Bruckner's Abbey

[Linz]

Also in that set they did it more logically by having Symphony 5 and 8 on their own disc

[Cato]

I just came across this!

The Austrians have become quite serious about passing on Bruckner's music to the next generation!


Junge Brucknertagen!  (Bruckner Days for Young People)


https://www.brucknertage.at/junge/


"Erstaunen, Entdecken, Mitmachen" - "Be Amazed, Discover, Play Along"

Jeden Tag wartet ein spannendes neues Programm auf euch rund um das Leben, die Musik und die Zeit Anton Bruckners. Du kannst unsere halbtägigen Workshops besuchen oder auch den ganzen Tag mit uns verbringen:

"Every day an exciting new program about the life, music, and times of Anton Bruckner awaits you.  You can attend our half-day Workshops or just spend the whole day with us..."

[Cato]

 "The Heavenly Ladder to Eternity: Bruckners Te Deum"




",,Unsere Vision war und ist es, das intensive Erleben der Musik von Anton Bruckner, die sich nicht jedem leicht erschließt, zu ermöglichen und Nachwuchstalente zu fördern", so Univ. Prof. Dr. Klaus Laczika, Gründer der St. Florianer Brucknertage."

"Our vision was and is: to make possible an intensive experience of Anton Bruckner's music, which is not easily accessible to everyone, and to encourage talented people of the next generations," said university Professor Dr. Klaus Laczika, founder of the Saint Florian Bruckner Days." 

[Cato]

Has anyone read this book?

Dermot Gault is a Northern Irish (born in Belfast) musicologist.


The New Bruckner: Compositional Development and the dynamics of Revision





One reviewer writes:

This is an excellent book, a must for Bruckner fans. Those dismayed by the controversy surrounding multiple versions of the Bruckner symphonies will be delighted to learn that, in many instances, it was Bruckner himself who made the final decisions on revisions, and not just as a result of persuasion by his friends, disciples and students.

Notwithstanding the well meaning major rewrite of Bruckner's 5th at its premier in 1894 by Franz Schalk, Bruckner being too ill to attend, and the adulteration of the first 3 movements of his 9th by Ferdinand Lowe after Bruckner's death, sometimes Bruckner's last word on his symphonies was his last word. Clearly, he desired to do what was necessary to get his works performed, but his revisions were still his revisions, and reflect the beauty and intensity of his genius.

The book reviews all the symphonies and the revisions: it is well written and easy to follow.

[/size][/i]

It is NOT cheap by any means!

[calyptorhynchus]

"Notwithstanding the well meaning major rewrite of Bruckner's 5th at its premier in 1894 by Franz Schalk, Bruckner being too ill to attend, and the adulteration of the first 3 movements of his 9th by Ferdinand Lowe after Bruckner's death, sometimes Bruckner's last word on his symphonies was his last word. Clearly, he desired to do what was necessary to get his works performed, but his revisions were still his revisions, and reflect the beauty and intensity of his genius. "

If the reviewer is accurately paraphrasing the thesis of the book then it's interesting that it contains such a powerful statement of this thesis because usually what you find nowadays is the more moderate proposition that it's good to have so many versions of Bruckner symphonies and we can listen to different versions and appreciate Bruckner's revisions. This is the thesis of William Carrigan in his Anton Bruckner: Eleven Symphonies, published by the Bruckner Society of America in 2021. This volume, by the way, tells you everything you need to know about the various versions of the Bruckner symphonies and includes copious musical examples with QR code links to musical extracts online.

However, I believe more or less the opposite of this thesis and I thought it might be useful to put down why I think this is the case.
In literary studies the dictum is 'the last version published under the author's supervision is the one to be preferred', but literary scholars as often break this rule as they observe it. Very few Wordsworthians would be found who prefer the later revisions of The Prelude over the 1805 version, for example. And in musical studies, although the 'latest revision' is the preferred version according to orthodoxy, there are examples of a composer who had to modify their work to get it performed (or had it modified for them) whose original versions are later preferred, Janáček for example.

These are the main reasons why I believe that the first versions of Bruckner symphonies are in the main to be preferred (there are two exceptions to this, which I discuss later):

1.   Firstly they sound better, I don't think anyone who comes to the first versions first can honestly say that they prefer the later ones. For example the first version I heard of the 2nd Symphony was the 1872 version recorded by Georg Tinter. This is basically the only version I listened to until a few years ago when I put on a recording of the 1877 revision; even though this revision is not as drastic as later revisions of this or other early symphonies, I was genuinely shocked by the senseless cuts in the slow movement and the finale, which make no sense structurally and remove some fine music for no very good reason. Conversely I had listened to several of the later symphonies when a teenager, but was put off Bruckner for a time by a recording by Karajan of the 1889 revision of the 3rd. I couldn't understand why this work was so clumsy and inept. When I heard the original version it was a revelation, then I saw what Bruckner had intended.
2.   Secondly there is no prima facie reason why Bruckner needed to revise his symphonies; the early ones are early Bruckner with fresh, somewhat naïve orchestration and variable phrase lengths. When Bruckner revised these later in life he regularised the phrasing and made the orchestration more massive... more like late Bruckner in fact. If Beethoven had revised his First Symphony at the time of the Ninth in the style of his later works would anyone welcome this? If the symphonies needed to be revised (which they don't) anyone but Bruckner should have undertaken it, as he was last person who could have done it sympathetically in his earlier style. And many people have listened to 'Die Nullte', a symphony that Bruckner never revised; has anyone ever suggested that this work needs to have its phrasing regularised, its orchestration made more massive and have various (almost random) chunks chopped out of it to make a better symphony?
3.   The relations between Bruckner's 'friends' and the master are easily seen as abusive and parasitic. Instead of getting to know his work and understanding it, and promoting it by educating conductors and orchestras on the music, they simply kept him in a constant state of anxiety about his work and they wasted his time later in life by suggesting needless revisions to earlier works. They may have contributed to, or even caused, Bruckner's mental health problems later in life, and they certainly prevented him from fully finishing the 9th. [I believe that Bruckner did finish the 9th in bifolios and then stopped wok, too exhausted to continue, but convinced that time would vindicate him. The theft of manuscript pages after this death stymied this.] I have a close relative who suffers from a chronic lack of self-confidence, and it is clear that when afflicted by this this person is as deluded as someone who has inflated opinions of their talents or abilities. If Bruckner had had real friends they would have understood this and helped him instead of hindering him, and if they had he may have been able to premiere the 9th and even begin a 10th. In fact I think the nature of the revisions that Bruckner made at the suggestions of his 'friends' show that he himself did not agree with them. By the late 1880s he may have thought it was a good idea to regularise and reorchestrate earlier works in his late style, but the fact that he made big, senseless cuts in his works when revising to me indicates a sort of passive aggressive revision designed to show posterity he was in a hostage situation ('The Schalks are forcing me to revise this symphony, but I don't want to so I am making such egregious cuts that no-one can take them seriously and within a few years people will seek out the original MSs at the National Library and restore the earlier versions').

I did mention two exceptions to the rule of 'earliest version'. These are the 4th and the 8th. In both cases Bruckner wrote the first versions of these works in a state of unusual confidence. In the case of the 4th it was that he had just finished the first version of the 3rd and must have realised what a step forward it was (not that 1 and 2 are inconsiderable works!); he also hadn't yet experienced the set back with the first performance of the 3rd. In the case of the 8th he was buoyed by the success of the 7th in performance. In both these cases I think he simply composed much faster than he normally did and didn't have enough of a chance to (privately) revise the works. With the 4th he had problems with an insubstantial scherzo and with the structure of the finale. In the case of the finale he was moving towards a much freer structure for the finale of the kind that he demonstrated in a masterly way in the symphonies from 5 onwards. With the 8th it was a question of revising the ending to the first movement to the familiar quiet ending, revising the scherzo trio and tightening the structure of the slow movement; interestingly AFAIK he didn't revise the finale much at all, indicating he had now got finale writing down pat and wasn't worried by it. Haas' useful edition kept the changes to the first movement, scherzo and slow movement, but resisted later MS excisions which show Bruckner slipping down the slope of ruining the work by senseless cuts (as in the Nowak edition).

