# The I'm Addicted To Bruckner Thread



## Mirror Image

ATTENTION BRUCKNER FANS​







Let's face it ladies and gentlemen, we Bruckner fans are some sick individuals. I would say we're a lot sicker than the Mahler people, which I'm one of those too. 

Anyway, this thread is for all those who are addicted to this man's music. Please feel free to reveal your collections, latest purchases, why you enjoy his work, etc.

Here is my collection (so far):

- Symphonies 1-9 (9-CD set)
Orch: Berlin Philharmonic, Bavarian Radio Symphony
Cond: Eugen Jochum
Label: DG

- The Complete Symphonies (9-CD set)
Orch: Dresden Staatskapelle
Cond: Eugen Jochum
Label: EMI

- Symphony No. 00 'Study Symphony'
Orch: Royal Scottish National
Cond: Georg Tintner
Label: Naxos

-Symphonies 1-9 (9-CD set)
Orch: Cologne Radio Symphony
Cond: Gunter Wand
Label: RCA

-Symphony No. 4
Orch: Berlin Philharmonic
Cond: Sir Simon Rattle
Label: EMI

-Symphony No. 7
Orch: City of Birmingham Symphony
Cond; Sir Simon Rattle
Label: EMI

-Complete Symphonies (9-CD set)
Orch: Berlin Philharmonic
Cond; Karajan
Label: DG

-Symphonies (9-CD set)
Orch: Royal Concertgebouw
Cond: Bernard Haitink
Label: Philips

-Symphony No. 9
Orch: Berlin Philharmonic
Cond: Gunter Wand
Label: RCA

-The Nine Symphonies (9-CD set)
Orch: Berlin Philharmonic
Cond: Daniel Barenboim
Label: Warner Classics

-Symphony No. 8
Orch: Berlin Philharmonic
Cond: Gunter Wand
Label: RCA

-Symphony No. 4
Orch: Berlin Philharmonic
Cond; Gunter Wand
Label: RCA

-The Symphonies (10-CD set)
Orch: Royal Concertgebouw, Berlin Radio Symphony
Cond: Riccardo Chailly
Label: Decca

-Symphony No. 7
Orch: Berlin Philharmonic
Cond: Gunter Wand
Label; RCA

-Symphony No. 8
Orch: Vienna Philharmonic
Cond: Pierre Boulez
Label: DG

-Symphony No. 7
Orch: Vienna Philharmonic
Cond; Karajan
Label: DG

-Symphony No. 8 (2-CD set)
Orch; Vienna Philharmonic
Cond: Karajan
Label: DG

-Symphony No. 8
Orch: SWR Stuttgart Radio Symphony
Cond; Gunter Wand
Label: Profil

Symphony No. 4
Orch: Munich Philharmonic
Cond: Gunter Wand
Label: Profil

-Symphony No. 5
Orch: Munich Philharmonic
Cond: Gunter Wand
Label: Profil

Symphony No. 8
Orch: Vienna Philharmonic
Cond; Karl Bohm
Label: DG

-Symphony No. 7
Orch: Vienna Philharmonic
Cond: Karl Bohm
Label: DG

-Symphony No. 4
Orch: Vienna Philharmonic
Cond: Karl Bohm
Label: DG

-Symphonies 4 & 8 (2-CD set)
Orch: Berlin Philharmonic, London Philharmonic
Cond; Klaus Tennstedt
Label: EMI

-Symphony No. 9
Orch: Vienna Philharmonic
Cond: Carlo Maria Giulini
Label: DG

-Symphony No. 6
Orch: Dresden Staatskapelle
Cond: Bernard Haitink
Label: Profil


----------



## handlebar

Yikes!! I will need some time on this one as well.

Jim


----------



## Mirror Image

Lol...Jim! I'm sure you own more than I do. I'm about done with my Bruckner collection. I'm just filling in gaps now.

It seems I have quite more Bruckner that I thought I had!


----------



## PostMinimalist

I used to have the box set of Karajan BPO released in the 70s but like so many other things it got sold in the move out to Greece. Now I restrict my purchases to Naxos cheap and nasties unless it's something I really want to have, like the Abbado Mahler 7 recording. 

From a playing point of view Bruckner is for bodybuilders! The bass parts consist of pages of 8th notes in arpeggios all ff moving up in semitones for hours on end! Ok this is an exaaggeration but that's how it feels. Most orchestral players get through about half of the cycle in a carreer unless they are in a big powerhouse band like BPO or LSO. There is a tendancy to over play 3 and 4 in the repertoire. I've done the 4th about 5 times and the rest either once or not at all.

Bruckners saving grace for me is his choral work. His f minor mass is fantastic as is his Motet, 'Locus Iste'. For anyone who has not yet been weaned on to Bruckner, Locus Iste is a fine place to start no matter how unrepresentative it is of the symphonic material.


----------



## Conor71

I only have 2 Bruckner CD's in my collection :

The Complete Symphonies - Eugen Jochum/Staatskapelle Dresden









Masses 2 & 3, Te Deum & Motets









I really like the Disc(s) of Masses so I bought the Box set of Symphonies which I am finally starting to appreciate after several listens


----------



## David C Coleman

Anybody got the Celi set on EMI? My favourite Bruckner conductor is probably Eugen Jochum, with Wand coming close second. Tintner is also very good but suffers fron mediocre orchestras a lot of the time..


----------



## David C Coleman

post-minimalist said:


> I used to have the box set of Karajan BPO released in the 70s but like so many other things it got sold in the move out to Greece. Now I restrict my purchases to Naxos cheap and nasties unless it's something I really want to have, like the Abbado Mahler 7 recording.
> 
> From a playing point of view Bruckner is for bodybuilders! The bass parts consist of pages of 8th notes in arpeggios all ff moving up in semitones for hours on end! Ok this is an exaaggeration but that's how it feels. Most orchestral players get through about half of the cycle in a carreer unless they are in a big powerhouse band like BPO or LSO. There is a tendancy to over play 3 and 4 in the repertoire. I've done the 4th about 5 times and the rest either once or not at all.
> 
> Bruckners saving grace for me is his choral work. His f minor mass is fantastic as is his Motet, 'Locus Iste'. For anyone who has not yet been weaned on to Bruckner, Locus Iste is a fine place to start no matter how unrepresentative it is of the symphonic material.


PM I agree with you. The wonderful, eloquent sacred music is much overshadowed by the powerhouse symphonies. I think I would introduce a newcomer to the choral music before tackiling the symphonies. Also check out the String Quintet, reminiscent of late Beethoven and Schubert maybe!..


----------



## Mirror Image

post-minimalist said:


> I used to have the box set of Karajan BPO released in the 70s but like so many other things it got sold in the move out to Greece. Now I restrict my purchases to Naxos cheap and nasties unless it's something I really want to have, like the Abbado Mahler 7 recording.
> 
> From a playing point of view Bruckner is for bodybuilders! The bass parts consist of pages of 8th notes in arpeggios all ff moving up in semitones for hours on end! Ok this is an exaaggeration but that's how it feels. Most orchestral players get through about half of the cycle in a carreer unless they are in a big powerhouse band like BPO or LSO. There is a tendancy to over play 3 and 4 in the repertoire. I've done the 4th about 5 times and the rest either once or not at all.
> 
> Bruckners saving grace for me is his choral work. His f minor mass is fantastic as is his Motet, 'Locus Iste'. For anyone who has not yet been weaned on to Bruckner, Locus Iste is a fine place to start no matter how unrepresentative it is of the symphonic material.


I like that analogy about Bruckner's instrument parts being for bodybuilders. That makes total sense, because there is a good bit of repetition, but it is so unique to his language. I mean nobody sounds like Bruckner.

I'm ashamed that I haven't even listened to his sacred works yet. I will definitely check them out.


----------



## David C Coleman

Mirror Image said:


> I mean nobody sounds like Bruckner. QUOTE]
> 
> He made such a unique "noise" in late romantic Europe. Because so many of his musical colleagues failed to understand him and his music, many of them resorted to abuse (for ex. Brahms).
> 
> Even today there is still a lot of ignorance and mystery surrounding his music...


----------



## Bach

Don't be silly, Bruckner was a useless old fart next to Brahms - In many respects (inflated, bombastic structure and general meandering pointlessness) I would argue that Bruckner and his influence single handedly destroyed the entire symphonic genre. I'm quite sure that Mahler would have been far greater if Bruckner had never been born.


----------



## David C Coleman

You're entitled to your own opinion..I like him, I like Brahms too, poles apart I know, nobody is 'better' than anybody else. Variety is the spice of life..


----------



## Bach

He couldn't orchestrate either. It all just sounds like organ music.


----------



## David C Coleman

That's how he meant to make it sound. After all he was an organist.


----------



## Bach

I don't think he intended his orchestral writing to emulate an organ..


----------



## David C Coleman

I'm not saying Bruckner is the bees knees. He had many short-comings. But he had a particular vision for his music and it doesn't speak to everyone...Neither does a lot of other composers.


----------



## Mirror Image

This is some interesting commentary going on. I would just like to say that I love Bruckner's music no what people say about it.

Every composer has his detractors and his fans and you can certainly count me as a loyal fan.

Granted, his music is not for everyone, but I enjoy it.


----------



## David C Coleman

Amen, Brother!!....


----------



## Bach

I'm not trying to stop you liking him, I'm asking for someone to defend him properly.


----------



## Mirror Image

Bach said:


> I'm not trying to stop you liking him, I'm asking for someone to defend him properly.


I think there's something special about him that words can't do justice to, Bach. I wish I could be more forward in my opinion, but I just can't describe his music other than totally unique and so much of his own.

By the time we get to his Symphony No. 6 "Philosophical," I believe there is something very different happening in the music. I never studied a Bruckner score, so I can't explain what is happening in regards to the actual theory of the music, but there seems to be vulnerability in that symphony that I haven't heard at all prior to this one. It's like he's been deeply wounded mentally and he's telling us something very profound that he never told us before. A dark secret I suppose? I'm not sure, but I believe this symphony marked a very different turn for him and nothing was ever the same.

I think it's important, when listening to Bruckner or Mahler for that matter, to look at the big picture. Bruckner was notorious for revising his works. In fact, he spent much of his last years working on revisions of his first symphonies. I think towards the end his life he might became obsessed with how history will treat him. How he will be remembered, so he worked hard on trying to get his symphonies note perfect.

The sad reality is that no symphony is perfect. No music is perfect. You can strive to perfection but you will never achieve it. Nothing is without flaws and I think that is apart of what makes Bruckner so great. His symphonies are not perfect and they are challenging, but I think they contain some of the most beautiful melodies and harmonies I've heard.


----------



## Bach

Mm, I think Ravel and Mozart come immensely close to formal perfection.


----------



## David C Coleman

Bach said:


> I'm not trying to stop you liking him, I'm asking for someone to defend him properly.


Wonderful, mysterious openings, especially symphony 4, observance of many different tonal structures and orchestral colours. Huge climaxes and conclusions giving a sense of fulfillment and a feeling of triumph after toil.
Fantastic use of motifs themes and phrases, comprehensively developed which unites vastly complicated symphonic structures. 
Observance of past musical eras whilst, at the same time developing a highly unique style of music.

