The Bruckner Symphony is the best performance. WITH

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 the masterpiece, which includes "Dreams", and "Ball", and "Scene in the Fields", and "Procession to the 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 ear as if you are hearing the Fortieth for the first time (even better if it is): this will help you survive the ingenious, albeit utterly beaten, first part and know 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's better to start not with the Fifth with its "theme of fate" and not with the Ninth with its finale "Hug, millions." In the Seventh, there is much less pathos and more humor, and the ingenious second part is familiar even to listeners far from the classics in processing Deep bands Purple.

Johannes Brahms

Symphony No. 3

Brahms' first symphony was called Beethoven's Tenth Symphony, referring to the continuity of tradition. But if Beethoven's nine symphonies are not equal, then each of Brahms's 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 an unforgettable Allegretto.

Anton Bruckner

Symphony No. 7

Bruckner's successor is Mahler; 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 lingering. 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 easier than Haydn, but this deceptive simplicity contains the main secret of his skill. Of his 104 symphonies, only 11 were written in minor key, and the best among them is "Farewell", in the finale of which the musicians leave the stage one by one. It was from Haydn that the group Nautilus Pompilius borrowed this technique to perform the song Goodbye America.

Antonin Dvorak

Symphony "From the New World"

Collecting material for the symphony, Dvořák studied the national music of America, but did without quoting, trying first of all 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

Mahler's two best symphonies seem to resemble each other only at first. The confusion of the first parts of the Fifth leads to the textbook Adagietto, full of languor, repeatedly used in cinema and in the theater. And the ominous fanfare of the introduction is answered by a completely traditional optimistic finale.

Gustav Mahler

Symphony No. 6

Who would have thought that Mahler's next symphony would be the darkest and most hopeless music in the world! The composer seems to be mourning all of humanity: such a mood is affirmed from the very first notes and only gets worse 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 as follows: “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; out of any two or three of her minutes could make a hit, 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 at the state level. In response, calling for help the shadows of Bach, Beethoven, Mahler and Mussorgsky, the composer created a work that became a classic already at the time of the premiere. According to legend, Boris Pasternak spoke about the symphony and its author: "He said everything he wanted - and he got nothing for it."

Dmitry Shostakovich

Symphony No. 7

One of the musical symbols of the twentieth century and certainly the main musical symbol Second World War. An insinuating drum roll 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 saturated and strong that they are perceived as a complete whole. Having stopped work on the work, the composer did not touch it anymore.

Bela Bartok

Concerto for Orchestra

Bartók is known primarily as the author of countless pieces for music schools. The fact that this is far from the whole of Bartok is evidenced by his Concert, where austerity accompanies parody, and cheerful folk tunes accompany sophisticated technique. In fact, Bartok's farewell symphony, like the next piece by Rachmaninoff.

Sergei Rachmaninoff

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. Rachmaninoff called "Dances" his best and favorite work.

Based on the book by B. Monsaingeon "Richter. Dialogues, diaries" (Classic-XXI, Moscow - 2002).

1971
28/VIII
Bruckner
Symphony No. 8 c-moll
conductor: Karajan

My favorite symphony (I know it from young years in four-hand arrangement). I think that is the best work of Bruckner. I especially love the first part with its sharp surprises. But the rest is great too. This time Karajan was expressive, humane and extremely perfect. I absolutely recognized it. He touched me.
(P. 126. Recorded by Richter during the Salzburg Festival.)

1973
19/IV
entry
Bruckner
Symphony No. 9 in d-moll
conductor: Wilhelm Furtwängler

This symphony always turns out to be some kind of contradictory surprise for me, it seems to be heading in a completely different direction from the Eighth and other symphonies.
And why this is so - I do not understand.
(S. 148.)

1976
28/I
entry
Bruckner
Symphony No. 9 in d-moll (three movements)
conductor: V. Furtwangler

For some reason I cannot get used to this symphony and keep my impression of it in my memory.
She somehow slips out of her head.
It is considered almost the best (but I do not agree with this), and of course Furtwängler did everything he could do ... But ... the symphony is a mystery ...
(p. 180)

1987
29/VII
entry
Bruckner
Symphony No. 5 B-dur
conductor: Franz Konwitschny

I listened, and of course, with difficulty. I got confused because of my damaged hearing in modulations, keys, harmonies ... This, of course, is also because of the player, which does not exactly intonation. The symphony is certainly wonderful, but I feel more at home in others.
(p. 329)

I gave another commentary on the Fifth Symphony.

