Bruckner's Abbey

[aukhawk]

Young's recording of the 3rd is my favourite recording of my favourite Bruckner.  Largely due to the sumptious sound, it has to be said.

[Cato]

Having just compared Simone Young's recording of the original version of Bruckner 8 with Pierre Boulez's Haas, the latter is clearly better, for me.  The pianissimo ending to the first movement in the revision is far more moving than the triple forte of the original.

Also, the recapitulation and coda of the revision is a big improvement over the original.  Much more frissons and emotions.

The different trio is not such a big deal, however.

HOWEVER, there are two exceptions to the Simpson rule, 4 and 8, where the first versions are weaker. With 4 Bruckner produced a work that had a very weak scherzo, and first and last movements that were improved in subsequent revisions such that the 1880 version is the most satisfactory. In the case of 8 the all movements were revised with advantage after the first version and the trio of the scherzo was replaced.

How do we account for this? I think that in the cases of both these symphonies Bruckner was feeling unusually confident when he undertook their composition, and produced the first versions very quickly. In the case of 4 Bruckner had just produced 3 (first version of course), which he must have known was a major breakthrough for him (and he had not yet experienced the humiliating set-backs with the performance of it), and he wrote the first version of 4 in little more than a year. In the case of 8 he had just produced 7, and as he was writing 8, 7 was successful in various performances. This symphony he completed in around 2 years.

In both cases I would argue that Bruckner presented the world with a pre-first version which did need to be revised, as unwonted confidence caused him to rush the composition process and overlook flaws that his normal process would have revised away. In the case of 4 we should regard the 1880 version as the first version (and remember that subsequent to 1880 Bruckner again revised this symphony, this time ruining it in the usual way of his later revisions). As for 8, the Haas version probably represents something like a first version in that it contains Bruckner's initial revisions to the 1887 version...

Yes, I believe Calyptorhynchus is on target here, which is why you (and most other people) prefer the second version of the Eighth, and why the revised Fourth remains the choice for most.  The deduction that Bruckner perhaps "rushed" things is not impossible.

Exactly why Bruckner did such and such will never be known: perhaps even he was not sure.  That Levi's response of incomprehension was the impetus for the first major revisions is clear, but I have often read an interpretation that the quiet ending to the revised first movement was a symbol of Bruckner's "depression" from Levi's rejection.  To me such psycho-musicology has always been suspect, and one can say that upon second thought, Bruckner may have found the new idea structurally and emotionally more logical with the sense of despair, struggle, and conquest found throughout the work.

[merlin]

Well said, Cato!  And thanks for your cogent analysis, Calyptorhynchus.

[André]

Congrats on insightful posts, Calyptor and Cato. I 'mostly' agree with your findings on the various versions of the symphonies - knowing that an internet music thread is not the place for finely-honed arguments and supercilious itsy-bitsy finenesses.

It is true - and bizarre - that in some cases the first versions are deemed superior and later versions just the same - but not the same ones !!. How could such anomalies co-exist ?

First, Bruckner was a bizarre animal. Among the Great Originals in the history of music, he also happens to have been one of the most unsecure, deferrent, self-denying human beings ever to pen great music. Usually, the opposite is true: a great artist's ego will tend to inflate, deflect and obfuscate the real quality of his/her music. Think of Wagner, Mahler, Scriabine or Strawinsky. Often, the self-doubt and ego would counteract one another in producing an overall balanced portrait of the artist's capabilities: think of Tchaikovsky, Sibelius, Beethoven, Schumann, Shostakovich.

Seldom - if ever - has a composer been so subservient to received opinion and criticism as Bruckner. The sheer growing acquaintance, acknowledgement, receiving, pioneering, advocating and proselytizing of his music over the last 100 years should serve as measure for this hugely humble composer's immense genius.

So, it should not be surprising that, in many cases, this Schubert-Schumann-Beethoven formalist should vie with the liberation, explosion of harmonic language that was to become dominant with Wagner, and therefore conflict head-on with the much more organized but more conservative genius of Brahms. It was a period of conflicts and clashes. And Bruckner was ultimately embroiled in this eternal conflict of the artist: move forward, but always leave your testament clear to others. One of the only artist to move formward and never look back was Rimbaud. But Bruckner was no Rimbaud - nor did he have Wagner's huge cult and financial backing to help him move forward and not second-guess his own works.

