Bruckner's Abbey

[Cato]

Courtesy of a fellow Brucknerian:

Paul Hindemith conducts the New York Philharmonic (February 1960 according to a note) in the Seventh Symphony:

https://www.youtube.com/v/i6Q2qiSdu44&feature=share

A live performance, so there is some audience noise at times.  Hindemith does not use the timpani or a cymbal clash at the climax of big crescendo in the Adagio.  The performance is a crisp one: no lollygagging around, yet it is never rushed!

[SurprisedByBeauty]

Our perception of events is surely shaped by what follows them, though.

Thanks. I should think so. I didn't mean to suggest anything absurd or even particularly controversial, actually.

It's just that if we think of the slow movement of the 9th -- Bruckner's last (!) symphony, to boot -- as the final movement of the symphony, the whole work attains a character commensurate with that focal point of a sad (minor) leave-taking... slow-movements having a certain connotation in our culture. In fact, with the fourth movement added, the slow movement isn't the final focal point, it becomes an interlude. And we aim our view somewhere else. And in that change of perspective, our perception of the movement changes, too. And that of the performers', presumably, as well.

[Jo498]

It is fairly absurd that both Bruckner's 9th and Schubert's b minor symphony have been canonized in their fragmentary forms and people made up justifications why they are "perfect in 2 or 3 movements", respectively. We know that Bruckner found the 3 movement fragment of his 9th so impossible, that he suggested to play his Te Deum as a "choral finale". And when Schubert's b minor was first performed in the 1860s they played the finale of his 3rd (which does not really fit the mood but it is D major, so a possible closure for a b minor symphony) after the two movements.
Of course I also grew up with the fragmentary version and dubious backcover justifications. Of course, the completions are not without problems either. But at the very least one can be clear about the fact that neither work would have been performable in the form that is commonly performed today for the composers.

[Parsifal]

It is fairly absurd that both Bruckner's 9th and Schubert's b minor symphony have been canonized in their fragmentary forms and people made up justifications why they are "perfect in 2 or 3 movements", respectively. We know that Bruckner found the 3 movement fragment of his 9th so impossible, that he suggested to play his Te Deum as a "choral finale". And when Schubert's b minor was first performed in the 1860s they played the finale of his 3rd (which does not really fit the mood but it is D major, so a possible closure for a b minor symphony) after the two movements.
Of course I also grew up with the fragmentary version and dubious backcover justifications. Of course, the completions are not without problems either. But at the very least one can be clear about the fact that neither work would have been performable in the form that is commonly performed today for the composers.

I consider the first movement of Schubert's b minor to be convincing on its own, as a free standing overture, of sorts. The second movement is nice also, but I don't consider that the two movement form produces a sense of "completion."

The tragedy of Bruckner's 9th is that, as I recall reading, the finale was more or less complete in some sort of short score that Bruckner wasn't happy with. The pages of the draft were given out a souvenirs when Bruckner died and many pages have subsequently been lost. If it weren't for that stupidity there would be a complete draft of the finale for people to work from.

[Karl Henning]

It is fairly absurd that both Bruckner's 9th and Schubert's b minor symphony have been canonized in their fragmentary forms and people made up justifications why they are "perfect in 2 or 3 movements", respectively.

[snip]

... But at the very least one can be clear about the fact that neither work would have been performable in the form that is commonly performed today for the composers.

The music of all five movements referred to is each composer at the top of his game, so it is not absurd to canonize them, not absurd at all.

Considering those two symphony-trunks any kind of 'complete,' is absurd, yes.

Tacking on the finale from the Schubert Third to the Unfinished, well, that is damned absurd, too.

I have no real opinion about performing the Bruckner Ninth with the Te Deum as a kind of finale.  But I've never heard it that way, and have no plans to in future  0:)


And . . . I thought we were clear about the fact that neither work would have been performable in the form that is commonly performed today for the composers . . . .

[Jo498]

Considering those two symphony-trunks any kind of 'complete,' is absurd, yes.

This is what I meant.
Of course tacking on the finale of the 3rd is bizarre. I only mentioned this that at the time of Brahms, Hanslick and Joachim that was what people would rather do than perform the fragment in two movements only because the second option would have been even more bizarre for them.

There is no ideal solution. But performing versions/completions at least give one a piece in a form that would have been recognized by Bruckner or Schubert as a symphony. And I find it puzzling that in these two cases the fragments have been canonized as fragments and most conductors and listeners do not even bother with the completion attempts. (That's why Rattle/Berlin taking on the completed Bruckner 9th was an important step, I believe.) Whereas in opera (Turandot, Lulu, maybe another one I forgot) or in Mozart's Requiem completions or performance versions have been taken for granted for many decades.

[Mahlerian]

This is what I meant.
Of course tacking on the finale of the 3rd is bizarre. I only mentioned this that at the time of Brahms, Hanslick and Joachim that was what people would rather do than perform the fragment in two movements only because the second option would have been even more bizarre for them.