1988
Flensburg
6/VII
Deusches house
Bruckner
Symphony No. 6 A-dur
conductor: Christoph Eschenbach++

I had never heard this symphony before, so I listened with great interest. I think that Eschenbach performed it very seriously and with feeling. Listened twice and didn't regret it.
Of course, one must listen to Bruckner for a long time, and twice is not enough. Only my spoiled ear interferes, and among the composition I look for the tonality and do not find it. What an annoyance with absolute hearing.
(p. 348)

I am surprised by his attitude towards the Ninth. The other day I listened to her (G. Vand) and, as always, was shocked. But Richter, perhaps, correctly noted that something new and unusual is revealed in this symphony in comparison with the previous ones, but I also cannot determine in words what it is.
Although unfinished, it is, in my opinion, Bruckner's most perfect symphony. In general, again, purely in my opinion, only in the Seventh Symphony does he acquire perfect shape for his symphonies. And not without reason, after one of her performances (by A. Nikish), Bruckner "woke up famous", and even Hanslik treated her almost favorably.
The eighth could be best symphony, if not for its finale, but the Ninth, even in the form in which it has come down to us, is one of the three greatest post-Beethoven symphonies, along with Tchaikovsky's Sixth and Brahms's Fourth.

Joseph Anton Bruckner was born on September 4, 1824 in Ansfeld in Upper Austria. His grandfather was a teacher in this city near Linz. Anton's father also worked as a teacher. In 1823 he married Teresa Helm from Styria, who bore him eleven children, of whom six died at an early age. Josef Anton is the firstborn and most famous of the Bruckner family.

WITH early age the boy showed a love for music. At the age of four, little Anton picked up several church melodies on the violin, which led the local priest to indescribable delight. He liked singing lessons at school, and for the same reason the boy liked to attend church, where his mother sang in the choir, who had beautiful voice. The father noticed the boy's abilities, and he often began to give up his place at the organ to his son. The fact is that at that time a part-time teacher also had to play the organ in the church, as well as teach the elementary foundations of music. At the age of eleven, Anton was sent to study with his godfather Johann Baptist Weiss, a school teacher and organist. From a highly educated musical master, the boy studied harmony, improved his skills in playing the organ. With Weiss, Bruckner first tried to improvise on the organ. Subsequently, Anton reached the highest level mastery in this genre, delighting all of Europe.

However, the illness of his father and the difficult financial situation of the family forced Anton to complete his studies a year later. He took over the duties of organist and began to play the violin at weddings and dance parties. Six months later, my father died. With the death of his father, Anton's childhood also ended. Mother begged to accept Anton in the church choir.

After two years of singing in the church choir, Bruckner's voice began to mutate, and he was taken on as an assistant by the monastery organist Anton Cuttinger, whom his contemporaries called nothing more than "Beethoven of the organ." Playing the organist remained for Bruckner one of the best memories of his youth. Under the guidance of this master, Anton soon began to play the large organ of the monastery, which was considered the second largest organ after St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna.

Since Anton wanted to become a teacher, like his ancestors, he was sent to "preparatory courses" at main school in Linz, where in the autumn the boy successfully passed the entrance exams.

Ten months later, he successfully passed the final exam. Most importantly, he plunged into musical life Linz. By a happy coincidence, the famous musicologist Durnberger taught at the preparatory courses. About his book "An Elementary Textbook of Harmony and Grand Bass", the composer would later say: "This book made me what I am now." At Durnberger, he improves his organ playing, gets acquainted with the work of Haydn and Mozart.

After his final exams in August 1841, the young Bruckner became a teacher's assistant in the small town of Vindhaag near the Czech border. Two years later, Anton takes the position of teacher in Kronsdorf. The village was even smaller than the previous one, but nearby was the city of Styria, which had the second largest organ in Upper Austria. More greater value had an acquaintance and friendship with Zenetti, organist and regent of the cathedral of another nearby town - Enns. Anton visited the cathedral three times a week, and not only to continue his studies of playing the organ, but also to expand his knowledge of music theory. Zenetti introduced him not only to Bach's chorales, but also to the legacy of the Viennese classics.

On September 2, Bruckner was appointed teacher at St. Florian's Convent School, where he used to sing in the choir. Here Anton spent ten years. Soon, his most famous youthful work, Requiem in D minor, dedicated to young and unrequited love, Aloisia Bogner, was born.

In 1851, Bruckner became the permanent organist of the monastery. But not only music worries Anton, but also material well-being. A poor childhood was the reason that all his life he was afraid of poverty. In the same years, another problem emerged that influenced his whole life, namely, daydreaming and unrequited feelings for young girls.

By a happy coincidence, in November 1855, the place of organist was vacated in the Linz Cathedral. Durnberger immediately sent Bruckner to the cathedral for an audition, and already on November 14, a test of candidates took place, during which Bruckner showed himself to be the most capable before the commission, which allowed him to temporarily take the place of organist.

During the next ten years spent in Linz, Bruckner worked intensively and diligently. This was especially true of the study of music theory, to which he devoted up to seven hours a day, while sacrificing time and health free from basic activities.