So just to summarise: these are the versions that should be preferred because they are not needlessly revised and because they sound better:

Symphony No.1   1866 version (the 1877 'Linz Version' was revised after Bruckner had taken up residence in Vienna)
Die Nullte   Never revised
Symphony No. 2   1872
Symphony No. 3   1873
Symphony No. 4   1881
Symphony No. 5   No significant revisions
Symphony No. 6   No significant revisions
Symphony No. 7   1885 version, Haas edition which doesn't have the intrusive cymbals and triangle in the slow movement
Symphony No. 8   1890 version, Haas edition
Symphony No. 9   Op post, with Samale–Phillips–Cohrs–Mazzuca Conclusive Revised Edition 2012 version of finale

[MusicTurner]

I totally agree with your main, last points, that the original version of III (and II) are to be preferred, but not the original versions of IV and VIII.

Considering this, it's a bit strange, how the later versions of III have traditionally remained by far the most recorded.

[Cato]

An excellent essay above by Calyptorhynchus!!!

Many thanks for taking the time to set out the case for Originalfassungen mit zwei Ausnahmen!

I do not have too much time right now, but here are some reactions.

If the reviewer is accurately paraphrasing the thesis of the book then it's interesting that it contains such a powerful statement of this thesis because usually what you find nowadays is the more moderate proposition that it's good to have so many versions of Bruckner symphonies and we can listen to different versions and appreciate Bruckner's revisions. This is the thesis of William Carrigan in his Anton Bruckner: Eleven Symphonies, published by the Bruckner Society of America in 2021. This volume, by the way, tells you everything you need to know about the various versions of the Bruckner symphonies and includes copious musical examples with QR code links to musical extracts online.

However, I believe more or less the opposite of this thesis and I thought it might be useful to put down why I think this is the case.

I was raised on the Leopold Nowak editions as recorded by (Saint) Eugen Jochum.  Nowak at times included sections which had been excised in his edited scores, and which therefore were not recorded by Jochum.

Looking at those deleted sections (indicated by Nowak with the Latin abbreviation Vide split into two syllables to indicate the beginning and end of the deletion, i.e. Vi-.....-de )  back then, I remember wondering: "Why was this taken out?!  It seems wonderful!"

For example the first version I heard of the 2nd Symphony was the 1872 version recorded by Georg Tinter. This is basically the only version I listened to until a few years ago when I put on a recording of the 1877 revision; even though this revision is not as drastic as later revisions of this or other early symphonies, I was genuinely shocked by the senseless cuts in the slow movement and the finale, which make no sense structurally and remove some fine music for no very good reason. Conversely I had listened to several of the later symphonies when a teenager, but was put off Bruckner for a time by a recording by Karajan of the 1889 revision of the 3rd. I couldn't understand why this work was so clumsy and inept. When I heard the original version it was a revelation, then I saw what Bruckner had intended.

Your reaction was my reaction, with the caveat that my reaction came about 30 years later after knowing only the edited revision of the Second Symphony!  Yes, so much marvelous music, c. 15-20 minutes more, and that marvelous slow movement seemed to have been the main victim!

If Beethoven had revised his First Symphony at the time of the Ninth in the style of his later works would anyone welcome this?

If the symphonies needed to be revised (which they don't) anyone but Bruckner should have undertaken it, as he was last person who could have done it sympathetically in his earlier style.

