Bruckner's Abbey

[Karl Henning]

Something of a poster boy for composerly diffidence!

[Cato]

Something of a poster boy for composerly diffidence!

Oh yes!  The poor man often sought e.g. certificates from professors to prove himself.

I do not dread to mention that I also obtained the CD with the Originalfassung of the Second Symphony,  on NAXOS with Georg Tintner conducting.  Again, there is a case to be made that Bruckner tinkered with something that did not need tinkering.

I revisited the Tintner/ National Symphony Orchestra of Ireland performance of the original version of the Second Symphony and must say that it is preferable to the Nowak edition of the revised work!  There is simply much more drama in the Andante and the Finale, especially the latter.

[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

[Karl Henning]

Wow, definitely on the To Watch list.

[Cato]

Again, thanks to a fellow Brucknerian:

https://www.youtube.com/v/L1PreUSNb9c

[Jo498]

I wonder why they interviewed only brass players... I know of at least one string player who strongly dislikes playing Bruckner...

[calyptorhynchus]

I wonder why they interviewed only brass players... I know of at least one string player who strongly dislikes playing Bruckner...

The music is for the pleasure of the audience, not the pleasure of the players. 

[Jo498]

Sure. (And if I remember correctly that person did not dislike Bruckner's music per se but the frequent tremolo apparently hurts/exhausts some string players.)
But it is somewhat strange to interview only brass players; there are woodwinds as well, if one expects the string players do be less fond.

[André]

I've heard that Schubert's 9th symphony (the last movement) is a nightmare for the string players. It physically hurts them to play these passages of repeated fast notes. I never heard that about Bruckner, though the 7th symphony does have lots of tremolos, and the last movement has them fighting hard to be heard above the brass.

[Cato]

I've heard that Schubert's 9th symphony (the last movement) is a nightmare for the string players. It physically hurts them to play these passages of repeated fast notes. I never heard that about Bruckner, though the 7th symphony does have lots of tremolos, and the last movement has them fighting hard to be heard above the brass.

I have heard the same about the more experimental composers of yesteryear, e.g. Penderecki's  earlier works were considered by some both painful to play and to hear.  I wonder if the players today would have the same opinion!

[Jo498]

I am not really a Brucknerian but I might get this at some stage. The Southwest German Radio finally publishes Rosbaud's Brucker recordings, some of which have been around for decades on some labels, but not all of them. Symphonies 2-9.

https://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/anton-bruckner-hans-rosbaud-dirigiert-bruckner/hnum/7731324

[Cato]

I am not really a Brucknerian but I might get this at some stage. The Southwest German Radio finally publishes Rosbaud's Brucker recordings, some of which have been around for decades on some labels, but not all of them. Symphonies 2-9.

https://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/anton-bruckner-hans-rosbaud-dirigiert-bruckner/hnum/7731324

I am not acquainted with these at all: Hans Rosbaud of course was one of the great conductors of the 20th Century, especially with contemporary composers (e.g. Schoenberg and Hartmann), so you will undoubtedly be in good hands!

Let us know what you think!

Here is a taste on You Tube:

https://www.youtube.com/v/r-rmYPtS5pc

[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.

[North Star]

It's all downhill, so the slow movement seems so much better in comparison? 0:)

[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.

It's all downhill, so the slow movement seems so much better in comparison? 0:)

I find nothing downhill about the last movement: it is a tortured yet successful ascent from the acquiescence in the earlier abyss.

From Bruno Walter in the quote below:

Their symphonies resemble each other also in the special significance of the finale in the total-architecture.

[Cato]

The Symphony #3 pleased me right from the start (which goes without saying    ).  I recall being intrigued by the mysterious opening with the strange figures in the strings and that seemingly faraway trumpet.  The first movement's drama told some sort of story, a story somehow more specific - yet still ineffable - than the impressions from the earlier symphonies.

This was the revised Nowak edition without the Wagner homage, and that was fine with me: for some reason I was much against using quotations from other composers, and felt that Bruckner was right to second-guess himself.  These days I am more open to the idea having validity in a work, but back then it seemed too overt: if the composer was telling me too clearly what the music should guide me toward (Wagner), then that interfered with my own ideas and enjoyment.   Now, I have heard the original, Wagner-referring version thanks to Kent Nagano, and oddly, I did not find it very jarring at all!  My fears were somewhat unwarranted: still, I prefer the un-Wagnered revised edition!  Perhaps the preference comes from liking the unknowable, and the reference to Wagner gives me too much of a clue.

I also recall being impressed by the famous part of the last movement, where a rather jolly dance is played above a somber chorale: one critic called the chorale in the brass and woodwinds a funeral march, and I recall thinking that was overstating the case.  Mahler, of course, was influenced (greatly?) by the work, and this kind of juxtaposition appealed to him.  The "Brother John" funeral march in his First Symphony is seen as a direct descendant of Bruckner's Third.

And on that point, allow me to present a link to something else of importance from my youth: I joined the Bruckner Society of America (for $5.00, I think!) when I was a teenager in the 1960's and received several copies of Chord and Discord for my membership, one of which was from the 1940's and contained a marvelous essay by Bruno Walter on the two composers.

This essay is now available here:

http://www.classical.net/music/comp.lst/articles/bruckner/brucknerandmahler.php

An excerpt:

Nine symphonies composed by Bruckner, as well as Mahler, in the course of about thirty years, constitute the chief product of their creative power. The nature of the themes, developments, combinations, is (in keeping with their creator's nature) truly symphonic. Remarkable coincidences in the periodic progress of their work are the decisive step from the Third to the Fourth and the change of style between the Fourth and Fifth symphonies. The Fourth of each opens a new field of expression scarcely glimpsed in his previous works. A warm, romantic light rises over Bruckner's hitherto heroic tone-world; a tender fairy-tale-like idyll soothes Mahler's tempestuous heart. For both the Fifth, with its intensification of the polyphonic style, inaugurates the period of mature mastery. The laconic idiom of restraint, the art of mere suggestion, involving economy of means and form, is not theirs. Only in a number of his songs do we find Mahler's contradictory nature master of this style too. Otherwise both share in common the urge to yield their entire beings symphonically through unrestrained expression in huge dimensions. Their symphonies resemble each other also in the special significance of the finale in the total-architecture. Broadly spun, essentially diatonic themes and a counterpoint directly joined to the classical tradition characterize both. To be sure, Mahler's later polyphony trod more complex, daring, and highly individual paths. To both (and to them alone) the church chorale comes as naturally as the Austrian Ländler. The utmost solemnity and folk-like joviality constitute the opposite poles in both their natures. They are linked with the classicists, the way leads through Schubert. Their association is strengthened, among other things, by the fundamentals of their harmony, their style of cadence and (all their deviations notwithstanding) their fondness for symmetry and regular periodic structure. Even the later Mahler, no matter to what regions his formal and harmonic boldness led him, maintained clear periodic structure and a firm tonal foundation. Both revel in broadly built climaxes, in long sustained tensions, whose release requires overwhelming sonorous dynamics.

[aukhawk]

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

The 4th movement (any 4th movement) can't do anything to the 3rd (any 3rd) because time only goes one way, however you choose to visualize it.

[aukhawk]

The music is for the pleasure of the audience, not the pleasure of the players. 

You remind me of my local supermarket, which seems to be entirely for the benefit of the shelf-stackers, and not for the shoppers. (Which of course is, actually, true.)

[relm1]

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. 

[Mahlerian]

The 4th movement (any 4th movement) can't do anything to the 3rd (any 3rd) because time only goes one way, however you choose to visualize it.

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