Repertoire: The BEST of Bruckner's WORST--Symphony No. 0
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 พ.ย. 2020
- Bruckner himself called the Symphony No. 0 "not valid" and "annulled," and it's not hard to understand why. He didn't number it, and refused to publish it. He was right. It sucks. Here are the best versions of his worst symphony, if you care.
- เพลง
![[TH] VCT Masters Shanghai Playoffs DAY 5 // 100T vs PRX | FUT vs TH](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/q75pv359eP4/mqdefault.jpg)
There must be something wrong with me, I thought the opening was very striking, and memorable: the way it was done, building up from a mysteriously quiet opening, to something with some power, which I enjoyed. The theme sounds intriguing and different from anything else written at the time, a very interesting opening. As an opening, I don't mind it at all--it has stayed with me; but it seems to drive you to distraction, so fair enough.
I don't disagree that the opening has promise--but when the same ostinato is still cranking away under the second subject several minutes later, we have a big problem. It's the movement as a whole that's such a failure. Of course it has good spots.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Fair point David
Many years ago I got a record of Bruckner 0 from the library, I listened to it and enjoyed it, but it didn't make a great impression. About 20 years later I came across its again, and I immediately remembered the opening motif. To me it was a memorable theme, a real ear worm for me. I've always enjoyed der Nullte, and that first theme has always stayed in my head. I just think no 0 is a terrific symphony. "Isn't that just awful" - well, no, we will have to just agree to disagree. I think it's fantastic. And there you go.
Yep. There's no accounting for taste!
@@DavesClassicalGuide In the Nullarbor, we love die Nullte!
This guy here is an idiot,...don't trust anything he says....so stupid.
I discovered your channel a few weeks ago. As a music student this is pure heaven. The amount of videos ist just amazing, thank you so so much! Very excited to hear your opinion on bruckner 8 and 9 soon
I actually enjoy no.0 more than the first...
Again, this talk was not about what you like, but about respecting what the composer wanted, and trying to understand why he wanted it.
I do too.
Me too, no 1 he called the saucy maiden and that it is...
I do like it a bit more than I like the First, I must confess. It has a nice Schubertian feel and freshness to it.
I agree, this is not great Bruckner. But it *is* Bruckner, and that's why some of us still enjoy it. That first movement is pretty dull, even formless, but, as you pointed out, the work improves as it goes along. Oddly, I find the introduction to the finale very moving; there's something about the pulsating rhythm that induces a contemplative mood. When that motive returns, sped up, as the second subject of the finale proper, it sounds supremely silly--not one of Bruckner's more inspired moments. Overall, I have warmed to this symphony over the years. I agree that Solti makes the best case for it. He actually makes the work seem cogent and frequently exciting. Indeed, I think Solti's Bruckner is underrated. His Chicago 4, 7, and 9 are quite good, despite the bright timbres of the Chicago brass, which many critics have complained of. His Chicago 8 is disappointing, and the ensemble playing is surprisingly sloppy at times. His Vienna version of that work was much better. In any case, I'm glad you are not a priori against Solti in Bruckner. Thanks for this delightful review of the "Zeroica"!
Hello. Your channel is a fantastic source of information. I do not have the immense musicological knowledge that you demonstrate but I am a strong supporter of this symphony. I love it and it is a favorite of my daughters together with the 7, 8 and 9. Of course I am talking from a subjective point of view, but there are great musical orchestral ideas IMHO. Again, thank you for a great and really needed channel. Cheers.
To each his own! Thanks for sharing your opinion.
I have always liked the null. The first movement has some to me, pretty griping moments. The haitink has always been my favorite. Its better than a lot of serial modernist works.
So is the sound of lunch moving through your digestive system, but I wouldn't call that a symphony.
Chailly is also good.
@@Alex-ze2xt They're all good, not that it matters...
@@DavesClassicalGuide lol! Who says that’s not a symphony.
Good,...don't listen to this stupid Herwitz guy...he is "inferior", as the leader says.