In the winter of 1863, Bruckner became acquainted with the music of Wagner and after that he dared to allow deviations from classical harmony in his work. He dreamed about it for a long time, but did not dare before. Personal acquaintance with Wagner took place on May 18, 1865 in Munich during the first performance of Tristan and Isolde. Despite the difference in personalities, both were innovators in music and discovered a kinship of souls.

Unfortunately, Bruckner's health soon deteriorated so much that he was forced to seek medical attention. He spent most of the summer of 1867 undergoing treatment at the spa in Bad Kreuzen. His letters of that period testify to an extremely depressed state of mind, that he had thoughts of suicide. His friends were afraid to leave Bruckner alone. By September, the composer had recovered and was able to confirm to the directorate of the Vienna Conservatory his intention to fill the vacant seat. In the time remaining before the start of classes, he completed work on the score of the last of his three Masses - "Great Mass No. 3 in F Minor".

In April 1869, on the occasion of the opening of the church of St. Epvre in Nancy, the performance of the best organists of Europe took place. Bruckner's success was overwhelming, and he received an invitation to speak to a select audience at Notre Dame de Paris. Two years later, his performances in England were a triumph.

Along with the activities of the organist and teacher of music theory, Bruckner did not stop composing. The fame of the works he created back in Linz, and, above all, of the first three Masses and the First Symphony, reached Vienna. Each of Bruckner's nine symphonies is unlike the others and has its own unique destiny. So, the musicians of the Vienna Philharmonic declared the Second Symphony unplayable. The Third Symphony is usually called "heroic", but the then musicians only mocked it, the audience left the hall during the premiere before the performance ended. The fourth symphony was written by Bruckner in 1884-1885 and is called "Romantic". Her premiere was quite successful. But only after the creation of the Eighth Symphony, written in 1887 under the impression of Wagner's Parsifal, fate became more favorable to the composer. The work was an incredible success in the performance of the orchestra under the direction of Artur Nikita in Leipzig. ANTON Bruckner was immediately declared the greatest symphonist of his time, the Eighth Symphony was called in society "the crown of music XIX century."

Let us return, however, to 1871. Returning to his homeland, Bruckner was in a difficult financial situation for many years. Therefore, he was very happy when, on January 3, 1878, he finally received in Vienna the long-awaited position of court organist, which he then held until the summer of 1892. This position gave him an additional 800 guilders a year.

In December 1878, Bruckner composed the violin quintet in F major, the second work after the violin quartet, written in 1862, chamber work. This quintet is sometimes compared to Beethoven's last quartets.

In May 1881, Bruckner literally wrote "Te Deum" in just a week, perhaps his best work. However, the highest Viennese music officials prevented the performance of his creation in concert halls. These were echoes of the struggle between the Wagnerians, to whom Bruckner was attributed, and the Brahmins - the followers of Brahms. That is why his music was enthusiastically received in Germany and not much favored in Austria. It is not surprising that Bruckner's greatest triumph awaited ten years later in Berlin, where on May 31, 1891, his "Te Deum" was performed. Witnesses of this triumph unanimously noted that not a single composer had yet been greeted like Bruckner.

During the last five years of his life, Bruckner worked almost exclusively on the Ninth Symphony. Sketches and individual episodes of it appeared already in 1887-1889, but from April 1891 he completely went to work on this symphony. The composer died on October 11, 1896, without having completed the Ninth Symphony.

1. ...who has the last laugh

Bruckner's peasant nature did not accept the capital's fashion in any way. As a professor at the conservatory, he continued to wear peasant-style loose black suits with extremely short trousers (he attributed this to the convenience of playing the foot organ keyboard), and a large blue handkerchief was always sticking out of his jacket pocket. On his head, the music professor still wore a rustic hat with a drooping brim.
Colleagues made fun of Bruckner, students laughed ... One of his friends once said:
- Dear maestro, let me tell you in all frankness that your costume is simply ridiculous ...
“Well, then laugh,” Bruckner answered good-naturedly. “But allow me to remind you no less frankly that I have not come here to demonstrate the latest fashion ...

2. don't rush

A certain Zellner, secretary of the Society of Friends of Music, took an extremely dislike to Bruckner, in whom he saw his most dangerous competitor.
Trying in every possible way to annoy the new professor, Zellner did not limit himself to speaking derogatoryly about him everywhere.
- This Bruckner as an organist is a complete nonentity! he argued.
But this was not enough: during Bruckner's classes with students, Zellner defiantly put out the lights in the classroom or turned on the siren in the next room. And once "friendly" advised the composer:
- It would be better if you threw all your symphonies into a landfill and made a living playing the barrel organ ...
To this Bruckner replied:
- I would gladly follow your advice, dear Mr. Zellner, but still I want to trust not you, but history, which, I am sure, will dispose of more impartially. I suspect that indeed one of the two of us will certainly end up in a landfill. musical history but is it worth the haste? Who will find his place there, it's not up to you or me to decide. Let posterity understand this...

3. in our village ...

