckner _beat_ music with this one.


----------



## Azol

I always try to turn off the live recording before applause kicks in.
Like floating up in heaven for a while before descending back down to the Earth.
The Fifth and the Ninth deserve this prolonged silence.


----------



## padraic

Since OP posted this over 3 years ago, I hope he likes it now...


----------