And many people have listened to 'Die Nullte', a symphony that Bruckner never revised; has anyone ever suggested that this work needs to have its phrasing regularised, its orchestration made more massive and have various (almost random) chunks chopped out of it to make a better symphony?

The first point is excellent, the second is even more powerful!

I had the good fortune to hear Stefan Sanderling conduct the Toledo Symphony (in a concert in a Cathedral!) in the Symphony #0!.

It seemed that Sanderling and the orchestra both thought this work was on the same level as the last three symphonies, i.e. he treated it as the mighty work it is!

I did mention two exceptions to the rule of 'earliest version'. These are the 4th and the 8th.

In both cases Bruckner wrote the first versions of these works in a state of unusual confidence. In the case of the 4th it was that he had just finished the first version of the 3rd and must have realised what a step forward it was (not that 1 and 2 are inconsiderable works!); he also hadn't yet experienced the set back with the first performance of the 3rd.


So just to summarise: these are the versions that should be preferred because they are not needlessly revised and because they sound better:

Symphony No.1   1866 version (the 1877 'Linz Version' was revised after Bruckner had taken up residence in Vienna)
Die Nullte   Never revised
Symphony No. 2   1872
Symphony No. 3   1873
Symphony No. 4   1881
Symphony No. 5   No significant revisions
Symphony No. 6   No significant revisions
Symphony No. 7   1885 version, Haas edition which doesn't have the intrusive cymbals and triangle in the slow movement
Symphony No. 8   1890 version, Haas edition
Symphony No. 9   Op post, with Samale–Phillips–Cohrs–Mazzuca Conclusive Revised Edition 2012 version of finale

In my later years I am quite happy to have recordings of these available, and as a long-time adherent to the Nowak editions, I must say that your list is on target!

Which recording of the 2012 completion of the Ninth Symphony have you heard?

I will make some comments later!


Also:

I totally agree with your main, last points, that the original version of III (and II) are to be preferred, but not the the original versions of IV and VIII.


Considering this, it's a bit strange, how the later versions of III have traditionally remained by far the most recorded.

Yes, what is the problem?  Are the "Wagner" references politically incorrect or embarrassing or something?  When I first heard the original version, I was amazed at how slight the homage to Wagner is!

[vers la flamme]

Anyone listening to Bruckner lately? What are you listening to?

I've come to love Bruckner over the past three years or so, but it's clicking with me a little extra lately. Still love the Barenboim/Berlin Philharmonic recordings which were my introduction to Bruckner's music. I just can't get over how good the BPO sounds, and Barenboim takes a very solid middle of the road approach through the music: nothing too crazy, nothing too Zen'd out. It's clear he's very passionate about this composer.

Any thoughts on the Barenboim/Staatskapelle Berlin? It's more recent than this cycle, but I have not heard much about it. There's also his earlier Chicago cycle for DG, which is not easy to find right now.

I just picked up the Jochum/Dresden cycle for dirt cheap, and I can't wait to spend time with it. 

For all the Bruckner listening I've done over the past few years, I still feel like I'm just beginning to scratch the surface. There's a lot to unpack, just like with Mahler, but of course the music is completely and utterly different.

[Roasted Swan]

Anyone listening to Bruckner lately? What are you listening to?

I've come to love Bruckner over the past three years or so, but it's clicking with me a little extra lately. Still love the Barenboim/Berlin Philharmonic recordings which were my introduction to Bruckner's music. I just can't get over how good the BPO sounds, and Barenboim takes a very solid middle of the road approach through the music: nothing too crazy, nothing too Zen'd out. It's clear he's very passionate about this composer.

Any thoughts on the Barenboim/Staatskapelle Berlin? It's more recent than this cycle, but I have not heard much about it. There's also his earlier Chicago cycle for DG, which is not easy to find right now.

I just picked up the Jochum/Dresden cycle for dirt cheap, and I can't wait to spend time with it. 