Until the end of his life, Bruckner remained a simple-hearted country man. Having once visited a concert in which his Fourth Symphony was performed, the composer approached the famous conductor Hans Richter and, wanting to thank him from the bottom of his heart, took a taler from his pocket and, thrusting it into the hands of the dumbfounded conductor, said:
- Drink a mug of beer for my health, I am very grateful to you! ..
In his native village, this is how the master was thanked for the good work.
The next day, Professor Richter took the Bruckner taler to a jeweler, who soldered a silver eye to it, and famous conductor I always carried it with me on my watch chain. Thaler became for him a precious reminder of the meeting with the author of the symphony, which, as he firmly believed, was to live for centuries ...

4. Three symphonies are not enough...

From a village boy-singer, Bruckner became a professor at the Vienna Conservatory and was awarded an honorary doctorate. In his personal life, the successes of a closed, unsociable musician were much more modest. When already at the age of fifty he was asked why he was not married, the composer replied:
- Where can I get the time? After all, first I must compose my Fourth Symphony!

The peculiarity of Bruckner lies in the fact that he thinks in stencils, at the same time he sincerely believes in them (the minor symphony must end in major! And the exposition must be repeated in a reprise!) ...

The performance of Anton Bruckner's symphonies, like no other composer (well, maybe even Brahms), depends on Who performs and How. That is why so much space in the conversation with the young composer Georgy Dorokhov is devoted to interpretations of Bruckner's symphonies and attempts to put things in order in all their numerous versions.

Any composer (writer, artist) is just an excuse 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 started playing music early, discusses the peculiarities of children's writing and the phenomenon of Mozart's (and not only) child prodigy.

Another important question is how Bruckner differs from his student Mahler, with whom he is constantly and impartially compared. Although what, it would seem, to compare - two completely different composers, choose to taste. And if in my opinion, then Bruckner is so deep that, against his background, any symphonist (the same Mahler, not to mention Brahms, with whom Bruckner competed) seems light and almost frivolous.

We continue the Monday series of talks, in which contemporary composers talk about the work of their predecessors.

- When did you first hear Bruckner's music?
- For the first time I heard Bruckner's music at the age of 11, when I found his first symphony among the records of my parents (as I later realized, perhaps the most atypical for Bruckner's style!), I decided to listen and listened to two whole times in a row - so much for me 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 over and over in long stretch time; something similar to the rest of post-romantic music, but something different from it; I have always been attracted by moments when the main key of the symphony cannot be immediately grasped from the first measures (this applies partly to the Fifth and especially to the Sixth and Eighth symphonies).

But, perhaps, I truly understood Bruckner, not on the basis of an amateur taste principle, only when, in my second year at the Moscow Konsa, I came across a disc with the first version of the Third Symphony.

Until that moment, Bruckner's Third Symphony was clearly not one of my favorite compositions. But when I heard this recording, I can say without exaggeration that my consciousness has changed radically during these one and a half hours of sound (I note that in the final version the duration of the symphony is about 50 minutes).

And not thanks to some harmonic discoveries, not thanks to the presence of numerous Wagnerian quotations. And due to the fact that all the material turned out to be extremely stretched, not fitting into any framework of traditional forms (although formally the composition fits into them).

Some places struck me with their repetitiveness - sometimes it seemed that Reich or Adams sounded (although it sounded less skillfully, which, perhaps, bribed me); many things are very clumsy (with violations of numerous professorial taboos, such as the appearance of the main key long before the start of the reprise), which captivated even more.

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 author's versions!) And got the same impressions from them!

- What are these inferences?
- Bruckner is perhaps at the same time one of the most old-fashioned composers of the end 19th century(always the same scheme for all symphonies! always the same line-up of the orchestra, which Bruckner tried to renew outwardly, but somewhat clumsily + almost always you can see the obvious influence of the organist's thinking - 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 their will!) of the same historical period.

It is worth remembering 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 unusual attitude to the form, when stereotypes and even primitive presentation of the material are combined with some unpredictability, or even vice versa - stunning the listener with their squared predictability!

Actually, it seems to me that Bruckner’s peculiarity lies in the fact that he thinks in stencils, at the same time he sincerely believes in them (the minor symphony must end in major! and the exposition must be repeated in a reprise!) ...

But at the same time he uses them very awkwardly, despite the fact that at the same time Bruckner, thanks to his polyphonic technique, achieves a more than convincing result in the simplest places!

It was not for nothing that they said about Bruckner that he was a "half-god-half-fool" (including Gustav Mahler). 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 did this attitude not change after an eternity, when time proved the evidence of Bruckner's discoveries? Why did he have such a strange and completely unfair reputation?
- I think it's all about some 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 part there is a feeling that everything that sounds is an accompaniment to the upcoming melody, but which never appears.

When the main topic of the second part is nothing more than a completed exam task in harmony and structure. But if you look closely, you can understand that in this way the composer deceives the listener.

