Talk:Symphony No. 3 (Bruckner)

I deleted the reference to the Haas edition of this work -- to the best of my knowledge there is none. The available editions are by Raettig, Oeser and Nowak, but nowadays everyone seems to be using Nowak. Grover cleveland 22:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Is the statement at the top of the page that the work was revised in 1891 correct? The text lower down (which coincides with my own understanding of the matter) suggests otherwise. Would it be all right to change 1891 to 1899? Also, according to Simpson in 1987, the Adagio in the 1873 version is marked 'Adagio, feierlich', but I have not seen this edition of the score and cannot confirm that. Can someone verify? Tim riley 10:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

So sorry! - I meant 1889, of course. Tim riley 10:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The manuscripts of the 1873 and 1877 versions of the score are at IMSLP now so this can be confirmed or, well, disconfirmed... Schissel | Sound the Note! 07:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Which version?
In one version, there is a passage added in the final of the third movement, which is exclusively avilable only in that version, which version is that? Addaick (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you mean the special scherzo coda? It's in the 1877 version. In the Gesamtausgabe, that would be III/2 edited by Nowak. Essentially it replaces the last bar of the scherzo proper on the second go-round with an immensely exciting extension of about 40 bars that really steals the thunder of the finale. James470 (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh yes! That is really exciting with close relationship to the front parts! Thank you, James! Addaick (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Come to think of it, the finale has so many problems, that dispensing with an excessively triumphant scherzo coda doesn't help that much. I wonder what Robert Simpson would've said about it if I had had a chance to ask him. James470 (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Bruckner Symphony No. 3 1873 version
I recently came across the 1873 version performed by Staatskapelle Dresden led by Yannick Nezet-Seguin. This version throws a whole new light on the symphony. I had previously regarded the third as a rather inferior work of Bruckner, but this version shows what it was meant to be. Bruckner (and some well-wishers), submitting to pressures, made the revisions and cut critical portions from it thus resulting in a distorted form (different from his original concept). Renkcurb (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I discovered the 1873 version when I acquired the performance by Eliahu Inbal in the years 1990.
 * In order to make this symphony "performable", the later versions, the second of 1878 and even more the third of 1889, which Bruckner made following the "good" advice of his friends, were indeed mutilated - because among others cutting about 20% (half of the mid-part) of the Adagio and about one third (several parts) of the Finale. See William Carragan's time analysis of versions 1873 and 1896 I have some days ago added as reference to the page.
 * Most conductors are new going back to the roots, i.e., giving the preference to the original, first version of 1873. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The same occurred, e.g., for Bruckner's Symphony No. 4. Listen to the original version of 1874 and compare it with that commonly performed version of 1886. Norman Cooper, another Bruckner-freak, wrote: I am a hardcore devotee of the first concept versions of the symphonies. I find that these versions make the most sense and are the most interesting, because these are purely Bruckner’s conception, not diluted and weakened by cuts and other alterations by well-meaning disciples and conductors! I fully agree with his statement. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The same occurred, e.g., for Bruckner's Symphony No. 4. Listen to the original version of 1874 and compare it with that commonly performed version of 1886. Norman Cooper, another Bruckner-freak, wrote: I am a hardcore devotee of the first concept versions of the symphonies. I find that these versions make the most sense and are the most interesting, because these are purely Bruckner’s conception, not diluted and weakened by cuts and other alterations by well-meaning disciples and conductors! I fully agree with his statement. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If you like the 1873 version, you should for sure be interested in the 1874 version, i.e., a refined variant of it, in which there are no cuts, but, as in the first version of the fourth, particularly in the first movement more complex rhythm, polyphony and instrumentation. It has recently been issued by Carragan and recorded by Gerd Schaller. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 21:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you like the 1873 version, you should for sure be interested in the 1874 version, i.e., a refined variant of it, in which there are no cuts, but, as in the first version of the fourth, particularly in the first movement more complex rhythm, polyphony and instrumentation. It has recently been issued by Carragan and recorded by Gerd Schaller. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 21:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

"Trombone thema?"
The description section contains the sentence "The signal-like trombone thema, heard at the beginning after the two crescendo waves, constitutes a motto for the whole symphony." My thought is that this must be a mistranslation of the German source that is cited, as the "motto" is undoubtedly the trumpet theme at the beginning heard before the two crescendo waves. In no version (Even Schalk) is this theme first presented by trombone. The mention of the finale ending with the "motto" theme only deepens my conviction. The only thing I can think of here is that the German designation "Tromp." was misconstrued as referring to a trombone. Apologies if I am wrong, but something does need to be done about this, as the description of the first movement that follows that paragraph contradict the "trombone thema" statement. 2601:845:C380:266D:B5EB:9CA1:3953:BC6F (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Mahler Reference
The line "...leaving Bruckner alone with a few supporters, including Gustav Mahler." is curious as Mahler would have been only 17 at the time. 76.88.55.202 (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)