Prom 56: Mozart & Bruckner – 24.08.18

[Anastasius]

I try to 'get' Bruckner, if that is the right word, but try as I might, listening to Bruckner to me is like having a very bad and incessant migraine. Is there a recommended 'entry' point into his work ?

[Darkbloom]

I try to 'get' Bruckner, if that is the right word, but try as I might, listening to Bruckner to me is like having a very bad and incessant migraine. Is there a recommended 'entry' point into his work ?

The 7th was the first Bruckner I ever heard. I think it's as good a place to start as any. But maybe Bruckner just isn't your 'thing'; we all have blind spots. No matter how hard I try, I still find Shostakovich incredibly overrated.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The 7th was the first Bruckner I ever heard. I think it's as good a place to start as any. But maybe Bruckner just isn't your 'thing'; we all have blind spots. No matter how hard I try, I still find Shostakovich incredibly overrated.

- It took me several years to "get" Bruckner: my own "breakthrough" piece was the (unfinished) Ninth in the Karajan recording from the '60s; then the Seventh and Sixth (Klemperer both), then the Eighth (Jochum/BPO)- after that, it was plain sailing, and he's one of my favourite composers.

[Petrushka]

- It took me several years to "get" Bruckner: my own "breakthrough" piece was the (unfinished) Ninth in the Karajan recording from the '60s; then the Seventh and Sixth (Klemperer both), then the Eighth (Jochum/BPO)- after that, it was plain sailing, and he's one of my favourite composers.

I took to Bruckner immediately and that was with the 8th Symphony in the 1944 VPO/Furtwängler set purchased in 1974. I loved it and practically wore the discs out. It was all pretty well plain sailing after that! Seriously, though, if I was starting out again, I'd begin with 4 or 7.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I took to Bruckner immediately and that was with the 8th Symphony in the 1944 VPO/Furtwängler set purchased in 1974. I loved it and practically wore the discs out. It was all pretty well plain sailing after that! Seriously, though, if I was starting out again, I'd begin with 4 or 7.

The Fourth is still the one with which I still have most problems - and yet it is the one that seems to be (or used to be) the most popular.

[Bryn]

The Fourth is still the one with which I still have most problems - and yet it is the one that seems to be (or used to be) the most popular.

Hmm. Same here, as it happens. Perhaps it's that "Romantic" tag?

[Darkbloom]

If I had to nominate a 'least recommended' Bruckner symphony, it would have to be the 5th. It's arguably his best but not for a novice.

[Bryn]

If I had to nominate a 'least recommended' Bruckner symphony, it would have to be the 5th. It's arguably his best but not for a novice.

Ah yes, the one Boulez claimed not to be able to tell from the 8th.

[jonfan]

Yes the Fourth was my entry point to the symphonies. They are incredibly long and if you aren’t sure you’re liable to be put off by that. He proceeds slowly and you need to accept that. Perhaps a starter into the essence of Bruckner would be the a cappella choral works which are short but encapsulate what the symphonies treat on a bigger canvas. Locus Iste to begin with.

[Nick Armstrong]

I took to Bruckner immediately and that was with the 8th Symphony in the 1944 VPO/Furtwängler set purchased in 1974. I loved it and practically wore the discs out. It was all pretty well plain sailing after that!

Yes it was the 8th that did it for me (Tennstedt/LPO)

[jayne lee wilson]

I try to 'get' Bruckner, if that is the right word, but try as I might, listening to Bruckner to me is like having a very bad and incessant migraine. Is there a recommended 'entry' point into his work ?

Which have you heard most, A.? It always seems to be "4&7" or the revised truncated 3rd, then 7,8,9, that get thrown at people....

So - maybe start at the very beginning, a very good place to start...

Listen to 1 and 2 a few times. Perhaps even starting with the pastoral, evocative, relaxed moods of No.2.... which then gets much fiercer in the finale, just to help you get into Bruckner's far-flung, wide-ranging symphonic kingdom... in No.2 go for Tintner (Naxos) or Blomstedt (Querstand - both 1872, the best version). Same for No.1 (1866)...

