Book Description

A bold, deeply researched, and long-needed debunking of the platitudes and prejudices that have long clouded our view of the personality and compositional habits of Anton Bruckner. Bruckner was, and continues to be, among the most divisive figures in the history of nineteenth-century music, in large part owing to the complexities and contradictions of his personality and the amalgam of differing stylistic features that characterize his musical language. Miguel J. Ramirez's insightful book scrutinizes the stereotypes about Bruckner's personality that loom large in the public imagination, the controversial editorial policies behind the publication of his collected works, and the trends in the reception of his music that were set early on by a handful of Viennese journalists. Working to undo the platitudes and prejudices that cloud our view of Bruckner's true personality and compositional habits, this study debunks the entrenched misconception that he was a helpless victim of "the Viennese press"-a notion contradicted by the pugnacious exchange in which pro- and anti-Bruckner critics invariably engaged after the premiere of each of his works. Ramirez demonstrates that, from the mid 1880s onward, only Eduard Hanslick, Max Kalbeck, and a few other critics persisted in their opposition to the Brucknerian symphonic oeuvre and that their caustic and denigrating reviews were vastly outnumbered by those of more appreciative critics who heard what performers and listeners cherish now: the music's coherence, grandeur, and emotional sweep.adicted by the pugnacious exchange in which pro- and anti-Bruckner critics invariably engaged after the premiere of each of his works. Ramirez demonstrates that, from the mid 1880s onward, only Eduard Hanslick, Max Kalbeck, and a few other critics persisted in their opposition to the Brucknerian symphonic oeuvre and that their caustic and denigrating reviews were vastly outnumbered by those of more appreciative critics who heard what performers and listeners cherish now: the music's coherence, grandeur, and emotional sweep.adicted by the pugnacious exchange in which pro- and anti-Bruckner critics invariably engaged after the premiere of each of his works. Ramirez demonstrates that, from the mid 1880s onward, only Eduard Hanslick, Max Kalbeck, and a few other critics persisted in their opposition to the Brucknerian symphonic oeuvre and that their caustic and denigrating reviews were vastly outnumbered by those of more appreciative critics who heard what performers and listeners cherish now: the music's coherence, grandeur, and emotional sweep.adicted by the pugnacious exchange in which pro- and anti-Bruckner critics invariably engaged after the premiere of each of his works. Ramirez demonstrates that, from the mid 1880s onward, only Eduard Hanslick, Max Kalbeck, and a few other critics persisted in their opposition to the Brucknerian symphonic oeuvre and that their caustic and denigrating reviews were vastly outnumbered by those of more appreciative critics who heard what performers and listeners cherish now: the music's coherence, grandeur, and emotional sweep.ence, grandeur, and emotional sweep.