Talk:Symphony No. 8 (Bruckner)

Stub?

Is there any reason this article should stay a stub now? It seems to be pretty substantial. Andrewski 22:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Bruckner said the coda was inspired by the climax of the Dutchman's monologue in Wagner's Der fliegende Hollander, with the words, "Ihr welten endet euren lauf, ewige vernichtung, nimm mich auf!". (Added to article by Nobs01)

This is the first time I hear of this. (I'm no Bruckner scholar, but I've read all the 'standard' biographies available in English). Del arte 19:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Including Simpson? (I think it's Robert Simpson), probably the most authoritive. nobs 19:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Robert Simpson wrote The Essence of Anton Bruckner. It has a quick biographical sketch and a chapter on each of the Symphonies 1 - 9. In the chapter on Symphony No. 8 he makes a big deal about Bruckner flattening the main theme out to a rhythm for the climax, but I don't recall that chapter even mentioning Wagner.

The thing about Simpson, though, is that he's more interested in detailing tonal relationships in Bruckner's work than in pointing out Wagner references. Del arte 20:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Simpson wrote another book on Bruckner's work (just had the title a moment ago). There was a biography published, I thought it was Simpson, by someone who as a child met Bruckner. The bio opens with "Anton Bruckner ate at my house!" Bruckner had once been a dinner guest. nobs 20:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's Simpson. The later half of the book discusses some of the problems and how to fix them. For example, he describes the coda to the 3rd as Bruckner driving a bulldozer, then encounters a baricade, Bruckner gets off the Bulldozer, looks around, then gets back on. The biographer says Bruckner should just drive the bulldozer through the baricade. nobs 20:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't share Del arte's skepticism about the Hollander reference, but I do want some clarification. By "the coda", are you referring to the first movement coda of the 1887 or the 1890 version? (I am skeptic about the "out-Beethoven Beethoven" line you added to the article about Bruckner, however). Robert Happelberg 21:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes first movement. The original version, which I thought was actually 1882 or 1884; but the idea is upheld in Novak's and all other subsequent editions. nobs 22:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Popular reception

The article currently says:

this symphony has arguably done more to win Bruckner's music a strong position in the symphonic repertoire - with both musical intellectuals and the general public - than any of his other works, even the Seventh and Ninth symphonies.

Is this someone's opinion or are there survey numbers to back this up? Anton Mravcek 00:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm moving the entire paragraph to the talk page -- seems like original research to me:

Indeed, it could be said fairly of this movement that it contains as much contrapuntal ingenuity as its counterpart in the Fifth symphony, though the contrast between fugue and chorale is less marked or obvious and more refined. The way in which the symphony as a whole is integrated is considerably more sophisticated than in the Fifth, though the indications are that Bruckner's Ninth symphony had greater ambitions still. However, unfortunately the composer did not live to complete the monumental Finale of this later work, and the Eighth symphony remains his last completed symphony, and the best testament to Bruckner's ideal of the symphony. Though Bruckner's music remains, curiously enough, controversial amongst musicologists and the listening public (and opinions are often correspondingly polarised), this symphony has arguably done more to win Bruckner's music a strong position in the symphonic repertoire - with both musical intellectuals and the general public - than any of his other works, even the Seventh and Ninth symphonies.Grover cleveland 00:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

request standard movement list

with tempo markings. Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Knock yourself out, no one's stopping you. Be sure to look at the Haas hybrid score, Nowak's editions of both the 1887 and 1892 versions, and not just at the first page of each movement. Have fun resolving slightly different German words that conductors wind up interpreting as almost the exact same metronome marking (not as bad as in No. 3, but still quite enough grist for musicologists).James470 (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know them. That's actually why I came here.  :-) I'm pretty new to Bruckner. I'll see what I can find, but figured since the article is so extensive and well-footnooted for everything but the tempo markings that others might be a better source. I'll look.DavidRF (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that I check, the tempo markings, at least at the beginning of each movement, are consistent across the Haas hybrid and Nowak's edition of the two versions. But there might still be some point in the middle where "Langsam ruhig" becomes "Ruhiger, langsam" or something along those lines. James470 (talk) 04:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Siegfried letimotif

Where is the mention to the use of Siegfried motif in this symphony? It appears very clearly in the Development section of the 1st movement. I think actually that the first theme is somehow a mixture of the first theme from Beethoven's Ninth and the Siegfried motif from Wagner. --Leonardo T. Oliveira 14:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardo Teixeira de Oliveira (talk • contribs)

Are you sure that you are telling about the correct symphony? It is Symphony No. 3 in which the first time is a mixture of the first theme from Beethoven's Ninth and the Siegfried motif from Wagner. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 06:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually this is very clear in the Development section! Compare here: Siegfried motif (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS0bwKkXwEU&t=1m06s) and the Exposition of Bruckner's 8th Symphony (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysObwV48C4Y&t=0m02s) or its Development section (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysObwV48C4Y&t=8m23s). Players should be already embedded in these links. It is very clear! --Leonardo T. Oliveira 14:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardo Teixeira de Oliveira (talk • contribs)

There is indeed some fortuitous similarity with the Siegfried leitmotif. You can find the first half of the main theme of the 8th Symphony in the beginning of the March (00" - 02") and the second half at the end of its first phrase (07" - 09"). It is obvious when you are looking at the score: beats 1 and 2, and beats 4 and 5, respectively. Even the rhythm is the same. This feature has already been reported by the Bruckner pioneer HH Schönzeler. Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

PS: In the Symphony No. 3 Bruckner is quoting the other Siegfried leitmotif (the Horn call).

Infobox

Symphony No. 8
by Anton Bruckner
Key	C minor
Catalogue	WAB 108
Composed	1884 (1884)–1887 1889 (1889)–1890 1892 (1892)
Dedication	Franz Joseph I of Austria
Published	1892 (1892) 1939 (1939) (ed. Robert Haas) ("original version") 1955 (1955) (ed. Leopold Nowak) (1890 version) 1972 (1972) (ed. Leopold Nowak) (1887 version)
Recorded	1949 (1949) Eugen Jochum, Philharmonisches Staatsorchester Hamburg
Movements	4
Premiere
Date	18 December 1892 (1892-12-18)
Location	Stadttheater, Leipzig
Conductor	Hans Richter
Performers	Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra

The article has an infobox, dating back to 2007. It was a different infobox then, which was merged with {{infobox musical composition}}. On 1 July, the publishing information, which is relevant for most of Bruckner's major work, was collapsed. and at the same time the information about the performers of the first recording removed.

• Publishing: collapsing defies the purpose of an infobox of showing something at first glance. Here, it's only four lines, no need to collapse.
• Performers: if the former template had the performers, we should adapt the new one to do the same. Also, have two lines of parameter name and then present only a year looks strange.

I responded by presenting the version shown. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You are correct that the purpose of the infobox is to "identify key facts at a glance...and exclude any unnecessary content", and that the "first recording" parameter looks strange. I have now addressed both issues. Thank you for your feedback. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not feel understood: the editor who created the infobox (in 2007) felt that the publication versions and the first recording ARE key facts. The many readers since did not object, and I agree also. Now you come, collapse three lines, remove information. Why? For whom? - Later you even removed the three lines. Why? For whom?? - You and I agree that the recording information should not look as if it was part of the premiere, therefore I changed the template. I believe that the information about the performers should show, about which our article informs us: "In 1934 it merged with the Stadttheater-Orchester to become the Philharmonisches Staatsorchester Hamburg (the name under which it recorded a celebrated Eighth Symphony of Anton Bruckner under Eugen Jochum in 1949)." - To be celebrated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