There is no ideal solution. But performing versions/completions at least give one a piece in a form that would have been recognized by Bruckner or Schubert as a symphony. And I find it puzzling that in these two cases the fragments have been canonized as fragments and most conductors and listeners do not even bother with the completion attempts. (That's why Rattle/Berlin taking on the completed Bruckner 9th was an important step, I believe.) Whereas in opera (Turandot, Lulu, maybe another one I forgot) or in Mozart's Requiem completions or performance versions have been taken for granted for many decades.

Bartok's Piano Concerto No. 3 and Viola Concerto are also regularly performed in completions by another's hand.

[Karl Henning]

This is what I meant.
Of course tacking on the finale of the 3rd is bizarre. I only mentioned this that at the time of Brahms, Hanslick and Joachim that was what people would rather do than perform the fragment in two movements only because the second option would have been even more bizarre for them.

Oh, indeed!  Tempora mutantur . . . .

[Karl Henning]

Pupil [Hartmann] and teacher [Webern] did not always concur in their opinions of other composers' stature. 'Even as I heartily rejoice at his opinion of Reger I cannot agree with his appraisal of Bruckner. He does not believe that Bruckner has contributed to the development of music. Is Bruckner then so different from Mahler?' This remark encapsulates the essential difference between pupil and teacher. Webern's music sprang ultimately from a Mahlerian, High Romantic aesthetic, whereas Hartmann was preternaturally Brucknerian in orientation. The music of Anton Bruckner also linked Hartmann to Hindemith in spirit. The Icelandic composer Jon Thórarinsson who studied at Yale between 1944 and 1947 recalled that, among the composers of the Classic and Romantic period, Anton Bruckner was the one most often referred to by Hindemith. I believe he considered Bruckner, who at this time was practically unknown in America, to be the greatest symphonist after Beethoven.'

[Parsifal]

I have no real opinion about performing the Bruckner Ninth with the Te Deum as a kind of finale.  But I've never heard it that way, and have no plans to in future  0:)

I would never consider the Te Deum to be a suitable "finale" for the 9th. But at a live concert I can see that there is an argument against sending the audience out into the night after listening to a piece that breaks off before the completion that the composer intended.

I can see ending the concert with something like the Te Deum, not as a substitute finale, but so that the audience leaves the hall having experienced a completed piece of music.

[Cato]

The music of Anton Bruckner also linked Hartmann to Hindemith in spirit. The Icelandic composer Jon Thórarinsson who studied at Yale between 1944 and 1947 recalled that, among the composers of the Classic and Romantic period, Anton Bruckner was the one most often referred to by Hindemith. I believe he considered Bruckner, who at this time was practically unknown in America, to be the greatest symphonist after Beethoven.'

Amen!  0:)

In the 1970's, I had a friend who had access to the Library of Congress, and who made a photocopy of the Alfred Orel edition of Bruckner's finale for the Ninth Symphony (i.e. Entwürfe und Skizzen zur IX. Symphonie) from 1934.  I studied the edition fairly carefully for some time, and always thought that a Deryck Cooke might be able to complete it.

In the event it took 4 musicologists, but I personally am quite happy with the result, which goes beyond the Orel edition in that it rectifies the scholar's misinterpretations and uses a few new pages not known to him.

See:

https://www.abruckner.com/Data/articles/articlesEnglish/roelandsjacques/roelandsjacques-bruckner_9_finale_critical_account.pdf

[Karl Henning]

Most interesting!

[SurprisedByBeauty]

The music of all five movements referred to is each composer at the top of his game, so it is not absurd to canonize them, not absurd at all.

Considering those two symphony-trunks any kind of 'complete,' is absurd, yes.

In fairness, the quotee said that it "is fairly absurd that both Bruckner's 9th and Schubert's b minor symphony have been canonized in their fragmentary forms and people made up justifications why they are "perfect in 2 or 3 movements", respectively."

It's not absurd that we try to get the most out of those works even though they are not finished. But we go well beyond it... in a sort of self-justifying and rationalizing way pretending that these are not just OK to perform because we lack the real thing and still want a taste of it... but that it's actually just perfect the way it is. Exactly what Jo said, actually.

Must admit that I think the Te Deum patch is not a good one... scarcely better than no last movement at all -- and even then only if actually played attacca. But how about tacking Schubert's Symphony in D major, D.708 to the Ninth? Killing two birds with a stone, as it were.

[Jo498]

As I said, I mentioned the apparently bizarre patchings (finale of Schubert's 3rd at the belated first performance of the b minor fragment and Te Deum) is to show that there is virtually no historical evidence that either composer (or more or less contemporary musicians) regarded them as "perfect" in their transmitted form.
But in the last ca. 100 years we have canonized the fragmentary state and mostly disregarded any attempts at patchings or completions. I don't think we should deny the difficulties of the completions for either work. But until very recently or even today it was totally exotic to even bother with them. Before Rattle recorded the 4 movement Bruckner 9th the recordings were by virtually unknown conductors with provincial orchestras. For Schubert there was Mackerras but the overwhelming mainstream did not bother with any completion attempt.