One might say that the 0 is the manure out of which the flowers of his genius grew and bloomed.
A lovely way of putting it.
Looking forward to the Repertoire videos of 8 and 9 !
Lol I just discovered this piece, and I knew in my heart of hearts that you'd have something to say about it
I am hugely looking forward to your review of the very recent recording of this symphony by Markus Poschner and the Bruckner Orchestra of Linz (following their very fine recordings of symphonies 6 and 8). Warmest wishes, Allan
I must admit you make a good point regarding Bruckner's final thoughts on his symphonies (including his discarding the "0") . I used to feel slightly guilty for not liking some of the original versions as much as the revised ones. That's a thing of the past for me, fortunately.
@@Quotenwagnerianer But it doesn't matter what you think. What matters is whether or not we care about or respect what the composer said represented him best.
Zero was my introduction to Bruckner. I saw that in a library stack and said "0. Huh." and checked it out. I got to revisit it in grad school. Maybe not my favorite but still a fun listen and an earworm.
Good...don't listen to this quack...he's so stupid.
Boy, talk about one man's meat being another man's poison! I have the Chailly/RSO and, just like this Tinter, seems appetizing to me.
Unfortunately, Bruckner's Symphony No. 0 is the only Bruckner symphony I have played in an orchestra so far. That's why I'm quite fond of it. But of course it can't compete with his other symphonies.
I don't remember who said it, but, "A riff is not a tune."
David, when might your Bruckner book see publication? Has Rowan and Littlefield been persuaded yet? :) If not, any chance you might sell it as a download?
I agree - the "0" is not Bruckner's greatest symphony. But calling anything Bruckner wrote "Dreck" is a no-go.
Why not? It's no worse than what Bruckner called it.
@@DavesClassicalGuide "Nullte" just means canceled, not "piece of garbage".
@@Tracotel Same difference. No need to mince words about it. Garbage is as garbage sounds.
Wonderful as always and compelling. But your case rests almost exclusively on the first few bars of the opening movement. Otherwise, there seems to be no objections standing against the bulk of the remaining three movements (‘Bruckner was good at adagios and scherzos’, sic). Objection overruled and the final verdict should be: non-guilty ‘ . -- Anyway, although a littler too harsh to my taste, this has been a wonderful review and as enjoyable as ever. Many thanks ❤️❤️
That is not true. My case rests on the entire first movement, and as for the rest, the fact that they aren't as terrible doesn't make them necessary either.
With nothing better to do in these plague ridden times, I decided to check out the 0 Symphony (in a recording by Simone Young and the Hamburg Philharmonic). It strikes me as a sign-of-things to come, and has some inherent interest in that regard. But why look at a newly sown garden of seedlings when you could get the flowers in full bloom?
Bruckner didn't want it destroyed, though. Likewise preserved was the earlier F minor 'Study' Symphony - "00". This also has some recordings. Oh (oh) what a subject for a further - short - video David? (It does have some tunes.)
I've often wondered how Bruckner's battle with obsessive-compulsive disease affected his music. For example, one can hear the OCD manifest in the scherzo of symphony #8 with it's repeated four note phrase. It was a measure of his genius that he could still make it interesting. I'm sure there has been scholarly papers written on this subject.
Are you talking about the original version? Because in the revision he made that less repetitive. I think in that case he simply misjudged how much that phrase needed to be repeated and he corrected it in the revision
Call me a confirmed Brucknerd, but I adore this symphony -- not that that matters to anyone but myself. Sure, Bruckner disowned it. What do you expect? He was a persnickety perfectionist, a compulsively obsessive obsessive-compulsive. (But I repeat myself.) Yes indeed--composers, like authors, are rarely the best judges of their own works.
Incidentally... say what you will about Lorin Maazel's Bruckner box set with the BRSO (BR Klassik), but as far as I know, it's the only such set to place the cd of this symphony in the proper chronological sequence, between Symphonies 1 and 2.