Yes, they are long. Yes they appear overblown, but try and compress one of his works and they sound worse..

Sorry I'm not a musical theorist, I just like what I hear....:angry:


----------



## Mirror Image

Bach said:


> Mm, I think Ravel and Mozart come immensely close to perfection.


Yes, they do. No question about it, but Ravel was a notorious perfectionist anyway. That's one reason why he's only written 88 works. He was another composer who kept revising and revising, but his pieces are complete ear candy. I believe Stravinsky described Ravel's music as that of a Swiss clockmaker or something to that affect.


----------



## Bach

I just feel that Mahler and Shostakovich would have been so much greater without his influence. 

Bruckner (like Mahler) has lovely moments but terribly tedious quarters of an hour. The 7th symphony is a prime example of this - beautiful for about 5 minutes per movement.


----------



## David C Coleman

Bach said:


> I just feel that Mahler and Shostakovich would have been so much greater without his influence.
> 
> But that's all hypothetical isn't it. It's difficult to know what a composer would sound like had he not been influenced by another composer.
> Unfortunitely, that's the way it is. I would say that was a mark of respect actually. BTW I don't see a lot of Bruckners music in Mahler, Wagner Yes!!


----------



## Mirror Image

Bach said:


> I just feel that Mahler and Shostakovich would have been so much greater without his influence.
> 
> Bruckner (like Mahler) has lovely moments but terribly tedious quarters of an hour. The 7th symphony is a prime example of this - beautiful for about 5 minutes per movement.


I don't think Mahler would be as great or as highly regarded today if didn't have that Bruckner influence. You certainly can't go back in history and tell Mahler to forget his influences.  You can't help what you're influenced by or who your influenced by.

In fact, here's an interesting nugget of information, a 17-year old Mahler was at the premiere of one of Bruckner's symphonies, I think it may have been No. 7, anyway, the premiere didn't go so great reviews and this upset Bruckner, but after the show ended Mahler walked up to Bruckner and told him that it was fantastic and he really enjoyed it.


----------



## Sid James

No one has mentioned *Istvan Kertesz*, *Wolfgang Sawallisch *or *Yevgeny Mavrinsky*. They all made some great recordings of Bruckner, but maybe they were not complete cycles but only one-offs. Anyway, in my collection presently I have Bruckner's _ Symphony No. 9_ with the Leningrad PO/Mavrinsky. A live recording in analogue, recorded around 1980 & it is an excellent performance.

About the Brahms vs Bruckner debate ignited by 'Bach' - this debate has been going on ever since their day & it will never stop. I think Brahms called Bruckner's symphonies 'massive boa-constrictors' but he was forgetting the similar length of his own concertos when he said that. I think they were both great composers. In a way, Brahms is more immediately accessible, but I also think that some of Bruckner's shorter symphonies (esp. _No. 6_) are also quite digestible for the novice. This is the first work I got to know by Bruckner.

Both men struggled against adversity in their lives, and their works talk to this. Brahms' came from a very poor family background - some accounts say that as a teenager he earned money by playing the piano in taverns & brothels! No wonder he stayed a bachelor & must have had quite a jaundiced view of women. Bruckner, on the other hand, came from simple rural origins & throughout his life had a few nervous breakdowns. He was definitely predisposed towards mental illness, much like Schumann & Smetana, but probably not as severe as them. This is probably why he didn't have many fruitful relationships with women - he was quite shy & awkward, from what I've read. & we all know of his devout Catholicism, which shines through in his symphonies.

I think Bruckner made a great impact on Mahler & Shostakovich. I don't think he had a negative influence, more the reverse. Bruckner took up where Beethoven's _9th_ left off, his symphonies beginning with vagueness & uncertainty & then organically building up the themes & ideas from nothingness. As has been said above, he was idolised by Mahler & his generation. The sheer expansiveness of his symphonies must have also inspired Shostakovich too, in a way.

Of course, as with any composer, there are aspects to Bruckner's music that are quite predictable. The format of his symphonies is the same, and I find the scherzos quite repetitive, especially their theme - trio - theme format. Nevertheless, the slow movements are some of the most sublime ever written & the finales often display quite complex counterpoint.

I only own Bruckner's 9th and the 'No. 0.' I really like these 'bookends.' Of what I've heard of his works, I'd say that the 7th is his finest work. But to me it is less emotionally gripping than the 9th. Such a magnificent torso the _9th_ is, like Schubert's _Unfinished Symphony _and _Quartet No. 12_.


----------



## Mirror Image

Andre said:


> No one has mentioned *Istvan Kertesz*, *Wolfgang Sawallisch *or *Yevgeny Mavrinsky*. They all made some great recordings of Bruckner, but maybe they were not complete cycles but only one-offs. Anyway, in my collection presently I have Bruckner's _ Symphony No. 9_ with the Leningrad PO/Mavrinsky. A live recording in analogue, recorded around 1980 & it is an excellent performance.
> 
> About the Brahms vs Bruckner debate ignited by 'Bach' - this debate has been going on ever since their day & it will never stop. I think Brahms called Bruckner's symphonies 'massive boa-constrictors' but he was forgetting the similar length of his own concertos when he said that. I think they were both great composers. In a way, Brahms is more immediately accessible, but I also think that some of Bruckner's shorter symphonies (esp. _No. 6_) are also quite digestible for the novice. This is the first work I got to know by Bruckner.
> 
> Both men struggled against adversity in their lives, and their works talk to this. Brahms' came from a very poor family background - some accounts say that as a teenager he earned money by playing the piano in taverns & brothels! No wonder he stayed a bachelor & must have had quite a jaundiced view of women. Bruckner, on the other hand, came from simple rural origins & throughout his life had a few nervous breakdowns. He was definitely predisposed towards mental illness, much like Schumann & Smetana, but probably not as severe as them. This is probably why he didn't have many fruitful relationships with women - he was quite shy & awkward, from what I've read. & we all know of his devout Catholicism, which shines through in his symphonies.
> 
> I think Bruckner made a great impact on Mahler & Shostakovich. I don't think he had a negative influence, more the reverse. Bruckner took up where Beethoven's _9th_ left off, his symphonies beginning with vagueness & uncertainty & then organically building up the themes & ideas from nothingness. As has been said above, he was idolised by Mahler & his generation. The sheer expansiveness of his symphonies must have also inspired Shostakovich too, in a way.
> 
> Of course, as with any composer, there are aspects to Bruckner's music that are quite predictable. The format of his symphonies is the same, and I find the scherzos quite repetitive, especially their theme - trio - theme format. Nevertheless, the slow movements are some of the most sublime ever written & the finales often display quite complex counterpoint.
> 
> I only own Bruckner's 9th and the 'No. 0.' I really like these 'bookends.' Of what I've heard of his works, I'd say that the 7th is his finest work. But to me it is less emotionally gripping than the 9th. Such a magnificent torso the _9th_ is, like Schubert's _Unfinished Symphony _and _Quartet No. 12_.


I think this sums up Bruckner very well Andre. He was a man who was misunderstood all his life. In fact, he's still misunderstood. There are those who love his work and those who completely dismiss him as kind of "Wagnerian fluff."

As I mentioned, every composer has his fans and critics. I love Bruckner's music so much though. It is powerful in it's sustained intensity. It is passionate. The melodies, the harmonies, the powerful rhythms, and overall instrumentation of his works are fantastic.

I would recommend you trying out Gunter Wand's Bruckner cycle on RCA, Andre. Wand is a dedicated Brucknerian with a great vision. Eugen Jochum, Daniel Barenboim, and Riccardo Chailly are also great Bruckner conductors. Bernard Haitink is also very good.

As far as Bruckner masterpiece goes, in my opinion, I think Symphony No. 8 is his best, in fact, just the adagio alone in this symphony is a masterpiece.


----------



## handlebar

I was going to post my collection over the weekend but became distracted by a garden planting.
I currently own the complete Barenboim Bruckner set, the Walter B9,Furtwangler's B7,B8, the Franz Welser-Most B5,Haitink's B1 and B3 as well as most of the Naxos series.

Jim


----------



## Mirror Image

handlebar said:


> I was going to post my collection over the weekend but became distracted by a garden planting.
> I currently own the complete Barenboim Bruckner set, the Walter B9,Furtwangler's B7,B8, the Franz Welser-Most B5,Haitink's B1 and B3 as well as most of the Naxos series.
> 
> Jim


Hey Jim, you don't own any of the Wand, Jochum, or Karajan recordings?

Let me tell you one of the best recordings of the 9th I've ever heard, this one:


----------



## handlebar

I forgot to include the Karajan B4 and B8. The final B8 was the best 8th ever by him.
I also have the Wand B6 and Jocum B4. I sold the Jocum and replaced that set with the Barenboim. While the Jocum was ok, I didn't care for some of the recordings.

Yes, that Wand B9 is spectacular.

Jim


----------



## Mirror Image

handlebar said:


> I forgot to include the Karajan B4 and B8. The final B8 was the best 8th ever by him.
> I also have the Wand B6 and Jocum B4. I sold the Jocum and replaced that set with the Barenboim. While the Jocum was ok, I didn't care for some of the recordings.
> 
> Yes, that Wand B9 is spectacular.
> 
> Jim


The Gunter Wand Bruckner recordings are my favorite. The Eugen Jochum was okay for it's time and there's no doubting his influence on other Brucknerians, but I think Gunter Wand just has Bruckner in his blood. I mean if you dedicate the last years of your life to Bruckner and nothing but, that says a lot about his passion and his dedication to his music.

I have own almost all the Wand Bruckner recordings now. The big box set on RCA is, in my opinion, essential listening for all fans of this composer's work as are his recordings with the BPO.


----------



## handlebar

Jocum preferred the Nowak editions and I prefer Haas. The brass writing seems better to my ears and although Nowak editions are slightly more popular, I find Haas to be a better version. The later symphonies don't have this issue fortunately.

Jim


----------



## EarlyCuyler

I won't post my entire Bruckner collection here, but I will say that I have over 20 recordings of the 8th alone...
Also, why should someone have to defend their tastes is music? Why should you ever be ashamed of what you like? They should have to defend, and be ashamed of, their ignorant statements about music however. Having said that, here is my defense of Bruckner... 

The easiest way I can sum it up...

Bruckner's music makes you believe in a higher power, and realize there is something more than what we have here on Earth. His undying faith is very inspirational. For someone with so many setbacks, personally, and musically the way he never lost his faith is truly an amazing thing. All this comes across to me in his music. Listen to the end of the third movement of his 9th Symphony, when the heavens open up, WOW. Plus, his music is so much fun to play!