If they don't work, Mario Venzago is your last hope....in fact, if it seems that, on your head and ears, Bruckner is "too heavy" or something, start with the refreshingly light, lyrical Venzago anyway....(CPO, the quickest, which may help...)

[Bryn]

Which have you heard most, A.? It always seems to be "4&7" or the revised truncated 3rd, then 7,8,9, that get thrown at people....

So - maybe start at the very beginning, a very good place to start...

Listen to 1 and 2 a few times. Perhaps even starting with the pastoral, evocative, relaxed moods of No.2.... which then gets much fiercer in the finale, just to help you get into Bruckner's far-flung, wide-ranging symphonic kingdom... in No.2 go for Tintner (Naxos) or Blomstedt (Querstand - both 1872, the best version). Same for No.1 (1866)...

If they don't work, Mario Venzago is your last hope....in fact, if it seems that, on your head and ears, Bruckner is "too heavy" or something, start with the refreshingly light, lyrical Venzago anyway....(CPO, the quickest, which may help...)

To start at the begining, it would have to be, 00, followed by 1, 0, 2, surely? As far as I can recall, my introductions were via 3 (rev.) and the first three movements of the 9th in the versions Bruckner had got to by the time he died (let's face it, he would probably adjusted them before submiting them, alsong with the final movement, for publication). I was very much taken with both, though from day one I yearned to hear the original version of the 3rd (I heard it on the Third Programme, where it's compositional history was set out as part of the presentation). The 4th and 00 were the last I got to know, and they remain bottom of the list for me. My loss, as far as the 4th is concerned, I'm sure.

[jayne lee wilson]

To start at the begining, it would have to be, 00, followed by 1, 0, 2, surely? As far as I can recall, my introductions were via 3 (rev.) and the first three movements of the 9th in the versions Bruckner had got to by the time he died (let's face it, he would probably adjusted them before submiting them, alson with the final movement, for publication). I was very much taken with both, though from day one I yearned to hear the original version of the 3rd (I heard it on the Third Programme, where it's compositional history was set out as part of the presentation). The 4th and 00 were the last I got to know, and they remain bottom of the list for me. My loss, as far as the 4th is concerned, I'm sure.

I'm trying to find a different approach for someone who can't click with Bruckner.... I feel that "00" and "0" are obviously inferior, less memorable works, not a good place to start - apprentice pieces which precede the true beginning of the cycle; which is why I think Bruckner left them unnumbered.
He knew their relative artistic worth (or lack of it); so this Brucknerian, at least, feels an overwhelming sense of "This is it, Here I am!" at the thrilling start to No.1, so assured, so confident. No.2 relaxes, broadens everything out, extends the expressive range; No.3 starts the great structural adventure into new symphonic worlds.

[Bryn]

I'm trying to find a different approach for someone who can't click with Bruckner.... I feel that "00" and "0" are obviously inferior, less memorable works, not a good place to start - apprentice pieces which precede the true beginning of the cycle; which is why I think Bruckner left them unnumbered.
He knew their relative artistic worth (or lack of it); so this Brucknerian, at least, feels an overwhelming sense of "This is it, Here I am!" at the thrilling start to No.1, so assured, so confident. No.2 relaxes, broadens everything out, extends the expressive range; No.3 starts the great structural adventure into new symphonic worlds.

I reckon 0 to be somewhat undervalued. Completed around 3 years after the original 'Linz' version of 'No. 1', it can hardly be dismissed as an "aprentice piece", even though Bruckner did nullify it. I feel I was lucky to sart with the 3rd, albeit in a revised version. There are plenty who regard it as Bruckner's first mature symphony, and others who insist that honour belongs to the 4th. Horses for courses, I guess.

[jayne lee wilson]

I reckon 0 to be somewhat undervalued. Completed around 3 years after the original 'Linz' version of 'No. 1', it can hardly be dismissed as an "aprentice piece", even though Bruckner did nullify it. I feel I was lucky to sart with the 3rd, albeit in a revised version. There are plenty who regard it as Bruckner's first mature symphony, and others who insist that honour belongs to the 4th. Horses for courses, I guess.

After writing "nullified" on the front page of the score, Bruckner's further 1895 comment on No.0 was "gilt nicht"..(not valid)... which seems a confident assessment .. and - good enough for me...