Anton Bruckner Symphony Nº 0

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

No 3, really? As Richard Barrett pointed out, it was written after the c minor "First" Symphony, but the "Study" Symphony, (number "00") was the first "First".

Of course.

[EnemyoftheStoat]

Skrowaczewski has the measure of it (on OEHMS with the Saarbruckners ).

He does indeed (I have the original Arte Nova, picked up for a couple of quid second-hand).

I'm recently coming increasingly to the opinion that, "post-Karajan", the later Symphonies also get stronger with a "lighter", fleeter, more athletic approach to the reading, too.

You're not wrong; it's quite interesting to hear these in concert and be reminded that the scoring is a whole lot lighter than many recordings make it seem.

[P. G. Tipps]

I start with the usual and obvious caveat that, unlike some here, I am merely an amateur Bruckner enthusiast not a professional musician or scholar! I know nothing about the finer points of symphonic construction only how a piece of music affects my mind and soul.

I agree with those who say No 0 is a fine work simply because I, myself, very much like it! I also agree with others (and, of course, the composer himself) that it may not be quite up to the standard of its positively-numbered sisters. Bruckner set his own bar very high indeed, it seems. There are certainly hints in No 0 of the later, greater style to emerge, the naive-sounding little melodies, the stark juxtaposition of loud and soft passages, and a fun scherzo that one writer described as sounding like 'an enraged Rossini'! '

Thanks to 'Stan the Man' I'm probably one of the few here (or anywhere else) who have heard this work in live concert, in Manchester in the glorious Halle/Skrow decade of the 1980s. As I haven't come across it in concert since I certainly think No 0 deserves.rather more outings?

Finally, I have never found any Bruckner symphony 'gloomy' ... thoughtful, profound, honest, rugged, sometimes infuriating, grand, majestic, beautiful, occasionally teasing, humorous, yes, all those things ... yet I admit that even I would never, ever, suggest to Mrs P. G. that we all have a really fun time introducing our guests to the joys of Bruckner 9 at our annual house-party for the neighbours. .

[Beef Oven!]

I'm recently coming increasingly to the opinion that, "post-Karajan", the later Symphonies also get stronger with a "lighter", fleeter, more athletic approach to the reading, too.

Don't worry, it'll pass.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Don't worry, it'll pass.

I still adore the Karajan readings - in 4, 5, 7, 8 & 9 above all others - but in conductors born after the Second World War, this way doesn't seem convincing; whereas the quicker "newer" way (not so new - the very first recordings suggest that this was how it used to be done) has that thrilling, donkey-kicking frisson that really sends the blood coursing around my veins.


(And the arteries, too, of course - it could be quite dangerous otherwise.)

[Phileas]

I'd almost forgotten about No. 0.

I've just listened to the Skrowaczewski recording (for the first time) - he makes it sound better than I remember it.

There's a nice bonus on the disc of an arrangement for strings of the adagio from the string quintet (with which I'm unfamiliar).

[jayne lee wilson]

It's worth remembering among all these considerations (whether earnest or humorous) about how many symphonies Bruckner composed or what to call them, that "Annulliert" (annulled) was what Bruckner wrote on the front page of this score when he was preparing his catalogue for publication in 1895, crossing out "No.2" and writing the null symbol, a slashed zero rather than a "0". One would hope that, despite Otto Dessoff's reaction when showed the score in 1869 and the possibility that Bruckner discarded the work in response, his confidence in his works and his view of their relative values would be clearer to him by 1895, so his further comment about this symphony - "gilt nicht" (not valid) - was probably true to his own feelings about it.

Brucknerian doyen Robert Simpson, whilst having high praise for the opening allegro, comments that "the rest of the symphony is inferior, but rewards the ears."
That it was almost certainly composed between January and September 1869, about halfway between No.1 and No.2, renders what is to me its audible inferiority stranger still!

[P. G. Tipps]

It's worth remembering among all these considerations (whether earnest or humorous) about how many symphonies Bruckner composed or what to call them, that "Annulliert" (annulled) was what Bruckner wrote on the front page of this score when he was preparing his catalogue for publication in 1895, crossing out "No.2" and writing the null symbol, a slashed zero rather than a "0". One would hope that, despite Otto Dessoff's reaction when showed the score in 1869 and the possibility that Bruckner discarded the work in response, his confidence in his works and his view of their relative values would be clearer to him by 1895, so his further comment about this symphony - "gilt nicht" (not valid) - was probably true to his own feelings about it.

Brucknerian doyen Robert Simpson, whilst having high praise for the opening allegro, comments that "the rest of the symphony is inferior, but rewards the ears."
That it was almost certainly composed between January and September 1869, about halfway between No.1 and No.2, renders what is to me its audible inferiority stranger still!

Simpson's book The Essence of Bruckner is an absolute 'must' for those who wish learn more about the composer and his music. The apt title describes the book to perfection!

I see R.S. makes the connection between the scherzo of No 0 and a 'cross, overweight Rossini' so I suspect the 'enraged Rossini' quote to which I referred earlier may not have been an entirely original one on the the part of the other writer concerned!

Interesting to re-read the author's view of the first version of the Third (1873) and how he had to completely re-write the chapter on this symphony when that version was first brought to public attention and which convinced him Bruckner had largely got things right the first time.

Simpson has a wonderful way with words. He refers to the Te Deum as 'Barbaric Grandeur' which might not be a bad description of the symphonies as well. The adjective may be a bit hyperbolic but there is a raw, almost elemental force to this music which is just as powerful as the more widely-advertised mystical, transcendental factor.

I'll take it either way, or preferably the two together, which, imo, both Rozhdestvensky and Jochum largely manage to achieve in their recordings.

[LMcD]

There are a surprising number of performances of the 'Symphony No. 0' on Youtube. I'm not sure whether the fact that it's the only Bruckner symphony I really like is due to the fact that it's one of the shortest. Others much more knowledgeable than me are better placed to judge how typical - or not - it is of his symphonic output as a whole.
The 4th still has very pleasant non-musical associations for me, and I recently recreated, with the help of Youtube, the very first concert that my wife-to-be and I attended at the RFH back in 1969, the second half comprising a performance of the 'Romantic'. I'm afraid that, the longer the Bruckner went on in my reconstructed concert, the more our attention wavered.