Bruckner is not yet a well-known great symphonist of the Wagnerian era. Occasional and rare performances of individual works of his are not capable of facilitating the penetration of his music into our musical environment, especially since he is one of those composers whose acquaintance cannot be fleeting and transient, while a thorough mastery of his music requires leisure and attention. However, the music of Brahms, Bruckner’s contemporary and rival, was equally slow to seep into our concert programs, but time has taken its toll and now few people shy away from Brahms’ works.
The life of a modest and reserved composer like Bruckner was very simple. He was born on September 4, 1824 in Ansfelden (Upper Austria). He was the son of a school teacher. As a boy, he sang in the choir and at the same time studied at one of the church institutions, like a seminary - St. Floriana. There he later became an organist. In 1856, through a competition, he took the same position in Linz. Working a lot on his own, Bruckner created himself into a first-class organist and contrapuntist. Nevertheless, in the sixties he continued to study technique with Sechter in Vienna, after whose death he took his place as court organist and was invited as professor of organ playing, harmony, counterpoint and practice musical composition
to the Vienna Conservatory
(1867). From 1875 he was a lecturer in music at the University of Vienna. He traveled widely as an organist and improviser in his homeland and abroad. He wrote his First Symphony in 1865. In his aspirations, Bruckner gravitated toward the progressive trends of his era, mainly Wagner., for the first acquaintance with his music - elementally majestic - this symphony is extremely suitable: its rich melody, plasticity of themes and clarity of development of thoughts attract an unprejudiced listener and call for further penetration into the free creativity of a wonderful, profound musician. The symphony was completed in 1883. Her first three performances: in Leipzig (1884, Ikisch), in Munich (1885, Levi) and in Vienna (1886, Richter) created her popularity. It turned out to be almost the first of Bruckner's symphonies that forced musicians and the public to pay due attention to the great composer.
The best movements of the Seventh Symphony are the first and second (the famous Adagio). In the first movement, from the first bars - from the presentation of the melodically rich main theme - to the end, the music does not lose for a moment its beautiful and convincing fullness of expression, its clarity. Lyrical pathos, seriousness, noble melodiousness and a sincere warm tone constitute the inherently valuable qualities of the slow movement of the symphony. Bruckner always excels with his Adagios. True, in our busy and nervously hasty times it is not easy to focus attention on their free and completely unhurried step, but anyone who would like to penetrate this world of inexhaustible music, which does not know feeble-mindedness and thrifty consideration, will not lose their leisure time in vain. Bruckner, like Schubert, managed to connect the innocence and naivety of the lyrical narrative with the seriousness of the music, and the involuntary melodic flow with the organic nature of creativity as a whole, so that the most seemingly ingenuous and simple thought is born, grows and fades away always as a phase, as a series of states or manifestations of some kind of unity, and does not feel like a randomly run-in or lonely tortured melody. Just like Schubert, Bruckner combines lyrical intimacy with deep insight, sensitivity and humanity, thanks to which his lyrics lose the imprint of personal arbitrariness and invention and become necessary and useful to everyone. In a word, Bruckner does not have that unhealthy bias that makes modern musicians turn away from any acutely subjective emotionality.
In his music, the voice of sincere feeling sings and a romantically spontaneous, bright and noble emotional tone sounds. This property now attracts to him, as well as to Schubert, many people whose perception of life, it would seem, does not correspond to such “slow” music. Modernity, however, prefers the epic-emotional structure of the symphonism of Schubert and Bruckner to the sensual violence of Wagnerism. As a wise thinker, Bruckner does not force the will of others and does not suppress the imagination with sensual images, but as a romantic, he deeply feels the voice of feeling and, loving Wagner, often immerses himself in the atmosphere of the latter’s music, purifying and enlightening it. General words about Bruckner’s slavish dependence on Wagner must be left aside.
They don't explain anything. In the end, Mozart also “depended” on the Italians in his time. The scherzos of Bruckner's symphonies, being saturated with Viennese dance rhythms and the idyllic lyrics of Viennese folk genre scenes
, have much in common with Schubert’s scherzos, but in terms of the development of basic ideas they sometimes come into contact with Beethoven’s. Following the intense first movement and deeply contemplative Adagio, Bruckner's scherzos somewhat lose their meaning, for they seem too simple in form after such intense music. This should be kept in mind when perceiving them.
Bruckner's Eighth Symphony (C minor) 59 was completed in 1886. This work, gigantic in scope and depth of thinking, is saturated from beginning to end with bright and rich music, which reflects an intense sense of life and a wealth of emotional experiences. The four parts of the symphony are four phases of soundoid development, four life stages. The drama and sternly passionate pathos of the first movement is tempered by the whimsically moving play of chiaroscuro and the tender lyrics of the scherzo trio. The center of the symphony is the Adagio, the most beautiful in its nobility and tenderness of feeling. It stands out even among the wonderful slow movements of Bruckner's other symphonies for its fiery melodiousness. The ending is a colossal concept; by the nature of the music, it contains a solemn, majestic procession and an ecstatic powerful hymn, worthily completing and uniting all previous development. Overall, this is a proud, courageously heroic work, boldly and powerfully asserting its place in the world of ideas. The difficulty of perceiving the Eighth Symphony lies in the breadth of its plans, the heaviness of its presentation and the length of the sound stream. But at the same time, the clarity and plasticity of themes, the calm alternation of thoughts, the dismemberment (even overly emphasized) of movement and the leisurely pace of all the music facilitate its assimilation, if not as a whole, then gradually, step by step from one stage to another, forward to the finale , which is constructed in such a way that it truly is the pinnacle of the ascent and connects in a grandiose scope everything that is felt and experienced during the symphony. A struggle, a round dance of ideas, a passionate soulful song and an enthusiastic hymn - along this path, the listener’s consciousness experiences diverse and deep shocks, submitting to the emotions instilled in the music by the will of the great composer, the intensity of emotions and the power of whose creative imagination is difficult to even imagine.
Bruckner's importance is increasing more and more. The literature about him is becoming more interesting and deeper. The best proof of this is the latest major work of Ernst Kurt. A series of musical festivals dedicated to Bruckner in 1920, 1921 and 1924, cyclical performances of all his symphonies, new editions of his works contributed and continue to contribute to the popularity of his music in Germany and Austria.
