1

Date___________
Draft #_________

Gabriel Ignacio Venegas Carro

606 E. Lester Street.
Ph: 520-278-8117
Email: gabovenegas@email.arizona.edu
Degree Sought: PhD in Music Theory (minor in Musicology)
Type of Study: Dissertation

I have read this proposal and believe it is ready for consideration by the graduate committee.

Major Professor: __________________ ___________________ __________

signature print name date

Committee Member: __________________ ___________________ __________

signature print name date

Committee Member: __________________ ___________________ __________

signature print name date
 2

II. PROPOSED TITLE

The Slow Movements of Anton Bruckner's Symphonies: Dialogical Perspectives

III. INTENT AND SCOPE

Even more so than with other composers, the reception history of Bruckner’s

music is a complex matter. Two closely related factors contribute to this: First, his

compositional output comprises only a few major works. These, however, survive in a

variety of different realizations due to Bruckner’s extreme proclivity towards reworking

his own oeuvre—particularly his symphonies and large-scale choral pieces. Second,

throughout the composer’s lifetime and before the publication of the Gesamtausgaben

under Leopold Nowak, these works were performed and published in retouched, heavily

edited, or simply recomposed versions that his pupils and advocates felt compelled to

bring about. These two factors have worked hand in hand to produce a composite musical

picture that resists traditional notions of authenticity and authorship, and ideas of the self-

contained composition. As Benjamin Korstvedt notes, “textual matters loom large with

Bruckner. Not only have they been considered and reconsidered by generations of

Bruckner scholars, but anyone . . . approaching this repertory soon runs into the

‘Bruckner problem.’”1 It is no surprise, then, that performers, musicologists, and analysts

tend to disagree widely on the philological and editorial practices that should guide

research into Bruckner’s symphonies.2 One thing is clear, however: at present, our

Benjamin Korstvedt, “Bruckner Editions: The Revolution Revisited,” in The Cambridge

1

Companion to Bruckner, ed. John Williamson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 121.
2
A summary of contemporary and historical trends on this matter is found in Julian Horton,
Bruckner’s Symphonies: Analysis, Reception and Cultural Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2004), 11–16. A valuable list of Bruckner’s symphonies in all his realizations is found in William
Carragan, “Bruckner Versions, Once More Revised,” ABruckner.com.
 3

knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the “Bruckner problem” is far too complex

to allow for shortcuts or simplistic solutions.3 Moreover, when reconsidered critically, the

textual facets of Bruckner’s oeuvre seem more a challenge to the discourses and practices

that construct the very idea of a “Bruckner problem” than an actual problem. In other

words, if there is a Bruckner problem at all, it is perhaps to be located in these very

discourses rather than in the music itself or the artistic motivations behind it. If so, a

“solution” to the “Bruckner problem” must entail a move away from its self-imposed

argumentative boundaries, a reconfiguration of its epistemological framework.

As if inquiries on textual matters were not difficult enough, the reception history

of Bruckner’s music is full of other unsettled controversies. Chief among these is

Bruckner’s handling of musical form. As Korstvedt notes, “there is something sphinx-

like about Bruckner’s musical forms. They can seem neat and traditional at one moment,

but at the next appear free and unconventional.”4 This multifaceted appearance has not

escaped the ears of commentators. Their remarks, however, have tended to

overemphasize one side or the other. A prevailing assessment during Bruckner’s lifetime

was that his symphonic works were puzzling to the point of formlessness.5 Another

widespread view, still common today, was that Bruckner’s forms are “too formal in their

http://www.abruckner.com/articles/articlesEnglish/carraganwilliamversions/ (accessed March 5, 2015); and

Dermot Gault, The New Bruckner: Compositional Development and the Dynamics of Revision (Burlington,
VT: Ashgate, 2011), 253–257. A comprehensive list of all published scores of Bruckner’s symphonies is
found in Arthur D. Walker and Crawford Howie, “A List of Published Bruckner Scores: Part I Orchestral
Music,” BrucknerJournal.co.uk. http://www.brucknerjournal.co.uk/page14.html (accessed April 11, 2015).
3
See, for example, Deryck Cooke, “The Bruckner Problem Simplified,” Musical Times 110
(1969): 20–22, 142–144, 362–365, 479 –482, 828.

Benjamin Korstvedt, “Between Formlessness and Formality: Aspects of Bruckner’s Approach to

4

Symphonic Form,” in The Cambridge Companion to Bruckner, 170.

5
Ibid., 170.
 4

reliance on traditional symphonic models.”6 Yet another criticism has pointed to the

allegedly excessive similarity and predictability of Bruckner’s formal procedures. As

Korstvedt writes, the basic tenet of this assessment—pervasive in German scholarship

from the latter half of the twentieth century and in contemporary American music-history

textbooks—is “the suggestion that Bruckner’s symphonies are essentially similar and

exhibit little development over the course of his career.”7 In sum, when it comes to

formal matters, Bruckner’s symphonies have been the target of strongly held and

contradictory assessments—the norm being that, for each commentator who accuses

Bruckner of overdoing one thing, another commentator accuses him of not doing enough

of that same thing.

In light of the aforementioned textual matters, a new approach to the challenges

posed by Bruckner’s handling of form is needed. A step in that direction is provided by

Julian Horton, who understands Bruckner’s forms as part of a dialectical interplay

between tradition and innovation—a feature that Horton finds integral to the post-

Beethovenian symphonic tradition. As he writes, nineteenth-century symphonic forms

“simultaneously acknowledge and supersede the Beethovenian model, whilst presenting

the result as a synthetic whole that attempts to be more than the sum of its antithetical

parts.”8 Along similar lines, James Hepokoski suggests three factors as fundamental to

understanding the mid- and late-nineteenth-century symphonic genre: 1) “the emergence

of the academic recognition and honouring” of the Austro-German sonata construct; 2) a

6
Ibid., 171.
7
Ibid., 172. Along these lines, Korstvedt cites Leon Plantinga’s Romantic Music (New York:
Norton, 1984) and Donald Graut and Claude Palisca’s A History of Western Music, 6th ed. (New York:
Norton, 2001) as representative contemporary American music-history textbooks.
8
Horton, Bruckner’s Symphonies, 156.
 5

marked preoccupation with the idea of tradition—“or, more to the point, the struggle over

the presumed ownership of that tradition”; and 3) a compositional practice characterized

by “ad hoc designs” and “individualized shapes.”9 As Hepokoski explains, “by the

second half of the century the European idea of the symphony as a high-status cultural

achievement was nourished by lovingly shaped readings of the genre’s Austro-Germanic

past.”10 Chief among these was the idealizing of Beethoven, whose compositional

procedures became pivotal in establishing a regulative principle, “a community-shared

rule for interpretation, even when it was written against.”11

Using the aforementioned characterization of the nineteenth-century field of

symphonic production as a departure point, Hepokoski has developed a theory of sonata

deformation that allows for a more nuanced and historically informed understanding of

nineteenth-century formal procedures. At the core of this theory’s hermeneutic

framework is an emphasis on the play between tradition as regulative principle and

individuality as normative practice:

A sonata deformation is an individual work in dialogue primarily with sonata

norms even though certain central features of the sonata-concept have been
reshaped, exaggerated, marginalized or overridden altogether. What is presented
on the musical surface of a composition (what one hears) may not be a sonata in
any ‘textbook’ sense, and yet the work may still encourage, even demand, the
application of one’s knowledge of traditional sonata procedures as a rule for
analysis and interpretation.12

9
James Hepokoski, “Beethoven Reception: The Symphonic Tradition,” in The Cambridge History
of Nineteenth-Century Music, ed. Jim Samson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 424–425
and 447.
10
Ibid., 424.
11
Hepokoski, “Beethoven Reception,” 447.
12
Ibid., 447.
 6

Central to Hepokoski’s theory of deformation, then, is a dialogical conception of form:

the idea that a work’s formal-expressive meaning arises from a dialogue between generic

expectations and their individualized realizations. In order to more accurately understand

the nature of this dialogue three of its foundational aspects should be considered in turn:

the concepts of norm, genre, and default level.

As Hepokoski and Warren Darcy note, the concept of norm refers to the “array of

common types of continuation-choices established by the limits of ‘expected’ architecture

found in (and generalized from) numerous generic precedents.”13 These norms, as

inductively reconstructed stylistic conventions, constitute the basis for a recreated genre

that “enables and constrains the production and subsequent reading of compositionally

placed musical events.”14 Since genres are constructed along the lines of social

preference—that is, they are “the result of hundreds of choices made by numerous pivotal

individuals over a span of time and ratified by communities of listeners to suit their own

purposes”15—the frequency of a generic norm determines its compositional and

interpretative priority. As Hepokoski and Darcy explain,

we call the more normative procedures first- and second-level defaults. . . .

[C]omposers selected . . . first-level options more frequently than second-level
ones, and so on. . . . First-level defaults were almost reflexive choices. . . . [N]ot
to choose the first-level default would in most cases lead one to consider what the
second-level default was—the next most obvious choice. If that, too, were
rejected, then one was invited to consider the third-level default (if existed), and
so on.16

13
James Hepokoski and Warren Darcy, Elements of Sonata Theory: Norms, Types, and
Deformations in the Late-Eighteenth-Century Sonata (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 9.
14
Ibid., 606.
15
Ibid., 606.
16
Ibid., 10.
 7

Not uncommonly, a composer might refuse to choose among the socially provided

default levels. When that happens, the composer is said to have overridden generic

expectations altogether and instead chosen to produce a deformation:17 the

compositional-expressive device that, in the context of sonata-formal generic

expectations, constitutes the basis for Hepokoski’s theory of sonata deformation.

One of the strengths of Hepokoski’s sonata-deformational theory is its capacity to

account for the highly individualized formal practices of nineteenth-century composers.

In this sense, the role that this theory might play in providing clues to Bruckner’s formal

procedures should not be downplayed. However, while a dialogic approach à la

Hepokoski overcomes the analytical shortcomings of traditional assessments of

Bruckner’s forms, it falls short of providing an alternative to the textual assessments

pervasive within the “Bruckner-problem” faction.

To advance a counterdiscourse to the “Bruckner problem,” one which both

embraces and builds upon Hepokoski’s dialogic approach, I propose to conceive formal-

expressive meaning in Bruckner’s symphonies as growing out of a two-dimensional

dialogue. On the one hand, there is the dialogue between the individual exemplar and its

implied genre (i.e., Hepokoski’s dialogic dimension). I characterize this dialogue as

fundamentally public insofar as it arises from the interaction of the individual exemplar

with a larger established repertoire (the exemplar’s otherness, so to speak).

Consequently, I designate this dialogic dimension as the outward dialogue. On the other

hand, there is the dialogue among the various individualized realizations that comprise

the multifaceted picture of a single Bruckner symphony. I characterize this latter

17
In Hepokoski and Darcy’s use of the term, deformation may additionally mean “the stretching
of a normative procedure to its maximally expected limits or even beyond them.” (Ibid., 614) On
deformation, see ibid., 614–621.
 8

dialogue as fundamentally private insofar as its capacity to produce meaning does not

depend on the interaction of the individual exemplar with outside “others” but instead

with its many “selves.” Accordingly, I designate this dialogic dimension as the inward

dialogue.

From a hermeneutic standpoint, the above-described approach has the advantage

of both accounting for Bruckner’s formal idiosyncrasies and turning the “Bruckner

Problem” into rather a “Bruckner Potential.” Hence, in order to promote a more nuanced

and sympathetic understanding of Bruckner’s symphonic forms and their textual

characteristics, this study will assess Bruckner’s symphonies from a multidimensional

dialogical perspective that acknowledges both their inward and outward modes of

communication. Given the characteristic textual multiplicity associated with a good

number of movements (inner and outer) of Bruckner’s symphonies, the task of assessing

every single movement might prove overwhelming. Thus, for practical reasons, the scope

of the proposed study will be restricted to Bruckner’s symphonic slow movements. These

movements, in addition to exemplifying the aforementioned challenges and representing

the expressive core of Bruckner’s symphonies, have received less attention in the

theoretical and analytical literature than the symphonies’ outer movements.18

18
Examples of recent scholarly literature addressing Bruckner’s slow movements include Robert
Hatten, “The Expressive Role of Disjunction: A Semiotic Approach to Form and Meaning in the Fourth
and Fifth Symphonies,” in Perspectives on Anton Bruckner, ed. Crawford Howie, