Tackling a serious gap in my musical knowledge

[Roehre]

Look I'm sorry about being contentious, but a lifetime of listening to and loving Bruckner, through many live performances and complete cycles... just chuck out the concert programmers' cliched ideas about 4 or 7 being the most "appealing" or whatever.

Start at No.1, and follow Bruckner on his great journey through his creation of new musical architecture, of "strange new worlds" of musical forms and emotion that he alone could have explored. Bruckner called his C Minor No.1 because he knew - as all devoted Brucknerians eventually come to realise - that it was his first completely distinctive statement - here he was, Bruckner, himself. But in No.2, he starts to explore beyond sonata forms, becomes more confident in those imaginative and expansive developments. With No.3, ONLY listen to the 1873 Original for as long as you can. That way you'll avoid the immense frustation some of us felt having to puzzle over the later spatchcocked revisions of 1877 and worst of all 1889. (Listen to those later if you get really keen - you'll be appalled). But the 3rd remains the hardest to come to terms with, if only because the best version - the original - is a little awkward and unwieldy; he was "reaching beyond his grasp" a little.

Now it gets easier - the original 4th is disjointed and under-developed and Bruckner knew it; yes, hear it, but as a study for the familiar 1878 almost-masterpiece (finale not quite fully-formed).
I envy you if you come to the 5th after giving some time to the first 4 - it's one of the 7 wonders of the symphonic world, a vast, Apollonian, out-and-out, perfect masterpiece. Poignant that Bruckner never heard it, it was never played in his lifetime.
6 - a divertimento after the great statement of No.5, concise, relaxed, almost pastoral.

You don't need any words from me really about the great final trilogy - and trilogy they are, a great meditation on last things, self-referential and self-quoting. Editions are less problematic: cross those bridges when you come to them.

Take this as a rough guide to a far-flung, utterly unique symphonic kingdom. Yes, just plunge in, mix up the order if you must - but PLEASE, why not be different - start at No.1, and go on from there. It might take you weeks, months, or years, who knows...
(...)
Take your time, don't rush to experience those late, great, apocalyptic symphonic statements...

But there is more to Bruckner than his symphonic output.
There isn't much chamber music, but his only string quintet is a master work in its own right - not unjustly called a symphony for 5 strings.

His choral works - Masses [the numbered ones 1-3 that is], Te Deum, Psalm 150 i.a.- are great and important works too, especially the Te Deum (of which Bruckner jokingly said it should be used as finale of the 9th in case he wouldn't be able to complete no.9) and the Mass in f-minor (no.3). There are quotes from the symphonies to be discovered in the Masses, and vice versa btw.

For the Requiem and the Mass-settings without a number [Missa solemnis in b flat minor, Mass in A, Kronstorfer Mass] these are "youth works", as there are the settings of Psalms 112 and 114, which show a kind of "pre-symphonic" Bruckner. Interesting, but uncharacteristic. Hyperion offers the Requiem and these Psalms on one CD.

Characteristic for Bruckner the church musician however are his Motets. Especially the ones recorded by Jochum are an excellent entry into this part of B's output: Afferentur Regi, Ave Maria, Christus factus est, Ecce sacerdos, Locus Iste, Os justi, Pange Lingua, Tota pulchra es Maria, Vexilla Regis and Virga Jesse. There are some 30 odd others, but all or a selection of these ten are found in approximately every collection of Motet recordings.

And there is one big advantage: any of the Motets last only a couple of minutes, the Te Deum just over 25 minutes, in case you don't have much time to explore

[Mr Pee]

The Te Deum is magnificent- the final few bars alone are worth the price of admission!!

[Bryn]

Personally, I would go with Beef's advice and start with no.4, then 7, 8 and 9. And the ninth is magnificent in its 3 movement form. I always have a problem with "completed" symphonies, or Requiems, because I know I'm not hearing the composer's final thoughts.

One is a darn site nearer to hearing Bruckner's final symphonic thoughts listening to one of the completions of the 9th than just the first three movements. He did very much continue thinking after 'completing' those 3 movement, though he may well have gone on to touch up and revise them had he lived somewhat longer.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

It will be interesting at last to note a generation of listeners coming to Bruckner's final symphony for the first time in the four-movement form that the composer always intended it to be; indeed, I've listened to this magnificent symphony less than any of the others (except the pre-no. 1 ones) until recently because I simply couldn't stand the sheer frustration of knowing that there's a long journey on which to embark following the close of the Adagio but no on will sell me a ticket for it.

So many Bruckner enthusiasts, so much advice!

Jayne's is one, extremely logical way of "getting" to the Symphonies (and it is with the greatest of thanks to her that I am currently enjoying Rozhdestvensky's splendid performances) and ahinton's comments above express a view I have often pondered myself.

