Talk:Symphony in D minor (Bruckner)

	Classical music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

Comment

The following was in an early draft of the article. While I can certainly understand the argument of people who say it doesn't belong in the article, I think it's an interesting bit of trivia. Anton Mravcek 21:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

In the CD collection of the Wayne State University Music Department, CD's are identified with 4-digit number stickers. A recording of symphony no. 0 with Georg Solti is identified as 0000.

Weasel comment

In the fourth movement section, the weasel statement, "reminds some listeners of Rossini" is an unattributed opinion. It doesn't remind me of Rossini, and I don't know anyone who has said this, so I added the citation needed tag. (The comment above was posted by 18:56, 23 June 2006 Sean Parmelee)

I think it's in Derek Watson's book Bruckner. Robert Simpson would be my second guess. Anton Mravcek 19:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beaming in fourth movement

Is that the original beaming? It looks pretty odd, as in the first bar, there are three quavers to a beat, then in the next bar there are two quavers to a beat. Normally the quavers in the first bar would be marked with a triplet sign, or the key signature would be 12/8 and the quavers in the second bar would be marked with a duplet sign. But this has neither...anyone know? Stevage 06:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here the triplets are implied and not actually marked. This is not uncommon. Double sharp (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Cycles

Performances and recordings of the "complete" Bruckner Symphonies often exclude No. 0, most notably excepting the boxed sets of Riccardo Chailly, Georg Tintner and former Chicago Symphony Orchestra conductors Daniel Barenboim and Sir Georg Solti.

Should Skrowaczewski's cycle with the Saarbrücken RSO be included? I believe the Arte Nova release of that cycle has all 11 symphonies: the canonical 9, die Nullte, and the Study Symphony.

(As a sidenote, this particular recording of die Nullte is also included in Brilliant Classics' rerelease of the EMI Jochum/Dresden cycle) --Dhraakellian (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move

Why has this been moved from Symphony No. 0 to Symphony in D minor? Rothorpe (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the page Symphony No. 0 (Bruckner) to Symphony in D minor (Bruckner), because this denigrating name "Symphony No. 0" was not given by Bruckner, but is coming from a misinterpretation of its "nullification".

The symphony, which was originally No. 2, is absolutely not a zero. Bruckner, very suggestible, has "nullified" it as a follow to the question by the conductor of the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra, who asked Bruckner about the first movement, "Where is the main theme?". As Tintner further writes "... this same first movement is in my opinion a masterpiece – perfect in form and content. ... The great composer unfortunately often followed the bad advice of others." --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 17:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I take your point, but... Rothorpe (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UCN is relevant here. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Isn't Symphony No. 0 the usual name? Rothorpe (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The official name is "Symphony in D minor" (German: "Symphonie d-Moll"). "No. 0" or "Die Nullte" (German) are nicknames. See, e.g., Anton Bruckner Critical Complete Edition or Bruckner's discography. Moreover, "No. 0" is chronologically not correct, because it was composed in 1869 between Symphony No. 1 (1866) and Symphony No. 2 (1872).

The same problem exists for the "Symphony in F minor", of which "Study symphony" (German: "Studiensymphonie") and "No. 00" are also nicknames (see Anton Bruckner Critical Complete Edition or Bruckner's discography), based on the false belief that this symphony was composed before the (so-called) "Symphony No. 0". Actually it was composed before Symphony No. 1... --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 19:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Kleinzach, with whom I have recently rewritten the List of compositions by Anton Bruckner, has recently moved Study Symphony to the more specific name Study Symphony in F minor. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 20:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Symphony No. 0 (Bruckner) and Symphony in D minor (Bruckner). Proposal for merging for revision history merging was ignored. What should we do? --Tijd-jp (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done WP:Parallel histories Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was not a "conventional" MERGE, but the rectification of a not properly carried-out MOVE. See above the reasons for doing the move at the beginning of this discussion. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 08:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amended lead section

I suggest to amend the lead section as follows:

The Symphony in D minor, WAB 100, was composed by Anton Bruckner in 1869. Bruckner composed this symphony between his symphonies Nos. 1 (1866) and 2 (1872). He did not assign a number to it, because it declared "es gilt nicht" (it does not count) and wrote on the front page "annuliert" (nullified). The symphony got thereafter the nickname Die Nullte ("No. 0").

--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NB: According to the lead of the other pages on Bruckner's symphonies, other sentences from the section "Composition" could also be included in the lead. The section "Analysis" contains of course interesting illustrations of the score, but the descriptive text is meager and should be expanded.

I thus think that the page should be revised in-depth and expanded. I am willing to participate in its rewriting. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the lead, expanded the section "Composition" and added some refs to it. I will continue to review the remaining of the page ("Analysis") later. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 14:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Symphony no. 0", an invalid name?

An anecdote by William Carragan:

Some time ago a conductor had a guest contract with the Berlin Philharmonic, in which the conductor had the contractual prerogative to choose the program. The conductor chose the Bruckner D-minor "Symphony no. 0", but the orchestra management countered that the Berlin Philharmonic did not play symphonies numbered "0". I don't remember by what means a solution was attained, whether by legal action or the drawing of lots or a shark attack, but the conductor had his way. Nowadays, anybody who refers to Bruckner's "Symphony in D minor" will be understood by all not to mean the Third or the Ninth.

--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]