What we have is a composer who throughout his life fought between forward-looking music (harmonies, orchestration, rythms) and the received forms that were more certain of gaining him acceptance.

[André]

Following this long post, here is a recension  of what are, I think, the salient features of Bruckner's symphony versions.

- First, as has already been mentioned, once spurious re-orchestrated and cut versions have been discarded (notably the Mahler 4th and Schalke 5th), there are very little - minute, indeed - differences between the various versions of symphonies 00, 0, 6, 7 and 9. Therefore, differences that Bruckner has included in his symphonies are as follow (very briefly put):

- 1: orchestration differences between the sparer, bolder and better 'Linz' version and the more effusively orchestrasted 'Vienna' version.

- 2 - the "original" version is worth getting acquainted with. It's a great work, fully comparable to the tighter, tauter later version. Two of which are very similar except that they diverge over the orchestration of the Adagio's coda. One has the final, forlorn melody allotted to a solo horn (vey difficult) and the other one gives it to the clarinet.

- 3. This is the most complicated and needs a full thread. Basically, there is an original version (I) that lasts between 65 and 80 minutes, with very substantial differences in I, II and IV, including a full bevvy of quotes from Wagner's operas. Then there is an "interim" version (Oeser, version II to simplify matters) where I, II and IV are shortened (Wagner quotes excised) and then, there is the 'final' version where I, II and IV are further shortened, to a mere 53-55 minutes. This is where Bruckner the composer it at his most enigmatic. Personally, I take my cue from the movement that is both the least changed and the most characteristic: one of Bruckner's trademark scherzos. If one places the scherzo in relation to the other movements, it becomes clear that, structurally, the shortened text is the one that 'homes in' that scherzo best. Only then can the 'problem' of the Finale can be broached. It is very long, diffuse and beautiful in I, long but powerful in II, and dramatic in III. The problem in the latter is that the structure is left hanging on the rope for all to see. Sections follow/alternate with little connection. Therefore, my recommendation is to have at least one recording of each version on hand, listen and study differences, and make up one's own mind.

I personally prefer the 1873 Oeser version (II), but remember: GREAT conductors have believed in, and recorded all three versions, and the musical results can be outstanding any which way.

4 - The consensus is that the first version of this work is a diffuse, almost dislocated work, containing in germ great figments of the composer's imagination. The 1878-1880 version is much more organic, integrated within movements and fabulously orchestrated. I have always found that the first version was a draft, a blueprint. Mahler may have thought as much, and produced a dramatically shortened and reorchestrated edition - probably more a student's 'thesis' than an artist's effort. The quixotic and diffuse first version is akin to listening to Smetana's full 'My Country': okay for a once-in-five-years foray. Get the later version. The cymbal clash in IV is only incidental. Some conductors who include it (Nowak Edition) make nothing of it. Others who don't (Haas Edition) manage to pack more puch out of the text. My opinion: it's an indulgence, and a slightly vulgar one.

7 - The only difference between texts is the cymbal+drums orchestration at the climax of III. Contrary to the slightly vulgar effect of the 4:IV bit just mentioned, the effect is better integrated in the texture and the tempo of that great movement. Therefore it's a matter of finding the interpretation that suits one's inclinations best. Don't let that bit of orchetration distract you from the rest of the work. Hint: whent it says 'Nowak', the timps and cymbals have been added /altered.

8 - Like 3, this one deserves a full thread. Auspices and results are the same: totally different works. In this case I find the END results far more satisfying in all respects: whereas the initial work (rejected by Hermann Levi) was beautiful, powerful but diffuse and disorganised (MY opinion), the final version is on the same level as Mozart 39-41 or Wagner's Götterdämmerung. Additional bit of info: the Haas and Nowak versions differ in the fact that Nowak correctly presents Bruckner's final text, whereas Nowak second-guesses the composer and interpolates bits that Bruckner had excised in III and IV. Therefore, Haas presents a 'fuller' but hypothetical text. 50% choose Haas (notably Karajan), 50% Nowak  (including Jochum). It matters not one bit.

[TheGSMoeller]

Great post, Andre. I've been obsessed with the the different versions of each symphony, especially the 2nd and 3rd.