Thus, the 20th century makes amends for the great injustice done to Bruckner by his contemporaries during his lifetime. No wonder. Living at the same time as Wagner and Brahms, the modest Bruckner, in essence, stood ahead of both of them. He was more relevant than Brahms in his understanding and implementation of Viennese classicism, and wiser than Wagner in his symphonic construction and in his sublime worldview and contemplation.
Bruckner’s peculiarity lies in the fact that he thinks in stencils, and at the same time sincerely believes in them (a minor symphony must end in a major key! And the exposition must be repeated in a reprise!)...
The performance of the symphonies of Anton Bruckner, like no other composer (well, maybe even Brahms), depends on Who performs and How. That’s why so much space in the conversation with the young composer Georgy Dorokhov was devoted to interpretations of Bruckner’s symphonies and attempts to bring order to all their many versions.
Any composer (writer, artist) is just a reason to say what really worries you. After all, when talking about our aesthetic experience, we first of all talk about ourselves. Composer Dmitry Kurlyandsky, who began playing music early, discusses the peculiarities of children's writing and the phenomenon of Mozart's (and not only) child prodigy.
Another important question: how does Bruckner differ from his student Mahler, with whom he is constantly and unfairly compared. Although it would seem that there is nothing to compare - the two are completely different composer, choose to taste. And in my opinion, Bruckner is so deep that against his background any symphonist (same Mahler, not to mention Brahms, with whom Bruckner competed) seems light and almost frivolous.
We continue our Monday series of conversations, in which modern composers discuss the work of their predecessors.
- When did you first hear Bruckner’s music?
- The first time I heard Bruckner’s music was at the age of 11, when I found his first symphony among my parents’ records (as I later realized, perhaps the most atypical for Bruckner’s style!), I decided to listen and listened to it two times in a row - that’s how much I liked I liked it.
This was followed by acquaintance with the Sixth, Fifth and Ninth symphonies, and even later with the rest.
At first I hardly realized why I was drawn to this composer. I just liked listening to something repeated many times over a long period of time; something similar to the rest of post-Romantic music, but somehow different from it; I have always been attracted to moments when, from the first bars, one cannot immediately grasp the main tonality of the symphony (this applies partly to the Fifth and especially to the Sixth and Eighth symphonies).
But, perhaps, I truly, not on an amateurish taste basis, understood Bruckner only when, in my second year at the Moscow Conservatory, I came across a disk with the first version of the Third Symphony.
Until that moment, Bruckner's Third Symphony had clearly not been one of my favorite works. But when I heard this recording, I can say without exaggeration that my consciousness changed radically during these hour and a half of listening (I note that in the final version the duration of the symphony is about 50 minutes).
And not thanks to some harmonic discoveries, not due to the presence of numerous Wagner quotes. And because all the material turned out to be extremely stretched out, not fitting into any framework of traditional forms (although formally the essay does fit into them).
Some passages struck me with their repetitiousness - at times it seemed that Reich or Adams sounded (although it sounded less skillful, which, perhaps, captivated me); many things were very clumsy (with violations of numerous professorial taboos, such as the appearance of the main key long before the start of the reprise), which was even more captivating.
After that, I got acquainted with all the early versions of Bruckner's symphonies (and almost all, except for the Sixth and Seventh, exist in at least two versions by the author!) and took away from them the same impressions!
- What kind of conclusions are these?
- Bruckner is perhaps at the same time one of the most old-fashioned composers late XIX centuries (always the same scheme for all symphonies! always the same composition of the orchestra, which outwardly Bruckner tried to update, but somewhat clumsily + the clear influence of the organist’s thinking is almost always visible - sharp switching of orchestra groups, pedals, massive unisons! + many harmonic and melismatic anachronisms), but at the same time the most progressive of the late romantics (perhaps against his will!) of this same historical period.
It is worth recalling the tart dissonances found in the early editions of his symphonies, in some moments of the later symphonies and - especially - in the unfinished finale of the Ninth Symphony; an absolutely extraordinary attitude to form, when stereotypes and even primitiveness in the presentation of the material are combined with some unpredictability, or even vice versa - stunning the listener with its predictability, squared!
Actually, it seems to me, Bruckner’s peculiarity lies in the fact that he thinks in stencils, and at the same time sincerely believes in them (a minor symphony must end in a major key! and the exposition must be repeated in a reprise!)...
But at the same time he uses them very clumsily, despite the fact that at the same time Bruckner, precisely thanks to his polyphonic technique, in the simplest places achieves a more than convincing result!
It was not without reason that they said about Bruckner that he was a “half-god, half-fool” (Gustav Mahler also thought so). It seems to me that it is this combination of sublimity and earthiness, primitiveness and sophistication, simplicity and complexity that still retains the attention of both the public and professionals to this composer.
You have already partly answered why some musicians and music lovers look down on Bruckner. However, why didn’t this attitude change after an eternity, when time proved the obviousness of Bruckner’s discoveries? Why did he develop such a strange and completely unfair reputation?
- It seems to me that the whole point is a certain inertia of perception. With Bruckner, the musician and the listener expect one thing, but what they get is not at all what they expect.
A typical example is the Zero Symphony, when in the first movement there is a feeling that everything that sounds is an accompaniment to the upcoming melody, but which never appears.
When the main theme of the second part is nothing more than a completed exam task on harmony and structure. But if you look closely, you can understand that in this way the composer is deceiving the listener.
The listener expects one thing (a well-written symphony), but ends up in a mess, since what happens is somewhat different from what he expects.
It’s the same with performers (there’s also the added factor
the inability to perform certain moments of Bruckner's scores).
The same can be applied to the composer's other symphonies. At first you expect typical German academicism mid-19th century, but almost from the first bars he begins to stumble over stylistic inconsistencies, over an honestly executed form, but with clumsy modulations, when it is unclear what the tonality of the symphony is, and when you stop believing the inscription on the CD “symphony in B-flat major” ...
- Does Bruckner's story have a moral about reputations that are not always fair?
- It seems to me that Bruckner’s reputation is not the issue. Yes, many of his works were not performed during his lifetime. But some are fulfilled. And moreover, with extraordinary success (such as the Eighth Symphony); when contemporaries said that success corresponded to the honors given to the Roman emperor in his time!
The point is precisely in the inertia of perception. And the fact is that Bruckner aspired to be a great composer, without having good reasons for that at that time.
What repelled his contemporaries from him? Conservatives - the influence of Wagner. The Wagnerians are that Bruckner was not the “symphonic Wagner.” Moreover, Wagnerian conductors, during his lifetime and especially after Bruckner’s death, Wagnerized his symphonies, thereby bringing them closer to their perception.
In general - a combination of mutually exclusive paragraphs: Bruckner is an archaist, Bruckner is a conservative, Bruckner is a Wagnerian.
Or maybe his extreme faith and piety, expressed in strange compositional and musical structures, in rhetoric and pathos, which even then seemed too old-fashioned, are to blame for the ironic distance?
- Piety is all purely external. Another thing is the musical environment from which Bruckner emerged.
On the one hand, he is a music teacher (relevant works). On the other hand, Bruckner is a church organist (and these are other works). On the third side, he is a composer of purely religious music.
Actually, all these three factors later developed into that feature that can be called “Bruckner the symphonist.” The touches of Wagnerism are purely external; Bruckner certainly did not understand and - it is possible - did not want to understand the philosophy of Wagner the composer at all.
He was attracted only by Wagner’s bold harmonies and the aggressive attack on the listener by pure brass, which, however, as an organist, was probably not new to him either!
But, of course, Bruckner’s religiosity should not be dismissed either. His naive faith extended far beyond faith in God (and a very simple, childish faith!).
This also applied to human authorities who stood higher (be it an archbishop or Wagner; Bruckner was ready to bend the knee to both); this also concerned the belief in the possibility of composing symphonies according to Beethoven’s model, which was practically physiologically impossible in the second half of the 19th century.
It seems to me that the most tragic moments in his symphonies are the major codes, which are sometimes absolutely deliberately attached to the catastrophic dramaturgy of some symphonies.
This especially hurts the ear in the original versions of the Second and Third Symphonies, just to end everything well. Perhaps this was where Bruckner’s naive belief manifested itself, that after everything bad - including death - something very good would follow, which many people at the end of the 19th century no longer believed in; and Bruckner himself understood this at a subconscious level.
That is, in other words, what is important to Bruckner is not the achievement of victory in the Beethovenian sense, but its illusion. Or, moreover, a child’s unawareness of the tragedy that has occurred, as in the finale of Berg’s “Wozzeck” (with the difference that Berg composed the opera from the position of an adult).
By the way, this is one of the reasons why the average listener has difficulty entering the world of Bruckner’s symphonies - the codes of his symphonies are also misleading: the result seems to be more than sad, but out of the blue - major fanfares.
Here we can also recall Bruckner’s baroque thinking (a minor composition must end with a major triad!) Only in Bruckner this happens in a different, extended time dimension.
And, of course, the strange disproportion of the compositions, here you are, of course, absolutely right. Although I don’t feel any particular tension in Bruckner’s work.
- Bruckner, of course, is one of the examples when, at first glance, negative qualities turn positive. Namely:
1) the primitiveness of thematicism: firstly, it is thanks to this that the long, continuous structures of Bruckner’s symphonies are maintained;
secondly, a reduction to the point of absurdity (albeit unconscious!) of some features of the classical-romantic symphony (and classical-romantic symphonism) to some kind of zero point, the point of the absolute: almost all works begin with elementary, almost banal constructions, even the famous Fourth Symphony .
Bruckner, however, thought a little differently: “Look, this is God’s miracle - the triad!” - he spoke about such moments!;
2) destruction of style frameworks:
the most complex topic, including
a) stylistic incompatibility (baroque thinking, school teacher thinking, thinking of a German conservative symphonist, thinking of a Wagnerian composer);
b) an unsuccessful attempt to be another composer (either Bach, or Beethoven, or Schubert, or Wagner, or even Mozart, as at the beginning of the slow movement of the Third Symphony);
3) an attempt to combine incompatible things (mentioned above);
4) progressiveness as a way to overcome one’s own composer’s complexes (incorrect voice production, inept handling of form, strange orchestration, combining features of German academicism of the Leipzig school and Wagnerianism, mutually exclusive paragraphs!
raising absurdities to some composer's level in the Ninth Symphony; coda of the Third Symphony in the first edition, when the copper performs cutting combinations of D E-flat, doubled in octave; When I heard this for the first time, at first I thought that the musicians had made a mistake) and, as a result, going beyond the style of his era.
It seems to me that Bruckner turned out to be the most progressive European composer of the late 19th century. Neither Wagner, with his innovations, nor Mahler, with his fundamentally different attitude to form and orchestration, were such radical innovators as Bruckner.
Here you can find everything: primitivism, elevated to a certain absolute, and harmonic innovations that do not fit into school concepts, and some ineptitude in handling the material and the orchestra, adding a charm similar to mold in French cheese, and deliberate departures from the established framework.
And, what is most amazing, absolutely childish naivety and confidence in what is being created (despite, and perhaps even thanks to, some religious pressure coming from the monks of the San Floriana monastery, where Bruckner began his career as a musician).
How to navigate correctly in all these clones of symphonies and numerous variants? Sometimes you get incredibly confused, especially when you want to listen to your favorite symphony, you inattentively read the playbill or the inscription on the disc and as a result you get a completely unfamiliar opus...
- Everything here is actually very simple. You just need to know what and how Bruckner's symphonies differ. The most varied editions are, first of all, the Fourth Symphony; in fact, we can talk about different symphonies based on identical material.
It seems to me that after some time, CD sets of symphonies (though I am quite skeptical about the idea of sets of works by any author - there is a large share of commercialism in this, devaluing the composers’ opuses; however, this is a slightly different story) will definitely include two Fourths: 1874 and 1881 - they are so different.
They contain different scherzos different materials; By the way, try to immediately determine the main key of the first version of the scherzo! This will not happen right away! And different endings on identical material; but differing in structure and rhythmic complexity.
As for the other versions, it is, sadly, a matter of taste, which one to prefer - the Second Symphony in the first version with rearranged parts or a compact presentation of the Third Symphony (which, in fact, is its later edition), so as not to spend an extra half hour on listening to this composition in its original form.
Or the Eighth Symphony in Haas's edition, where the editor, without thinking twice, combined two different editions and - not only that - wrote two new bars of his own in the finale.
Plus, it should be taken into account that the situation was complicated by gentlemen conductors who created their own versions of Bruckner’s symphonies.
Fortunately, at present only research conductors undertake the performance of these editions, which are even more ridiculous than the original text of the score, and, in addition, as a rule, are scanty.
Now I propose to move on to interpretations. The confusing situation with versions is aggravated by the variability in the quality of recordings. Which recordings by which conductors and orchestras do you prefer to listen to?
- I really like some of the revisionist performances. Norrington, Fourth Symphony - the best performance in terms of structure of form; Herreweghe, Fifth and Seventh Symphonies, where Bruckner appears without the brass loading familiar to his listeners.
Among the performances of his symphonies by representatives of the German conducting school, I would like to mention Wand (who views Bruckner as a kind of upgrade of Schubert) and Georg Tintner, who sometimes achieved extraordinary results with far from top orchestras and recorded early symphonies in the original editions.
The performances of the stars (Karajan, Solti, Jochum) should also not be neglected, despite the fact that, unfortunately, they clearly performed some symphonies to compile the complete collection.
Naturally, I cannot help but recall the performance of the Ninth Symphony by Teodor Currentzis in Moscow several years ago, which caused heated discussions among Brucknerians; I would really like to hear the rest of the symphonies in his interpretation.
What do you think of Mravinsky and Rozhdestvensky’s interpretations? How do you see the Russian approach to Bruckner? How does it differ from the average temperature in the hospital?
- Mravinsky’s interpretations of the Eighth and Ninth symphonies are quite European and competitive (the Seventh, unfortunately, for Mravinsky, judging by the recording of the late 60s, simply did not work out).
As for Rozhdestvensky, his performances of Bruckner symphonies are very different from the average. Rozhdestvensky perceives Bruckner absolutely as a composer of the 20th century; as a composer who composed at about the same time as Shostakovich (and probably heard some of his symphonies, and it is possible that he personally knew him!).
Perhaps, such a comparison cannot come to mind in any other performance. Moreover, it is in Rozhdestvensky’s interpretation that all the dissimilarity between Bruckner and Mahler becomes obvious (you can often hear the opinion that Mahler is in many ways a follower of Bruckner, but this is completely incorrect in fact, and, perhaps, it is Rozhdestvensky who proves this most convincingly when he performs Bruckner’s symphonies).
By the way, it is also an important fact that the conductor performed ALL available editions of Bruckner’s symphonies (including Mahler’s re-orchestration of the Fourth Symphony that he discovered) and recorded them on discs.
Can you talk about the difference between Mahler and Bruckner in more detail? I have repeatedly come across the opinion of them as a kind of dual pair, where it is Mahler who is given primacy and primogeniture, although personally it seems to me that against the backdrop of Bruckner’s amplitudes, scope and expansion, Mahler looks pale.
- This is one of the most common mistakes - to perceive Bruckner as a certain . Externally, one can find similarities: both of them wrote long symphonies, both of them had nine numbered completed symphonies, but, perhaps, that’s where the similarities end.
The length of Mahler's symphonies is determined by his desire to create a world each time; many different events and changes of state occur; Mahler physically does not fit into the standard framework of a 30-40-minute symphony.
Bruckner is completely different, the duration of his symphonies is not determined by the abundance of events, there are actually very few of them, but on the contrary - by the extension in time of any one state (this is especially felt in the slow movements of the late symphonies, when the passage of time, one might say, stops - analogies immediately come to Messiaen’s meditations from the quartet “At the End of Time” - or in the first movement of the Third Symphony in the original version, when events occur in almost catastrophically slow motion).
Mahler, in other words, belongs more to his age than Bruckner, Mahler is more of a romantic than Bruckner.
- What are Mahler’s and Bruckner’s approaches to symphonic form?
- With Bruckner, everything is always built according to the same model: consistently four-part cycles, the same course of events: always three-theme expositions of the first parts and finals, almost always slow parts, built according to the ababa formula; almost always minor scherzos (except perhaps the hunting one from the Fourth Symphony) - otherwise, roughly speaking, each time Bruckner writes not just another symphony, but a new version of one, Mahler in this sense is absolutely unpredictable. And in terms of the fact that there can be six or two parts; and in terms of dramaturgy, when the most important point may be not only the first movement or finale (as is the case with Mahler), but even the second (Fifth Symphony) or third.
Unlike Ravel, who also does not belong to them, Mahler is not even a composer for whom one can have a soft spot throughout one’s life. “Getting hooked” on Mahler is welcome, but having a soft spot for him... It’s unlikely. I myself contracted Mahler’s infection during my studies; the disease turned out to be fleeting. A stack of sawed-off records and a line of first editions of Mahler's scores, bought at the sale of the estate of the late Utrecht burgomaster, have already faded into the past twenty years ago - along with Pink Flood, Tolkien and M.K. Escher. Sometimes (very rarely) I listen to an old record and am more impressed than I expected, but then immediately return to normal. Music flows into me with the same ease as it flows out, old feelings awaken and fade with the same haste...
Mahler and Bruckner have completely different compositional techniques. Firstly, the instrumentation, even if we take it purely on a quantitative basis, Bruckner did not write for large orchestras (Bruckner’s huge orchestra is a myth!!!) until his later symphonies.
Only there, in them, are involved a triple composition of wooden, Wagnerian trumpets and an additional two percussionists (before this, Bruckner limited himself only to timpani!), and even then only really in the Eighth Symphony, since the impact of the cymbals in the Seventh is a debatable issue: how to play them or not (many copies have been broken on this matter and even more will be broken).
Secondly, Mahler uses all orchestral resources almost from the very first steps; but, however, not according to the principle of his peer Richard Strauss (who sometimes used all resources only because of the opportunity available for this), as evidenced by the Fourth Symphony, where there is no heavy brass (as if in defiance of those accusing Mahler of gigantomania and heaviness) , but it is full of different types of instruments (in the score there are four types of clarinet!), which Mahler replaces extremely masterfully.
Timbre modulations and polyphony are not imitative (as is often the case with Bruckner, and very subtly that it is difficult to notice just by ear, in the first movement of the Seventh Symphony, for example), but of a linear nature.
This is when several different melodic and textural lines are combined - also fundamental difference Mahler from Bruckner.
However, and in general from all Mahler’s contemporaries in terms of compositional technique, Mahler is perhaps the first composer of the twentieth century to master it at the level of such composers as Lachenmann and Fernyhough.
- Does the quality of interpretation and comprehension of Bruckner’s legacy change over time?
