This first movement lasted nineteen minutes and ushered in the second movement called Scherzo, which is faster than the first movement. Playing in C minor, the movement’s melody could disjunctly change from ascending to descending with many variations being played. In effect, the disjunct appeared surprising to the listeners. In this case, it felt as if the ensemble started with the “wrong” key although the movement along other keys appeared to change this assumption since it began softly and then shifted loudly to a melody that was dancelike. In effect, this created a happy mood amongst the concert attendants looked pleased and in high spirits progressively throughout the movement and it was evident that the surprise resulting from the variations changed. This movement lasted for ten minutes and ushered in the third movement known as Feierlich.The third movement is distinct from the rest since the ensemble played it in A-flat major while the others were in C-minor. Hence, I expected the movement to have a somber and solemn feeling amongst the attendants. In effect, I was not disappointed since the movement started with an A-flat minor chord from the chordophones that declined following the simultaneous playing of the trombone and the French horn in a very soft melody. After the introduction of the movement, other instruments joined in with the rhythm changing in a triple meter that slowed towards the end with the fragments of the theme audible in the last minute of the fifteen minutes that the movement played. The finale movement seemed to return the piece’s original theme since it was played in C-minor. However, the tempo in this movement was faster, which made the mood exciting and cheerful. This movement lasted for about twenty minutes with the audience giving a standing to the ensemble after a captivating, exciting, and cheerful performance.Following this electrifying performance, I carried out a background check on Anton Bruckner’s Symphony No. I realized that the first composition was done in 1872 although Anton produced revised versions of the composition in 1873, 1876, 1877, and in 1892 (Corrs 2). Born on 4 September 1824, Jackson and Lawkshaw called this Australian composer “an inveterate reviser throughout much of his career” (1). In effect, this explains the reasons that occasioned the
Berky, John F. Discography. 26 October 2009. Web. 20 October 2012.
Cohrs, Benjamin Gunnar. Anton Bruckners Second Symphony: Versions, Variants and their
Critical Editions. April, 2009. Web. 20 October 2012. <http://www.opusklassiek.nl/componisten/bruckner_symphony_2_editions.pdf>.
Jackson, Timothy L., and Paul Hawkshaw. Bruckner Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1997. Print.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples