Talk:Anton Bruckner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Composers (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon Anton Bruckner is within the scope of the Composers WikiProject, a group of editors writing and developing biographical articles about composers of all eras and styles. The project discussion page is the place to talk about technical and editorial issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (marked as Top-importance).
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Music theory (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.

Composer project review[edit]

I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. This is a weak B-class article; the biographic portion could be much richer (see the German article), and the prose could be improved. My full review is on the comments page; questions and comments should be left here or on my talk page. Magic♪piano 16:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Recluse?[edit]

FYI, Anton Bruckner was never married and had no children. I gathered also that he was somewhat of a recluse and rather inept socially. -- Chuck (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Your first statement is true. But it also needs to be mentioned that there were at least a couple of women he could've married. The problem with one was that she refused to convert to Catholicism, the other her parents objected and he wouldn't marry her without her father's permission. More details in Derek Watson's book. As for his social ineptitude, there are plenty of anecdotes in those books with biographies of several composers, some of which are debunked in the more focused bios. James470 (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Please remove the Locus Iste listening example![edit]

It's the worst version I've ever heard... Most amateur-choirs are doing a much better job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.167 (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It's so bad, it's good! But seriously, if you can get one of those "amateur-choirs" to agree to let you record them and upload the recording, that would be awesome. As long as this is the only version we don't have to pay royalties on, we're stuck with it. James470 (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Bruckner tweeting[edit]

Obviously the man has been dead for more than a century, but somehow he's in Cleveland and on tweeter.[1] James470 (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

He has a pretty low opinion of Wikipedia, judging from his latest tweet. Incarnatus (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure the real Bruckner would have the same opinion. James470 (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Coitus interruptus[edit]

I first became aware of Bruckner's symphonies being described this way 25 years ago now, and have heard it said since, I decided that seeing as there was a reliable source which stated this in a review which included the comment about his symphonies it should be included. There is a psychoanalytic interpretation that this is probably due to his intra-marital sexual practice as a practicing catholic, but without a documented source to hand that states this I wouldn't try to insert it, as that would be WP:OR. It is significant as one way of appreciating his symphonic style, however - so I think the NYT is worth keeping in. I love Bruckner myself, but find these two symphonies particularly frustrating because of this phenomenon. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think there's too much value in psychonalyzing historical figures, and even less in speculating about their sexuality. But I do care to know: Which two symphonies do you find particularly frustrating? James470 (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

TBH, I should have said I loved Bruckner, I find him too frustrating now, period. Since I discovered Beethoven's last string quartets & piano sonatas, I lost interest in most classical music, developed a taste for Jazz, and moved on - he had the last word in classical music, and everything before or after those last ten pieces was either introduction or footnote respectively. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess you also meant that you find all his symphonies frustrating, and not just the two you alluded to in your June 10 post. James470 (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Holland was simply using the coitus interruptus analogy as an aid to explanation. No one knows about Bruckner's sexual behavior. No one was in bed with Bruckner and his wife. There were no observers who were questioning and taking notes.Lestrade (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
It's worse than that, actually. He was never married. James470 (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that certain Wikipedians haven't seized on that information to make the case that he was a member of their band of brothers.Lestrade (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Never married? That is a new one on me - just as well I didn't elaborate on that then. That clears that urban myth up then, although not why some of his music never seems to reach the promised climax (although maybe this explains it even better?). It is a very apt description of some of his music, whatever the reasons might be. Without documentation, attributing significance to a life of bachelorhood would be original research; it is a bit unfair, because I can think of at least one other Austrian Catholic who never married of whom there has never been any suggestion made about his possible sexual inclinations here. Sexual orientation is only ever attributed within a certain project where there is documentary evidence, and usually this needs to originate from the subject of the article her/himself. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
If you care to read Bruckner's diaries and correspondence, you'll find he asked lots of girls to marry him. The one who took him most seriously, however, wasn't serious enough to convert to Catholicism. The letters he wrote are in Volume 24 of the Gesamtausgabe. You have to know German, I don't think they're going to translate them to English anytime soon, though. James470 (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

More a case of funeral march[edit]

I have heard the Bruckner symphonies described as the longest funeral march in history, in particularly for the dear old dying Austro-Hungarian Empire. 'Austria-Hungary's funeral march' (Der lange Trauermarsch zur KuK-Monarchie). I said it myself several years ago.