~ John Drexel, knocking myself out listening to Haitink's one & only recording (with the Concertgebouwers, 1966).
I am fascinated by the insistence that Bruckner had reasons for doing what he did, OCD, neurosis, or whatever, that have nothing to do with musical quality. I contend that what marks a great composer of any stripe is that their decisions invariably concern musical issues, first and foremost. And you are wrong to say that composers are "rarely" the best judges of their own works. Mostly, they are unquestionably the best judges, but not invariably. Each case has to be decided individually.
@@DavesClassicalGuide By now you must realize I'm really describing myself rather than Bruckner. I'm just transferring my own neuroses onto Bruckner -- and I know how silly that is. ;-)
“Never trust the teller, trust the tale. The proper function of a critic is to save the tale from the artist who created it.” -- D. H. Lawrence
Admittedly, it is kinda nice to have these recordings of all the different versions, because it gives you insight into the compositional process of a great composer. But I wish they would at least give us the curtesy of recording both versions, because often really great Brucknerians go for recording the early versions, leaving us with a larger percentage of sub-par performances of the later ones. Especially in the eighth--I can barely find a recording of the 1890 version that I like.
Eh? Whether you like them or not is a question for you, but there are many more versions of the 1890 version than of the original score. That's a fact. And there are many great ones.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Yeah, it's probably just personal taste. I just think most of them fail at balancing it and bringing out the things that I feel should be brought out. Especially that bit before the final coda where the first theme comes back in its original form for the first time in, like, an hour. It just never feels earth-shattering enough to me except maybe in Celibidache's recordings, but then the entire rest of the piece is at quarter note equals 15.
I think my problem is that I'm slightly obsessed with that piece, and once you get obsessed with a piece, no performance will ever do all the things that you need/want it to do.
@@aaronnichols3162 Very true.
Don't ask me why my mind wandered to the movie "Moonstruck" when I say: "A bride without a head ! A wolf without a foot ! A symphony without a theme ! " lol
Me wonders why, if Bruckner discarded it, why didn't he destroy the score? Thanks goodness he didn't...
He should have.
Dave, greetings from the Penal Colonies. As a registered Brucknerian super-kook - and President of the Australian Knappertsbusch Association - I love the Zero for being the shambles that it is - as if Bruckner was paying a visit to the Addams Family and he and Uncle Fester inadvertently set fire to the mansion. You're right to say that there is a qualitative abyss between the Zero and the remainder of the canon. The only reason I am drawn to the Zero is the development section in the first movement which is Bruckner's first exposition of Presence. I have never heard the infamous Double Zero and I doubt that I ever will. Tally ho and best wishes, B
Sure, whatever that means.
Not really on topic, but how about a video on the Franz Schmidt? I started listening to Paavo’s new set yesterday ...
Mentioned frequently, and I am considering it.
Please do the Schmidt Das Buch mit Sieben Siegeln.
The most underrated choral piece of the 20th century, nothing captures the fear and terror on the impending 2nd world war like the entrance of the four horsemen of the apocalypse, the ending chorus is great, and when people make the effort to do it, it’s generally pretty good. PLEASE give that the attention it deserves!!! Also, when are you going to get to Bruckner 8&9????
For what it's worth, I'm also a fan of Schmidt's symphonies.
@@djquinn4212 Another vote for Das Buch
There are passages in the null, that sound rather Phillip Glass like, in fact in many of Bruckner I find many minimalist like passages. Lo and behold on reading Glass, s autobiography, Glass spends a chapter discussing Bruckners influences upon his own style, and his love of Bruckners symphonies. The stiff sameness. You dislike, I find like Glass works, to be hypnotic like calming.
Paul G
No, I don't dislike it at all. I dislike it in this particular work because it sounds bad when, as here, the technique is not appropriate to its context. Bruckner never did it again in the same way, and it's obvious why.
