The Bruckner Thread

OK then let's have a Bruckner thread. I suppose I tend to think of the second half of the nineteenth century as being about Wagner and all those Russians. But of course there's also Bruckner. As long as you can make the time to listen to them, those symphonies are totally captivating. With other great symphonists like say Beethoven and Mahler, each symphony is a separate world with its own rules and personality. With Bruckner you seem to get the same world each time only with more facets and deeper probing.

And boy was this guy seriously God bothered! A bit of a nutter in fact. I read somewhere that he used to hand copies of the bible to girls he fancied in the street – no wonder he wasn't exactly a hit with the ladies. Still, I do love that enormous 8th. The shear lung capacity of the man… Bruckner was an organist, I wonder if that has something to do with it? You know that after one expansive climax another will surely follow with organic in exorability – at the end you're leaping from your chair in exultation.

I also particularly like the 5th, 6th (don't really understand why that one doesn't seem to get played as much) and the 9th. It's only in the last few years that I've got to know the early symphonies –and they're all well worth getting to know. The Tintner recording of the second on Naxos is particularly moving. I don't seem to relate to the 4th so well, which is odd as that's probably the most popular.

The thing that really strikes me with Bruckner is the disjunction of the form and the harmonic processes of the symphonies. If you think of Beethoven as a sort of madder version of Haydn, then Bruckner is Haydn with a massive dose of growth hormone. As far as form is concerned, a Bruckner symphony is a kind of elephantine Haydn symphony. But this obsessively classical formal approach is married with Wagnerian harmony. If you mix classical form, Wagnerian harmonic processes, and the vast lung power of a cathedral organ, with religious obsession you get Bruckner's world.

 

Dear Blue Note:

It is interesting you say you relate poorly with the 4th symphony, because that is exactly my case.

The Bruckner and Wagner comparison is an interesting one (Attention: I am going to be unintelligible for a while). What strikes me is that Wagner's music, powerful as it is, is mundane. It is as if he modeled his strong emotions on his imagination but also on his social relations and shared representations. Now Bruckner seems to relate directly with the emotions, no words or persons involved. It is pure music in the sense that it is incomprehensible from a Bourgeois point of view (Unintelligibility mode OFF)

I particularly warm to the 8th and 9th; the 7th is a marvel, too, but in a happier mood. The 5th is a monument, but I must say that I cannot yet grasp the last movement.

Since I am a 'digger', I am now into the 8th, as I have previously been into the 9th. So, in spite of having them all, I never listened to the 6th and to the first three (I did listen to the zero once).

There is a very interesting book by Rudolph Otto – Das Heilige – which I believe has been translated into English as The Idea of the Holy and that is the only way I think Bruckner's music and world can be expressed through words.

I am quite rambling, as you see...

 

As is Bruckner. I've always found his music to be a little unfocused and aimless, searching for a resolution which it never quite achieves.

 

What about a complete Bruckner cycle? I'm tempted by the Barenboim on CD as it's remarkably cheap (about 20 quid for the 9xCD set) and seems well reviewed. I've just a few random bits at present and quite fancy nailing the lot with one purchase.

Tony.

 

I've got the Haitink recordings and I really rate them. Not sure how dear they are though

 

CoS frontman says Beethoven, Mahler, Bruckner, Shostakovich are the most satanic music ever. Yeah, I can imagine Bruckner handing copies of the bible. Bible = Ebilb = Evilb

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Satanism:_An_interview_with_Church_of_Satan_High_Priest_Peter_Gilmore

Music critic Hanslick said Bruckner is “the greatest living musical peril, a sort of tonal Satan...

 

Rodrigo, I don’t see how it’s possible to describe Wagner, of all composers, as ‘mundane’. His music is pure emotion. You might not always like those emotions, or find them in good taste, but it is difficult to imagine them more effectively expressed. Just a few examples: Everything surrendered to pure passion in Tristan und Isolde. Sheer unbridled joy in the last act of Die Meistersinger – one continuous song. And for me an immensely powerful expression of a father’s love for his daughter in the last act of Die Walkure.

Although it’s certainly more abstract, I don’t see how Bruckner relates more directly to the emotions. But then I don’t understand what a “Bourgeois point of view” is, although I’m sure it’s something that comrade Stalin would have had you shot for.