[Pat B]

I personally prefer the 1873 Oeser version (II), but remember: GREAT conductors have believed in, and recorded all three versions, and the musical results can be outstanding any which way.

I am confused! According to Berky's discography, the commonly-recorded versions are:

1873 Original Version Ed. Leopold Nowak [1977]
1877 Version Ed. Leopld Nowak (with Scherzo coda) [1981]
1878 Version Ed. Fritz Oeser (Scherzo coda not included) Based on 1880 Stichvorlage
1889 Version (aka 1888/89) Ed. Leopold Nowak [1959]
1890 Thorough revision Bruckner with Joseph and Franz Schalk Ed. Theodor Raettig

Plus:
1876 Adagio only Ed. Leopold Nowak [1980]

I guess you excluded the 1890 revision (rarely recorded since the 1960s), and I guess you lumped 1877 and 1878 together as "II." Some part of "1873 Oeser version (II)" must have been a typo -- I guess you meant 1878 there? When there are this many versions, I think it would be best to refer to the different versions by year and/or editor, not as "I," "II," "III."

Lest that sound too critical, thanks for the descriptions of the differences.

[Cato]

Great post, Andre. I've been obsessed with the the different versions of each symphony, especially the 2nd and 3rd.

Yes, many thanks to Andre' for taking time to write these nice essays!

I reared myself on the Jochum recordings of the Nowak versions, and picked up the bias that the Haas editions were nice tries, but not as authentic as the Nowak.   Since then I have heard various recordings of original versions of e.g. II and III and was quite taken with them also! 

So keep that mind open!

Having read many things about Bruckner and extant letters by him, the duality mentioned by Andre' is apparent, along with a stubbornness that, while he might have to compromise with cuts and so on, eventually his "original"     complete conceptions would be accepted. 

I have also often wondered about all the space given to Bruckner in Alma Mahler's reminiscences of her husband.  Commentators have mentioned that her memories are not always to be trusted for accuracy.  But I am not worried about that in this sense: simply that by including so many stories about Bruckner she must have been indicating how important Bruckner was to Mahler, and not just as a teacher of music.  Andre's comment about Bruckner showing little of the egotism seen in many other composers is well taken: what did the young Mahler see in Bruckner's humble personality?  A father-figure?  A grandfather who needed to be protected?

For a possible answer, see this marvelous essay by Bruno Walter from 1940's Chord and Discord: it is one of the most incisive and objective examinations of the connections between Bruckner and Mahler both personally and musically.

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

Some excerpts:

...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...

...To Mahler as well as Bruckner music never was the means of expressing something, but rather the end itself. He never disregarded its inherent principles for the sake of expression. It was the element in which both masters lived, impelled by their nature toward symphonic construction. Mahler's enchanted creative night was filled with violently changing dream-forms; Bruckner's was dominated by a single lofty vision. Since Bruckner (so far as I know) had, until his death in 1896, acquired no acquaintance with Mahler's work, whereas the latter was well versed in Bruckner's art, it remains to be considered whether it was not this influence, acting only upon the younger composer, that aroused the impression of the kinship felt by Mahler himself. Without a certain relationship, however, no influence can be exerted. Moreover, Mahler's individual tonal language reveals no sign of dependence, whether similarity or reminiscence. Yet we find in one of his main works, the Second, indications of a deeper, essential kinship and meet with occasional "Bruckner" characteristics down to Mahler's very last creations. Nevertheless he was as little dependent upon Bruckner as Brahms upon Schumann, many of whose "characteristics" haunt the work of Brahms. To both Bruckner-Mahler may be applied the Faust-verdict concerning Byron-Euphorion: to each of them was granted "a song his very own," i.e., originality....

Nevertheless (Bruckner's) personality must have been attractive, for almost all reports agree upon the peculiar fascination exerted by his naivete, piety, homely simplicity, and modesty, bordering at times on servility, as borne out by many of his letters. I explain this attractive power of his strange personality to myself as due to the radiance of his lofty, godly soul, the splendor of his musical genius glimmering through his unpretending homeliness. If his presence could hardly be felt as "interesting", it was heartwarming, yes, uplifting.

[André]

Super, Cato, thanks for that insightful post. Walter never recorded 3 and 6, for which he would have been naturelly suited. Too bad...