Ha, ha, you're so clever. Not. Incarnatus (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The Bruckner Problem[edit]

The Bruckner Problem into Anton Bruckner

Kudos to JJay for saving this from {{prod}}. Now it needs a new title--single scare quotes are very ugly and not really in keeping with other WP titles. Any objections to simply, The Bruckner Problem? Any preference for Bruckner Problem? Any other thoughts? Chick Bowen 17:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I almost feel that the Prod tag was a test because it was such an obvious keeper. The issue is not dealt with in the Bruckner page and deserves a separate discussion. A rapid check also shows lots of room for expansion given the numerous sources that cover the "Bruckner problem". Regarding the name, I have little opinion but would tend to favour The Bruckner Problem over Bruckner Problem. Perhaps someone else has a better idea. -- JJay 20:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Done. Feel free to revert or move it elsewhere if preferred. Chick Bowen 00:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

redirected "bruckner problem"[edit]

i redirected "bruckner problem" to "the bruckner problem" Goldschmidt 05:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Cooke's Conclusions on Symphony Nr. 3,[edit]

Should we also perhaps discuss the conclusions that Cooke made in the article? ie. that there were only really 3 versions that he considered to be proper performing versions (1877, and the two 1889 versions) Goldschmidt 05:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Updating[edit]

It's nice to see some recent activity on this article. However, there are still a few empty sections and some missing concepts. (At least, I still have questions.) I'm going to do some general cleanup—but not remove the empty sections—and do a bit of research in the coming weeks. Feel free to revert any changes that step on any of your toes. --Andrewski 02:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The "Bruckner Problem" section should still be updated. Deryck Cooke's approach, which is very criticized, should be further mitigated by taking into account the more recent work of other scholars, as William Carragan, Benjamin-Gunnar Cohrs and Benjamin Korstvedt. I will inspire myself by the section, that I have written in the French wikipedia about it, which includes a table with all versions and editions of the symphonies. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 06:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Done today. See below. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 14:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I notice the old PROD discussion for that page and notice also that it has had few edits since 2007 and no discussion since 2006. It is probably not a genuine article of its self but really part of the discussion surrounding Bruckner's music. Is The Bruckner Problem in fact a genuine term? The discussion on the talk page for the article seems to suggest that editors chose a random name based on one book title (by Cooke, as highlighted in the text). Does anyone else use the term? Anyway, merging would be better as it would centralise edits. --Jubilee♫clipman 17:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, there is an article on the so-called Bruckner rhythm—only discussing the rhythm as used by Bruckner, and that not in much depth—which could stand on its own if expanded to include examples from other composers' work (and further examples from Bruckner's). Failing that, it too should be merged. --Jubilee♫clipman 18:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, redirects can be made (during the merger) to point to sections within articles eg #REDIRECT [[Anton Bruckner#The Bruckner Problem]]. This will help readers avoid having to wade through the entire article to find the info when they specifically search for this term. --Jubilee♫clipman 18:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If it were only up to me, Bruckner Problem would be merged but not Bruckner rhythm. But whatever you decide to do, I won't fight you. I'll tell you a few things and if you listen to what I say, that's fine, if you don't, that's part of the Wikipedia fun.
You see, the "Bruckner problem" is the title of an essay by Cooke, minus the word "simplified." In any case, not everyone sees the many different versions as a problem but as more of an opportunity. The Bruckner rhythm, on the other hand, is a genuine term that occurs not only in books about Bruckner but also in general music books. And it is pretty unique to Bruckner. In some of Schubert's Landlers you can find what looks like the Bruckner rhythm, but it's usually 3+2+2 rather than just 3+2. I've looked at several masses and a few symphonies by Michael Haydn, and found the Bruckner rhythm only in one of them, his Seventh Symphony (which, coincidentally, happens to be in E major), and it was very much im passim, a minor feature of the accompaniment, rather than an integral part of the melody. James470 (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't merge either one of them. Not every Bruckner enthusiast sees the myriad of versions as a good thing. If he hadn't wasted so much time fiddling with the third and fourth symphonies, we might have a complete ninth today. The term "Bruckner problem" has worked its way into quite a number of concert program notes. As for the Bruckner rhythm, do I need to say anything more than what has already been said? Incarnatus (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, merge them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.54.242 (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have found the article on "The Bruckner Problem" very helpful. It could be redirected to a section of its own in the main article on Bruckner, but it is an important topic of interest to listeners and musicologists and yes, since Cooke's essay, the phrase "Bruckner problem" has become standard terminology. As to the "Bruckner rhythm" article, I agree that it needs to be expanded. It could also be placed in a category with rhythmic figures interesting to musicologists, such as we have for chords (e.g. as the "Tristan chord," the "Electra chord," etc.) St-anthony-of-padua1 (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like a big stupid Wikipediot, read WP:USEFUL. James470 (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
As compromise I have added a "see also: The Bruckner Problem" to the sub-section Symphonies. I think that everybody would be so satisfied. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I have re-assessed the proposal for merging. There are more pros than cons for doing it. Consequently I have merged the Bruckner Problem to the main article. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Organ[edit]