Otto was a Lutheran whereas Bruckner was a staunch Catholic. I doubt those two would have exactly seen eye to eye. It’s perfectly possible for a non-religious person to fully appreciate Bruckner and get a tremendous amount from it, in the same way that a religious person can fully appreciate Verdi, Brahms, Berlioz, or Faure, or any other atheist composer.

I would urge you – and everyone – to investigate the 6th though. I find it exhilarating and uplifting. There’s a great performance by Klemperer on EMI GROC. I don’t tend to go for complete cycles with one conductor, although I guess that would provide some consistency for what that’s worth. I like to have as many ‘takes’ on a given composer as possible, so I tend to go for a mix and match approach. Haitink is very reliable though so I wouldn’t think you’d go far wrong with his cycle.

 

I quite like the 1st... especially Solti's later recording. None of Solti's other Bruckner is much cop though.

But favourite is the 5th. I get the last movement, at least internally I do without understanding why.

Is the difference between Wagner and Bruckner the difference between sentimental and naive?

Wagner does do wonderful emotion in his music and its great, but its all the time self-conscious and self-regarding - "look at me, I am the most tragic lover in history! look at me, I am about to put my daughter to sleep surrounded by fire until a hero rescues her!" etc etc. Actually its difficult to see how a opera composer could be any different.

Whereas Bruckner doesn't say anything about what he's saying, if you see what I mean. It just comes out as a kind of stream-of-consciousness, pure thought without constant self-regard.

But not without self-pity... the slow movements of the 7th, 8th and 9th are all "will I be saved? have I been a good person?" - big brassy climax then the answer -yes. Except in the 9th, there's a huge grinding dissonance full of doubt and fear and a huge uncertainty, the answer is not "yes I am saved" but that there is only faith and hope in the face of uncertainty.

Well, thats my reading anyway.

 

For me, the best 5th is (surprisingly!) Welser-Most on EMI - let's face it, he's not a very inspiring conductor most times, but here it all just seems to click. Last I saw, it was on EMI's bargain-priced label. (Don't bother with W-M's Bruckner 8th though - he'd lost it again by the time he got around to it).

And IMO for a complete set in great sound, the Barenboim is very hard to beat.

 

Dear Blue Note:

I expressed myself rather awkwardly. This is not the first time!
I mean what Alan said - I don't know if you were trying to translate what I said, but if you did this is a case where the translator made a much better work that the original!

I quite agree that Wagner is the most emotional and one of the very deepest musicians in history.

By mundane I meant that he used music as a way of conveying emotions he knows the public can understand (a very good example is Siegrief's Idyll). This is what I meant by mundane: he knows the effect he is going to cause, and the ways to reach that effect, and uses them.

This is a charmer's attitude, and hence the 'mundane' epithet.

As Alan said, Bruckner never does this: it is his world, and he doesn't try to think about what the listener might think. Perhaps he was incapable of it, given his well known social gaucherie.

Now, concerning Bruckner and Otto. Yes, a Catholic and a Lutheran. But Otto, I think, was first and foremost a mystic - or at least he understood mystical experience very well. Now mysticism, I think, can be reached through various means (even for the atheist - I can assure you) and does not particularly depend on religious affiliation.

It is a fact that Roman Catholics now say that mysticism is not the proper way to be a Christian (Catholicism is all about obedience and guidance) whereas Lutherans try to communicate with God personally. But I really think that Bruckner, when he was trying to communicate with God, was a mystic too.

Bruckner strikes me as the ultimate religious composer (sorry Tones - yes, perhaps even better than Bach). His symphonies are truly cosmogonic and the 8th is even scathological: beginning and end, with the Scherzo as a true human bit and the Adagio as a prayer - the ultimate prayer, as in Beethoven's Hammerklavier 3rd movement. And, at the end, the trumpet of apocalypse.

The 9th is another marvel. The adagio is pure communication with God. I don't know how he would end the finale (I have Harnoncourt's version of his bits, but Harnoncourt, to my taste, is completely off the mark in Bruckner). But as it is, the 9th is pure perfection.

Jandl (who is looking very pretty - or is that Santa's granddaughter?) prefers the 5th. I have tried to understand it, but have failed. I will persevere, but I wish I had a good paper explaining it, with the themes and their inversion printed... It is way too difficult to be understood without the score and I am quite incapable of reading orchestra scores. That said, the Adagio is something else! Even if, as Alan said, it is extremely personal music - it really is about him and his sorrow.

