Tackling a serious gap in my musical knowledge

[VodkaDilc]

I can't be the only person who has reached a fairly advanced age and has realised that there are notable gaps in my musical knowledge/experience. My teens and student years coincided with Glock ruling the BBC and Thurston Dart and others like him ruling the education world. If music between 1860 and 1910 existed, it certainly wasn't recognised as a part of any curriculum I ever studied (with a few exceptions like Verdi and Wagner.) In the decades since my full-time education stopped I have filled some gaps: Mahler for example - but serious omissions remain.

A composer I know nothing about (and who does not feature at all in my extensive CD collection) is Bruckner. There, I've said it! How embarrassing! My question is: where do I start? With the symphonies, I suppose, but in numerical order? - or is there a more obvious one to tackle first?

My next question is: do others have similar blind-spots? If so, what?

[Beef Oven]

I can't be the only person who has reached a fairly advanced age and has realised that there are notable gaps in my musical knowledge/experience. My teens and student years coincided with Glock ruling the BBC and Thurston Dart and others like him ruling the education world. If music between 1860 and 1910 existed, it certainly wasn't recognised as a part of any curriculum I ever studied (with a few exceptions like Verdi and Wagner.) In the decades since my full-time education stopped I have filled some gaps: Mahler for example - but serious omissions remain.

A composer I know nothing about (and who does not feature at all in my extensive CD collection) is Bruckner. There, I've said it! How embarrassing! My question is: where do I start? With the symphonies, I suppose, but in numerical order? - or is there a more obvious one to tackle first?

My next question is: do others have similar blind-spots? If so, what?

start with #4 conducted by celibidache or bohm - is what i'd say

[VodkaDilc]

start with #4 conducted by celibidache or bohm - is what i'd say

Thanks for that advice.

[Vile Consort]

I wouldn't tackle the Bruckner symphonies in numerical order - some of the early ones are justly neglected. I would start with numbers 7 and 8.

Apart from the symphonies there are some motets and the mass in E minor that are worth a try. Considering he was a cathedral organist, he left very little organ music, and what there is is terribly weak stuff.

Major composers missing from my CD collection include Mozart, Schubert, Mendelssohn, none of whom excite me much. I haven't got any Kodaly either, but every time I hear any I like it - perhaps he will be my next area of exploration.

[Flay]

start with #4

Absolutely! Then 8, then 7 before experiencing 9.

Listen to the Discovering Music episodes on them from the archive

[gurnemanz]

The first Bruckner symphony I got to know was the Fourth on a CBS LP with Bruno Walter. I remember loving it and playing it a lot at a time when I didn't own that many discs.

Liszt was a blind spot for several decades but I have recently got to like some of his stuff - eg Lieder, Années de Pèlerinage, symphonic poems.

[jayne lee wilson]

Look I'm sorry about being contentious, but a lifetime of listening to and loving Bruckner, through many live performances and complete cycles... just chuck out the concert programmers' cliched ideas about 4 or 7 being the most "appealing" or whatever.

Start at No.1, and follow Bruckner on his great journey through his creation of new musical architecture, of "strange new worlds" of musical forms and emotion that he alone could have explored. Bruckner called his C Minor No.1 because he knew - as all devoted Brucknerians eventually come to realise - that it was his first completely distinctive statement - here he was, Bruckner, himself. But in No.2, he starts to explore beyond sonata forms, becomes more confident in those imaginative and expansive developments. With No.3, ONLY listen to the 1873 Original for as long as you can. That way you'll avoid the immense frustation some of us felt having to puzzle over the later spatchcocked revisions of 1877 and worst of all 1889. (Listen to those later if you get really keen - you'll be appalled). But the 3rd remains the hardest to come to terms with, if only because the best version - the original - is a little awkward and unwieldy; he was "reaching beyond his grasp" a little.