----------



## Mirror Image

EarlyCuyler said:


> I won't post my entire Bruckner collection here, but I will say that I have over 20 recordings of the 8th alone...
> Also, why should someone have to defend their tastes is music? Why should you ever be ashamed of what you like? They should have to defend, and be ashamed of, their ignorant statements about music however. Having said that, here is my defense of Bruckner...
> 
> The easiest way I can sum it up...
> 
> Bruckner's music makes you believe in a higher power, and realize there is something more than what we have here on Earth. His undying faith is very inspirational. For someone with so many setbacks, personally, and musically the way he never lost his faith is truly an amazing thing. All this comes across to me in his music. Listen to the end of the third movement of his 9th Symphony, when the heavens open up, WOW. Plus, his music is so much fun to play!


That makes total sense. He was such a religious man, but you know, I also feel something very different in his symphonies. I can't explain it. It's like kind of a sadness. Even though he wrote in big structures and there's some very intense, grandiose moments, there's still something very human about them even they are quite far-reaching.


----------



## handlebar

Not only did he write in larger forms, he also composed in lower octaves. That's why his brass writing seems to give that "heavenly" or religious tone in my opinion. The voicing is certainly choral as well. He writes well for a chorus and therefore incorporates that in his orchestral music too. 

At least to my ears he does.

Jim


----------



## World Violist

Has anybody heard Osmo Vanska's recording of Bruckner 3 with the Glasgow BBC Scottish Symphony? It's supposedly very very good. Interesting thing about Vanska is that he is very much a champion of Bruckner on the concert stage (he has performed the whole cycle with the Minnesota Orchestra, so I gather, as well probably with the Lahti Symphony), but has never recorded any of the other symphonies.


----------



## Sid James

I forgot to mention that one of the great Bruckner interpreters of the past was *Bruno Walter*. I heard a recording of him conducting the B9 on the radio & it was superb.


----------



## Mirror Image

World Violist said:


> Has anybody heard Osmo Vanska's recording of Bruckner 3 with the Glasgow BBC Scottish Symphony? It's supposedly very very good. Interesting thing about Vanska is that he is very much a champion of Bruckner on the concert stage (he has performed the whole cycle with the Minnesota Orchestra, so I gather, as well probably with the Lahti Symphony), but has never recorded any of the other symphonies.


Yes, WV. I have heard great things about his Vanska's Bruckner recordings. I patiently await a box set.


----------



## World Violist

Mirror Image said:


> Yes, WV. I have heard great things about his Vanska's Bruckner recordings. I patiently await a box set.


Well you'll have to wait a good long while, if it ever happens; the Minnesota orchestra has recorded the 4th, and I assume it's in the editing thing or whatever (I read that it "is going to be" recorded in early 2009, according to a slightly older article (2008 or something). That's hopefully launching a cycle...


----------



## Mirror Image

World Violist said:


> Well you'll have to wait a good long while, if it ever happens; the Minnesota orchestra has recorded the 4th, and I assume it's in the editing thing or whatever (I read that it "is going to be" recorded in early 2009, according to a slightly older article (2008 or something). That's hopefully launching a cycle...


I can wait. I have a lot of Bruckner to listen to. As I mentioned earlier, Gunter Wand is my favorite Bruckner conductor. I feel strong connection to the way interprets the music.


----------



## Conor71

I have been enjoying my recent Bruckner listening so much that I am considering getting a second set of symphonies when I am able .
Do any of you have the Barenboim/BPO set and how do you rate it? - I would like a set with not quite so prominent brass if theres any that meet that criteria?


----------



## Mirror Image

C71 said:


> I have been enjoying my recent Bruckner listening so much that I am considering getting a second set of symphonies when I am able .
> Do any of you have the Barenboim/BPO set and how do you rate it? - I would like a set with not quite so prominent brass if theres any that meet that criteria?


The Barenboim set is excellent. I haven't listened to it all though, but from what I've heard it's really good.

I also recommend Gunter Wand's set on RCA and the individual releases with the Berlin Philharmonic:


----------



## handlebar

Andre said:


> I forgot to mention that one of the great Bruckner interpreters of the past was *Bruno Walter*. I heard a recording of him conducting the B9 on the radio & it was superb.


I agree with this assessment. The Bruckner 9th by Walter is among the crown jewels of his recorded legacy.

Jim


----------



## Mirror Image

I will also add that Riccardo Chailly's cycle on Decca is fantastic. A must for Bruckner fans!


----------



## EarlyCuyler

C71 said:


> I have been enjoying my recent Bruckner listening so much that I am considering getting a second set of symphonies when I am able .
> Do any of you have the Barenboim/BPO set and how do you rate it? - I would like a set with not quite so prominent brass if theres any that meet that criteria?


If you want a recording without prominent brass, you are missing a key ingredient in Bruckner. Thats almost like saying you want a violin concerto minus the violin. Barenboim's earlier Bruckner ventures with Chicago were much better than the Berlin set. I will recommend the Wand set though. Any Bruckner he did is amazing. If you're really concerned about hearing inner parts, check out the Celibidache recordings on EMI. They are VERY slow, but really bring out alot of inner parts.


----------



## Conor71

EarlyCuyler said:


> If you want a recording without prominent brass, you are missing a key ingredient in Bruckner. Thats almost like saying you want a violin concerto minus the violin. Barenboim's earlier Bruckner ventures with Chicago were much better than the Berlin set. I will recommend the Wand set though. Any Bruckner he did is amazing. If you're really concerned about hearing inner parts, check out the Celibidache recordings on EMI. They are VERY slow, but really bring out alot of inner parts.


Cheers for the recommendations - I am getting used to the prominent brass now and, as you say, can imagine that Bruckner would not be the same without it.
I have invested in a second set of symphonies and now own :
Jochum/Staatskapelle Dresden
Chailly/Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra & Deutsches Symphonie-Orchester Berlin


----------



## World Violist

My Bruckner at the moment is pitiful. I have never bought any Bruckner; all of what I own was given to me.

Symphony No. 4
Klemperer/Philharmonia
Bohm/VPO

Symphony No. 9
Klemperer/Phiharmonia

So yeah... I'm going to try to collect a cycle now, all different conductors, and see what I like.


----------



## Mirror Image

World Violist said:


> My Bruckner at the moment is pitiful. I have never bought any Bruckner; all of what I own was given to me.
> 
> Symphony No. 4
> Klemperer/Philharmonia
> Bohm/VPO
> 
> Symphony No. 9
> Klemperer/Phiharmonia
> 
> So yeah... I'm going to try to collect a cycle now, all different conductors, and see what I like.


WV, you're seeing the light. 

As with any composer of massive works like Bruckner, sometimes listening to several different recordings of say Symphony No. 5, for example, will make you appreciate it from a fuller spectrum.

This has happened to me with Beethoven recently. I had only heard a cycle by David Zinman and never really went back. I had recently bought a set by Claudio Abbado and the BPO and my eyes were open wide throughout the first disc and then more recently I heard Karajan and the BPO and I finally started to slowly recognize the true genius of this very popular and influential composer.

I think sometimes it just takes a completely different perspective altogether for us to appreciate a composer's work. Bruckner is no exception. He deserves to be given more time to soak in and digest.

Give him time my friend, give him time.


----------



## World Violist

Mirror Image said:


> WV, you're seeing the light.
> 
> As with any composer of massive works like Bruckner, sometimes listening to several different recordings of say Symphony No. 5, for example, will make you appreciate it from a fuller spectrum.
> 
> This has happened to me with Beethoven recently. I had only heard a cycle by David Zinman and never really went back. I had recently bought a set by Claudio Abbado and the BPO and my eyes were open wide throughout the first disc and then more recently I heard Karajan and the BPO and I finally started to slowly recognize the true genius of this very popular and influential composer.
> 
> I think sometimes it just takes a completely different perspective altogether for us to appreciate a composer's work. Bruckner is no exception. He deserves to be given more time to soak in and digest.
> 
> Give him time my friend, give him time.


Thank you for those words, they are appreciated. 

I had much the same experience with Sibelius. I had at first only the 2-disc set of Colin Davis and the BSO doing 3, 6, 7, the concerto, Tapiola, and Finlandia. It was an odd thing. I knew there was so much more to Sibelius--I could hear it in the music--but it just wasn't there.

My line-up at the moment includes Barenboim, Tintner, Vanska, Celibidache, Zander, Haitink, Karajan, Wand, and Bernstein. I'll go on from there. Haha.

It's interesting how for every great composer there's a whole new set of great conductors and orchestras for the music.


----------



## Mirror Image

Good luck in your discoveries.

Getting back to Bruckner's music, I'm listening to his Symphony No. 6, which hasn't been recorded that much outside a symphonic cycle. I'm listening to Bernard Haitink and the Dresden Skaatskapelle right now.

This brings me to my next question for everybody to answer: what is your favorite Bruckner symphony?


----------



## David C Coleman

Mirror Image said:


> Good luck in your discoveries.
> 
> Getting back to Bruckner's music, I'm listening to his Symphony No. 6, which hasn't been recorded that much outside a symphonic cycle. I'm listening to Bernard Haitink and the Dresden Skaatskapelle right now.
> 
> This brings me to my next question for everybody to answer: what is your favorite Bruckner symphony?


All of them I guess!!!... no. 8 is an enormously complex and long work. But love the Adagio and Finale, especially...(Haas version preferred becaus it feels more balanced. Novak has too many important parts chopped)..

Still getting into Nos 3 backwards....Adagio to No 2 also very beautiful and interesting..


----------



## EarlyCuyler

World Violist said:


> My Bruckner at the moment is pitiful. I have never bought any Bruckner; all of what I own was given to me.
> 
> Symphony No. 4
> Klemperer/Philharmonia
> Bohm/VPO
> 
> Symphony No. 9
> Klemperer/Phiharmonia
> 
> So yeah... I'm going to try to collect a cycle now, all different conductors, and see what I like.


Of those that you do have, they are very very good. Hard to go wrong with Klemperer and Bohm in Bruckner...


----------



## handlebar

David C Coleman said:


> All of them I guess!!!... no. 8 is an enormously complex and long work. But love the Adagio and Finale, especially...(Haas version preferred becaus it feels more balanced. Novak has too many important parts chopped)..
> 
> .


The Haas edition 8th is also my favourite with the 9th a close second. While not a Karajan fan 99% of the time, I do adore his final DG recording of the 8th. For the 9th, Walter all the way!

Jim


----------



## David C Coleman

handlebar said:


> The Haas edition 8th is also my favourite with the 9th a close second. While not a Karajan fan 99% of the time, I do adore his final DG recording of the 8th. For the 9th, Walter all the way!
> 
> Jim


I recently heard a performance of no 8 given by Gunther Herbig on the radio. And he used elements of both Haas and Novak editions...very interesting. I'm not sure if he has just invented a new version!!!...


----------



## handlebar

David C Coleman said:


> I recently heard a performance of no 8 given by Gunther Herbig on the radio. And he used elements of both Haas and Novak editions...very interesting. I'm not sure if he has just invented a new version!!!...


Hmmmm. I most certainly want to hear that.

Jim


----------



## Dim7

Hey Bruckner fans, how much should I trouble my head with different versions of Bruckner's symphonies? Are the differences completely academic or are they relevant? Should I just go with the most popular version, or the last version, or what?


----------



## handlebar

There differences are not very profound except in the 4th, in my opinion. Some changes in brass lineups,positioning and ,of course, codas.
I prefer the Haas but that's due to being introduced to them at an early age and preferring the brass and string writing better in this version.
Personally, I would not get too tied up in deciding which version. Just listen to them and enjoy.

Jim


----------



## Mirror Image

Cmaj7 said:


> Hey Bruckner fans, how much should I trouble my head with different versions of Bruckner's symphonies? Are the differences completely academic or are they relevant? Should I just go with the most popular version, or the last version, or what?


I own many different versions of Bruckner's symphonies for several reasons, but the main one being that there are always differences in performances and the overall feel of that performance. Like, for example, let's take two remarkable performances of Symphony No. 9: one by Gunter Wand/Berlin Philharmonic and Carlo Maria Guilini/Vienna Philharmonic. Both performances are exemplary. The Wand is better in the inner movements of the symphony and has better control of the structure of piece, whereas, Guilini is more emotionally driven, which gives it more body and impact, but Guilini isn't as good with the smaller details as Wand. These differences make for two outstanding versions of this symphony. The overall tone of both of these recordings is also very different. Almost like night and day difference.

I think it's important to survey a composer's work with as many different versions as you can find, because each performance offers a new insight or a new level of richness to that piece.


----------



## Dim7

By different versions I didn't mean different recordings by different conductors/orchestras, I was talking about versions that actually have different scores. Usually I'm too lazy to try different recordings of the same work, I prioritize finding actual new music, though I might do that if I'm really obsessed with the piece or the sound quality is crappy.

So it seems that versions of 4th symphony have remarkable differences - I have the 1878/80 version, is any of the other versions perhaps better?


----------



## starry

Mirror Image said:


> me to my next question for everybody to answer: what is your favorite Bruckner symphony?


I suppose I need to listen to them all again, but really I would say the 7th is easily the best, probably followed by the 4th. And if I picked part of the 7th I would pick the first movement.


----------



## Dim7

starry said:


> I suppose I need to listen to them all again, but really I would say the 7th is easily the best, probably followed by the 4th. And if I picked part of the 7th I would pick the first movement.


Check this thread: http://www.talkclassical.com/5240-your-favorite-bruckner-symphony.html


----------



## Mirror Image

Cmaj7 said:


> By different versions I didn't mean different recordings by different conductors/orchestras, I was talking about versions that actually have different scores. Usually I'm too lazy to try different recordings of the same work, I prioritize finding actual new music, though I might do that if I'm really obsessed with the piece or the sound quality is crappy.
> 
> So it seems that versions of 4th symphony have remarkable differences - I have the 1878/80 version, is any of the other versions perhaps better?


Oh okay, I understand now.

There are several different versions of his symphonies.

Read about this on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bruckner_Problem


----------



## Frasier

Ah yes. Writing about writers who write about others who have written about Bruckner is an industry in itself now. After Horton's book (which seemed unnecessarily heavy going for what it had to say) I gave up and thought _just listen to the stuff_.


----------



## Mirror Image

Frasier said:


> Ah yes. Writing about writers who write about others who have written about Bruckner is an industry in itself now. After Horton's book (which seemed unnecessarily heavy going for what it had to say) I gave up and thought _just listen to the stuff_.


Exactly, after a while, it's just not important, but what is important is the music and that's what I evaluate.

I could careless how many different scores there are to a specific symphony. That's irrelevant to me. I care about the music and that is what gets the evaluation.


----------



## bassClef

Who knows anything about his Masses? I'm thinking of purchasing his Masses 1-3 and I've read that Matthew Best's interpretation is good.


----------



## Mirror Image

jezbo said:


> Who knows anything about his Masses? I'm thinking of purchasing his Masses 1-3 and I've read that Matthew Best's interpretation is good.


I haven't heard Bruckner's Masses. He's not really known for his vocal writing, so that's why I never pursued them.


----------



## Bach

His Te Deum is awful, so I don't blame you..


----------



## Mirror Image

Bach said:


> His Te Deum is awful, so I don't blame you..


What is one man's garbage is another man's treasure. But I'm not big fan of vocal works of any kind anyway, so that's one reason I never pursued it.

Speaking of awful, that Pierre Boulez fits that description just fine.


----------



## bdelykleon

Mirror Image said:


> What is one man's garbage is another man's treasure. But I'm not big fan of vocal works of any kind anyway, so that's one reason I never pursued it.
> 
> Speaking of awful, that Pierre Boulez fits that description just fine.


So _Le Marteau sans Maître_ must be your worst nightmare: a vocal work by Monsieur Boulez.


----------



## bassClef

Mirror Image said:


> I haven't heard Bruckner's Masses. He's not really known for his vocal writing, so that's why I never pursued them.


Opinion seems to be divided. I read that "Bruckner was one of the supreme masters of choral writing". I'd like to hear it myself before I dismiss it.


----------



## Mirror Image

jezbo said:


> Opinion seems to be divided. I read that "Bruckner was one of the supreme masters of choral writing". I'd like to hear it myself before I dismiss it.


Where did you read that at?


----------



## bassClef

... quote from Stephen Johnson, chief music critic of The Scotsman 68-89, and author of _"Bruckner Remembered"_. Also presenter of BBC Radio 3's _Discovering Music_, and regular contributor to _BBC Music Magazine_. Amazon's 2003 Classical Music Writer of the year. So probably knows more than any of us!


----------



## Bach

Probably being sarcastic..


----------



## Conservationist

jezbo said:


> Opinion seems to be divided. I read that "Bruckner was one of the supreme masters of choral writing". I'd like to hear it myself before I dismiss it.


Easy guide to Bruckner: anything that could sound good on a pipe organ that he wrote is probably excellent.

Still struggling with the different versions myself. He was the most introverted classical composer outside of Brahms.


----------



## Mirror Image

Conservationist said:


> He (Bruckner) was the most introverted classical composer outside of Brahms.


Disagreed. I don't think Bruckner was an introverted composer at all. I'm not even sure where you get this idea from. Have you actually heard a Bruckner symphony before? There's nothing introverted about them.


----------



## Conservationist

Mirror Image said:


> Disagreed. I don't think Bruckner was an introverted composer at all. I'm not even sure where you get this idea from. Have you actually heard a Bruckner symphony before? There's nothing introverted about them.


Anyone want to point out to him his obvious error?


----------



## Mirror Image

Conservationist said:


> Anyone want to point out to him his obvious error?


Does anyone want to point out the obvious error this poster has made when describing Bruckner's music?

He said he's an introverted composer. I think what this poster failed to notice is that Bruckner was influenced by Wagner, one of the most bombastic, emotionally driven composers of all-time.


----------



## Dim7

I wouldn't list Bruckner along with my favorite composers but I do enjoy his music. I usually like Mahler much more, to which Bruckner is often compared to. This is undersandable since they both wrote bombastic, unusually lengthy symphonies. However, they are bombastic in different ways. 

Mahler is more nervous and hysteric, moving from an extreme emotion to its polar opposite. There's often many swirling melodies going on at he same time. Bruckner on the other hand is bombastic in a calm, confident way. His worst tendency is his often annoying themes. The way they are repeated over and over again and heard clearly over the orchestra gives the impression of him saying "Look here, what a brilliant theme I came up with! This is the POINT of this movement!" which contradicts with the simple and uninteresting nature of these themes. I'm particularly thinking about the scherzo of the seventh. However, he was perhaps better with slow movements than Mahler (not that Mahler's ones were bad). 7th and 8th symphony have especially gorgeus adagios. 

Listening to Mahler makes me think about world-shattering events while Bruckner brings images of mighty mountains and grand landscapes.


----------



## Dedrater

Cmaj7 said:


> The way they are repeated over and over again and heard clearly over the orchestra gives the impression of him saying "Look here, what a brilliant theme I came up with! This is the POINT of this movement!"


That's part of what makes Bruckner so much more interesting than Mahler. Symphonies should have some semblance of aim or direction, and repetition is useful to that end -- even if the idea is 'short'. His confidence in the quality of his music (manifest most obviously in these proud melodies) is a positive thing, don't you think?


----------



## Dim7

Pure repetition doesn't create a feeling of aim or direction - development does. Mahler's themes are first of all more interesting on their own, plus he often twists them instead of blatant repetition. There's even some thematic recycling between the movements - something I'd like to hear more often in symphonies; afteall symphonies are supposed to have some unity and not be just arbitrary collection of unrelated parts.


----------



## Conservationist

Mirror Image said:


> He said he's an introverted composer. I think what this poster failed to notice is that Bruckner was influenced by Wagner, one of the most bombastic, emotionally driven composers of all-time.


Let's see that in context:



Conservationist said:


> Still struggling with the different versions myself. He was the most introverted classical composer outside of Brahms.


In English, words can mean multiple things. In this case, the personality is being described, not the music.

That didn't occur to you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect


----------



## Conservationist

Cmaj7 said:


> Pure repetition doesn't create a feeling of aim or direction - development does.


In Bruckner's case, it's often the order in which things are repeated/interrupted that creates a mood.


----------



## Mirror Image

Conservationist said:


> In Bruckner's case, it's often the order in which things are repeated/interrupted that creates a mood.


Absolutely, it's these cyclical and repeated phrases that make his music an aural delight. He is a master of phrasing. He will literally saturate a phrase and repeat until it reaches it's boiling point, this, for me, gives his music a lot of tension.


----------



## GraemeG

I've come very late to this, but it's why I joined the forum!

I've only the full set of symphonies with Jochum (DG), but other isolated works, (Karajan 8, Solti 6, Bohm 4, etc). I'm less happy with Jochum as the years go by - too much screwing around with tempi - and less happy with Novak versions in general (especially in the 8th). I have a suspicion that it was Jochum that Robert Simpson was referring to in his "Essence of Bruckner" book when he kept talking about conductors who 'fail to understand this…', as he says in various points in the text.

For those of you who love Bruckner, I would recommend Simpson's book unhesitatingly. Minimal biography or context, but extensive analysis of the music. Really excellent stuff.

I see some criticism of Bruckner in this thread - sad to see he still cops it after so many years! - although only in English, I suspect. If you'll indulge me, I'll post here a programme note I wrote for a performance of the sixth symphony in which I performed (I play violin in a amateur orchestra in Sydney, and we played the 6th - at my instigation - last year). You might be familiar with a lot of the biography stuff, but I try to argue a case for his music in general. Here it is:

"The strange case of Anton Bruckner almost defeats the imagination. If we consider the stories of his legendary personal naivety, his primitive provincial background, his total lack of general culture, his apparent failure to grasp even moderately intelligent ideas about life, either in writing or conversation, his absurd gullibility, his helpless shyness, his willingness to alter his own work at the behest of self-appointed mentors, and many other evidences of his inadequacy in the eyes of the brilliant and often derisive intellectual circles of Vienna, we may well wonder how such a creature could have become an artist of any kind." Thus begins the late Robert Simpson's 'The Essence of Bruckner', a loving study of the music of this misunderstood genius. Elsewhere, however, Simpson is at pains to dispense with the long-propagated view of Bruckner as some kind of composer-savant, for whom constant excuses need be made. The seemingly prosaic biography of a pious and humble man does not preclude the creation of great, original, and enduring musical achievement.

Bruckner was born in Ansfelden, in rural and deeply Catholic upper Austria in 1824, and in many ways he never left. Destined to follow in his fathers footsteps as a schoolmaster, his predilection for music manifested itself early as a choirboy at St Florian's Monastery, and later as an organist. Training as a schoolteacher began in Linz in 1840, but he persisted with organ studies, earning a reputation as a virtuoso improviser. He returned to St Florian in 1845 as assistant teacher, and in 1848 became provisional organist there. He also began to write organ and choral music.

Despite composing an attractive _Requiem_ (1849), and the formal appointment as organist at both St Florian's (1851) and Linz cathedral (1855), Bruckner felt the need for further study, and subjected himself to rigorous technical studies with Simon Sechter in Vienna, during which his compositional activities were restricted to academic exercises only. After six years of skull-cracking technical work, and an examination result at the Vienna _Konservatorium_ which prompted an examiner to remark "He should have examined _us_", Bruckner was awarded a diploma qualifying him to teach harmony and counterpoint. Astonishingly, he then turned to a junior man, Otto Kitzler, for further lessons in form and orchestration (1863-6). Kitzler introduced him to Wagner's vast, slow-moving musical canvases and Bruckner was captivated. After 'study' works, and three great _Masses_, he moved to Vienna in 1868 to embark on the symphonic form which was to provide the bulk of his life's musical challenge and achievement. A symphony was started and abandoned, he wrote Symphony No 1, and then completed the earlier work, assigning it the eccentric title _Die Nullte_ - Number 0. Symphony No 2 followed, along with a tour (as organist) of England in 1871, to inaugurate the Royal Albert Hall organ among other concert commitments. The enthusiasm of his reception prompted his remark "In England, my music is really understood"; ironic considering the widespread British disregard from which his compositions would suffer for the next century.

His next symphony changed his life's course. Following a meeting with Wagner, who accepted the dedication of the Third (1873), Bruckner was plunged into the bitter musical war between the supporters of Brahms and Wagner. Seized upon by the Wagnerites as a kind of symphonic sword to attack Brahms, Bruckner was not a man whose gentle, devout temperament equipped him for this kind of passionate rivalry. The situation placed a three-way strain on him. His own inner creative drive was propelling him in one musical direction ("They want me to compose in a different way; I could, but I must not"), all his academic qualifications and technical competence (attested to by his diplomas and accreditations - indeed he succeeded Sechter as lecturer at the University in 1875) conflicted with those, and now he had the urgings of other musicians pressing him to write 'Wagnerian' symphonies. Then, in 1877, having completed still-unperformed Fourth (1874) and Fifth (1876) symphonies, he was to suffer his greatest humiliation. The Vienna premiere of the Third Symphony (conducted by an inexpert Bruckner himself following the scheduled conductor's death) was a first-rate fiasco. Of the few audience members who remained in the hall by the end, many were hostile or scornful, and the orchestra promptly marched off the stage leaving him alone on the podium.

This catastrophe threw him into fits of revisions, and the composition of the Sixth Symphony (1881) was delayed by extensive - mostly ruinous - reworkings of the first three symphonies at the urging, and with active participation of, well-meaning but ultimately unhelpful friends. The Fifth remained unplayed in his lifetime, and he heard only the middle movements of the Sixth at a run-through in 1883. The Seventh (1883) was his one notable concert success, although it triumphed in German performances before coming to Vienna; indeed Bruckner was so fearful of its reception at the hands of Viennese critics he wrote to the Vienna Philharmonic in 1885 and asked them to postpone the performance lest it endanger his now-growing reputation.

Conductor Hermann Levi's critical rejection of the Eighth Symphony (1887) prompted another crisis of composing confidence by Bruckner, with revisions not only of the Eighth, but more changes to the First and Third symphonies. By the time Bruckner was seventy, he was working on the Ninth, destined for incompleteness, and we can only wonder in frustration at the _finale_ he might have written had so many years not been lost in unnecessary reworking of earlier compositions.

His reputation was only besmirched by the posthumous publication of much of his music, seen through the presses by those same friends who were so anxious to cut, change, re-orchestrate and Wagner-ise his music to make it "acceptable." These spurious editions did nothing for his credibility as a composer; but however much we regret his timorous acquiescence to the entreaties of his interfering friends, we can only be grateful for the foresight that compelled Bruckner to retain all the original scores for his works, many bequeathed to the National Library in Vienna, so that from the middle of last century, authentic editions of his works became available. The Sixth Symphony is an easy case; since Bruckner never revised the work, we may enjoy it without doubting his motivation for any subsequent changes.

Stylistically, Bruckner's musical roots lie with the polyphonal music of Palestrina and Bach, and the history of church music in general, although he was also inspired by Schubert's lyricism, and the "heavenly length" of his Great C major Symphony. His early works can be somewhat four-square, but with maturity he became less concerned with correct 'form', and his music became increasingly individual and characteristic. He is sometimes accused of composing without expectation of anyone actually listening (Neville Cardus wrote "The span of a Bruckner symphony is not for clocks to measure"), but if we recognise the natural slow pulse of his music and make the effort to meet it, we encounter one of the most original and rewarding composers of the nineteenth century.

[at this point I wrote notes on the symphony itself, then continued at the end]

'For most of the twentieth century, Bruckner occupied something of a remote niche in the English-speaking concert world, despite championship by a long line of distinguished European conductors from Furtwangler through Walter, Horenstein, Jochum, Karajan and Wand. Cardus wrote in 1929, "Bruckner is for German-speaking folk and nobody else. He has no use for the succinct phrase; he takes his time over every sentence, and then says it all over again." Yet this criticism betrays only the viewpoint of the listener with preconceived ideas. Bruckner's innocent yet noble grandeur is too often mistaken for mere repetition. You might as well criticise the nave of a gothic cathedral for being a series of repeated architectural structures. To expect the cumulative sense of excitement and tension as found in Haydn and Mozart symphonies, the overwrought emotionalism of Tchaikovsky, or the eclectic histrionics of Mahler is to approach Bruckner from the wrong perspective altogether.

In a programme note for the ABC, Anthony Cane wrote "A Bruckner symphony is a bit like climbing a mountain. You're not _going_ anywhere, because you're already on it. As you complete each stage in the climb, you pause and take stock before setting off in a new direction. The further you go, the more rarefied the atmosphere, the more magnificent the view, the more exalting the experience…Bruckner's symphonies move in their own time (or is it God's time?). They will not be hurried, or they're liable to lose their sense of direction…" Robert Simpson paints a slightly different picture; "A Bruckner symphony is, so to speak, an archaeological 'dig'. The first three movements are like layers removed, revealing the city below, the _finale_. Or they might be regarded as layers of consciousness, as it were, peeled away to show deeper layers beneath." There is no artifice about Bruckner; tensions are not so much relieved as calmed.

As we embark on a twenty-first century full of doubt and uncertainty, we should take heed of Bruckner. For although the world he inhabited has utterly passed away, the mighty musical monuments he bequeathed us, with their patient search for calm, truth, God and peace, are sure and certain guides in troubled times, and speak to us in clear human terms if we will take the time to listen.'

Cheers,
Graeme


----------



## Frasier

I'm guessing that Bruckner was introverted as a person, sufficiently unaware of his surround that he couldn't work to make life easier for himself in Vienna; nor was his Wagner compulsion in itself an attempt to emulate Wagner's outgoingness and determination. But the spiritual expression manifesting more purely in his symphonies (that is, they aren't tagged with titles that make them at once religious) he's as outgoing as anyone could be. His admiration for Wagner extended only to his chromatic style and expansiveness. To that extent he dedicated his symphony no. 3 to Wagner but crystalized Wagnerian form into vast monuments. 

He also broke away from the Brahmsian / Beethovenian formulaic symphonic style which would have SO stifled his inspirations. We all know that Brahms bought the "Symphony" template from Beethoven, took 20 years to learn how to use it.... whereas Bruckner had vastly expansive ideas that could never be fitted to that template, even in his first symphony (I mean no.1 not 00)


----------



## David Mayer

Bach said:


> I'm not trying to stop you liking him, I'm asking for someone to defend him properly.


I'm afraid I have to strenuously object to your Bruckner-bashing. It's one thing to say "I don't like him;" quite another to claim he destroyed the symphonic form.

Look at the score for the Finale of Symphony No. 5. As the opening fugue develops into a double fugue, it is incorporating simultaneously the four main themes from the previous movements. The contrapuntal writing is second to none.

Bruckner took the symphony in a new direction. You don't like it, but I and many others do. I feel that music is richer for his contributions.

...

Anyway, here are my favorite Bruckner recordings:

Symphony 00: Tintner / Royal Scottish National Orchestra

1: Jochum / Berlin Philharmonic

0: Haitink / Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra

2: Stein / Vienna Philharmonic

3: Haitink / VPO

4: Böhm / VPO

5: Horenstein / BBC Symphony Orchestra

6: Stein / VPO

7: Furtwängler / BPO in Berlin

8: Furtwängler / VPO, '44

9: Giulini / VPO

Masses Nos. 1-2: Jochum / Bavarian RSO

Mass No. 3: Celibidache / Munich Philharmonic

Te Deum/Psalms/Motets: Jochum / Berlin Philharmonic

Helgoland: Morris / Symphonica of London

String Quintet: Vienna Philharmonic Quintet


----------



## Mirror Image

David Mayer said:


> I'm afraid I have to strenuously object to your Bruckner-bashing. It's one thing to say "I don't like him;" quite another to claim he destroyed the symphonic form.
> 
> Look at the score for the Finale of Symphony No. 5. As the opening fugue develops into a double fugue, it is incorporating simultaneously the four main themes from the previous movements. The contrapuntal writing is second to none.
> 
> Bruckner took the symphony in a new direction. You don't like it, but I and many others do. I feel that music is richer for his contributions.


Very well put, David! I feel the same way. If you don't like a composer, then just say you don't like him and move on. I wouldn't pay much attention to what Bach wrote about Bruckner. He said he was bombastic, over-the-top, drivel, but when the name Wagner comes up he's the first one to defend him. Wagner was accused of being bombastic, over emotional, over-the-top by his critics much the same way Bruckner was criticized. Another striking characteristic of both composers is they wrote very long pieces of music, which is a criticism Bach gave to Bruckner, but somehow forgot to give to Wagner. The bottomline is it's easy to dismiss composer you don't connect with, but it's harder to admit you're doing so for the wrong reasons.

I think Bruckner is a brilliant composer and he's one of my all time favorites. No question about it.

I'm glad you enjoy his music as much as I do.


----------



## David Mayer

Conservationist said:


> In English, words can mean multiple things. In this case, the personality is being described, not the music.
> 
> That didn't occur to you?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect


What a nasty comment when the ambiguity was your doing.


----------



## Frasier

It's pointless claiming that Bruckner wrecked the symphony. He pushed its boundaries way out.....but then, so did Beethoven from its Mozartian/Haydnian ancestry. It was only Brahms who doggedly slogged on with the early Beethoven model, filling in the blanks with his pretty tunes and textbook orchestration.

Brahms was the one to win favours of the ultra-conservative Hanslick who hated change and couldn't adapt to music as grand and forward looking (particularly in his chromaticism and reinvention of the symphonic form) as Bruckner's, especially after Bruckner confessed to following a style established by Liszt and Wagner - Eduard Hanslick hated them all! 

Bruckner could never have constructed his symphonic works on the basis of sonata form so he invented something different. His orchestration (heavy in the brass department) was utterly competent...even poor conductors don't have to 'rebalance' Bruckner's loud tutti. 

So as I see it, Bruckner bashing stems mainly from Hanslick who effectively ruled the Viennese musical world in his time.... and Bruckner's own difficulty getting his massive works performed. The bashing persisted until well into the 20th C though now, thankfully, he is being reassessed very favourably.


----------



## Mirror Image

Frasier said:


> It's pointless claiming that Bruckner wrecked the symphony. He pushed its boundaries way out.....but then, so did Beethoven from its Mozartian/Haydnian ancestry. It was only Brahms who doggedly slogged on with the early Beethoven model, filling in the blanks with his pretty tunes and textbook orchestration.
> 
> Brahms was the one to win favours of the ultra-conservative Hanslick who hated change and couldn't adapt to music as grand and forward looking (particularly in his chromaticism and reinvention of the symphonic form) as Bruckner's, especially after Bruckner confessed to following a style established by Liszt and Wagner - Eduard Hanslick hated them all!
> 
> Bruckner could never have constructed his symphonic works on the basis of sonata form so he invented something different. His orchestration (heavy in the brass department) was utterly competent...even poor conductors don't have to 'rebalance' Bruckner's loud tutti.
> 
> So as I see it, Bruckner bashing stems mainly from Hanslick who effectively ruled the Viennese musical world in his time.... and Bruckner's own difficulty getting his massive works performed. The bashing persisted until well into the 20th C though now, thankfully, he is being reassessed very favourably.


I came into classical through the "backdoor" so to speak. I didn't read what the major critics wrote (still don't) and I don't listen to criticisms of a composer I like, because they are only opinions, not facts. As much as we don't like a composer for a given reason, there are a lot of other people who do.

I think Bruckner's music represents a willingness on his part to not conform to what the classical establishment said was okay for him to write. He marched to the beat of his own drummer and did what the hell he wanted to. I admire the man's attitude much like I admire Schoenberg for standing up for his own principles, though I'm not a fan of his music.

Bruckner wrote long pieces of music, no question about it, and they all, except for the unfinished 9th, contain four movements. This, to average classical listener, may seem tedious or repetitive, but I think anyone interested in hearing a truly original symphonist should listen to his music and give him a chance, because when Bruckner's music grabs you, it takes you in, and there's escaping this music's power and heartfelt emotion.


----------



## Conservationist

Frasier said:


> I'm guessing that Bruckner was introverted as a person, sufficiently unaware of his surround that he couldn't work to make life easier for himself in Vienna; nor was his Wagner compulsion in itself an attempt to emulate Wagner's outgoingness and determination. But the spiritual expression manifesting more purely in his symphonies (that is, they aren't tagged with titles that make them at once religious) he's as outgoing as anyone could be.


I disagree. I really liked the summary of his life above, but to my mind, his spirituality is of the contemplative, reverential type -- one that celebrates life, but on its own terms, not those of other people (see your definition of "extroverted").

He reminds me of an Eckhart or Schopenhauer: pure reverence. It's why he was able to be so simple and yet so brilliant; he had no need to invent layers of interpretation, but only to go into his meditative state of mind and from that, invent naturalistically his patterns.


----------



## Frasier

Conservationist said:


> ............(see your definition of "extroverted").


I wasn't aware that I defined "extroverted". These aren't terms that I'd use in my walk of life but I tried to deduce what was meant by introverted.

Bruckner only appeared simple, amplified by his inability to fit easily into Viennese life, such are contemporary comments. But anyone who can write a symphony like....well, ANY of his symphonies... is not a simple man! I'm not sure what you mean by naturalistically - can you rephrase? Because as I see it, his compositions (if that's to what you're referring with the word 'inventions') were far from natural outpourings though his inspirations might have been.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

A general perception of Bruckner's "simplicity" owes something to his life-long reputation for social awkwardness. And (on the topic of simple) it oversimplifies the issue to characterize him as some manner of _savant_.

In addition to his obvious interest in music, other interests of his included architecture and education. [A tangentially-related point: Bruckner's 5th Symphony was dedicated to Austro-Hungarian Imperial Education Minister Stremayr.]


----------



## Conservationist

Frasier said:


> I wasn't aware that I defined "extroverted". These aren't terms that I'd use in my walk of life but I tried to deduce what was meant by introverted.
> 
> Bruckner only appeared simple, amplified by his inability to fit easily into Viennese life, such are contemporary comments. But anyone who can write a symphony like....well, ANY of his symphonies... is not a simple man! I'm not sure what you mean by naturalistically - can you rephrase? Because as I see it, his compositions (if that's to what you're referring with the word 'inventions') were far from natural outpourings though his inspirations might have been.


I think you're reading a lot into what I wrote that wasn't there. Here's a definition of extroverted:

Psychology. a person characterized by extroversion; a person concerned primarily with the physical and social environment (opposed to introvert ).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extroverted

I don't consider social inability to be a sign of low intelligence. In fact, the inverse seems true.


----------



## Mirror Image

It seems his "Symphony No. 6" is quite underrated for some reason. It's a remarkable work. Did you know that the only nickname Bruckner gave to any of his symphonies was "Symphony No. 4"? Of course we all know this symphony to be the "Romantic."


----------



## Sid James

Perhaps the _6th_ is underrated, as you say, because it's his lightest symphony. This was the first work I heard by Bruckner as a teenager & I liked it then as I do now. I like the light, ethereal quality. I'm not a fan of the _4th_, it just doesn't have as much appeal to me, but seeing it done live in concert in the '90's was pretty awesome! I think it is great to see any Bruckner live because there is always so much going on in the different sections of the orchestra, layer upon layer of sound.

Another underrated work, which I had the fortune to see live (well the slow movement anyway) is Bruckner's _String Quintet_. This proves that he could write pretty good chamber music. I don't know if it's as good as Brahms (I'll let others judge that), but it definitely is worth listening to if you like his symphonies, as are his masses (the influence of Palestrina looms pretty large in his choral output, as it does in his symphonies).


----------



## Mirror Image

Andre said:


> Perhaps the _6th_ is underrated, as you say, because it's his lightest symphony. This was the first work I heard by Bruckner as a teenager & I liked it then as I do now. I like the light, ethereal quality. I'm not a fan of the _4th_, it just doesn't have as much appeal to me, but seeing it done live in concert in the '90's was pretty awesome! I think it is great to see any Bruckner live because there is always so much going on in the different sections of the orchestra, layer upon layer of sound.
> 
> Another underrated work, which I had the fortune to see live (well the slow movement anyway) is Bruckner's _String Quintet_. This proves that he could write pretty good chamber music. I don't know if it's as good as Brahms (I'll let others judge that), but it definitely is worth listening to if you like his symphonies, as are his masses (the influence of Palestrina looms pretty large in his choral output, as it does in his symphonies).


Yes, the 6th, or as it has been named "The Philosophic" for reasons that are unknown to me, is a great work. Yes it is very light as opposed to his other symphonies. I enjoy the 5th immensely as I do all of his symphonies really. I actually like the 4th Andre, maybe it takes a good recording, and like you said seeing it live, to fully appreciate it, but Gunter Wand or Riccardo Chailly bring this symphony alive, but then again, Chailly and Wand are both my favorite Bruckner conductors.


----------



## Sid James

Yes, I agree with you that Chailly & Wand are good conductors of Bruckner (Chailly is also interested & very versatile in the post WW2 repertoire & Wand works miracles with Brahms also). Karajan, Klemperer, Guilini, Haitink & Walter also made some very memorable Bruckner recordings.

I would be very interested to see Bruckner done live again, particularly his masses & motets, which are superb, and I recommend to anyone who likes the symphonies...


----------



## Mirror Image

Andre said:


> Yes, I agree with you that Chailly & Wand are good conductors of Bruckner (Chailly is also interested & very versatile in the post WW2 repertoire & Wand works miracles with Brahms also). Karajan, Klemperer & Walter also made some very memorable Bruckner recordings.


What I enjoy about Wand and Chailly is they allow the music to flow rather than beat the tempi to death. They make this music breathe. Jochum beats the tempi to death and there's way too much stop-and-go. My favorite two Karajan recordings are with the Vienna Philharmonic. I have not heard Bruno Walter's readings, but I have one of Klemperer's recordings of the Symphony No. 6, which is very good.

Bruckner's music was something of a discovery for me. When I first heard his music I did not like it. The whole structure and repetition, so I didn't listen to him at all for a few months, but then I just took a chance on another box set with Gunter Wand/Cologne Radio Symphony on RCA and it was like I was hearing a completely different composer's music. It was at that point that I understood Bruckner's music. His music is otherworldly. He just builds these huge long phrases until they reach they're boiling points and then the music shifts. His music is very what I would call moment to moment, but he somehow always manages to bring everything back to together in a really beautiful way.


----------



## Sid James

& I actually think that Bruckner was one of the few symphonists to come into his own style basically from the beginning. Listen to the early _Symphony No. 0_ & it's completely different to Beethoven or Brahms. The basic template, his concept of the music developing organically, so to speak, was there right from the beginning.


----------



## Mirror Image

Andre said:


> & I actually think that Bruckner was one of the few symphonists to come into his own style basically from the beginning. Listen to the early _Symphony No. 0_ & it's completely different to Beethoven or Brahms. The basic template, his concept of the music developing organically, so to speak, was there right from the beginning.


That's so true. Critics where downright brutal in their reception of his music. I guess they were expecting to hear another Brahms. He was also a very unusual man at that time to fellow Vienna city folk. I heard also he didn't discuss his music that often. He was very supportive of Wagner, as Wagner was of him, and I think this didn't sit well with the Vienna conservatives who were pro-Brahms.


----------



## Mirror Image

I still find it strange even after all the recordings that have been made of Bruckner's music how little he actually gets talked about, especially around here. It seems that people's negative reception of his music is still in full swing. His music is certainly not for everyone, but I wonder why it's not as popular as say Brahms or Wagner?


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

Well, its something that appears to have been dead for a long time...but finally a thread that I belong to whole-heartedly!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

What do Bruckner admirers think of his symphony no.3 in D minor? The so-called "Wagner" symphony. It's the only symphony of Bruckner's that I can get anywhere close to, perhaps unfortunately.


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> It's the only symphony of Bruckner's that I can get anywhere close to, perhaps unfortunately.


What exactly do you mean by this?

Anyway, the third is good, but if you do not like Bruckner's style, this symphony will not peek interest in you. It is not one of my absolute favorites of his symphonies, but, in my opinion, all of them are so great, its difficult to pick any that I don't enjoy.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Josef Anton Bruckner said:


> What exactly do you mean by this?


Sorry, I meant his no.3 is the only symphony of his that I could say I might enjoy, perhaps it's unfortunate that it's the only one. Maybe in time one day I might find his other major works more appealing. (No sarcasm intended).


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

I will tell you right now that I was so opposed to Bruckner at one time that hearing it would cause me to say, "who put this waste-of-time hour-long mess on?" For me, it was all a matter of seeing a few live performances and just listening to it more often. Over time, I began to love it.

So yeah, start with No. 3 if you like. Just curious, why do you think it is the only one you might enjoy?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Josef Anton Bruckner said:


> I will tell you right now that I was so opposed to Bruckner at one time that hearing it would cause me to say, "who put this waste-of-time hour-long mess on?" For me, it was all a matter of seeing a few live performances and just listening to it more often. Over time, I began to love it.


Interesting.



Josef Anton Bruckner said:


> So yeah, start with No. 3 if you like. Just curious, why do you think it is the only one you might enjoy?


I borrowed from a friend several CD's of Bruckner's symphonies. This was maybe three years ago. I thought then no.3 appealed most to me out of them all. That's all. (The work's history certainly showed his "insecure" side, revising the work over and over again. Fascinating insight into a composer's compostional process).


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

Oh yes, a very timid and insecure man. He just wanted his music to be played, and for people to like it. And sometimes, those revisions weren't even approved of by Bruckner himself because others would change it without asking him. People who were in charge of taking his work to the publisher would decide to incorporate some of their own ideas into Bruckner's music. And of course, they were foolish ideas that ruined the symphony.

So the last time you listened to Bruckner was three years ago, then?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Josef Anton Bruckner said:


> So the last time you listened to Bruckner was three years ago, then?


No, I own a CD of his 3rd symphony, which I have a listen occasionally (played by The London Classical Players, under Roger Norrington). I admit when it comes to acquiring late Romantic music on CD, especially large symphonic works, my motivation is driven also by which orchestra plays them.

I am thinking of getting Bruckner's symphonies no.4, 5 and 7 and his Mass no.3 in F minor (all played by _Orchestre des Champs Elysées _(on period instruments), directed by Philippe Herreweghe). I like big challenges once in a while. These works occupy one CD each.


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

Yes, the orchestra and the conductor definitely are important in late romantic, especially when referring to Bruckner. It is up to the conductor to decide which version to play, and what to include or exclude. I always find that Karajan is an excellent choice.

Four and seven are some of my absolute favorites, along with eight. Five falls just behind them.


----------



## Dim7

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> What do Bruckner admirers think of his symphony no.3 in D minor? The so-called "Wagner" symphony. It's the only symphony of Bruckner's that I can get anywhere close to, perhaps unfortunately.


I think it's his most underrated one. I very rarely hear it mentioned, but personally I like at least the first movement and the scherzo very much. The slow movement and the finale aren't bad at all but I feel more lukewarm about them. 
The first movement has very cool themes and interesting development I think, right from the beginning it sounds promising. However, to me the way he puts the themes together is flawed; the music doesn't "flow" naturally and instead there's rather clumsy sounding jumps from one theme to other, if you know what I mean.
The scherzo is my favourite Bruckner scherzo right after the 9th symphony's one.

Personally I had rather negative view on Bruckner at first too; I was very suspicious of him because of the criticism I had heard. So many said he was monotonous and long-winded. I was also annoyed by his excessive repetition of themes which I found dull and overly simplistic. Nowadays I have this problem only with some of his scherzos. I've learned to love the majestic and serious character of his music.


----------



## JAKE WYB

I always found the 3rd the symphony of the cycle which seems to have all the stodgy heaviness without the colour or dramtic continuity of the later ones like 4,7,8,9 and that though the first two movements are reaonably exciting the others especially the finale are plainly uninterestingand heavygoing - though when i listen through the bruckner cycle i never skip it and am as familiar with it as the others plus, 0, 1,2 which are all of good intererest.


----------



## handlebar

The 3rd is underrated to me. I love the Haitink CD on Philips and with the Jochum a distant second.

Bruckner can be a bit pedantic and long sometimes depending on how one's ear processes the brass et al.

But I do enjoy his works,especially the masses,choral works and symphonies #4,7,8 and 9.

Jim


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

Dim7 said:


> Personally I had rather negative view on Bruckner at first too; I was very suspicious of him because of the criticism I had heard. So many said he was monotonous and long-winded. I was also annoyed by his excessive repetition of themes which I found dull and overly simplistic. Nowadays I have this problem only with some of his scherzos. I've learned to love the majestic and serious character of his music.


I agree, I still have the same problems with his scherzos sometimes. His adagios and finales I always find great though, and his first movements are also usually very interesting. But that's not to say some of his scherzos aren't excellent.


----------



## GraemeG

Third never really grabbed me. I notice in Simpson's book he revised his opinion of it completely after the score of the original (1873?) version became available - and has since been recorded, certainly by Tintner, and probably others. Simpson's opinion that every subsequent revision (I think Cooke had identified 7 versions of the 3rd) through 1878, 1880 just made it worse.

I intend one day to get a recording of the original score and approach it again.
Bruckner is one of those composers where cutting sections out of works actually robs them of their full impact, makes them more boring, and paradoxically, they seem to take longer.
There are only two revisions of Bruckner's that were successful - the scherzo of the 4th, and the first movement of the 8th.
Everything else should have been left alone...
cheers,
Graeme


----------



## Falstaft

My name is Frank, and I'm a Brucknoholic.

I discovered him a couple years back, and now count him as one of my favorite 19th century symphonists. In fact, I like to start arguments by telling people I rank him above Mahler. There's something so humane about his music - a vague trait that I find many of my favorite composers share. Even with the monumentality of his music, I feel like there's rarely a moment where you can't sense a bit of something...a lot more fragile.

One of the most powerful experiences I've had at the concert hall was hearing the BSO play Bruckner's Ninth a couple years back (embarrassingly forget the conductor, though I don't think it was Levine). It was the first time I heard this work, and I was totally blown away -- most of all by the first movement. Somewhere in the second subject area is one of the most soaringly beautiful melodies in his symphonic output. (around 5:30 -- 



 , Wand conducting)

And there's that spectacular cataclysm that happens in the coda, one of those Brucknerian chromatic sequences that just seems to shred away any remaining resistance you might have to his emotional world. (gets underway around 6:40 -- 



)

Anyway, I've been a happy lurker on for quite awhile, and thought, heck, why not join in the fun! Confessing my Bruckner-love seems as good a way to introduce myself as any.


----------



## superhorn

I became an ardent Brucknerian 40 years ago when I bought the Seraphim LP of the 9th with Carl Schurcicht and the VPO as a teenager.
I heard the Herreweghe /Harmonia Mundi recording of the 4th recently when I borrowed it from my library. I couldn't tell any difference between it and a modern orchestra. 
Do we really need HIP Bruckner? The performance was quite good but in no way superior to 
classic recordings of the 4th by such giants as Karajan, Boehm,Jochum,Klemperer, Walter,Solti, 
Abbado, etc.
What will the HIP movement give us next? "Authentic" performances of the Richard Stauss tone poems and the early Stravinsky ballet scores ? Give me a break !


----------



## World Violist

superhorn said:


> What will the HIP movement give us next? "Authentic" performances of the Richard Stauss tone poems and the early Stravinsky ballet scores ? Give me a break !


I heard that John Eliot Gardiner was recording an "authentic" performance of Ligeti's "Atmospheres" 

I agree, all this HIP stuff is just going too far. As soon as Norrington started doing a Mahler cycle, I knew... bleh.


----------



## Il Seraglio

Even though it's an incomplete symphony, I am totally in love with the sheer scope of Bruckner's 9th. The same goes for Te Deum and Mass. No 3. Even though his music is often optimistic (compared to Wagner or Mahler anyway), he's never afraid to create sounds that scare the living daylights out of you (in a good way).


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

superhorn said:


> I became an ardent Brucknerian 40 years ago when I bought the Seraphim LP of the 9th with Carl Schurcicht and the VPO as a teenager.
> I heard the Herreweghe /Harmonia Mundi recording of the 4th recently when I borrowed it from my library. I couldn't tell any difference between it and a modern orchestra.
> Do we really need HIP Bruckner? The performance was quite good but in no way superior to
> classic recordings of the 4th by such giants as Karajan, Boehm,Jochum,Klemperer, Walter,Solti,
> Abbado, etc.
> What will the HIP movement give us next? "Authentic" performances of the Richard Stauss tone poems and the early Stravinsky ballet scores ? Give me a break !


That's because there is less difference, relatively speaking, when a HIP band performes a Bruckner symphony compared with a modern orchestra. By the time Bruckner wrote his symphonies, many instruments have evolved pretty much close to modern instruments. Gut strings on the violin for example, was replaced by metal towards the end of the 19th century. Orchestral pitch was rising towards 440Hz or more, pretty much what a large band today would use for large scale symphonis works. Horns and trumpets had valves etc. The similarity therefore, enforces the HIP to be even more relevant for earlier music periods (Renaissance, Baroque and Classical, say).


----------



## DarkAngel

*For experienced Bruckner fans...... *

the mythical insanely expensive EMI Celibidache set was released in a budget boxset early this year, now you have no excuse not to explore this unique zen like performances......I really like them but very polarizing opinions abound both for and against. Tempos in general are slower but build towering cathedrals of sound that have tremendous force and power, you will hear sound details here that you never knew existed before


----------



## campy

Post my ABs? This'll take some doing ...

"00" : Neville Marriner; Hortense von Gelmini

"0" : Ashkenazy; Tintner; Elyakum Shapirra

#1 ; Siegert; Skrowaczewski

#2 : Chailly; Karajan; Tintner

#3 ; Barenboim; Skrowaczewski; Chailly; Celibidache

#4 ; Karajan; Böhm; Blomstedt; Ormandy; Sawallisch; Celibidache; Heger; Muti; Woss; Masur; Tchakarov

#5 : Horenstein (BBC); Chailly; von Dohnányi; Wallberg; Celibidache

#6 ; Klemperer; Karajan; López-Cobos; Swoboda; Bernstein (Bernstein LIVE set); Celibidache; Dausgaard (free from Danish Radio web site)

#7 : Karajan (VPO last recording); Böhm; Celibidache; Blomstedt; López-Cobos; Vänskä; Sanderling; Rudolf; Mehta

#8 : Boulez; Celibidache; Furtwängler; Jochum; Karajan; López-Cobos; van Beinum; Wakkberg; Wand; Haitink (RCO web site); Steinberg (BSO centennial box set)

#9 : Bernstein (NY Phil); Celibidache; Giulini; Jochum; Walter; Talmi

That covers the symphonies, I think.


----------



## campy

superhorn said:


> What will the HIP movement give us next? "Authentic" performances of the Richard Stauss tone poems and the early *Stravinsky* ballet scores ? Give me a break !


