Bruckner

[ahinton]

shame on you Scottycelt, as it is the composition of Helgoland which most likely caused the Ninth symphony being unfinished at the composers death

I don't believe that this is strictly true; the distractions from work on the Ninth Symphony for which the composition of Helgoland might be held responsible were as little compared to those that arose from all the revising of the Eighth and earlier symphonies that he persuaded himself - and was persuaded - that he was obliged to embark upon following responses to the Eighth's première.

[Roehre]

I don't believe that this is strictly true; the distractions from work on the Ninth Symphony for which the composition of Helgoland might be held responsible were as little compared to those that arose from all the revising of the Eighth and earlier symphonies that he persuaded himself - and was persuaded - that he was obliged to embark upon following responses to the Eighth's première.

Revising the "Linz" (1), 3 (again) and the 8th certainly interrupted and therefore delayed the composition of the Ninth - but Helgoland is IIRC the last piece Bruckner took on during his work on 9.

[ahinton]

Revising the "Linz" (1), 3 (again) and the 8th certainly interrupted and therefore delayed the composition of the Ninth - but Helgoland is IIRC the last piece Bruckner took on during his work on 9.

It was, but I'm not convinced that the energies - still less the amounts of time - that he devoted to its composition did anything like as much as all that revision did to ensure that the Ninth remained largely on the back burner for far too long. That said, of course, we do at least know now that Bruckner, far from barely beginning the Ninth's finale, did actually compose all of it in his head and wrote down a substantial proportion of it in varying degrees of detail, which has ultimately meant that I and many others no longer have to feel disinclined to listen to the Ninth as a whole because of the certain let-down of being short-changed.

[amateur51]

With Kirsch or Bratapfellikör (Apple schnapps that is) and of course chocolate

[scottycelt]

shame on you Scottycelt, as it is the composition of Helgoland which most likely caused the Ninth symphony being unfinished at the composers death

One of the view commissions Bruckner ever received, and for a commemorative work certainly not bad, and not too long either (well, the Te Deum lasts just around 25 minutes too).

'Not bad', whadya mean 'not bad', Roehre ..?

The composer himself appeared to think the Te Deum was his finest achievement, so what did he know about anything ... ?

(Actually, I've just listened to the Te Deum again after months, nay years, of shameful neglect .. good heavens, I think the old rustic simpleton may have had a point after all. )

[Beef Oven]

'Not bad', whadya mean 'not bad', Roehre ..?

The composer himself appeared to think the Te Deum was his finest achievement, so what did he know about anything ... ?

(Actually, I've just listened to the Te Deum again after months, nay years, of shameful neglect .. good heavens, I think the old rustic simpleton may have had a point after all. )

The Te Deum is awesome (in both the literal and metaphoric meaning of the word). I adore the Masses too. I don't understand how people can be ambivalent about Bruckner's choral works.

[Demetrius]

I only know these as CD sets, but would (just) take the Karajan/BPO over the fine Wand/Kolner Rundfunk one (I have both) simply because HvK is more evocative and poetic in the first 3 (I hate the 1889 version of no.3 though, you need a separate Cd of the 1873 original for that, Inbal, Tintner or Norrington). The remaster of the Wand cycle has better sound though and the 8th is just glorious.

The Naxos Tintner is an excellent cycle all-round and a very strong recommendation - but then you'll need to supplement it with the (more often played) revised 8th (lots of good ones...)

I prefer Barenboim in Chicago (GREAT 4th and 6th) to his later Berlin one, but my set is the Tower Records Japan edition, it may sound different from European releases..

I only know Inbal from the original version recordings of 3 and 8, but they're excellent.

It's difficult to make a single recommendation for a cycle; recent live releases on Profil of Wand and Haitink are very good indeed! I would say though, that a lossy Amazon mp3 download may not have sufficient quality to do justice to the power and beauty of Bruckner's orchestra. Do stick to CD (or lossless, cd-quality downloads) if you can.