It has always struck me as odd that although Bruckner was an organist by profession, he does not seem to have written any music for that instrument. Does anyone know of any, or why there was none? PhilUK (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Bruckner was an organist, who was well-known for his improvisations even in France and in England. He has indeed composed only a few works for this instrument. His conception of the orchestra was that of an organist, i.e., adding the instruments as an organist does with the organ ranks, and creating so his typical long crescendos.
His few organ compositions (WAB 125 to WAB 131) have been seldom recorded. If you are interested, you can download them freely from Symphony No. 8 / Jochum / Organ works (downloads 5 to 9).
Kind regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 22:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Critical review of the linked pages[edit]

I am reviewing the "Bruckner pages", by completing them and correcting errors when appropriate.

Apparently some pages were written by persons who did not listen to the works, but transcribed them from earlier publications. The classical "publication bias"... Example: In Symphony No. 5 (Bruckner) it was written "All four movements begin with pizzicato strings". This is not true for movement 3. I have corrected it as "Movements 1, 2 and 4 begin with pizzicato strings".

--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Review with fine-tooth comb will reveal many mistakes. Perhaps even in articles I started. James470 (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear James,
This is one of the aims of wikipedia. It is an interactive encyclopedia, so that everyone, who has some expertise in the matter, can create a page or improve an existing page. I am sure that review with fine-tooth comb will reveal mistakes too in the pages I have created.
Best regards from Belgium, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 20:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Bruckner's Psalms[edit]

I have created pages for the 4 other psalms: Psalm 22, Psalm 114, Psalm 146 and Psalm 112. I have records of these psalms:

  • Psalms 112 and 114 on a CD together with the Requiem by M. Best (Hyperion CDA 66245)
  • Psalm 22 on a CD of the Bruckner Haus together with, among others, motets of the St. Florian period (LIVA 034)
  • The greatest Psalm 146, still only available as a single long out-of-print LP (Colosseum SM 548), on a personal CD copy of it I have got from John Berky.