The listener expects one thing (a well-written symphony), but gets into a mess, as what happens is somewhat different from what he expects.

The same is with the performers (there is also added the factor

inability to perform some moments of Bruckner's scores).

The same can be attributed to other symphonies of the composer. At first, you expect typical German academicism mid-nineteenth century, but almost from the first bars he begins to stumble over stylistic inconsistencies, about an honestly executed form, but with clumsy modulations, when it is not clear what the key of the symphony is, and when you stop believing the inscription on the CD "symphony in B flat major" …

Does the Bruckner story have a moral about reputations that don't always stack up fairly?
- It seems to me that Bruckner's reputation is not the issue. Yes, many of his things were not performed during his lifetime. But some have been fulfilled. And moreover, with extraordinary success (as, for example, the Eighth Symphony); when contemporaries said that success corresponded to the honors given to the Roman emperor in his time!

The point is in the inertia of perception. And the fact that Bruckner strove to be a great composer, without having good reason for that at that time.

What pushed contemporaries away from him? Conservatives - the influence of Wagner. Wagnerians - that Bruckner was not a "symphonic Wagner". Moreover, the Wagnerian conductors, during his lifetime and even more so after the death of Bruckner, 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.

And, perhaps, his transcendent 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 compositions). On the other hand, Bruckner is a church organist (and these are other compositions). On the third - the composer of purely religious music.

In fact, all these three factors then formed into that feature that can be called "Bruckner the Symphonist". The raids of Wagnerianism are purely superficial; absolutely Bruckner 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 the bold harmonies of Wagner and the aggressive attack on the listener of 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 the limits of faith in God (and a very simple, childlike faith!).

This also applied to human authorities who stood higher (whether it was at least the archbishop, even Wagner; and before both, Bruckner was ready to bow his knees); this also applied to 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 codas, which are sometimes absolutely deliberately attached to the catastrophic dramaturgy of some symphonies.

It especially hurts the ear in the original versions of the Second and Third Symphonies, just to complete everything well. Maybe this is where Bruckner's naive belief manifested itself, that everything bad - including death - will be followed by something very good, which many people no longer believed. late XIX century; Yes, and Bruckner himself at the subconscious level understood this.

That is, in other words, what is important for Bruckner is not the achievement of victory in Beethoven's understanding, but its illusion. Or, moreover, the 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 perspective of an adult).

By the way, this is one of the reasons why the average listener hardly enters the world of Bruckner's symphonies - the codes of his symphonies are also misleading: the result seems to be more than sad, but for no reason - major fanfare.

Here you can still remember from Bruckner's baroque thinking (a minor composition should 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, of course, you are certainly right. Although I don’t feel any particular procrastination with Bruckner.
- Bruckner, of course, is one of the examples when, at first glance, negative qualities turn into positive. Namely:

1) the primitiveness of thematism: firstly, it is thanks to this that the long, lengthy structures of Bruckner's symphonies are kept;

secondly, bringing to the point of absurdity (albeit unconscious!) some features of the classical romantic symphony (and classical romantic symphonism) to some zero point, points of the absolute: almost all compositions begin with elementary, almost banal constructions, even the famous Fourth Symphony.

Bruckner, however, thought a little differently: “Look, this is God's miracle - a triad!” - He spoke about such moments!;

2) destruction of style frames:

the most complex topic, including
a) stylistic incompatibility (baroque thinking, the thinking of a school teacher, the thinking of a German conservative symphonist, the 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 complexes (incorrect voice leading, inept handling of form, strange orchestration, combining the features of German academicism Leipzig school and Wagnerianism, mutually exclusive paragraphs!

the construction of absurdities into some composer's at the Ninth Symphony; the coda of the Third Symphony in the first edition, when the copper performs cutting combinations in D-flat, doubled in octaves; when I heard it for the first time, at first I thought that the musicians were mistaken) and, as a result, going beyond the style of their era.

It seems to me that Bruckner turned out to be the most progressive European composer end of the 19th century. Neither Wagner with his innovations, nor Mahler with a fundamentally different attitude to form and orchestration were as radical innovators as Bruckner.

Here you can find everything: primitivism raised to a certain absolute, and harmonic innovations that do not fit into school concepts, and some ineptness in handling the material and the orchestra, which adds charm, similar to mold in French cheese, and deliberate going beyond 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 Florian monastery, where Bruckner began his career as a musician).

How to navigate in all these clones of symphonies and numerous variants? Sometimes you get confused shamelessly, especially when you want to listen to your favorite symphony, you inattentively read the poster or the inscription on the disc and as a result you get a completely unfamiliar opus...
- It's actually very simple. You just need to know how and how the Bruckner symphonies differ. The most diverse editions are, first of all, the Fourth Symphony, in fact, we can talk about different symphonies on identical material.