- Certainly! One can observe the evolution of performers' views on Bruckner the composer: first an attempt to see him as the Wagner of the symphonies, then an interpretation of him as one of the many composers of late romanticism, in some cases as a continuer of Beethoven's traditions.
Quite often one can observe purely commercial performances, which are both technically impeccable, but also equally unviable.
Nowadays, many musicians are realizing the true essence of Bruckner - a simpleton, a village teacher who decided to compose symphonies on the Beethovenian model, but in Wagnerian language.
And that, fortunately, he never managed to fully realize this, which is why we can talk about Bruckner as an independent composer, and not as one of his many contemporaries, imitative composers.
The first time I heard Bruckner interpreted by Furtwängler (recording of the Fifth Symphony in 1942), and now I mainly use Jochum’s set, which, by the way, was pointed out to me by Borya Filanovsky.
- Of course, I know them! Furtwängler's fifth has certainly already gone down in history as one of his best recorded performance achievements.
Jochum is a classic Bruckner set, but, as in all (almost without exception! and this applies not only to Bruckner) sets, not everything is equally equal, in my opinion (besides, Jochum recorded Bruckner all his life, there are two sets - dg and emi (pirate copies of this set have been sold almost all over the country) + separate concert recordings, which sometimes differ significantly from the studio ones).
I just have emi. Why do we always talk only about symphonies and don’t touch upon masses and other choral works at all? Isn’t that interesting?
- Of Bruckner’s masses, perhaps the closest to me is the Second for the choir and brass band, even, by and large, a wind ensemble - they add some special timbre flavor.
They say that Bruckner wrote this mass to be performed on the site... of the proposed construction of a new cathedral (which was later built), so the composition was probably performed in an open space, which probably explains such an extraordinary composition.
The third mass, strange as it may seem, for me has much in common with Brahms’s “German Requiem” (composed around the same period) - Bruckner’s main competitor in Vienna.
For some reason it turned out to be rarely executed last essay Bruckner - Helgoland (by the way, according to the surviving sketches of the finale of the Ninth Symphony, it can be assumed that Bruckner intended to include material from this work as well), a very unpredictable work in form and (which is perhaps even more important), almost an exceptional case for choral Bruckner's works, not written on a canonical religious text.
- How do Bruckner’s masses compare to the masses of other composers?
- There are probably no fundamental, global innovations in the formula; moreover, Bruckner, perhaps, in his interpretation of the mass as a genre turns out to be even more conservative than Beethoven (obviously, Bruckner here did not want to appear like some kind of heretic in front of church officials).
However, already in the masses (almost all of them, except for the Third, the last major mass, were written before the numbered symphonies) one can find the composer’s signature arches between the movements.
As, for example, the final part of the kyrie of the Second Mass is heard again at the end of the entire mass in the Agnus dei, or when in the Agnus dei a fragment from the fugue Gloria is heard at the climactic wave.
- When choosing interpretations, which of the conductor’s decisions and accents do you think is the most important?
- It all depends on the persuasiveness of the conductor’s intentions. Skrowaczewski is absolutely convincing, interfering with the author's text and sometimes changing the instrumentation, and not very convincing is any other conductor who honestly adheres to the author's text (the opposite situation may be the case).
Naturally, one of the most important things when performing Bruckner is to build all the dramatic points and arches between the parts, otherwise the situation may resemble the well-known joke: “I wake up and really stand at the conductor’s stand and conduct Bruckner”...
In addition, in some moments parallels can be drawn with his masses (especially in those places where he secretly or covertly quotes entire fragments), as a rule, they are rarely accidental, because in masses they are fixed with a certain text, and in symphonies the text actually disappears, but subconsciously remains.
For example, the quarto-fifth crescendo in the coda of the first version of the Fourth Symphony - the beginning et ressurecsit from the Third Mass, transposed a semitone lower - is unlikely to be overlooked and not paid attention to when getting to know the symphony.
- How did Bruckner influence your own work?
- Direct influence, of course, cannot be detected (student works on composition during the school period, of course, do not count), indirect, perhaps, in those cases when some texture is deliberately stretched out for a long time... and that’s probably all!
During the conservatory period, I was rather influenced by composers of the 20th century: Webern, Lachenmann, Sciarrino, Feldman; from contemporaries - ...
For me, the passion for Bruckner’s work - it so happened - is rather a parallel that almost does not intersect with my compositional searches.
- What from Bruckner’s biography seems important or symbolic to you?
- Well, I don’t even know about the symbolic; and some important points... perhaps meeting Wagner and getting to know his music. Well, the impression of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, which, starting with the Zero Symphony, he was guided by all his life (reminiscences of the themes of previous movements, the tonal plan of the works - that’s all from there).
Fantastic Symphony
One of the first - perhaps the most striking - examples of program music, that is, music that is preceded by a specific scenario. The story of Berlioz's unrequited love for the Irish actress Harriet Smithson formed the basis of a masterpiece, which includes "Reverie", and "Ball", and "Scene in the Fields", and "Procession to Execution", and even "Dream on the Night of the Sabbath".
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Symphony No. 40
Another super hit, the beginning of which causes involuntary irritation. Try to tune your ears as if you are hearing the Fortieth for the first time (even better if you are): this will help you experience the brilliant, although completely hackneyed, first part and learn that it is followed by no less wonderful second, third and fourth.
Ludwig van Beethoven
Symphony No. 7
Of Beethoven's three most famous symphonies, it is better to start neither with the Fifth with its "theme of fate" nor with the Ninth with its finale "Embrace, Millions." In the Seventh there is much less pathos and more humor, and the brilliant second part is familiar even to listeners who are far from the classics from the arrangement of the Deep Purple group.
Johannes Brahms
Symphony No. 3
Brahms's first symphony was called "Beethoven's Tenth Symphony", referring to the continuity of tradition. But if Beethoven's nine symphonies are unequal, then each of Brahms' four symphonies is a masterpiece. The pompous beginning of the Third is just a bright cover for a deeply lyrical statement that reaches its climax in the unforgettable Allegretto.
Anton Bruckner
Symphony No. 7
Mahler is considered Bruckner's successor; Against the backdrop of his roller coaster-like canvases, Bruckner's symphonies can seem boring, especially their endless Adagios. However, each Adagio is followed by an exciting Scherzo, and the Seventh Symphony will not let you get bored from the very first movement, thoughtful and drawn-out. No less good are the Finale, the Scherzo and the Adagio dedicated to the memory of Wagner.