For all the Bruckner listening I've done over the past few years, I still feel like I'm just beginning to scratch the surface. There's a lot to unpack, just like with Mahler, but of course the music is completely and utterly different.

Bruckner is one of those composers who I listen to often and have far too many cycles of!  But at the same time I don't really consider myself a Bruckner "expert".  In part, because I think he is one of those composers that folk like to get rather fixated on in a "connoisseur" manner.  So the music itself can get lost in heated debates about Haas or Nowak (or others), which version of any given work is "better" gesang-periods and just how visionary conductor X or Y is none of which is why I listen to Bruckner. 

I suspect the performances I enjoy and the style of Bruckner playing that I respond to most would be deeply frowned on by 'those-in-the-know'.  For example - I really enjoy the sheer dynamism of Barenboim's Chicago cycle.  The No.4 in that set absolutely blazes.  But for my sins the other day I listened to one of Gunter Wand's No.7's with the NDR and frankly my mind wandered.  Yes I could appreciate the lyrical qualities and the way he controlled climaxes but I found it just all a bit too measured.  I have the 2 other Barenboim cycles as well but neither top Chicago.

Away from Barenboim, I think the (partial) Rogner) cycle on Brilliant is wonderful - lythe and incisive but then I do enjoy the classic Karajan/BPO visionary style too.  Jochum's last/live No.5 with the Concertgebouw is astonishing.  Chailly leaves me relatively cold - well played of course but.......  The bargain Paternoster cycle folk seem to love and I hated - the only set I ever sold - sloppily played/poorly balanced and just too resonant in the live acoustic.  A genuinely great traditional cycle is Skrowaczewski in Saarbrucken.  I also enjoy Sinopoli's partial Dresden set - a powerful No.8 and Dresden playing Bruckner is stunning.  The Jochum Dresden set I only have in an early CD iteration - the playing is great (I prefer it to his DG set) but compromised by the slightly glassy engineering.  I suspect if Mirror Image were still here he'd put in a shout for the Japanese remasters which I seem to remember him raving about - but I can't afford those!

[Scion7]

Here, old boy - try this.

[Cato]

Anyone listening to Bruckner lately? What are you listening to?

I just picked up the Jochum/Dresden cycle for dirt cheap, and I can't wait to spend time with it. 

Good for you!

The usual opinion one reads about that cycle is that the Eastern Germans play the music with a "raw" sound, which for some people is not necessarily a bad thing.   

I recall it being very good: the playing of the Fifth Symphony is better than the DGG performance from the 1960's.

[LKB]

In March of next year, Die Wiener Philharmoniker will be in Berkeley, California.

They're scheduled to preform Bruckner's Eighth, and l intend to be there.

[Daverz]

Brucknerthon XXIV playlist:

- Overture in G minor: Hager/SWF Symphony Orchestra (Amati CD, 1988)

- Symphony 1: Järvi/Frankfurt Radio Symphony Orchestra (RCA SACD, 2013)

- Symphony 0: Poschner/Linz Bruckner Orchestra (Capriccio CD, 2021)

- Symphony 2: Zender/SWF Symphony Orchestra (Amati CD, 1990)

- Symphony 3: Asahina/New Japan Philharmonic Orchestra (Fontec/Tower Records SACD, 1996)

- Symphony 4: Dohnányi/Philharmonia Orchestra (Signum CD, 2008)

- Symphony 5: Haitink/Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra (BPO Blu-ray Audio, 2011)

- Symphony 6: Blomstedt/Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra (Querstand SACD, 2008)

- Symphony 7: Schuricht/Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra (Testament CD, 1964)

- Symphony 8: Kubelik/Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra (Altus CD, 1965)

- Symphony 9: Skrowaczewski/Minnesota Orchestra (Reference Recordings CD, 1996)

[vers la flamme]

Good for you!