It seems to me that after some time in the CD-sets of symphonies (although I am rather skeptical about the idea of ​​sets of works by any author - there is a large share of commercialization in this, depreciating the opuses of composers; however, this is a slightly different story) there will definitely be two Fourths: 1874 and 1881 - they are so different.

They have different scherzos on different materials; By the way, try to determine the main key of the first version of the scherzo right off the bat! It won't work 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 movements or a compact presentation of the Third Symphony (which, in fact, is its later edition), so as not to spend an extra half an hour on listening to this composition in its original form.

Or the Eighth Symphony in the edition of Haas, where the editor, without thinking twice, combined two different editions and - moreover - wrote two new bars of his own in the finale.

Plus, it should be borne in mind that the situation was also complicated by gentlemen conductors, who made their own versions of Bruckner's symphonies.

Fortunately, at the present time only conductor-researchers undertake the performance of these editions, even more ridiculous than original text scores, and in addition, as a rule, scanty.

Now I propose to move on to interpretations. The confusing situation with versions is exacerbated by the variation in the quality of the recordings. Which recordings of which conductors and orchestras do you prefer to listen to?
- I really like some performances of the revisionists. Norrington, Fourth Symphony - the best performance in terms of alignment of form; Herreweghe, Fifth and Seventh symphonies, where Bruckner appears without the brass loading familiar to his listeners.

Of 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 obviously performed some symphonies to compile a complete collection.

Naturally, I cannot but recall the performance of the Ninth Symphony by Teodor Currentzis in Moscow several years ago, which caused heated discussions among the Brucknerians; I would very much like to hear other symphonies in his interpretation.

What do you think of the interpretations of Mravinsky and Rozhdestvensky? How do you see the Russian approach to Bruckner? How does it differ from average temperature by the hospital?
- Mravinsky's interpretations of the Eighth and Ninth Symphonies are quite European and competitive (unfortunately, Mravinsky's Seventh, judging by the recording of the late 60s, simply did not work out).

As for Rozhdestvensky, his performance of Bruckner's symphonies is very different from the average. In Rozhdestvensky, Bruckner is perceived 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 in no other performance such a comparison can come to mind. Moreover, it is in the interpretation of Rozhdestvensky that all the dissimilarity between Bruckner and Mahler becomes apparent (very often one can hear the opinion that Mahler is in many ways a follower of Bruckner, but this is completely wrong in reality, and, perhaps, it is Rozhdestvensky who most convincingly proves this 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 the Mahler re-orchestration of the Fourth Symphony that he discovered) and recorded it on discs.

Is it possible to talk about the difference between Mahler and Bruckner in more detail? I have repeatedly come across an opinion about them as a kind of dual pair, where it is Mahler who is given primacy and primogeniture, although it personally seems to me that against the background of Bruckner's amplitudes, scopes and expansions, Mahler looks pale.
- This is one of the most common mistakes - to perceive Bruckner as some kind of. Outwardly, you can find similarities: both wrote long symphonies, both had nine numbered completed symphonies, but perhaps this is where the similarities end.

The length of Mahler's symphonies is due to his desire to create the world every time, there are a lot of different events, changes of state, 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 due to an abundance of events, there are actually very few of them, but, on the contrary, to the extension of any one state in time (this is especially felt in the slow parts of later symphonies, when the passage of time, one might say, stops - analogies immediately come with Messiaen's meditations from the quartet "For the End of Time" - or in the first part of the Third Symphony in the original version, when events take place in almost catastrophically slow motion).

Mahler, in other words, is more of 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-movement cycles, the same course of events: always three-dark expositions of the first movements and finales, almost always slow movements built according to the ababa formula; almost always minor scherzos (except perhaps the hunting one from the Fourth Symphony) - otherwise, roughly speaking, Bruckner each time writes not another symphony, but new version one, Mahler is absolutely unpredictable in this sense. And in terms of the fact that there can be six or two parts; and in terms of dramaturgy, when the most important point can be not only the first movement or the finale (as it happens 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 feel a weakness all his life. "Get hooked" on Mahler - it's welcome, but to have a weakness for him ... Hardly. I myself caught Mahler's infection during my studies; the illness was short-lived. A stack of sawed-down records and a line of first editions of Mahler's scores, bought at the sale of the estate of the late burgomaster of Utrecht, have been gone for twenty years now - along with Pink Floud, Tolkien and M.K. Escher. Sometimes (very rarely) I listen to an old record, I'm more impressed than I expected, but then I immediately return to my usual state. Music flows into me with the same ease that it flows out, the old feelings awaken and go out with the same haste ...

Mahler and Bruckner have absolutely different mastery of composing technique. Firstly, instrumentation, even if taken purely quantitatively, Bruckner did not write for large orchestras (Bruckner's huge orchestra is a myth!!!) until later symphonies.

Only there, in them, a triple composition of wooden, Wagner pipes and an additional two drummers are involved (before that, Bruckner was limited only to timpani!), and even then only in the Eighth Symphony, since the strike of the cymbals in the Seventh is a debatable issue: to play them or not (many copies have been broken about this and more will be broken).