Interestingly, just this morning I was reading the Wikipedia entry for _Les Musiciens du Louvre_. It mentioned that in 2008-09 they performed Wagner, Tchaikovsky and Stravinsky.


----------



## DarkAngel

Another must buy just released is 2 disc set Schuricht WP 8 and 9 symphonies, recognized essential classics now remastered in SACD Hybrid format at mid price


----------



## Xaltotun

I listened to Bruckner's 5th by Celibidache the other day; have to say that I wasn't impressed. It was massive and cosmic and all, but I think that the essential conflict was missing - the conflict between the ideal and the real, the heavenly and the earthly, faith and doubt etc. To me, Bruckner is not about tripping in outer space - of course he does create these unreal moments where you "lose yourself" for a while, but the conflict never quite resolves, at least, until the very end. I think Celibidache missed this aspect of Bruckner's music. But, on the other hand, I'm happy that such idiosyncratic conductors exist. That's the way it should be, even if their interpretations irritate some listeners.


----------



## KRoad

I am a Bruckner fan. I thought the Wand cycle a little,"thin" in the quality of the recording, so I recently bought the Karajan cycle. Now on reflection I think I may prefer the Wand after all. In any case, Bruckner's symphonies satisfy when one has a hankering for something aurally substantial - without the musical indigestion that one risks with Mahler (IMHO)


----------



## Nevum

So, who is the best conductor for Bruckner?

Furtwangler?
Barenboim?
Jochum?
Solti?
Haitinck?
Karajan?
Celibidache?
Muti?

In my opinion #1 is Jochum, #2 Furtwangler and #3 Solti

Other opinions?


----------



## Guest

People have the strangest addictions these days...

Exhibit A: This thread.


----------



## Nevum

arcaneholocaust said:


> People have the strangest addictions these days...
> 
> Exhibit A: This thread.


So Bruckner is an addiction? Well, then I am a heavy addict. Totally addicted to his music. How do you treat this addiction?


----------



## Guest

See a psychiatrist.


----------



## hpowders

Is a psychiatrist who treats musical addictions a musicologist?


----------



## Guest

Not in this case. People addicted to Bruckner are generally afflicted thus as a result of a standard mental disorder. A regular psychiatrist should do.


----------



## KenOC

Nevum said:


> So Bruckner is an addiction? Well, then I am a heavy addict. Totally addicted to his music. How do you treat this addiction?


Aversion therapy is indicated. Stop by my office in the next couple of days, and be sure to bring some strong manacles.


----------



## Blake

Just find a drug dealer and pick up a more serious addiction. You'll forget all about this one.


----------



## Nevum

Things may get worse in such case. Any better suggestions?


----------



## Nevum

arcaneholocaust said:


> Not in this case. People addicted to Bruckner are generally afflicted thus as a result of a standard mental disorder. A regular psychiatrist should do.


what is the name of the mental disorder?


----------



## hpowders

Imagine Bruckner with repeats.


----------



## Flamme

Mirror Image said:


> I still find it strange even after all the recordings that have been made of Bruckner's music how little he actually gets talked about, especially around here. It seems that people's negative reception of his music is still in full swing. His music is certainly not for everyone, but I wonder why it's not as popular as say Brahms or Wagner?


''Popular'' doesnt always equals ''good''...
Im just starting to discover him and things i have heard so far are pretty cool very violent but also calm in the moments i can sense presence of both emotions and cold reason in his pieces...Like here


----------



## Zukunstmusik

Brahms and Bruckner met on occasion, and it seems they were wary of each other. Bruckner is recorded as having said once; "He is Brahms, and I respect him for it; but I am Bruckner and I prefer my own stuff." Fortunately we all have both.


----------



## hpowders

Finish the quote.... "preferably on digital CD with Guilini and the VPO".


----------



## Nevum

hpowders said:


> Imagine Bruckner with repeats.


There are no repeats in Bruckner's music


----------



## KenOC

Nevum said:


> There are no repeats in Bruckner's music


There are PLENTY of repeats in Bruckner's music. :lol:


----------



## hpowders

Nevum said:


> There are no repeats in Bruckner's music


I know. That's why I wrote "IMAGINE".


----------



## Nevum

KenOC said:


> There are PLENTY of repeats in Bruckner's music. :lol:


In your opinion, but you are wrong. Care to point one?


----------



## KenOC

Nevum said:


> In your opinion, but you are wrong. Care to point one?


Almost any Bruckner symphony. States theme. Adds an instrument or two, changes key, repeats it (without development of course). Adds another horn, ups the volume, repeats it again. And again. And again. Sooner or later (usually later) the movement ends.


----------



## hpowders

Nevum said:


> In your opinion, but you are wrong. Care to point one?


He doesn't mean that literally. He simply means Bruckner's music can be tediously repetitive in certain spots.


----------



## hpowders

KenOC said:


> There are PLENTY of repeats in Bruckner's music. :lol:


I catch your drift. It's why I don't listen to his music except with a gun to my head.

Pretty much like Schubert's 9th Symphony taken with all repeats-an already repetitive, rhythmically tedious work then becomes unbearable to listen to.


----------



## KenOC

Actually I have several complete Bruckner cycles and enjoy some of his symphonies very much! But he does tend to repeat himself.


----------



## hpowders

I do too. I have 2 Jochum sets and various individual performances.

I enjoy the 7th the most and then the 8th, not so much and then none of the rest.

All of his symphonies should have been abridged. They go on much too long. Must have been due to "Wagner's Spell". One man's opinion.


----------



## Nevum

KenOC said:


> Almost any Bruckner symphony. States theme. Adds an instrument or two, changes key, repeats it (without development of course). Adds another horn, ups the volume, repeats it again. And again. And again. Sooner or later (usually later) the movement ends.


Apparently you can not appreciate Bruckner. Sorry. What you wrote above is far from reality. Try again to listen carefully. Each symphony is very unique and so different than the others. Let me give you an example. Listen first to the 8th of Bruckner and then to the 3rd. You will not find anything in common.


----------



## Nevum

hpowders said:


> It's why I don't listen to his music except with a gun to my head.


Not the best way to listen to any composer. Just saying....


----------



## KenOC

Nevum said:


> Apparently you can not appreciate Bruckner. Sorry.


Like you, I find that people who disagree with my musical tastes are simply incapable of appreciating the music! So, my commiserations.


----------



## hpowders

Nevum said:


> Not the best way to listen to any composer. Just saying....


Makes me nervous.


----------



## hpowders

Not everybody likes the same composers. It shouldn't be anything personal. If you don't like JS Bach's WTC Book One, I'm not going to go out and drown myself because I love it.


----------



## Flamme

Nevum said:


> Apparently you can not appreciate Bruckner. Sorry. What you wrote above is far from reality. Try again to listen carefully. *Each symphony is very unique and so different than the others. * Let me give you an example. Listen first to the 8th of Bruckner and then to the 3rd. You will not find anything in common.


I have that feeling too, but im a beginner in explorations of his works...


----------



## Andreas

What I struggled with at first was the expanse of his themes. Or perhaps the way he puts themes together into groups. I found it hard to tell where I was. Is this a new theme? Or is it still part of the current one? And so on. It was like standing too close to a mountain: difficult to grasp it as a whole and understand its structure.


----------



## Nevum

hpowders said:


> Not everybody likes the same composers. It shouldn't be anything personal. If you don't like JS Bach's WTC Book One, I'm not going to go out and drown myself because I love it.


lol....agreed. I am still concerned though that you listen to Bruckner with a gun to your head.


----------



## hpowders

Nevum said:


> lol....agreed. I am still concerned though that you listen to Bruckner with a gun to your head.


My New Years resolution for 2014 will be to stop this.


----------



## Flamme

Great show that draws an parallel between two and also spots the differences very complete story about their lives with actual places contexts and divine music...Strongly recommend


----------



## Itullian

hpowders said:


> I do too. I have 2 Jochum sets and various individual performances.
> 
> I enjoy the 7th the most and then the 8th, not so much and then none of the rest.
> 
> All of his symphonies should have been abridged. They go on much too long. Must have been due to "Wagner's Spell". One man's opinion.


Actually, I think they're too short.


----------



## hpowders

Itullian said:


> Actually, I think they're too short.


The 7th seems short to me, which means I like it. Its opening theme is among the greatest in all music.


----------



## beetzart

I love Bruckner, as much as I love Brahms; a lot. I've only got Barenboim's recording at present but want to get Gunter Wand's cycle and Furtwangler's, and Karajan's. My favourite symphony at present is his 2nd. It's got something special about it, especially the trio of the scherzo; those wonderful high strings playing 5ths (I think), such a contrast to the bombastic nature of the scherzo itself.


----------



## beetzart

hpowders said:


> The 7th seems short to me, which means I like it. Its opening theme is among the greatest in all music.


It sure is. Didn't it come to him in a dream and when he woke he immediately wrote it down? It is on par with the coda of the 1st movement of the 6th.


----------



## Andreas

hpowders said:


> The 7th seems short to me, which means I like it. Its opening theme is among the greatest in all music.


I agree. Although, interestingly, the main theme of the Seventh is the longest Bruckner ever wrote, some 20 bars long. But this might be the trick: the theme is played and then repeated and already three minutes have passed. One is absorbed by the theme and time is nearly suspended.

This is also the reason I never feel that any Bruckner movement is too long. It took a while, but when I had figured out the structures, which are actually amazingly clear-cut, everything feels like the Haffner's first movement.


----------



## dieter

I love the 2nd too. Just love it.


----------



## Klassic

dieter said:


> I love the 2nd too. Just love it.


Oh yes, that slow movement from the second is lovely, what beautiful melody.


----------



## dieter

AND that stunning first movement...


----------



## Pure Fool

The finale to the second is the most energetic, fiery thing Bruckner ever wrote. My favorite recording of it is the one Solti did with the Chicago Symphony in 1991.


----------



## hoodjem

Bach said:


> Don't be silly, Bruckner was a useless old fart next to Brahms - In many respects (inflated, bombastic structure and general meandering pointlessness) I would argue that Bruckner and his influence single handedly destroyed the entire symphonic genre. I'm quite sure that Mahler would have been far greater if Bruckner had never been born.


Too sad.

The ignorant inanities never cease. There were plenty of persons who thought that Brahms was a "useless old fart" compared to Wagner. One wonders how many other, sad, misguided, uninformed cliches people believe. Out-of-date, washed up Papa Haydn? Old, unfashionable, stylistically obsolete JS Bach?

Thank goodness that all these notions are wrong.

Oh well. More music for the rest of us (who appreciate Bruckner).


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

If you are addicted, take it slow, or you will burn yourself out. Bruckner's music reward patience more than any other composer. It's a lifetime journey discovering Bruckner's music.


----------



## PierreN

hoodjem said:


> Too sad.
> 
> The ignorant inanities never cease. There were plenty of persons who thought that Brahms was a "useless old fart" compared to Wagner.


There probably are plenty of people who now think that Wagner was a useless old fart compared to Justin Bieber!
(Listening to the fourth movement of Bruckner's 5th -- Celibidache with the Münchner Philharmoniker -- as I'm typing this)


----------