BUT

As someone who detested Bruckner until my late twenties, I would suggest the (unfinished) Ninth as the entry point, and in Karajan's BPO CD from the 1960s (before he did the complete cycle in the 70s). I kept bad company in thoses days; a dissolute crowd of Brucknerphobes, and they (WE!) all shared one opinion: the Ninth was the only thing of his worthy of the Hype surrounding this sub-Mahlerian, long-winded amateur.

Then I heard the Seventh (Karajan again, EMI, a recording I played repeatedly), the Sixth (Klemperer; "tougher" than Karajan in his approach, which may well appeal to many Bruckner-sceptics - but Norrington's is the best interpretation of this currently available on disc, IMO) and the Eighth (Jochum, BPO, DG). Thereafter, none of the Symphonies held any problems for me ... except the Fourth, after which I still always feel curiously dissatisfied. (Just haven't met the right performance, I suppose!)

And, yes, the Choral Music is an essential part of this composer: the Te Deum, and the Masses (Jochum's set particularly good) but the shorter pieces for Choir (there's a DG recording of these coupled with the Te Deum all conducted by Jochum on a single, inexpensive CD) may well be the way for some listeners to get used to Bruckner's extraordinary and sublime cosmos.

Good Luck and Happy Listening, Voddy!

[Beef Oven]

The Te Deum is magnificent- the final few bars alone are worth the price of admission!!

couldn't agree more.

[ahinton]

Not sure this is a good idea as a starting point as the finale is partly fake-Bruckner, whilst maybe being good music maybe misleading to a novice.

Oh, I wasn't suggesting it as a starting point! - merely pointing out that, at last, some listeners' first experience of that symphony can be a complete one rather than the cut-off-in-its-prime experience that it always was - and the fact that it's now been issued on a recording with BPO/Rattle is likely to lend it the street-cred that earlier recordings of completed versions of the work have not quite managed to do. Furthermore, hardly any of the finale is "fake Bruckner"; many pages of the ms. have come to light since the earlierst editors tried to complete it.

[ahinton]

And the ninth is magnificent in its 3 movement form. I always have a problem with "completed" symphonies, or Requiems, because I know I'm not hearing the composer's final thoughts.

The ninth doesn't HAVE a 3 movement form; since you mention "the composer's final thoughts", they were not (in this instance) to leave the symphony as a three-movement work! And talking about what the composer's final thoughts might be in the context of Bruckner and his incessant revisions (often prompted by the thoughts of others, incidentally) borders on the risible! That said, had Bruckner stuck to his guns more often and spent less time acting upon the thoughts of some of those others who persuaded him that they knew better how to write Bruckner's music than Bruckner himself did, he WOULD have completed his Ninth Symphony rather than messing about with earlier ones.

Do I take it that you don't harbour positive thoughts about Elgar's Third Symphony, then? OK, I know that this is a different case in that the composer left very little fully composed music for it and it was left incomplete because of his final illness and death rather than because he'd been distracted into reworking earlier pieces, but the question's worth asking nevertheless, I think...

[ahinton]

However, I did read a post on another thread from salymap, I think, which has led to Alan Bush. All the initial signs there seem good.

Alan Bush was a very uneven composer whose powers waned in his final years, so you'd need to tread carefully, but there are real treasures in his output; Dialectic for string quartet, Concert Piece for cello and piano (later renamed Concert Duo), the piano concerto and violin concerto, Voices of the Prophets, all the symphonies (especially the third), the first piano sonata, 24 Preludes for piano...

[Mr Pee]

The ninth doesn't HAVE a 3 movement form; since you mention "the composer's final thoughts", they were not (in this instance) to leave the symphony as a three-movement work! And talking about what the composer's final thoughts might be in the context of Bruckner and his incessant revisions (often prompted by the thoughts of others, incidentally) borders on the risible! That said, had Bruckner stuck to his guns more often and spent less time acting upon the thoughts of some of those others who persuaded him that they knew better how to write Bruckner's music than Bruckner himself did, he WOULD have completed his Ninth Symphony rather than messing about with earlier ones.

Do I take it that you don't harbour positive thoughts about Elgar's Third Symphony, then? OK, I know that this is a different case in that the composer left very little fully composed music for it and it was left incomplete because of his final illness and death rather than because he'd been distracted into reworking earlier pieces, but the question's worth asking nevertheless, I think...

Well, the Ninth DOES have a three movement form, and it is the form in which most listeners know the piece. And when I say that I like to hear the composer's final thoughts, then I mean his final completed thoughts, which take us up to the end of the third movement. The whole question of revisions is a seperate issue. Sorry if you find that "risible".....

As to Elgar 3- I think it is a fascinating experiment, and Anthony Payne did a fine job with the limited material available to him, but when I listen to it I am always aware that it is more Payne than Elgar, and therefore do not regard it in the same way as the other 2 magnificent symphonies that were completed by Elgar himself.

[3rd Viennese School]

Don't do wot I did and start with Bruckner 6! You'll think "what the..."

No.3 is a good place to start. As its a template for all the other symphonies!

Except for no.5- maybe do this one later on- its the best symphony and actually sounds more advanced than others surrounding it!