Now it gets easier - the original 4th is disjointed and under-developed and Bruckner knew it; yes, hear it, but as a study for the familiar 1878 almost-masterpiece (finale not quite fully-formed).
I envy you if you come to the 5th after giving some time to the first 4 - it's one of the 7 wonders of the symphonic world, a vast, Apollonian, out-and-out, perfect masterpiece. Poignant that Bruckner never heard it, it was never played in his lifetime.
6 - a divertimento after the great statement of No.5, concise, relaxed, almost pastoral.

You don't need any words from me really about the great final trilogy - and trilogy they are, a great meditation on last things, self-referential and self-quoting. Editions are less problematic: cross those bridges when you come to them.

Take this as a rough guide to a far-flung, utterly unique symphonic kingdom. Yes, just plunge in, mix up the order if you must - but PLEASE, why not be different - start at No.1, and go on from there. It might take you weeks, months, or years, who knows...

Tips for recordings? Tintner on Naxos for the first 3 is near-unsurpassable, but he's a little too monumental (read: slow!) in the 1873 No. 3; seek out Inbal there. A new set of 0&1, with No.2 just out, played with radical swiftness but a true Brucknerian spirit and conductor's instinct: Mario Venzago on CPO; I can recommend 0&1, haven't heard No.2 yet. A more Austro-German, mainstream approach? Go for Abbado or Solti in No.1, Guilini in No.2 (on Testament). Bohm/VPO or Klemperer/Philharmonia (my choice) in No.4.

Take your time, don't rush to experience those late, great, apocalyptic symphonic statements...

[cloughie]

4>7>5>3>8>9>6>2>1>0>00 Get the EMI Jochum box £14 or so from Amazon and enjoy, just let the music sweep over you. Better still just follow Jayne's advice.

[Beef Oven]

Look I'm sorry about being contentious, but a lifetime of listening to and loving Bruckner, through many live performances and complete cycles... just chuck out the concert programmers' cliched ideas about 4 or 7 being the most "appealing" or whatever.

Start at No.1, and follow Bruckner on his great journey through his creation of new musical architecture, of "strange new worlds" of musical forms and emotion that he alone could have explored. Bruckner called his C Minor No.1 because he knew - as all devoted Brucknerians eventually come to realise - that it was his first completely distinctive statement - here he was, Bruckner, himself. But in No.2, he starts to explore beyond sonata forms, becomes more confident in those imaginative and expansive developments. With No.3, ONLY listen to the 1873 Original for as long as you can. That way you'll avoid the immense frustation some of us felt having to puzzle over the later spatchcocked revisions of 1877 and worst of all 1889. Listen to those later if you get really keen - you'll be appalled.

Now it gets easier - the original 4th is disjointed and under-developed and Bruckner knew it; yes, hear it, but as a study for the familiar 1878 almost-masterpiece (finale not quite fully-formed).
I envy you if you come to the 5th after giving some time to the first 4 - it's one of the 7 wonders of the symphonic world, a vast, Apollonian, out-and-out, perfect masterpiece. Poignant that Bruckner never heard it, it was never played in his lifetime.
6 - a divertimento after the great statement of No.5, concise, relaxed, almost pastoral; you don't need any words from me really about the great final trilogy - and trilogy they are, a great meditation on last things, self-referential and self-quoting.

Take this as a rough guide to a far-flung, utterly unique symphonic kingdom. Yes, just plunge in, mix up the order if you must - but PLEASE, why not be different - start at No.1, and go on from there. It might take you weeks, months, or years, who knows...

Tips for recordings? Tintner on Naxos for the first 3 is near-unsurpassable, but he's a little too monumental (read: slow!) in the 1873 No. 3; seek out Inbal there. A new set of 0&1, with No.2 just out, played with radical swiftness but a true Brucknerian spirit and conductor's instinct: Mario Venzago on CPO; I can recommend 0&1, haven't heard No.2 yet. A more Austro-German, mainstream approach? Go for Abbado or Solti in No.1, Guilini in No.2 (on Testament).

Take your time, don't rush to experience those late, great, apocalyptic symphonic statements...

I feel such a fool

[jayne lee wilson]

I feel such a fool

Cheer up Beef, I won't be rushing to advise anyone about jazzrockfusionprogexperimental now will I?