|
The chronology
of Bruckner’s methods of
composition is the main
evidence of the fact that he
brought different
conceptions to bear on
identical thematic ideas.
Each bout of creativity was
typically followed first
by a lallow period and then
by a phase of examination
and revision. The first
spurt in 1867/68 resulted in
the three Masses and
Symphony No. l, punctuated
by exhaustion culminating in
a nervous collapse; the
second (1871/76) produced
Symphonies Nos. 2, 3, 4 and
5 in
a row, and the third
(1880/87) saw Symphonies
Nos. 6, 7 and 8; but the
intervals between these
periods of compositional
activity were devoted not
only to a reorientation
towards his professional
commitments, but also to
revision of these works,
which had evidently been
created under tremendous
pressure.
There is little doubt that
this applies least of all to
Symphony No. 8 which,
because it was tackled
afresh immediately alter its
completion, displays the
fewest significant changes.
Even so, there are two
critical points which may be
considered as being
indicative of Bruckner’s
changed consciousness that
compelled him to write a
second version: a new view
of structures with
bridging function, and
an orchestration formula
with woodwind and horns
dominating in the first
version, but in the second
version brought into line
with the then widely
accepted Wagnerian sound
world. In the first
version the woodwinds,
interjected regularly every
four bars and heralded by a
fifth on the clarinets in
bar 5, determine the
periodic structure of the
movement. As a result of
this change of conception
the conclusion of the first
movement has two
spectacularly different
constructions: thirty bars
of triple fortissimo in the
first
version as a full stop,
in contrast to the fading
away in the second. On
account of its formal
expanse the passage achieves
the effect of an exclamation
mark after a statement, or
of the customary Amens after
expressions of faith in the
Catholic Mass.
This part of the movement is
therefore to be considered
not just as an appendix, but
as an integral element in
the statement, requiring confirmation
within the structure of the
first
movement and in line with
Bruckner’s perception up to
that time. Thematically this
is achieved in accordance
with the motif,
dynamically with the loudest
possible forces,
constituting a kind of
static block added on to the
thematic course of events.
Striking features in the first
version of the second
movement are the
naturalistic quotations for
the horns and clarinets and
the absence of the harp, for
which trilling violins
provide a partial
substitute. The Adagio and
the Final in the first
version recall the registration
techniques of the
organ, which could also give
some point to the
subsequently deleted
bridging passages with their
oldfashioned contrapuntal
writing.
|
