Our Summer BAL 48 - Bruckner Symphony No 9

[Flay]

He knew this would be his last symphony so he poured his soul out in the process. I also believe he reserved his greatest and most powerful music for this fascinating if often frightening encounter. If nothing else, it certainly gives the lie to Bruckner 'always being on his knees'!

Very well put, PGT

[BBMmk2]

I have always liked HvK, and Abbado. I have Jochum too. any others? Gunther Wand?

[LeMartinPecheur]

On a slight tangent I always think it rather a shame that Karajan only recorded 4 and 7 with EMI . Those early 1970s recordings are probably my favourite Karajan records .

Barbs, you can't have forgotten the earlier EMI BPO 8th surely?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I owe Flay an apology - which I readily offer: Barbi made me realize that the Guilini performance I was talking about was the (rather fine) Chicago recording: I've never heard the VPO - it is available via youTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_XXBUJ_LGw

... and I shall make a point of listening as soon as the big, silly grin left by Beethoven's Fourth has left my face. Next May should do it.

As to what the Scherzo is "about", I'm not very interested in Bruckner's faith, nor really how possible crises thereof affect the Music. What I find astonishing is the way the melodic lines of the opening (shared between First Violins answered by 'celli) seem to suggest a slightly skew-wiffed C# minor broken chord in a way that the Mendelssohn of the scherzi of the Octet or MSND would have seen as a not-too-distant relative. But the disturbed quality of the Music comes from the harmonization of these lines: first of all, the first chord appears after (given audience coughing, orchestral retunings etc - but the last Musical sound we have heard is) the bare open fifth D - A that ends the first movement (and that diad itself immediately preceded by a D pedal underneath an Eb major triad). So, after this sonority, we hear a C# minor triad in first inversion simultaneously with an added diminished seventh [E - G# - Bb - C#] - the Music has lurched down a semitone and added a dissonance that really disrupts the security that a straightforward C# minor triad would provide. This chord lasts for 12 bars, when it is succeeded not by a comfortable "resolution" onto a secure triad, but by an even more disjunct dissonance: D major with an added Major seventh, also in first inversion [F# - A - C# - D] - the first clarinet and oboe emphasizing the harsh clash between C# and D (the oboist has to hold the C# non-stop for forty-one bars - AND has to crescendo as his/her breath runs out!) Again, the melodic line sort-of goes against this by underplaying the C# dissonance - so again, the melody and harmony don't quite "fit". Ten bars later, the chord changes - and again to another dissonance: back (sort-of) to C#, but now in second inversion, and now a major triad - but with an added minor second [G# - C# - D - E#] - five bars later another dissonance (a D# half-diminished chord also in second inversion: A - C# - D# - F#) four bars later a D#7 dissonance in second inversion (A# - C# - D# - Fx) and four bars after that we end up back on the same dissonance that we started on (C#minor with an added diminished seventh) but this time in second inversion (G# - Bb - C# - E).

The effect of this string of dissonances, each getting closer in time, each more annoying than the last, each ascending screws up the tension as far as it can go - for the moment - and finds release only in the angry unison D shouts in the orchestra that follows ("We're supposed to be in D minor, for goodness' sake!") - the rest of the orchestra is having none of it - they quite liked those C# minor chords and they play these against the D pedal notes. So - the first movement ended with a pedal D over which a triad was built on the note a semitone higher than D, NOW we've got a D pedal with a chord built on the note a semitone lower. The process begun in the first movement of building up dissonances from triads continues here - and will reach its eventual summation in THAT chord in the Third movement.

For the moment, the Scherzo is a battle between "traditional" ideas of how Tonality works and eager exploration of new Tonal possibilities. Bruckner intended "Tradition" to "win" eventually - instead, because of his death, what he completed is an unintended triumph for what would become known as "Progressive Tonality" - where a Symphony moves towards (or "discovers") its home key, rather than beginning and returning to it. The E major conclusion of the Third movement isn't what Bruckner believed a Symphony should "do" (just as the G major "conclusion" of Schubert's Unfinished goes constructively against what the composer believed in). The F# major Trio section is another part of this incomplete process - the key giving the first indications of the D major ending that he was planning.

Small wonder, though, that the Coda of the Third Movement has proved so satisfactory for so long - the "final" release from the process of intensifying the dissonance that has gone on hitherto.

[teamsaint]

Thanks for going to the trouble of that superb post Ferney, very much appreciated.

Fascinating stuff. score is freely available, for no excuse for anybody not checking up on whether you are correct on all counts !

[Petrushka]

I'm sorry I missed this thread while I was away at the Proms as the Bruckner 9 is one of my most favourite symphonies. I've got multiple versions from Günter Wand as well as many from elsewhere but my touchstone in this piece is Herbert von Karajan and, above all, the live 1976 Salzburg performance with the Vienna Philharmonic once available on DG. The orchestra is matchless here in playing of great power and beauty with a first movement coda that will have your hair standing on end. I remember hearing this Sunday morning performance live on Radio 3 (when they did such things) and have never forgotten it.

It looks like a deep pocket might be necessary http://www.amazon.co.uk/Symphony-9-A...jan+bruckner+9

This recording should be made properly available once again as it has a magnificence absent from most others. One of my recordings for that desert island.

[P. G. Tipps]

As a non-musician I've absolutely no idea what #34 is all about ... but I feel sure ferney is absolutely correct! The more I love some pieces the more I realise how stupid I was not not to learn how to read music when I was younger. I certainly did not lack opportunity. 'They' say it is never too late but, sadly, I'm not really sure about that, tbh. However, being aware of the actual skills required to produce a great piece of music clearly produces extra rewards..

Still, music is meant to be heard and just by repeated listening one can discover so much more. Bruckner 9 was the one and only symphony by the composer which completely baffled me on first hearing. It took me some time to get to grips with it but once I did my belated understanding of it has grown into a passionate love of it's searing honesty and pure humanity. Burns' lines invariably spring to mind ...

A prince can mak a belted knight,
A marquis, duke, an' a' that;
But an honest man's abon his might,
Gude faith, he maunna fa' that!
For a' that, an' a' that,
Their dignities an' a' that;
The pith o' sense, an' pride o' worth,
Are higher rank than a' that.


The other thing that often strikes me when listening to this towering work is how forward-looking and energetic it sounds for an old, sick and sometimes bedridden composer. Also, the cataclysmic nature of much of it does make one wonder if the composer somehow foresaw the horrendous calamities awaiting just around the corner in the 20th Century. Fanciful thoughts, maybe, but such is the mysterious power of music like this!

Sorry, I digress ...

[Barbirollians]

Barbs, you can't have forgotten the earlier EMI BPO 8th surely?

No I hadn't but that was of course late 1950s . I was thinking more it was a shame after those two excellent records he did not complete an early 1970s EMI cycle .

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Still, music is meant to be heard ...

Well - it's meant to be played, too; Bruckner is communicating the players as much as the person in seat H12 - and what his message to the first oboist in the opening bars of the Scherzo is important to the cumulative effect of the work.

... and just by repeated listening one can discover so much more.

No "just" involved; listening is an activity - and how and to what we choose to listen is the contributing factor. (And, it has to be asked, - "so much more" than what?)


It is tempting to be beguiled by the image of the composer as a dying man - but when he conceived the Ninth Symphony, he was a healthy sixty-two year-old, and it was the Tonal structure that he envisaged that he wished to complete. That is what was most important to him - that is why, as a mature young man he gave up composing in order to study with Sechter: in order to produce the large-scale Musical structures that he knew were essential to the successful communication of his thoughts. (That is, large-scale works that didn't rely for their structural integrity on the words of the Catholic Mass, but on the inner, self-referential propulsion of Functional Harmony.)

The point of the harmonic structure in the opening of the Scherzo is two-fold: in the immediate context of where the Music appears (just after the first movement, setting a different Musical mood/character for the new Movement) and as a process in the movement away from D minor and towards D major of the whole Symphonic span. That's what he wanted to be worthy of his God.

The names of these six chords is merely a convenience - what is more important is the "Harmonic Uncertainty Principal" that they play against: each dissonance is Tonally ambiguous: none of the chords - with the exception of the D#7 chord - is a regularly-encountered sonority - they would all "normally" only make sense in the context of a clear Tonal chord sequence, each leading to a more secure (and familiar) cadence point. But Bruckner doesn't give us this - instead, we get a chain of unresolved discords which screw the harmonic tension up and leads, frustratingly, back to square one. And this in contrast with the melodic fragments which are more clearly and "traditionally" composed.

So what does that "tell" the conductor, who has to co-ordinate the hundred-or-so Musicians? To ensure that the "accompanying" chords are kept niggling in the "background" whilst the First Violins and 'celli frolic around more playfully, gradually twisting the melodic "frolicking" into something more aware of the harmonic context as it gets increasingly fragmented (the discords remaining unmoved by what's happening to the melody) until only the bare fifth C# - G# in the flutes is left sending out a Tonal distress signal.

Karajan does all that splendidly.

[Flay]

Thanks for that thoughtful analysis ferney . There is much to contemplate.

Have you sampled the VPO Giulini yet?

(the oboist has to hold the C# non-stop for forty-one bars - AND has to crescendo as his/her breath runs out!)

...and likewise the poor first trumpet for 29 bars! Is that physically possible?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

...and likewise the poor first trumpet for 29 bars! Is that physically possible?

AND at ppp!

Mesuspects (without any proof, ye understand'th) that Karajan gets the second Oboe and Trumpet involved in some of the chord changes (a la the solo Flute in the Benedictus of his EMI recording of the B minor Mass).

I dipped my toe into the Guilini/VPO recording - instant reaction was "too slow" (I prefer a bit more "fire" in my "feierlich" - I think "solemn" shouldn't necessarily mean so slowly - how do you make the Second Group [marked "slower"] flow if the First Group doesn't have momentum?) so realized I wasn't in the right frame of mind to appreciate what Guilini might have achieved and stopped. Shall put aside an afternoon this week to give it my full attention.

[P. G. Tipps]

Well - it's meant to be played, too; Bruckner is communicating the players as much as the person in seat H12 - and what his message to the first oboist in the opening bars of the Scherzo is important to the cumulative effect of the work.


No "just" involved; listening is an activity - and how and to what we choose to listen is the contributing factor. (And, it has to be asked, - "so much more" than what?)


It is tempting to be beguiled by the image of the composer as a dying man - but when he conceived the Ninth Symphony, he was a healthy sixty-two year-old, and it was the Tonal structure that he envisaged that he wished to complete. That is what was most important to him - that is why, as a mature young man he gave up composing in order to study with Sechter: in order to produce the large-scale Musical structures that he knew were essential to the successful communication of his thoughts. (That is, large-scale works that didn't rely for their structural integrity on the words of the Catholic Mass, but on the inner, self-referential propulsion of Functional Harmony.)

The point of the harmonic structure in the opening of the Scherzo is two-fold: in the immediate context of where the Music appears (just after the first movement, setting a different Musical mood/character for the new Movement) and as a process in the movement away from D minor and towards D major of the whole Symphonic span. That's what he wanted to be worthy of his God.

The names of these six chords is merely a convenience - what is more important is the "Harmonic Uncertainty Principal" that they play against: each dissonance is Tonally ambiguous: none of the chords - with the exception of the D#7 chord - is a regularly-encountered sonority - they would all "normally" only make sense in the context of a clear Tonal chord sequence, each leading to a more secure (and familiar) cadence point. But Bruckner doesn't give us this - instead, we get a chain of unresolved discords which screw the harmonic tension up and leads, frustratingly, back to square one. And this in contrast with the melodic fragments which are more clearly and "traditionally" composed.

So what does that "tell" the conductor, who has to co-ordinate the hundred-or-so Musicians? To ensure that the "accompanying" chords are kept niggling in the "background" whilst the First Violins and 'celli frolic around more playfully, gradually twisting the melodic "frolicking" into something more aware of the harmonic context as it gets increasingly fragmented (the discords remaining unmoved by what's happening to the melody) until only the bare fifth C# - G# in the flutes is left sending out a Tonal distress signal.

Karajan does all that splendidly.

Fascinating stuff, ferneyhoughgeliebte!

It is true Bruckner spent several years on the Ninth but I'm afraid even these days 62 has to be classed as 'getting on a bit' and certainly he was very sick towards the end ... so much so that, as we all know, the poor chap died before completion of the masterpiece!

As I said previously I am not in a position to doubt anything you say about the technical aspects of the music, absolutely no position at all. Yes, musicians can play for their own enjoyment but serious composers, not least aspiring symphonists, are presumably looking for an audience in much the same way as authors have a readership in mind.

Nevertheless, however the composer arrived at the music it certainly works for me however 'frustrating' others may find the actual construction. Folk can stand back and look in awe at, say, the Forth Rail Bridge without actually knowing anything or even caring about how it was built ... plus it gets them across the river estuary!!

Sometimes vast knowledge of a particular subject can be extremely useful and interesting but not actually essential for basic appreciation.

That was and is my real point. As far as the thread topic is concerned my long-term view has been that , 'in the round', Karajan is very hard to beat in Bruckner, at least to my amateur ears.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Fascinating stuff, ferneyhoughgeliebte!

Thank you.

It is true Bruckner spent several years on the Ninth but I'm afraid even these days 62 has to be classed as 'getting on a bit'

Indeed - and even at 55, thoughts of making sure that we leave a "legacy" to show for ourselves have started to creep in (after all, at that age we have to face the reality that we may be approaching the midway point in our lives ) - but that does not necessarily mean that we should expect the Ninth to be dripping with terror of approaching mortality: there is at least as much "cabinet-building" going on, albeit with a perhaps greater determination to build the very best cabinet of which one is capable. (This isn't meant to demean or deride the Composer, by the way - you will be aware that a a great figure can have a background in carpentry.)

musicians can play for their own enjoyment but serious composers, not least aspiring symphonists, are presumably looking for an audience in much the same way as authors have a readership in mind.

It's not just "their own enjoyment", but at their best, to seek means of communicating with the composers' ideas - just as many authors hope to write for sympathetic performers when they write plays, so Bruckner hoped to contact not merely the audience, but the orchestral performers also. A hope he never attained in his lifetime (when his best audiences were the students and enthusiasts who performed his work in piano reductions).

Sometimes vast knowledge of a particular subject can be extremely useful and interesting but not actually essential for basic appreciation.

Indeed - but if a work deserves more than "basic appreciation", then greater "knowledge" is essential. Just as the more you know about the person you love leads to even greater affection and dedication, so knowledge of the things that give voice and expression to that love generates greater appreciation. It isn't "essential" to know the mathematics of the Forth Bridge (or, indeed, any of the previous three) in order to be confident going across it - but when you do become aware of the mathematics, the marvel of structural engineering that it is seems greater, not less. Knowing that Bruckner devoted four years of his life to learning the intricacies of his craft takes us closer to the marvels of his thinking, but also makes the overall use to which he put that learning all the more astonishing.

That was and is my real point. As far as the thread topic is concerned my long-term view has been that , 'in the round', Karajan is very hard to beat in Bruckner, at least to my amateur ears.

Totally agree - and I'm an "amateur", too, in the fullest sense of the word: I love to do it, and nobody pays me for this stuff!

[antongould]

Thanks from me to ferney and others for the insights into this wonderful symphony. One very naive question from someone who knows less about music than Scotty - does the final movement in its current Rattle/BPO form mean that in the end "Tradition" has won as Anton wished?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Thanks from me to ferney and others for the insights into this wonderful symphony. One very naive question from someone who knows less about music than Scotty - does the final movement in its current Rattle/BPO form mean that in the end "Tradition" has won as Anton wished?

Oh - ah - well - y'see - mmm - yes, well - but on the other hand ...


I think I'll defer to ahinton on this one - he is much more convinced of the success of that particular edition. In theory, I ought to be more enthusiastic than I am - but (perhaps because I am still too used to the Three Movement version, or perhaps I'm not convinced by Rattle's idea of Bruckner generally) I'm not convinced that the details of the completion complement what's gone before.