 

Dear Tony

I don't know about a complete cycle. I did buy Karajan's, because that is the way to be able to check a given symphony if I want. But I really thing Bruckner must be listened to symphony by symphony, sometimes movement by movement. I spent weeks working the 8th finale out, then moved on to the rest of the symphony. With the 6th, I spent a week with the finale and did not really get it.

A complete cycle is potentially distracting unless one has the discipline to stick to one disc at a time.

Well, this is just my humble opinion: I can understand one wants to get the broader picture first.

 

Thanks for your elucidation Rodrigo – alles klar. But I think I still disagree. You could say that a composer like Wagner was more self aware, and one like Bruckner perhaps more 'naive' to use alanbeeb's term. But very far from totally self aware. I don't think any great artist ever really knows exactly what he is doing or what really drives him. There are endless testaments to this effect.

An old adage has it “talent does what it can, genius does what it mustâ€Â. Truly great artists like Wagner and Bruckner were driven men; they both did what their natures forced them to do. Genius is never fully aware, whereas mere talent is always aware of the limited amount it can achieve.

A great composer may be 'self-regarding' in some work, but he is also saying an enormous amount of other things of which he is perhaps only dimly aware. To try and give an example of what I'm trying to say: Take film music – this is of course virtually always written by composers of talent. And here yes they do indeed have to be totally aware of what they are doing and the audience's reaction. This is the truly 'mundane' or worldly music. So a film composer might say “look at me, I am (portraying) the most tragic lover in history!â€Â. But certainly not Wagner – something like the Liebestod is far more than mere sentimental effect; being an immensely profound exploration of Eros and Thanatos that he was driven to write.

I see what you're saying about Otto and I'm sure you're right. However, 'mystic' is one of these overused words that can mean anything you want. 'Mystic' can mean anything from tree hugging and yogic flying to Dame Julian of Norwich and William Blake. Bruckner and Wagner have more in common than might appear. Their music has a lot to say about passion – the word also meaning suffering of course – religious and sexual ecstasy having striking similarities.

I agree about the 9th it is a wonderful piece. It is actually the most forward looking of the symphonies and in the scherzo there's a real sight of the 20th century looming in the distance. I love those tonal ambiguities.

 

Anyone heard this performance of the 9th? Opinions?

 

Well can't say I have, but he looks to be a born-again slap head with a real malicious stare, so I would guess he means business.

 

van Zweden - I've not heard any of his work, but he has come in for a lot of praise for his orchestral recordings on BBC Radio 3. I recall that his Brahms symphony set was highly praised, Mozart too.

He seems to be one of the bargain-priced label "Brilliant Classics" house conductors.

He is definitely on my "to investigate" list.

 

Just read that he was concertmaster of the Concertgebouw at age 19 - so would have played a lot of Bruckner with Haitink - I wonder if it shows in his perfomances?

 

Hmmm... sounds interesting. I don't recognise the CD label though.

 

Dear Adam. Yes, an e is missing. I do not recollect the prelude from Parsifal. And only you would drop an h in such a place!

I think I mentioned the Idyll. And since I do not know a lot about Wagner biography (I did not know the négligé plus perfume bit) I think that I based myself on the limited knowledge I have about Wagner's music.

I'll try to listen to Parsifal, but I am not certain I'll buy the entire Opera... Suggestions for a reference?

Happy new year to you and to all, too.

 

Well yes, the 1951 Knappertsbusch recording is out of copyright and therefore available for next to nothing -I think I paid 3.99 for the Quadromania version
see
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wagner-Pars...=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1199980049&sr=1-4
I think Naxos charge an exhorbitant 12.99 (!) for the same 4CD set. It may be a better remastetering for all I know.

This is regarded by many as the best version of the opera anyway, and is in amazingly good sound for the vintage. There are I believe 7 other Kna. versions available, but you can't go wrong with this one unless you want really up to date sound, in which case i would go for the Thielmann.

The same grundmotiven appear over and over and over through the opera in way which is very similar to a Bruckner movement. I have a feeling Bruckner may have quoted part of Parsifal somewhere-perhaps in the adagio to the 7th.