Joseph Haydn
Symphony No. 45 “Farewell”
It seems impossible to write simpler than Haydn, but this deceptive simplicity lies the main secret of his mastery. Of his 104 symphonies, only 11 were written in a minor key, and the best among them is “Farewell,” at the end of which the musicians leave the stage one by one. It was from Haydn that the Nautilus Pompilius group borrowed this technique to perform the song “Goodbye, America.”
Antonin Dvorak
Symphony “From the New World”
While collecting material for the symphony, Dvorak studied national music America, however, did without quoting, trying primarily to embody its spirit. The symphony in many ways goes back to both Brahms and Beethoven, but is devoid of the pomposity inherent in their opuses.
Gustav Mahler
Symphony No. 5
Two best symphonies Mahler seem similar friend on a friend only at first. The confusion of the first movements of the Fifth leads to the textbook Adagietto, full of languor, repeatedly used in cinema and theater. And the ominous fanfare of the introduction is met by a completely traditional optimistic ending.
Gustav Mahler
Symphony No. 6
Who would have thought that Mahler's next symphony would represent the darkest and most hopeless music in the world! The composer seems to be mourning all of humanity: such a mood is established from the very first notes and only worsens towards the finale, which does not contain a ray of hope. Not for the faint of heart.
Sergei Prokofiev
"Classical" symphony
Prokofiev explained the name of the symphony this way: “Out of mischief, to tease the geese, and in the secret hope that ... I will beat it if over time the symphony turns out to be so classical.” After a series of daring compositions that excited the public, Prokofiev composed a symphony in the spirit of Haydn; it became a classic almost immediately, although his other symphonies have nothing in common with it.
Pyotr Tchaikovsky
Symphony No. 5
Tchaikovsky's Fifth Symphony is not as popular as his ballets, although its melodic potential is no less; Any two or three minutes of it could be turned into a hit by, for example, Paul McCartney. If you want to understand what a symphony is, listen to Tchaikovsky’s Fifth - one of the best and most complete examples of the genre.
Dmitry Shostakovich
Symphony No. 5
In 1936, Shostakovich was ostracized by state level. In response, calling on the shadows of Bach, Beethoven, Mahler and Mussorgsky for help, the composer created a work that became a classic at the time of its premiere. According to legend, Boris Pasternak said about the symphony and its author: “He said everything he wanted - and he didn’t have anything for it.”
Dmitry Shostakovich
Symphony No. 7
One of the musical symbols of the twentieth century and certainly the main one musical symbol Second World War. A subtle drumbeat begins the famous “invasion theme,” illustrating not only fascism or Stalinism, but any historical era based on violence.
Franz Schubert
Unfinished Symphony
The eighth symphony is called “Unfinished” - instead of four movements there are only two; however, they are so rich and strong that they are perceived as a complete whole. Having stopped work on the work, the composer did not touch it again.
Bela Bartok
Concerto for orchestra
Bartok is known primarily as the author of countless plays for music schools. The fact that this is not all Bartók is evidenced by his Concerto, where parody is accompanied by severity, and sophisticated technique is accompanied by cheerful folk melodies. In fact, Bartók’s farewell symphony, as well as Rachmaninov’s next work.
Sergei Rachmaninov
Symphonic dances
Rachmaninov's last opus is a masterpiece of unprecedented power. The beginning seems to warn of an earthquake - it is both a harbinger of the horrors of war and an awareness of the end of the romantic era in music. Rachmaninov called “Dances” his best and favorite composition.
The Bel Canto Foundation organizes concerts in Moscow featuring the music of Anton Bruckner. On this page you can see a poster of upcoming concerts in 2019 with the music of Anton Bruckner and buy a ticket for a date convenient for you.
Anton Bruckner (1824 - 1896) - an outstanding Austrian composer, organist, teacher. Born into the family of a rural teacher. He received his first musical skills under the guidance of his father and organist I.B. Weiss in Hörsching. In 1837 he was accepted as a chorister at the St. Florian monastery near Linz, where he studied organ and violin. The sound of the monastery church organ, one of the best in Austria, had a great influence on the formation of the future musician. In 1841-45, after completing a course to become a teacher in Linz, he worked as an assistant teacher in the villages of Windhaag and Kronnstorf, where the first musical compositions were written; in 1845-55 - school teacher in St. Florian, from 1848 also organist of the monastery. In 1855 he became the cathedral organist of Linz. From this time begins, in fact, musical activity Bruckner. In 1856-61. he takes a correspondence course with the largest Austrian music theorist S. Sechter, in 1861-63. studies under the direction of the conductor of the Linz Opera House O. Kitzler, under whose influence he studies Wagner's operas. In 1865, at the premiere of Wagner's opera Tristan and Isolde in Munich, Wagner and Bruckner met personally. In 1864, Bruckner's first mature work was completed - Mass in D minor (No. 1), in 1866 - the first symphony (performed in 1868 in Linz under the direction of the author). Since 1868, Bruckner has lived in Vienna, teaching harmony, counterpoint and organ at the conservatory of the Vienna Society of Friends of Music; from 1875 - associate professor at the University of Vienna, from 1878 - organist of the Court Chapel. In 1869, as an organist, he toured in France (Nancy, Paris), in 1871 - in Great Britain (London, was invited to the opening of Albert Hall). In Vienna, Bruckner faced difficulties in the reception of his music by the public and musicians. Only after the premiere of the seventh symphony (1884, Leipzig) did he become widely famous; in the last decade of Bruckner's life, his symphonies were included in the repertoire of major conductors (G. Richter, A. Nikisch, F. Weingartner, etc.). Bruckner was awarded the Franz Joseph Order (1886) and the title of honorary Doctor of Philosophy from the University of Vienna (1891). According to his will, he was buried in St. Florian.