But the infobox that was here in 2007 is no longer here, and we know that few readers ever comment either positively or negatively about articles. It serves the reader better to be able to explain - just seeing the name in a box doesn't tell the significance. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. We've been debating this issue over and over in classical music articles. This IDONTLIKEIT debate must stop. Nikki, I am extremely disappointed in you for your constant attempts to WP:BAIT Gerda and then hope for a "gotcha" if she makes any small gesture of impatience at you. And no, "It serves the reader better to be able to explain" is a false equivalency; people can have textual explanations AND an infobox. You know nothing about educational theory, learning domains, visual learning or anything else about how people absorb information; you only know how YOU like things, and you seem incapable of having any understanding that information is best transmitted to the largest audience when presented in ways that allow different styles of learners to grasp what they need. The ongoing metadata and graphic design debates notwithstanding, "facts at a glance" is a perfectly valid way to convey information. Montanabw^(talk) 19:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

If people couldn't have textual explanations AND an infobox, then we would include no infoboxes, anywhere. We are not at that point. However, certain things are better represented by textual explanations than by infoboxes, just as other things are better expressed in tabular format than in text. ILIKEIT is of equal value to IDONTLIKEIT. As to what I know or hope, you don't know. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

And it is only your opinion that certain things are not proper for an infobox. Others disagree, and they are neither wrong nor ignorant. Relevant facts in an infobox neither mandate nor preclude information in text. As a passer-by with a casual interest in classical music, I prefer facts at a glance in the infobox and use that to skip to a few parts of the article where I have my interest piqued. On a different topic where I have a stronger background, perhaps classic rock, for example, I might dive into the text and read most of the article, infobox or no. Neither of us can judge fully what another reader may find valuable, hence a good reason for knowledgable editors to help readers by making sure the most pertinent factoids appear in an infobox - to draw the reader into the article. A pretty picture with a glorified caption is not an infobox. Montanabw^(talk) 03:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

And that's not what this article has. But we as knowledgeable editors are mandated to avoid infobox bloat, and this means that not every reader will find every factoid that might possibly be of interest in the infobox. It cannot be everything to everybody while maintaining its role as an "at-a-glance" resource. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Your definition of "infobox bloat" differs from mine. My definition of "bloat" begins roughly at say, the infobox of Serena Williams. Not this article. Your accusation that I want to see "every factoid" is misplaced; I think that information that clarifies basic details is generally appropriate. Montanabw^(talk) 21:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Information that clarifies basic details is generally appropriate in the article text; only the basic details themselves belong in the box. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, there is a difference of opinion on what constitutes "basic" - oversimplification can be inaccurate, sometimes a bit of detail is necessary. The key issue is one; the infobox could easily add a plainlist of the key changes in this work, also the multiple issues indicated in the sample here of multiple dates appears to be significant. I really don't see why the sample box here couldn't be used. Montanabw^(talk) 03:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course oversimplification can be inaccurate - that's an argument against infoboxes, period. But going too far in the other direction is not the solution. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

We should not turn this into a discussion about infoboxes in general (that battle is over anyway, well over half of all wikipedia articles, and most of the GA and FA ones have them). The issue is if we use the useful one above or what's in there now, which is nothing more than a picture with a bloated caption, IMHO. Montanabw^(talk) 16:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

So in your opinion what's in there now is not useful? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

103'-recording

"...although there are performances running as long as 103 minutes.[42]" Celibidache, Munich Philharmonic Orchestra, 1993 Live in Lisbon, lasts 103'. I suggest to delete the Mark Stryker reference, since it's very vague, and cite this recording. I don't know how to do this properly. Herbmuell (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Sergiu Celibidache, Munich Philharmonic Orchestra, 12-09-1993 - EMI CDC 5 56696 2 (Discography of the Symphony No. 8 in C Minor). I have cited the recording and removed the death link (Mark Stryker reference). --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I have also added a in-text ref ([1]) for the "standard" duration of about 80 min. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Symphony No. 8 (Bruckner). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/dkgriegel/versions.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)