[André]

I am confused! According to Berky's discography, the commonly-recorded versions are:

1873 Original Version Ed. Leopold Nowak [1977]
1877 Version Ed. Leopld Nowak (with Scherzo coda) [1981]
1878 Version Ed. Fritz Oeser (Scherzo coda not included) Based on 1880 Stichvorlage
1889 Version (aka 1888/89) Ed. Leopold Nowak [1959]
1890 Thorough revision Bruckner with Joseph and Franz Schalk Ed. Theodor Raettig

Plus:
1876 Adagio only Ed. Leopold Nowak [1980]

I guess you excluded the 1890 revision (rarely recorded since the 1960s), and I guess you lumped 1877 and 1878 together as "II." Some part of "1873 Oeser version (II)" must have been a typo -- I guess you meant 1878 there? When there are this many versions, I think it would be best to refer to the different versions by year and/or editor, not as "I," "II," "III."

Lest that sound too critical, thanks for the descriptions of the differences.

Yea, typo indeed, sorry (1873 Oeser never existed of course).  The 3rd underwent 3 different versions, as opposed to editions. A Bruckner version is what the composer wrote down. An edition is what an editor (Haas and Nowak for example) published of the Master's versions, mostly technical or small textual refinements. In the case of the 3rd, 1877-78 are often lumped together (vide the Kubelik Sony liner notes), whereas technically they could be separated because of small editorial differences. Some egregious differences for example are the coda that Bruckner appended to the scherzo, and a separate slow movement that did not make it to the finishing line when AB laid his pen down on this work. It is both a new text (version) that has been retained or discarded depending on the versions. 

[Pat B]

Okay, thanks. I think I understand.

[jlaurson]

 fresh from Forbes:



AUG 22, 2015
The 2015 Bayreuth Festival: Tristan & Isolde

T'was a coolly refreshing evening in the inner courtyard of the vast baroque priory
of St. Florian in Upper Austria, just before the final concert of the St. Florian
BrucknerTage (Bruckner-Days) on August 21: The brass section of the Altomonte
Orchestra – basically a purpose-assembled summer-band – get rid of excess energy
by regaling the guests of the monastery's restaurant with a selection of brass-band
favorites from hunting songs to Wagner chorales: Got you in the mood alright for
Bruckner's Ninth Symphony under Rémy Ballot, a Sergiù Celibidache disciple with a
penchant for glorious length, especially in the music of Anton Bruckner.

For this grand finale of the week-long celebration of Bruckner, the vast, gorgeous
baroque basilica was filled to the brim, except for the side balconies, allegedly among
the best places but cordoned off on this occasion. (That fact made a most determined
Austrian journalist lady – habitually taking her seat there and with little intention to
yielding to some stripling with a badge squeaking "Verboten" – reveal a whole new
color-range in her vocabulary when she ultimately had to follow others' instructions
over her instinct.) With everyone seated and standing in the right places, the sounds
of Debussy's Images pour orchestra, the concert's amuse-gueule, rose to the organ
balcony on which I had found myself at the last minute...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jenslaurson/2015/09/08/the-second-coming-of-sergiu-celibidache-bruckner-in-st-florian/

...

[amw]

4 - The consensus is that the first version of this work is a diffuse, almost dislocated work, containing in germ great figments of the composer's imagination. The 1878-1880 version is much more organic, integrated within movements and fabulously orchestrated. I have always found that the first version was a draft, a blueprint. Mahler may have thought as much, and produced a dramatically shortened and reorchestrated edition - probably more a student's 'thesis' than an artist's effort. The quixotic and diffuse first version is akin to listening to Smetana's full 'My Country': okay for a once-in-five-years foray. Get the later version. The cymbal clash in IV is only incidental. Some conductors who include it (Nowak Edition) make nothing of it. Others who don't (Haas Edition) manage to pack more puch out of the text. My opinion: it's an indulgence, and a slightly vulgar one.

I actually really like the 1874 finale. I'm not sure why. Rhythmically I suppose it's unique, far ahead of its time—too far for Bruckner's confidence, and the revisions are toned down greatly. Also more polished and better orchestrated. But the original finale has something they don't (neither the 'Volksfest' nor the final finale). The revised version is unimpeachably better in the first three movements though. Particularly the first movement fares better.