The main part of Bruckner's legacy is symphonic and sacred music. Along with Brahms and Mahler, Bruckner is one of the major Austro-German symphonists of the second half of the 19th century V. Unusuality and complexity musical language, which distinguishes Bruckner among his contemporary composers, is associated with the conditions for the formation of his creative individuality. Composition style Bruckner's music was formed under the influence of a wide variety of, sometimes opposing, musical traditions. For a long time Bruckner remained in the field of church music, which in the Austrian tradition had changed little over the centuries, and only at the age of forty did he turn to instrumental genres, later focusing on symphonic music. Bruckner relied on traditional type a 4-movement symphony, the symphonies of Beethoven served as his model (primarily the ninth symphony, which became a kind of “model” for his works); the idea of “program” music, which became widespread in the era of late romanticism, was alien to him. But in Bruckner’s symphonies one can also find the influence of Baroque musical tradition(in thematic and formative). Paying great importance theoretical knowledge, Bruckner perfectly mastered music theory and polyphonic technology; polyphony plays a significant role in his music (the fifth symphony is most characteristic in this regard). One of the greatest organist-improvisers of his time, Bruckner often transferred to the orchestra the types of texture characteristic of the organ, the principles of distribution of timbres; When listening to his symphonies, associations sometimes arise with church acoustics. Bruckner's deep and naive religiosity, which allowed him to dedicate his best works - "Te Deum" and the ninth symphony - to the "beloved God", is manifested in his frequent appeal to the sphere of "Gregorian" chant and, above all, in the mystical contemplation of the slow movements of his symphonies, in ecstatic climaxes in which subjective experiences, suffering individual person dissolve in adoration before the greatness of the Creator. Bruckner deeply revered Wagner and considered him the greatest of modern composers(The third symphony is dedicated to Wagner; the slow movement of the seventh symphony was written under the impression of Wagner’s death); his influence was reflected in the harmony and orchestration of Bruckner's works. At the same time, Wagner’s musical and aesthetic ideas were beyond the interests of Bruckner, who perceived exclusively the musical side of Wagner’s work. Wagner himself highly regarded Bruckner and spoke of him as “the greatest symphonist since Beethoven.”
The large scale of Bruckner's symphonies, the tendency towards massive, powerful orchestral colors, the length and monumentality of the development allow us to speak about the epic features of his style. Convinced of the original harmony and integrity of the universe, Bruckner follows in each symphony a stable, once and for all chosen “model”, which presupposes the final affirmation of a harmonious, bright beginning. Exacerbation tragic conflicts, Bruckner’s last three symphonies (seventh, eighth and ninth) were marked by particularly intense symphonic development.
Most of Bruckner's works have several editions or variants, often significantly different from each other. This is due to the fact that the composer made concessions to his time, trying to make his works more accessible, as well as Bruckner’s increased self-criticism and his continuous creative evolution. The friends and students who were part of his inner circle also made major changes to Bruckner’s scores (often without his consent) intended for performance and printing. As a result, Bruckner's music was presented to the public in a modified form for many years. The original scores of Bruckner's works were first published only in the 30s and 40s. XX century, as part of the composer’s collected works.
In 1928, the International Bruckner Society was founded in Vienna. A music festival dedicated to Bruckner is regularly held in Linz.
Works: 11 symphonies, including 2 not designated by numbers (3rd – 1873, second edition 1877-78, third edition 1889; 4th “Romantic” – 1874, 2nd edition 1878-80, third edition 1888; 5th – 1876-78; 7th – 1887, second ed. 1890; sacred music (Requiem - 1849; Magnificat - 1852; 3 large masses - 1864, 1866 - for choir and brass band (second edition 1882), 1868; Te Deum - 1884; psalms, motets, etc.); secular choirs (“Germanenzug” for male choir and brass band - 1864; “Helgoland” for male choir and orchestra. – 1890, etc.); works for organ; string quintet (1879), etc.
Anton Bruckner: Symphony 7. To the 189th anniversary of the great composer.
Tannhäuser: Today, on the birthday of the Great Austrian composer, I offer another, perhaps his best symphony... The Seventh... From the first minutes it completely captures the listener and does not let go until the end of the last movement... And it plays for more than an hour.. .But who loves symphonic music receives the greatest pleasure from this creation... I listen to the Seventh constantly... More often - in sad minutes, hours, days... Music adds a little lightness to thoughts and feelings even in the most difficult moments of life... I know...
Below are texts from short biography composer and a description of the features of one of his symphonic masterpieces. See you later...
Orchestra composition: 2 flutes, 2 oboes, 2 clarinets, 2 bassoons, 4 horns, 3 trumpets, 3 trombones, 4 tenor tubas, bass tuba, timpani, triangle, cymbals, strings.
History of creation
The Seventh Symphony was created during the years 1881-1883. On July 26, 1882, in Bayreuth, where Wagner lived during these years, his last meeting took place with Bruckner, who admired the genius of the great opera reformer. Bruckner was hospitably received at the Villa Wahnfried, attended the premiere of Parsifal, last opera maestro.
The music of Parsifal made such an impression on the exalted Austrian composer that he knelt before its creator. Wagner, in turn, highly appreciated Bruckner's work, promised him to perform all of his symphonies. This was a colossal joy for the composer, who was not at all spoiled by attention - his music was not recognized, considered too learned, long and formless. Critics, especially the then all-powerful E. Hanslick, literally destroyed Bruckner. Therefore, one can imagine what a joy Wagner’s promise was for him. Perhaps this was reflected in the music of the first movement, filled with radiant joy.
However, this noble plan was not destined to come true. In the midst of work on the second part of the symphony, the adagio, on February 14, 1883, coming to classes at the conservatory as usual, Bruckner learned of Wagner’s death. The composer dedicated this adagio to his memory - one of the most amazing in depth and beauty. His experiences are captured in this amazing music, the last few dozen bars of which were written immediately after receiving the tragic news. “I reached this point when a dispatch arrived from Venice, and then for the first time I composed truly mournful music in memory of the master,” Bruckner wrote in one of his letters. In the summer, the composer went to Bayreuth to venerate the grave of the man whom he revered so deeply (Wagner is buried in the park of the Villa Wahnfried).
The composer completed the seventh symphony on September 5, 1883. At first, the musicians did not accept it, like all previous Bruckner symphonies. Only after detailed explanations from the author regarding the form of the finale did conductor G. Levy risk performing it.
The premiere of the symphony took place on December 30, 1884 in Leipzig under the baton of Arthur Nikisch and was received quite controversially, although some critics wrote that Bruckner towers above other composers as a giant. Only after the performance of the Seventh in Munich under the baton of Levi did Bruckner become a triumphant man. The symphony was enthusiastically greeted by the audience. In the press one could read that its author was comparable to Beethoven himself. The triumphal march of the symphony across the symphonic stages of Europe began. Thus came the belated recognition of Bruckner as a composer.