The usual opinion one reads about that cycle is that the Eastern Germans play the music with a "raw" sound, which for some people is not necessarily a bad thing.   

I recall it being very good: the playing of the Fifth Symphony is better than the DGG performance from the 1960's.

Raw—I definitely agree with that. The brass is super sharp, it could cut glass. I'm reminded of another East German Bruckner recording that I really like: Heinz Bongartz in Leipzig performing the 6th. Jochum does Bruckner way differently than the conductors I'm used to listening to. It's not that it's extremely erratic, far from it, but his tempi are definitely more volatile than the Brucknerians I usually go for, which would include Daniel Barenboim, Georg Tintner and Günter Wand. Puts a different spin on the music, that I'm not quite used to yet.

[Linz]

Brucknerthon XXIV playlist:

- Overture in G minor: Hager/SWF Symphony Orchestra (Amati CD, 1988)

- Symphony 1: Järvi/Frankfurt Radio Symphony Orchestra (RCA SACD, 2013)

- Symphony 0: Poschner/Linz Bruckner Orchestra (Capriccio CD, 2021)

- Symphony 2: Zender/SWF Symphony Orchestra (Amati CD, 1990)

- Symphony 3: Asahina/New Japan Philharmonic Orchestra (Fontec/Tower Records SACD, 1996)

- Symphony 4: Dohnányi/Philharmonia Orchestra (Signum CD, 2008)

- Symphony 5: Haitink/Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra (BPO Blu-ray Audio, 2011)

- Symphony 6: Blomstedt/Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra (Querstand SACD, 2008)

- Symphony 7: Schuricht/Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra (Testament CD, 1964)

- Symphony 8: Kubelik/Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra (Altus CD, 1965)

- Symphony 9: Skrowaczewski/Minnesota Orchestra (Reference Recordings CD, 1996)

Thanks for posting

[MusicTurner]

Raw—I definitely agree with that. The brass is super sharp, it could cut glass. I'm reminded of another East German Bruckner recording that I really like: Heinz Bongartz in Leipzig performing the 6th. Jochum does Bruckner way differently than the conductors I'm used to listening to. It's not that it's extremely erratic, far from it, but his tempi are definitely more volatile than the Brucknerians I usually go for, which would include Daniel Barenboim, Georg Tintner and Günter Wand. Puts a different spin on the music, that I'm not quite used to yet.

Rögner, Abendroth, Suitner and sometimes Konwitschny of course did good, East-German Bruckner performances too.

[Brahmsian]

Raw—I definitely agree with that. The brass is super sharp, it could cut glass. I'm reminded of another East German Bruckner recording that I really like: Heinz Bongartz in Leipzig performing the 6th. Jochum does Bruckner way differently than the conductors I'm used to listening to. It's not that it's extremely erratic, far from it, but his tempi are definitely more volatile than the Brucknerians I usually go for, which would include Daniel Barenboim, Georg Tintner and Günter Wand. Puts a different spin on the music, that I'm not quite used to yet.

I started with Jochum, and probably biased but he's still my favourite Bruckner conductor. Raw, intense, spontaneous. The 5th is a great example, but even more so is the Dresden 9th.

[vers la flamme]

I started with Jochum, and probably biased but he's still my favourite Bruckner conductor. Raw, intense, spontaneous. The 5th is a great example, but even more so is the Dresden 9th.

I shall get to that one perhaps next. I was trying to work my way through the cycle chronologically but I started mixing it up when I got to the 3rd, because I'm just not really crazy about Bruckner's 3rd unfortunately.

[Brahmsian]

I shall get to that one perhaps next. I was trying to work my way through the cycle chronologically but I started mixing it up when I got to the 3rd, because I'm just not really crazy about Bruckner's 3rd unfortunately.

Oh, sorry to hear that! I love the 3rd! 

[vers la flamme]

Oh, sorry to hear that! I love the 3rd! 

Not to worry, I expect I shall come around on it eventually.