All five Bruckner's Psalms have now a page. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 22:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Say, Réginald, have you found the actual Bible translation Bruckner used? It's not the Luther Bible, that much should be clear. James470 (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Dear James, for the psalms of the St. Florian period (Psalms 22, 114 and 146) and the student period (Psalm 112), Bruckner used a German Bible, which was approved by the Catholic Church. On the contrary for his later Psalm 150, Bruckner used the Luther Bible. I have added the text he used to the corresponding pages, with appropriate reference. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Bruckner's Discography[edit]

There are lot of CD recordings of Bruckner's symphonies, however not so many of their first versions, e.g., only one recording of the 1st version of Symphony No. 1. There are also many CDs of the "mature" religious works (Masses Nos. 1, 2 & 3, and Te Deum), but very few of Psalm 150.

The St. Florian period still remains a poor relation, with very few CDs of the Magnificat, the Requiem, the Missa solemnis, and Psalms 22 and 114, and no CD at all of Psalm 146. The same is true for Bruckner's Secular Choral Music, including Helgoland. Hopefully more interest will be devoted in the future to these forgotten works. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 17:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Bruckner's Mass No. 1[edit]

I have just created this missing page concerning Bruckner's grand religious works.
Please do not hesitate to complete it. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Radicals[edit]

The article says "unlike other radicals" but perhaps this should clarify whether it means "other radicals in music" as Bruckner - a devout Catholic - was not a radical in public life. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely. --Toccata quarta (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Complex polyphony"[edit]

The lead paragraph contains the following absurd statement: "[Bruckner's symphonies] are considered emblematic of the final stage of Austro-German Romanticism because of their rich harmonic language, complex polyphony, and considerable length." Saying that "complex polyphony" is a defining characteristic of the late stages of Austro-German symphonism is inaccurate beyond all belief. It is a complete insult to Haydn, Beethoven, and Mozart, each of whom wrote at least several strongly contrapuntal symphonies. Thoughts on this? --Toccata quarta (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If A, B, and C are defining characteristics of a X, but B can also be found in Y, does that mean that B cannot be one of the defining characteristics of X? Antandrus (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
It did occur to me, but it does not seem to be something that stands out (historically speaking). Still, the impression I get is that complex polyphony is not found in the music of other symphonists. But this is just my reading of the text. --Toccata quarta (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
From Symphony No. 3 onward the polyphony of Bruckner's symphonies is for sure more complex than that of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven - a result of Sechter's tuition. The second motives of the first and fourth movements are systematically polyphonic. An clear example of complex polyphony is the finale of Symphony No. 5: the development section (double fugue), and the coda in which the themes are combined with the theme of the first movement. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 22:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm well aware of the finale of Bruckner's 5th (gave it a listen a few hours ago, in fact), but is it really more "complex" than the finale of Mozart's Symphony No. 41? --Toccata quarta (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Another less known example: the development of the first movement of Symphony No. 4 in its 1874 version (from minute 6 onward), in which polyphony is associated with rhythmic complexity - a difficult "hank" for the conductor to get it correctly performed. Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven used occasionally polyphony (mostly fugue) in their late orchestral works (e.g., Finale of Mozart's 41st symphony, Beethoven's 9th symphony [Scherzo and Finale] and Overture Die Weihe des Hauses). From Symphony No. 3 onward Bruckner used polyphony as a rule. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
PS: Not only Wikipedia is writing "[Bruckner's symphonies] are considered emblematic of the final stage of Austro-German Romanticism". Do you know Paul-Gilbert Langevin's book Anton Bruckner - apogée de la symphonie (Anton Bruckner - pinnacle of the symphony), edited in 1977 by l'Age d'Homme in Lausanne (CH) – ISBN 2-8251-0880-4)? --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I was not questioning Bruckner's importance in music history, but rather expressing my dissatisfaction with what I perceive to be the implications of the sentence. In any case, maybe an expression such as "heavily/strongly polyphonic/contrapuntal character/nature" might be more suitable? --Toccata quarta (talk) 10:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I have adapted the sentence accordingly, so that it is now more nuanced. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Next page(s) to be created[edit]

Bruckner's secular choral works are still "forgotten" works. There is currently a single page on Helgoland WAB 71. On this page it is mentioned that

The sung text is a poem of August Silberstein (Bruckner had already put the work of this author to music with Germanenzug in 1864).