This symphony sucks? Really Mr. Hurwitz, with all your intellectual arguments and reasoning as to why we should not even waste our time listening to this symphony, you remind me of a golfer going out to play 18 holes. Coming at the 1st hole, he puts down the tee and neatly places the ball on top if it. Then, with the correct club in hand, after taking his aim, he makes the most perfect golf swing, thinking "that's it, I've nailed this sucker." But then, looking down at his feet, he is shocked to find the ball still sitting on the tee. He completely miss it. Then the golfer shouts out, "O, this ball SUCKS!" No, its not the ball, it was you, mr. Golfer. You completely missed it.
For all its weaknesses this symphonies still offers a lot to enjoy. You are just missing it, mr. Hurwitz.
No actually, I enjoy the enjoyable bits, and view its weaknesses objectively and reasonably. I see no need for special pleading or to defend the indefensible. Bruckner's own view of the work speaks for itself, and those who love it are entitled to their affection. Your special pleading, however, will not make this a great or important work, by Bruckner's or anyone else's standards. Of course it has nice bits. How could it not? The rest of Bruckner has many more of them and for most listeners that will be more than sufficient. I see no need to look under rocks for more.
I heard a great rendition of it by paavo jarvi, with.....hmm I can't remember which orchestra. But he proper scurried through it. Sounded fresh and interesting...
And about bruckner,this uge slow elephant...the blocks of sound ,you mentioned, maybe because he was an organist by profession..and each block, represent a block register on the organ...maybe...
Merveilleux le premier mouvement, je conteste fortement !
Mais non!
I'd much rather listen to Die Nullte than Helgoland! I think I've heard three versions: Skrow was unconvincing, Rozhdestvensky was a little better, but it was Tintner who figured out how to make it work, by energising the first movement and rhapsodising the finale.
I think Helgoland is terrific. It's much shorter, and it has cymbals.
Well, I agree to David Hurwitz - "Helgoland" is really terrific. Maybe it's much easier to understand the work, having visited this very special island.
Sitting at the "Oberland", looking at the "Long Anna" and listening, while a stiff northwest blows ... great!
Anyway ... I like the "Nullte", too - the first time I heard it from the radio, I didn't know the work. It pleased me and later I was amazed that it was Bruckner (really, not the Bruckner of symphonies 3 - 9, but worth to hear)
You're right: It's not great Bruckner, and there's no need to perform the piece. But, I guess, it's nevertheless an essential piece. In my opinion, in the 1st movement Bruckner tried to create a music without themes, just with textures, which can change their contours; so to say, not the "themes" are the themes but the space a certain texture desribes. He didn't succeed in THIS work, but since then, as you pointed out, the canvas of harmony as a nucleus of a theme becomes one of Bruckner's fingerprints. In my opinion, it's the piece in search of a (maybe new) personality. As I said: not a good piece, no need to perform it, but an interesting piece, if one has a look on it's relation to Bruckner's other symphonies.
I’m actually a fan of Burckner’s Nulte - admittedly largely because I think it’s cool it has been anachronistically and incorrectly named Symphony No. 0. Schnittke’s Symphony 0 is actually pretty darn good, but that’s another story for another day. I do largely agree that it’s unfair to perform and record a work the composer has publicly, specifically disavowed. Just because one has the ability to do something doesn’t mean it is wise to do the something in question.
Still, I like most of the symphony’s movements, so I’ll play ball here and say Haitink manages to make the first movement more interesting than it has a right to be. Tintner’s love for the work is apparent and he makes it more than the sum of its shaky parts. HOWEVER, anyone who is going to get a recording of 0 ought to get the twofer disc by Rozhdestvensky of 0 & 00. It’s fun to compare and contrast the two works. Oy, never thought I’d write this much about symphony “Nothing.”
And sadly much ado about nothing is still...nothing!
No, Bruckner's worst single piece is the original Scherzo of the 4th symphony.
That's pretty awful too.
How about a review of conductors from the 50s and 60s with their techniques and personalities?