Or... be adventurous from the start, and follow Mario Venzago's radical Bruckner re-imaginings on CPO!

thank you for your reply!

I think I will go for the Tintner box; will snoop around for something better than the 320kp/s mp3s on classicsonline, but as high quality listing equipment is still something for the future, I would take them if necessary. Might well branch out into several recordings in a few years, but as I'm exploring into several directions while on a tight budget, a single but solid set will have to do for now.

[ahinton]

The Te Deum is awesome (in both the literal and metaphoric meaning of the word). I adore the Masses too. I don't understand how people can be ambivalent about Bruckner's choral works.

Nor do I, frankly; the F minor Mass does rather stand head and shoulders over his others, so I don't feel quite as enthused by those others, but that's not to undermine them for what they are.

I came to Bruckner's work for the first time only after hearing most of Mahler, much of Wagner and almost all of Liszt's symphonic poems and A Faust Symphony; I've never really gotten to grips with the symphonies that precede no. 3, but the chances are, I suspect, that anyone whose first encounter with Bruckner is the Fifth Symphony (as in my case) is quite likely either to feel repulsed or utterly drawn to the composer's work (the latter in my case). Whilst I'm not convinced that all of Bruckner's first completed symphonic thoughts were necessarily superior to revised versions, I've long felt that, had he not spent so much time revising what might not have needed revision, we might even have had a Tenth Symphony from him (though to whom he would have felt able to dedicate it is beyond me)...

[scottycelt]

Nor do I, frankly; the F minor Mass does rather stand head and shoulders over his others, so I don't feel quite as enthused by those others, but that's not to undermine them for what they are.

I came to Bruckner's work for the first time only after hearing most of Mahler, much of Wagner and almost all of Liszt's symphonic poems and A Faust Symphony; I've never really gotten to grips with the symphonies that precede no. 3, but the chances are, I suspect, that anyone whose first encounter with Bruckner is the Fifth Symphony (as in my case) is quite likely either to feel repulsed or utterly drawn to the composer's work (the latter in my case). Whilst I'm not convinced that all of Bruckner's first completed symphonic thoughts were necessarily superior to revised versions, I've long felt that, had he not spent so much time revising what might not have needed revision, we might even have had a Tenth Symphony from him (though to whom he would have felt able to dedicate it is beyond me)...

Ahinton, the dedication of the imaginary Tenth surely would have been to 'My Dear Lord' and the Ninth would have had an alternative and more familiar dedication to an Emperor or Bishop or some other lesser mortal whom the composer humbly revered.

I suspect that Bruckner knew that the Ninth would be his last and, even before being aware of approaching mortality, he very possibly planned it that way, hence the rather lofty dedication. Also, he knew he would be in some very good company if he finished at that very number!

I agree with you that not all the true 'originals' were automatically superior to the 'revisions'. I say 'true' because the word 'original' seems to have many different meanings with regard to this composer. Back to dictionary definitions again! The Eighth in particular is much improved on the first attempt, imv, at least to unsophisticated, non-professional ears like my own.

Finally, are there any people out there still actually 'repulsed' by Bruckner's music?

If so, that, in turn, is quite beyond my comprehension!

[Beef Oven]

Nor do I, frankly; the F minor Mass does rather stand head and shoulders over his others, so I don't feel quite as enthused by those others, but that's not to undermine them for what they are.

I came to Bruckner's work for the first time only after hearing most of Mahler, much of Wagner and almost all of Liszt's symphonic poems and A Faust Symphony; I've never really gotten to grips with the symphonies that precede no. 3, but the chances are, I suspect, that anyone whose first encounter with Bruckner is the Fifth Symphony (as in my case) is quite likely either to feel repulsed or utterly drawn to the composer's work (the latter in my case). Whilst I'm not convinced that all of Bruckner's first completed symphonic thoughts were necessarily superior to revised versions, I've long felt that, had he not spent so much time revising what might not have needed revision, we might even have had a Tenth Symphony from him (though to whom he would have felt able to dedicate it is beyond me)...