[MishaK]

4 - The consensus is that the first version of this work is a diffuse, almost dislocated work, containing in germ great figments of the composer's imagination. The 1878-1880 version is much more organic, integrated within movements and fabulously orchestrated. I have always found that the first version was a draft, a blueprint. Mahler may have thought as much, and produced a dramatically shortened and reorchestrated edition - probably more a student's 'thesis' than an artist's effort. The quixotic and diffuse first version is akin to listening to Smetana's full 'My Country': okay for a once-in-five-years foray. Get the later version. The cymbal clash in IV is only incidental. Some conductors who include it (Nowak Edition) make nothing of it. Others who don't (Haas Edition) manage to pack more puch out of the text. My opinion: it's an indulgence, and a slightly vulgar one.

It has always struck me that the negative impressions so many have of the 1874 version of the 4th have more to do with tentative, inadequate interpretations rather than with the work itself. You have to consider that here the original version is so categorically different from the final product that it is in effect an entirely separate symphony. When you then compare the reluctant, tentative and often uncommitted performances of some orchestras and conductors of the first version against the final version, for which there is a long established performance tradition and the score of which most orchestra musicians these days basically have in their bones, one gets the impression that the first version is an inferior work. But I don't believe it is. I actually think it is a much bolder work, more daring, more modern, in some ways pointing farther ahead towards his later symphonies than the final more conservative and backward looking version. 

[TheGSMoeller]

It has always struck me that the negative impressions so many have of the 1874 version of the 4th have more to do with tentative, inadequate interpretations rather than with the work itself. You have to consider that here the original version is so categorically different from the final product that it is in effect an entirely separate symphony. When you then compare the reluctant, tentative and often uncommitted performances of some orchestras and conductors of the first version against the final version, for which there is a long established performance tradition and the score of which most orchestra musicians these days basically have in their bones, one gets the impression that the first version is an inferior work. But I don't believe it is. I actually think it is a much bolder work, more daring, more modern, in some ways pointing farther ahead towards his later symphonies than the final more conservative and backward looking version.

Well said, Misha. I really like this verse, I also believe the coda from the original 4th is much more exciting than the revised. Nagano and Russell-Davies are the two recordings I own, both superbly performed and make great statements on Bruckner's initial word.

[André]

I alert all and sundry that Leif Segerstam, the one-man composer of 300 symphonies and conductor of two Sibelius cycles has turned his conducting attentions to the symphonies of Bruckner. The 7th has been received to great acclaim. The much controversial interpretation of the 8th with a truly glorious BBCSO is available on youtube - all 102 minutes of it. It was aired at the Proms in February 2015. I listened to about 1/4 (25 minutes is my maximum youtube concentration period). It IS spectacular in its way and rather different from Celibidache's equally protracted view. I hope a cd edition come out of that peculiar venture. The UK music critics were sharply divided.

[North Star]

I alert all and sundry that Leif Segerstam, the one-man composer of 300 symphonies and conductor of two Sibelius cycles has turned his conducting attentions to the symphonies of Bruckner. The 7th has been received to great acclaim. The much controversial interpretation of the 8th with a truly glorious BBCSO is available on youtube - all 102 minutes of it. It was aired at the Proms in February 2015. I listened to about 1/4 (25 minutes is my maximum youtube concentration period). It IS spectacular in its way and rather different from Celibidache's equally protracted view. I hope a cd edition come out of that peculiar venture. The UK music critics were sharply divided.

An early Christmas present for Brucknerians indeed.

https://www.youtube.com/v/F5nEaZdUj34

[TheGSMoeller]

An early Christmas present for Brucknerians indeed.

https://www.youtube.com/v/F5nEaZdUj34

I sure hope this gets on CD. One of the best, if not the best, handling of the finale's coda. Some powerful stuff, not surprised as Segertam constantly impresses me with his interpretations. Still my favorite Sibelius cycle.

[Christo]

Leif Segerstam, the one-man composer of 300 symphonies

286, at the last count: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_symphonies_by_Leif_Segerstam

[Drasko]

A fine performance of 4th Symphony (1874 version), NDR Sinfonieorchester Hamburg / Thomas Hengelbrock.

https://www.youtube.com/v/VtRnp8r_bH0