3VS

[ahinton]

Well, the Ninth DOES have a three movement form, and it is the form in which most listeners know the piece.

It doesn't; it's merely the form in which it's been presented to listeners who have as a consequence had to suffer by being short-changed, until recently; yes, of course it's the way that most of us have listened to it, but that's because most of the work that's been done on the finale has been accomplished over the pst 30 years or so and even that has not taken off in the way that one might have expected it to do in terms of a refreshed performance tradition, but I suspect that the BPO / Rattle performances and recording will at last be changing all that.

And when I say that I like to hear the composer's final thoughts, then I mean his final completed thoughts, which take us up to the end of the third movement.

That's untrue; whilst for a long time it was thought that there was very little material for the final written down by the composer, various discoveries have revealed that he wrote down a lot of it, some of it fully orchestrated - and there can be little if any doubt that Bruckner had composed the entire movement in his head. Do you avoid listening to Bartók's Viola Concerto because its last few pages were written down by Tibor Serly?

The whole question of revisions is a seperate issue. Sorry if you find that "risible".....

Not so separate as you suggest; it's a different issue, to but the point of commonality is in the question of "the composer's final (completed) thoughts" to which you yourself referred. Who is to say when a composer has his/her "final" thoughts? if the composer can't answer that question, I do not see how you could! Bruckner's is a singular case in point because of the sheer extent of revision that he was persuaded to make to most of his symphonies; Jayne mentioned the sad fact that he never heard his Fifth Symphony and that sadness is compounded by the fact that it was subjected to less post-completion tinkering than any of the others (apart from the Ninth itself).

I think that the questions that you raise (by implication) are twofold; firstly, should anyone ever try to complete a work left incomplete by another composer and, secondly, should anyone listen to such completions?

As to Elgar 3- I think it is a fascinating experiment, and Anthony Payne did a fine job with the limited material available to him, but when I listen to it I am always aware that it is more Payne than Elgar, and therefore do not regard it in the same way as the other 2 magnificent symphonies that were completed by Elgar himself.

Then your reaction is a rare one indeed; many musicians, even Elgar specialists, have listened to that work and been unable to detect just by listening which is which (or rather who is who); indeed, even Andrew Davis, who conducted its première and the first of its several recordings, fell into that trap. This alone serves to illustrate just how fine a job Anthony Payne did on the work. Elgar must have known that someone might have a crack at it one day; it's perhaps a wonder that so much time elapsed before anyone did, however, but the fact that it's now generally spoken of as "Elgar's Third Symphony" says it all, really. I don't reagrd it in the same way as Elgar's first two symphonies, which are indeed magnificent - but for the very different reason that Elgar had moved on by the time he came to work on it. Its arresting opening (which we have fully scored in the composer's hand) sounds almost more like Havergal Brian than the Elgar that we know best (and I've sometimes wondered whether Brian, who'd known Elgar for almot 30 years at the time Elgar began the work, might have offered a few words of enthusiastic encouragement to Elgar - he'd just completed his own Third Symphony at that point). Elgar's second symphony followed his first fairly closely, but the third is separate in time from its immediate predecessor by more than two decades in which all manner of devastating things had happened in the lives of everyone, not least Elgar himself.

[Beef Oven]

Don't do wot I did and start with Bruckner 6! You'll think "what the..."

No.3 is a good place to start. As its a template for all the other symphonies!

Except for no.5- maybe do this one later on- its the best symphony and actually sounds more advanced than others surrounding it!

3VS

What the....?

[VodkaDilc]

Lots of helpful advice for me to read through. Perhaps I should go out a buy a copy of No1 and No4!

Thanks for all the advice, some conflicting, but heading in roughly the same direction.

I went shopping this morning and have come back with Böhm 4 and Tintner 1. Nothing like the immediacy of good shops on the high street! I'm not sure which of the two I'll listen to first - and I certainly won't be hurrying to record my impressions, since I imagine repeated listening over a period is necessary.

All your expertise is proving most valuable.

(What's all this about the original version of No 1? Is that not the one usually played?)

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

(What's all this about the original version of No 1? Is that not the one usually played?)

It's what you've bought, Voddy: Titner's excellent recording is of the first version; there is a later edition Bruckner made (?in Vienna?) that has its adherents (IIRC, Karajan does this in his cycle). But the arguments over the different Bruckner editions are all part of the world into which you have just dipped your toes ...


... AND THERE'S NO GOING BACK NOW!

[Beef Oven]

Thanks for all the advice, some conflicting, but heading in roughly the same direction.

I went shopping this morning and have come back with Böhm 4 and Tintner 1. Nothing like the immediacy of good shops on the high street! I'm not sure which of the two I'll listen to first - and I certainly won't be hurrying to record my impressions, since I imagine repeated listening over a period is necessary.

All your expertise is proving most valuable.

(What's all this about the original version of No 1? Is that not the one usually played?)

Pay no attention to my comment about #1 - I was just being a smart-arse, but it doesn't stand out in here