Yes, the F minor is the one. I came to Bruckner after Wagner and all the Liszt tone poems and Faust, but before Mahler. I have not thought through the significance of that. my first Bruckner symphony was #8, so it was really only going to be one way for me!

If you get some time, check-out Carlo Maria Giulini's #2 with the VPO on Testament. It might help with the earlier works.

I often play #1, but it I too have not got to grips with it, even after many years.

[Sir Velo]

Surprising gaffe from the Don this week; announcing the 5th symphony as played by Welser-Most and the LSO (sic).

[Nick Armstrong]

It might help with the earlier works.

I often play #1, but it I too have not got to grips with it, even after many years.

I went to hear Vladimir Jurowski conduct #1 with the LPO in December. It was a remarkable experience. Great Brucknerian sounds, and a definite experimental feel - to the extent that, had I not known it was his 1st, and been told it was the newly-discovered sketches for the 10th, I might have been convinced. The music seemed just as consistent with AB striking out for some sort of new simplicity after the 9th, as it did with him striking out on the (sort of) beginning of his symphonic career.

[jayne lee wilson]

Yes, the F minor is the one. I came to Bruckner after Wagner and all the Liszt tone poems and Faust, but before Mahler. I have not thought through the significance of that. my first Bruckner symphony was #8, so it was really only going to be one way for me!

If you get some time, check-out Carlo Maria Giulini's #2 with the VPO on Testament. It might help with the earlier works.

I often play #1, but it I too have not got to grips with it, even after many years.

Yes, the Giulini 2nd is one of the greatest of Bruckner recordings. Deryck Cooke remarked in his original review that, in the face of such beauty, discontent with the truncated 1877 edition can be temporarily set aside.
But only temporarily... for yea, there is one even greater: Tintner/NSOI with the complete 1872 Carraghan text on Naxos (71'22! Giulini 1977 is 58'32). The fresh, pastoral, almost Schubertian quality is a revelation here, and you also have the fascination of the scherzo placed second. And it's the horn, not the clarinet, which soothes and blesses at the end of the andante.

The latest radical readings of Nos.1 & 2 from Venzago (CPO) are in that clearer, fresher vein. No hint of grand rhetoric at all, but very expressive. Again revelatory, if not as sensuously beautiful as Tintner. I'm much taken with them, but they may give you a few shocks!

[Richard Tarleton]

But only temporarily... for yea, there is one even greater: Tintner/NSOI with the complete 1872 Carraghan text on Naxos (71'22! Giulini 1977 is 58'32).

I'm grateful to you for this reassurance Jayne - after nearly 50 years shamefully ignoring 1 and 2 I'm getting to know them via the Tintner recordings. Should I be seeking out 0 as well?

[Beef Oven]

Yes, the Giulini 2nd is one of the greatest of Bruckner recordings. Deryck Cooke remarked in his original review that, in the face of such beauty, discontent with the truncated 1877 edition can be temporarily set aside.
But only temporarily... for yea, there is one even greater: Tintner/NSOI with the complete 1872 Carraghan text on Naxos (71'22! Giulini 1977 is 58'32). The fresh, pastoral, almost Schubertian quality is a revelation here, and you also have the fascination of the scherzo placed second. And it's the horn, not the clarinet, which soothes and blesses at the end of the andante.

The latest radical readings of Nos.1 & 2 from Venzago (CPO) are in that clearer, fresher vein. No hint of grand rhetoric at all, but very expressive. Again revelatory, if not as sensuously beautiful as Tintner. I'm much taken with them, but they may give you a few shocks!

Yes, The Tintner was my preferred recording for some time. However, the last few times I've listened to the Giulini, I've preferred it. The 1877 version makes no difference (versions is a cul de sac discussion that a number of people like to indulge in) and the VPO's playing is beautiful.

Also, in many ways, the shorter playing time makes for an even more rewarding listen.