Thanks for the suggestion, but that sounds like a tough topic to attack in an organized way. I'll have to think about the approach.
H.D.: "Judgemental, moi?!" 🤭
Actually, you argue your case strongly - the strongest argument being the snippet you played from the 1st movement. And boy, did I enjoy the succinct, though not exactly subtle subtitles! 😄
I know--they were more exciting than the music!
The first movement of this symphony is magical. The second movement is quite beautiful the scherzo is pretty good. Only the finale is weak. Actually, I prefer this symphony to the official third in D mino0r where he never worked out the finale.
Well I think it's a gem. Not great, but hardly awful.
Hmm. A not great gem. Hardly awful. Now there's an endorsement. How appealing!
The F minor no. ”00” is even worse. People keep record Bruckner’s early 3 symphonies (00, 1, 0) is because the needs for a complete box set, that's all.
"Symphony No. 0" is the most cosmically nihilistic title ever. Sounds like something that should be played on Judgement Day.
No, that's Symphony No. 00, the other worthless early one.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Both works will be played, though only to non-repentant sinners! The rest of us will hopefully be allowed to wallow in 'Dies irae' from Verdi's Requiem!
7:08 Yikes! Almost sounds like the string section made a mistake!
It's amazing that the composer of some of the most beautiful melodies of the 19th century, also wrote this!
Heard it one time. Dont need it. Its like Wagners Liebesverbot.
Hm, Dave, you forget one - for me - essential element why this stupid symphony does make sense: it give insight in Bruckner's development into mastership. Yes, you are fully right: that nr. 0 is garbage (although I like htis nr 0 much more than the nr 1). But both works tels us about Bruckners development into writing the masterpieces he wrote afterwards. I went to concerts with this nrs 0 and 1, and of course you think: why not nr 3 and later? But it is good to know the background of these masterpieces 3-9. Garbage yes, but useful garbage.
I can accept that!
Will I get banned from here for saying I prefer Bruckner's 0th and 1st symphonies to his rest?
I'll say it again. No one cares. This was about respect for Bruckner's own intentions and the reasons he may have felt the way he did. Everyone is entitled to like what they like.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Sorry, I should've read the other comments! I respect Bruckner's intentions, I'm just generally not a fan of his musical style, and I feel like his earlier works were lighter and easier to enjoy. Not claiming it's one of the greatest symphonies or anything, just offering my opinion on it!
@@ABC_Guest Sure. No problem!
Even your parodying the music with "chugga-chugga-chug" sounds quite interesting. It's better music than you give it credit for
I'm a "3 to 9" guy. I'll make a confession..I absolutely hate the opening of the finale of the 8th. That galloping theme makes me sick. It just sounds so klunky. Not as bad as that awful stampede in Liszt's Mazeppa (piano version in particular-no matter who plays it.) There's too much horse-trotting in 19th century music.... As for Bruckner's 2nd..G. Wand said it was a "crazy work"...he didn't elaborate, but that symphony doesn't do a thing for me (and yes I've heard the Giulini)..
I have a problem with the Scherzo of the 8th - a more repetitious, pointless piece of noddling nonsense is difficult to find
@@curseofmillhaven1057Funnily this is one of my favorite movements (or moments!) of all bruckner!
@wilhelmberger9925 Well it just goes to show one man's (or woman's) noodling nonsense is another's profound, towering masterpiece. Love what love and don't be swayed by anyone. For me, it remains repetitious and pretentious. Give me the Seventh or the Ninth's Scherzo any day rather than the Eighth. Regards to you and happy listening.
@@curseofmillhaven1057 Thats perfectly fine of course. What a sad world it would be where everyone likes the same.
I do love Bruckner, he's one of my favorites. But I've never liked the Zero. It's a very odd symphony, mainly because its faceless, formless first movement. (Which I find a mess but a quite intriguing mess: what was he thinking?)
HOWEVER...
... no "mainstream" Bruckner piece can let me down more than the String Quintet. Oh, gosh, that is hot garbage.