I am intended to create a new page on Germanenzug WAB 70, the most important of Bruckner's other "patriotic" choral works, of which there is (unfortunately) still one single recording. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 07:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I have created the page Germanenzug. Do not hesitate to improve / complete it. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Bruckner's early Masses[edit]

I will collect as much as possible data in order to create a page on the three early masses, the Windhaager Messe of 1842 [WAB 25], and the Choral-Messe / Messe für den Gründonnerstag - Christus factus est [WAB 9] and the Kronstorfer Messe [WAB 146], both of 1844. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 07:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime I have created the page Bruckner's early Masses and added to it the meagre discography of these 3 Choral Masses. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 18:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Festive Cantata (Bruckner)[edit]

Last year after acquiring Kerbl's recording of the work, I had created a page on this little known, solemn choral work, which Bruckner composed in 1862 - after the end of Sechter's education and one year before Psalm 112.

Recently I have acquired some other recordings of the work, as well as the score edited by the Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Consequently I have update this page.

Unfortunately, a recording in full accordance with the score is still awaited. Fiala's and Kerbl's live recordings are - with their shortcomings - currently the most in accordance with it. Out of the few other available recordings I have also described the two live recordings by Gerhard Track following his own adaptations of the work. I particularly enjoy the second, scarce recording with mixed choir and organ. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bruckner Problem[edit]

I am currently reviewing this section, according to what I have previously done on the corresponding page of the French Wikipedia.

I have already added a synopsis of the different versions and editions of the symphonies.
As I also did on the French Wikipedia, I will also make a more substantiated text about Haas' and Nowak's editions, and add a text about the further editions by Carragan, Korstvedt and Cohrs, etc.
--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 16:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I have included the (foreseen) more detailed text about Haas' and Nowak's editions, and the additional text about the further revisions/editions by Carragan, Korstvedt and Cohrs, etc. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 14:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The critical edition of the symphonies[edit]

I have added a synopsis of the critical edition of the symphonies, i.e., of the versions of the symphonies, which are currently accepted as "authentic". --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Unreffed claim in the lead[edit]

"Bruckner's compositions helped to define contemporary musical radicalism, owing to their dissonances, unprepared modulations, and roving harmonies."

Is this safe to say? I'm missing something to anchor it with, in terms of the history of that musical period. Tony (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Symphony No. 8 - Intermediate Adagio[edit]

As for Symphony No. 3, for which there is an intermediate Adagio (1876 Adagio), there is also an intermediate Adagio for Symphony No. 8 (1888 Adagio). The critical edition of this intermediate Adagio, which was issued in 2003, is not yet included in the Kritische Gesamtausgabe. I have added it to the section The critical edition of the symphonies. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 17:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Symphonisches Präludium in C minor[edit]

I have filled out somewhat more the alinea about this "Symphonic Prelude".

Despite of Cohrs' conviction that it is Bruckner's and the issue of the original orchestration by Doblinger in 2002, not everyone is convinced yet that it actually is Bruckner's and some people are still ascribing it to Mahler (or another composer).

Till recently the only recording of the work—still ascribed to Mahler—was by Neeme Järvi (Gürsching's "mahlerised" orchestration). Performances of the original version of the work has occurred in 2010 in the UK and in Netherlands, and also recently (24 April 2013) in the US[2]. In the meantime a first recording of the original version by Michelle Perrin Blair has been issued.[1]

I think that it should be interesting to write a page on it in wikepedia. But under which name and linked to which composer? Or is it to early because of the still ongoing dispute concerning its authorship? --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

PS: The original orchestration is less heavy and less compact than Gürsching's "mahlerised" one. It is using the same set of instrumets as that of the concomitant 2nd version of Symhony No. 4 and Symphony No. 5, i.e., without piccolo, double-bassoon, harp and cymbals as in Gürsching's orchestration. When I am hearing Järvi, it indeed looks Mahler, when I am hearing one of the recent performances with the original orchestration, it looks more Bruckner. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 14:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Discography of the Symphonic Prelude in C Minor

Proposal: move the Bruckner problem material to a separate article[edit]

I appreciate that this is re-tilling old ground, but still: the Bruckner problem is not the most important thing about Bruckner! Of our entire discussion of his musical output, almost half is taken up with the "Bruckner problem". We have almost twice as much "Bruckner problem" material as we do biographical material about the man himself!

This surely is a WP:WEIGHT issue: the reason Bruckner is famous isn't because of arguments about editions. It's because he wrote great music that, regardless of the edition performed, has delighted listeners for over a hundred years. A reader unfamiliar with Bruckner who came to this page might well end up concluding the opposite.

Here is a quote from the WP:WEIGHT page:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.

I will note that even a scholar such as Korstvedt, who has made a career out of the Bruckner problem, still devotes the vast majority of his study of the Eighth Symphony to the music itself rather than the editions.

It's as if the page on William Shakespeare spent more time talking about authorship conspiracy theories than it did about the plays and poems themselves. Instead it, rightly, hives most of the authorship questions off into a separate article where they can be examined in detail without WP:WEIGHT concerns.

I propose resurrecting the Bruckner problem article, and moving the bulk of our Bruckner problem material there.Grover cleveland (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I support this proposal. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with proposal to put the Bruckner problem as a separate page. Originally it was only a short paragraph, the main reason for the merge. In the meantime it became a much larger text and it is now worthy for a separate page. However it should be introduced in the main article, as it is done for the List of compositions by Anton Bruckner.
Question: What should be done with the section The Bruckner Gesamtausgabe? Should it be attached to the Bruckner problem?
--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 06:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
As suggested and agreed, I have moved most of the content of "The Bruckner Problem" and "The Bruckner Gesamtausgabe" to separate pages The Versions and Editions of Bruckner's Symphonies and The current edition of the Bruckner Gesamtausgabe, respectively. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Cantatas by Anton Bruckner[edit]

I have created a new template Bruckner Cantatas, in which I have included the already existing pages Festive Cantata (Bruckner), Germanenzug and Helgoland (Bruckner).

I will expand this template when the pages on the five earlier, Name-day cantatas[1] will be created:

  • Musikalischer Versuch nach der Kammer-Styl - WAB 93
  • First Arneth Cantata: 'Entsagen' - WAB 14
  • Second Arneth Cantata: 'Heil, Vater! Dir zum hohen Feste' - WAB 61
  • First Mayer Cantata: 'Auf, Brüder! auf, und die Saiten zur Hand!' - WAB 60
  • Festgesang (Jodok Cantata): 'St. Jodok sproß aus edlem Stamme' - WAB 15

During the Kronstorf and Sankt Florian periods Bruckner composed these five Name-day cantatas. Two of these earlier cantatas were re-issued later for other Name-days or other festivities (see: WAB 61b [Second Mayer Cantata] and 61c, and WAB 93b, 93c ['Vergißmeinnicht'] on List of compositions by Anton Bruckner).
Unfortunately, the are very few literature data available on these earlier cantatas and only the last two (the "First Mayer Cantate" WAB 60 and the "Festgesang" WAB 15) have been recorded as yet. I am, however, intended to draft wiki-pages on these earlier cantatas, which could be expanded later, when new literature data or new recordings would be available.

--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

PS: As reported by John Berky [3], in the 1980s, David Aldeborgh of the Bruckner Archive released his first and only LP entitled, "Anton Bruckner: Music of the St Florian Period." (Jerusalem Records ATD 8503). The LP contained the premiere recording of Bruckner's Magnificat and some religious songs. During those sessions, other works were recorded and there were plans to set up another recording session for filling-out a second and a third volume to the series. The five earlier cantatas were in the list of those planned recordings. Unfortunately those sessions never took place. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 14:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Bruckners Gesamtausgabe - "Name-day cantatas"