So I think some pluralism is on order, so that listeners and musicians can make up their minds themselves. If every 4th or 5th performance/recording of these two pieces was in a completed version this would be a huge change in perception.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

As I said, I mentioned the apparently bizarre patchings (finale of Schubert's 3rd at the belated first performance of the b minor fragment and Te Deum) is to show that there is virtually no historical evidence that either composer (or more or less contemporary musicians) regarded them as "perfect" in their transmitted form.
But in the last ca. 100 years we have canonized the fragmentary state and mostly disregarded any attempts at patchings or completions. I don't think we should deny the difficulties of the completions for either work. But until very recently or even today it was totally exotic to even bother with them. Before Rattle recorded the 4 movement Bruckner 9th the recordings were by virtually unknown conductors with provincial orchestras. For Schubert there was Mackerras but the overwhelming mainstream did not bother with any completion attempt.

So I think some pluralism is on order, so that listeners and musicians can make up their minds themselves. If every 4th or 5th performance/recording of these two pieces was in a completed version this would be a huge change in perception.

Couldn't agree more. And Bruckner 9 is still very rare, despite Rattle's fine (and important) efforts. Only M10 has made it mainstream, really... though Bartok Viola Concerto could be argued to be in the mix. And then there are the completions which we don't even think of much; Turandot & Lulu, for one.

[Cato]

Couldn't agree more. And Bruckner 9 is still very rare, despite Rattle's fine (and important) efforts. Only M10 has made it mainstream, really... though Bartok Viola Concerto could be argued to be in the mix. And then there are the completions which we don't even think of much; Turandot & Lulu, for one.

That is a great recording, and not just because it includes a very persuasive case for the Finale of the 4 musicologists!  The first three movements are beyond excellent, and that is the opinion of an unreconstructed Jochum fan!

[Cato]

Inviting others to share their memories: perhaps the extra title has not been noticed?

Today I will write a few things about the Bruckner Fourth Symphony from my first hearing.  I am practically positive that it was the second work of Bruckner's to hit my ears (the Seventh was the first), and I recall being immediately immersed in a medieval atmosphere, and this was before I knew anything about the term "Romantic", which I just ignored.

The music summoned up knights marching and riding, castles, etc. and practically everything about the opening movement brought these kinds of thoughts.  The melancholy slow movement - with its march-like moments also contributed to the "medieval" aspect, and of course there was the Scherzo!

However, and I still marvel at this, a 16-bar section, (specifically bars 334-350 of the Nowak score), in the opening movement summoned up an image of when I was younger, standing in my yard and watching a huge B-52 fly above my house on its way to the local USAF base!

The last movement I found odd, even quirky, for it seemed to be on a different planet, but I trusted Bruckner by that time (bewitched by the Seventh's greatness) and just listened and followed the score!   0:)

[SurprisedByBeauty]

Rough visualization of why I like B9 with the 4th movement. Not for that movement itself but for what it does to the 3rd.

I don't get your post at all.  Explain further.

This is meant to illustrate that we end up in a different place after three movements, if we have our horizon fixed on the end of a fourth movement.
In other words, that the emotional context of the third movement is different when we see it as the penultimate, rather than the ultimate movement.
[Sorry for the late answer; didn't see your post there, having been on the bottom of the page]

The Baroque, where more is always MORE!!! 0:)

Many thanks, and let us know your reviews!

Voila. Finally!


The Subtle Miracle Herbert Blomstedt And Bamberg's Cathedral Tour Of Bruckner





https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenslaurson/2017/09/21/the-subtle-miracle-herbert-blomstedt-and-bambergs-cathedral-tour-of-bruckner/

[Mirror Image]

I personally love the Bruckner 9th in it's three-movement form. I think it sounds so foreboding when it ends on that third movement. I'm actually left quite satisfied.

[Cato]

Rough visualization of why I like B9 with the 4th movement. Not for that movement itself but for what it does to the 3rd.



This is meant to illustrate that we end up in a different place after three movements, if we have our horizon fixed on the end of a fourth movement.
In other words, that the emotional context of the third movement is different when we see it as the penultimate, rather than the ultimate movement.
[Sorry for the late answer; didn't see your post there, having been on the bottom of the page]

Voila. Finally!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenslaurson/2017/09/21/the-subtle-miracle-herbert-blomstedt-and-bambergs-cathedral-tour-of-bruckner/[/url]

Hello Jens!  Many thanks for your very nice essay: the review contains excellent information written in an engaging style!  By chance, I am preparing to write my next little essay on hearing the Bruckner Fifth Symphony for the first time...probably well before you were born!   0:)