Secondly, Mahler almost from the first steps uses all the orchestral resources; but, however, not according to the principle of his peer Richard Strauss (who sometimes used all the resources only because of the opportunity for this), which can be evidenced by the Fourth Symphony, where there is no heavy copper (as if in spite of those who accuse Mahler of gigantomania and heaviness) , but it is full of specific instruments (in the score there are four types of clarinet!), which Mahler extremely virtuoso replaces.

Timbre modulations and polyphony are not imitative (as it is all the time with Bruckner, and very subtly that it’s hard to notice by ear, in the first part of the Seventh Symphony, for example), but of a linear nature.

This is when several different melodic and textural lines are combined - this is also the fundamental difference between Mahler and Bruckner.

However, and in general, from all Mahler's contemporaries in terms of compositional technique, Mahler is perhaps the first composer of the 20th century, who owns it at the level of such composers as Lachenmann and Fernyhow.

- Does the quality of interpretation and understanding of Bruckner's legacy change over time?
- Certainly! One can observe the evolution of the views of the performers on Bruckner the composer: first, an attempt to see in him the Wagner of the symphony, then the interpretation of him as one of the many composers late romanticism, in some cases as a successor to Beethoven's traditions.

Quite often one can observe purely commercial performances, both technically impeccable, but equally unviable.

Nowadays, many musicians are aware true essence Bruckner - a simpleton, a village teacher who decided to compose symphonies according to the Beethoven model, but in Wagner's language.

And that, fortunately, he never fully succeeded in doing this, which is why we can speak of Bruckner as an independent composer, and not as one of his many contemporaries imitating composers.

The first time I heard Bruckner interpreted by Furtwängler (recording of the Fifth Symphony of 1942), and now I mainly use the Jochum set, which, by the way, Borya Filanovsky pointed me to.
Of course I know them! Furtwängler's fifth has certainly gone down in history as one of his best recorded performances.

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 (pirated copies of this set have sold almost all over the country) + separate live recordings, which sometimes differ significantly from the studio ones).

I just have emi. And why do we always talk only about symphonies and do not touch on masses and other choral opuses at all, is it not interesting?
- From Bruckner's masses, perhaps, the second for the choir and brass band, even, by and large, an ensemble of wind instruments - they add some special timbre flavor.

They say that Bruckner wrote this mass to be performed on the spot ... the proposed construction of a new cathedral (which was later built), so the composition was probably performed on open space, which is probably the reason for such an extraordinary composition.

The third mass, strange as it may seem, has a lot in common with Brahms's German Requiem (composed around the same period), Bruckner's main competitor in Vienna.

For some reason, Bruckner's last composition, Helgoland, turned out to be rarely performed (by the way, according to the surviving sketches of the finale of the Ninth Symphony, it can be assumed that Bruckner was going to include the material of this composition there too), a composition very unpredictable in form and (which, perhaps, even more importantly) , almost an exceptional case for Bruckner's choral works, written not on a canonical religious text.

- How do Bruckner's masses look against the background of masses by other composers?
- There are probably no fundamental, global innovations in the formula, moreover, Bruckner, perhaps, in interpreting the mass as a genre turns out to be even more conservative than Beethoven (obviously, Bruckner here did not want to appear in front of church officials as some kind of heretic).

However, already in the masses (almost all of them, except for the Third - the last great mass, were written before the numbered symphonies) one can find the composer's signature arches between the movements.

As, for example, the concluding part of the kyrie of the Second Mass resounds at the end of the entire Mass in Agnus dei, or when a fragment from the Fugue Gloria sounds on the climactic wave in Agnus dei.

- 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. Skrovachevsky is absolutely convincing, interfering with the author's text and sometimes changing the instrumentation, and any other conductor who honestly adheres to the author's text is not very convincing (maybe the situation is reversed).

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 a well-known anecdote: “I wake up and really stand at the conductor’s stand and conduct Bruckner” ...

In addition, parallels can be drawn at some points with his masses (especially in those places where he secretly or covertly quotes entire fragments), as a rule, they are rarely accidental, because in the masses they are fixed with a certain text, and in the symphonies the text really 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 lose sight of this moment in acquaintance with the symphony and not pay attention to it.

How has Bruckner influenced your own work?
- Direct influence, of course, cannot be detected ( student work according to the composition of the school period, of course, it doesn’t count), indirect, perhaps, in cases where some kind of texture is deliberately stretched 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, Sharrino, Feldman; from contemporaries...

My fascination with Bruckner's art for me - it so happened - is rather a parallel, almost not intersecting with my compositional searches.

- What do you think is important or symbolic from Bruckner's biography?
- Well, I don't even know about the symbolic; and some important points… perhaps a meeting with Wagner and acquaintance with his music. Well, and the impression of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, which, starting from the Zeroth Symphony, he was oriented all his life (reminiscences of the themes of the previous parts, the tonal plan of the compositions - this is all from there).