Music
The first movement begins with Bruckner's favorite technique - a barely audible string tremolo. Against its background, a melody sounds, flowing widely and freely from cellos and violas, capturing a huge range in its chant - the main theme of the sonata allegro.
It is interesting that, according to the composer, it appeared to him in a dream - he dreamed that a friend came from Linz and dictated the melody, adding: “Remember, this theme will bring you happiness!” The side performance of oboe and clarinet, accompanied by shimmering chords of horns and trumpet, is fragile and transparent, subtly changeable, imbued with the spirit of romantic quests, leading to the appearance of the third image (the final part) - folk dance, imbued with elemental power. In development, calm at first, the color gradually thickens, a struggle ensues, and a gigantic wave of pressure occurs, capturing the reprise. The result is summed up only in the coda, where the main theme is established in the jubilant sound of bright fanfares.
The second part is unique. This mournful and at the same time courageous music is one of the deepest and most soulful adagios in the world, the greatest rise of Bruckner’s genius.
The two themes of the adagio are completely limitless in extent. They amaze with the broadest breath. The first one sounds mournful and concentrated first from a quartet of tenor, otherwise called Wagnerian, tubas, then it is picked up and sung by strings, the melody rises higher and higher, reaches a climax and falls. The second theme enters, affectionate, as if soothing, consoling in grief. If the first one was four-beat, in the rhythm of a slow march, now it is replaced by a smooth waltz movement. Music takes you to a dream world. These themes alternate again, creating the form of a two-theme rondo. From severe sorrow, the music gradually moves to light sadness, peace, and then an ecstatic climax in bright C major, affirming the transformed first theme. But it’s as if a dark curtain suddenly falls: a quintet of tubas sounds darkly, like an epitaph to Wagner. The theme quoted by the composer from his “Te Deum”, completed in the same year as the Seventh, unfolds mournfully - the mournful melody “Non confiindar”. The exclamations of the horns sound like bursting sobs. But in the last bars of the movement, the first theme sounds enlightened - like reconciliation with loss.
M. Čiurlionis "Scherzo"
The third movement is a powerful scherzo like Beethoven, permeated with bright fanfares and the rhythms of fiery mass dance. The endless whirling figuration of the strings resembles a fantastic round dance. It is cut through by the call of a trumpet - laconic, rhythmically clear. According to the composer, its prototype was the crow of a rooster. The music seems to be full of exuberant fun. But this is not joy - the fun is ominous, it seems like a satanic grin. The trio is transparent, easily serene, idyllic. The unpretentious song melody is led by violins, surrounded by transparent echoes, replaced by the playing of woodwinds. Everything is imbued with purity, freshness, chastity. The reprise of the three-part form falls in a rapid stream, returning to the images of the beginning of the scherzo.
The first, main theme of the bright, heroic finale is a modification of the theme of the first part. Here, in the sound of violins, accompanied by a continuous tremolo, it takes on the features of an energetic march. The secondary one is a restrained chorale, also in the violins, accompanied by pizzicato bass. This is also a march, but slowed down - more like a procession. The final theme, in which the intonations of the main theme are transformed, is powerful and proud. Now the whole orchestra sounds in ponderous unisons.
These three images are intertwined and develop in a gigantic development, in which a terrible, intense struggle takes place, like a struggle between good and evil, between hellish forces and the forces of angelic armies. In the reprise, the three main themes are played in reverse order, leading to a vibrant, triumphant climax in the coda. WITH main theme The finale here merges the initial theme of the symphony. The march, the movement of which permeated the entire finale, becomes a joyful, enthusiastic hymn.
..........................................................................................................................................
“I know only one who comes close to Beethoven, and that is Bruckner.” The words spoken by Richard Wagner in 1882 were perceived as a paradox: Bruckner, on the threshold of his 60th birthday, the author of “strange”, “huge” symphonies (almost never performed), was perceived by his contemporaries as a shy, simple-minded eccentric with naive views. Only years later, after A. Nikisch's triumphant performance of the Seventh Symphony, did Bruckner gain widespread recognition.
The name of Anton Bruckner is well known to music lovers all over the world. An outstanding Austrian composer, organist and teacher, he lived difficult life, only in his later years receiving well-deserved recognition. Bruckner's symphonies, created in the last thirty years of his life and waiting for a long time for their performance, had a significant influence on the development of European symphony in the 19th century. Today they have entered the golden fund of world symphonic literature and have become an adornment of the repertoire of the best orchestras in the world.
He was born in a small Austrian village, studied at a monastery teacher's school, in his youth served for a long time as a village school teacher, then received the position of organist - first in a monastery, then, finally, in the cathedral of the small town of Linz. All these years he continuously studied, improving as an organist, diligently studying the secrets of the composer's craft.
In 1868, the First Symphony and one of the masses, created shortly before, were successfully performed in Linz. Finally, his old dream came true - he left the province and moved to Vienna (at that time he was forty-five years old). The most fruitful and, at the same time, the most bleak time of his life began. One after another, his grandiose symphonies were born - from the Second to the Ninth, but they were not in demand by the public. The Second and Third Symphonies were performed relatively quickly; but the Second was only unsuccessful, and the Third failed. From now on, any conductor risked including Bruckner's works in his concert programs. For years, or even decades, the composer had to wait for the performance of his symphonies, and he never heard some of them - for example, the Fifth.
In Vienna he is a stranger, and remained alone until the end of his days. No close friends, no sensitive and devoted interpreters, no reliable patrons, no faithful students. Only a small handful of fans - representatives of musical youth - from whom, in essence, little could change in the fate of him and his works.
Fame and recognition came to him, but, alas, too late. In 1881, Hans Richter successfully performed the Fourth Symphony (it is still one of Bruckner's most repertoire symphonies). Then followed - mostly foreign (Vienna is still deaf to him) - performances of others: the Third, the Seventh...
The last two symphonies - the Eighth and Ninth, Bruckner's most monumental works - were created at a time of rapidly approaching old age. He was no longer able to finish the ninth - for the last two years he had been working on the finale, and this work was interrupted by death.
":Part 1 -
Part 2 -
...
Part 47 -
Part 48 -
Part 49 - Anton Bruckner: Symphony 7. To the 189th anniversary of the great composer.