The Belcanto Foundation organizes concerts in Moscow featuring the music of Anton Bruckner. On this page you can see the poster of upcoming concerts in 2019 with the music of Anton Bruckner and buy a ticket for a date convenient for you.

Bruckner Anton (1824 - 1896) - outstanding Austrian composer, organist, teacher. Born in 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 monastery of St. Florian near Linz, where he studied organ and violin. The sound of the organ of the monastery church, one of the best in Austria, had a great influence on the formation of the future musician. In 1841-45, after taking a course as a teacher in Linz, he worked as a teacher's assistant in the villages of Windhaag and Kronnstorf, where the first musical compositions were written; in 1845-55 he was a schoolteacher in St. Florian, from 1848 he was also the organist of the monastery. In 1855 he became the cathedral organist of Linz. From this time, Bruckner's musical activity actually begins. In 1856-61. he takes a correspondence course with the largest Austrian musical theorist S. Zechter, in 1861-63. studies under the direction of conductor Linzky opera house O. Kitzler, under whose influence he studies Wagner's operas. In 1865, at the premiere of Wagner's opera Tristan und Isolde in Munich, Wagner and Bruckner met personally. In 1864, Bruckner's first mature work, the Mass in D Minor (No. 1), was completed, 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; since 1875 - associate professor at the University of Vienna, since 1878 - organist of the Court Chapel. In 1869, as an organist, he toured France (Nancy, Paris), in 1871 - in Great Britain (London, was invited to the opening of the Albert Hall). In Vienna, Bruckner encountered difficulties in the perception of his music by the public and musicians. Only after the premiere of the seventh symphony (1884, Leipzig) did he become widely known; in the last decade of Bruckner's life, his symphonies were included in the repertoire of major conductors (G. Richter, A. Nikish, F. Weingartner, and others). Bruckner was awarded the Franz Joseph Order (1886) and an honorary doctorate 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 greatest Austro-German symphonists of the second half of the 19th century. The unusual and complex musical language that distinguishes Bruckner among contemporary composers is associated with the conditions for the formation of his creative individuality. Composer style Bruckner was formed under the influence of the most diverse, sometimes opposing musical traditions. For a long time Bruckner was in the sphere church music, which in the Austrian tradition has changed little over the centuries, and only at the age of forty turned to instrumental genres, later focusing on symphonic work. Bruckner relied on the traditional type of 4-part symphony; Beethoven's symphonies served as a model for him (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 even in Bruckner's symphonies one can find the influence of the baroque musical tradition (in the thematic and shaping). giving great importance theoretical knowledge, Bruckner perfectly mastered music theory and polyphonic technique; polyphony plays in his music essential role(the most characteristic in this respect is the fifth symphony). One of the greatest organist-improvisers of his time, Bruckner often transferred to the orchestra the types of textures characteristic of the organ, the principles of the distribution of timbres; when his symphonies are played, associations sometimes arise with church acoustics. Bruckner's deep and naive religiosity, which allowed him to devote his the best essays- "Te Deum" and the ninth symphony - "beloved God", is manifested in the frequent appeal to the sphere of the "Gregorian" chant and, above all, in the mystical contemplation of the slow parts of his symphonies, in ecstatic climaxes, in which subjective experiences, the suffering of an individual person are dissolved in reverence for the majesty of the Creator. Bruckner deeply revered Wagner and considered him the greatest of contemporary composers(The third symphony is dedicated to Wagner, the slow part 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 outside the interests of Bruckner, who perceived the exclusively 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 attraction to massive, powerful orchestral colors, the length and monumentality of the deployment allow us to talk about the epic features of his style. Convinced of the primordial 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. Aggravation of tragic conflicts, especially intensive symphonic development marked the last three symphonies of Bruckner (seventh, eighth and ninth).
Most of Bruckner's works have several editions or versions, 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 to Bruckner's increased self-criticism, his continuous creative evolution. Friends and students who were in his inner circle also made major changes to Bruckner's scores (often without his consent), intended for performance and printing. As a result, for many years Bruckner's music was presented to the public in a modified form. The original scores of Bruckner's works were first published only in the 1930s and 1940s. XX century, as part of the composer's collected works.
In 1928, the International Bruckner Society was formed in Vienna. A music festival dedicated to Bruckner is regularly held in Linz.
Compositions: 11 symphonies, including 2 not marked with numbers (3rd - 1873, second edition 1877-78, third edition 1889; 4th "Romantic" - 1874, 2nd edition 1878-80., third edition. 1888; 5th - 1876-78; 7th - 1883; 8th - 1887, second edition 1890; ninth, unfinished - 1896); sacred music (Requiem - 1849; Magnificat - 1852; 3 big 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 orc. - 1890, etc.); compositions for organ; string quintet (1879), etc.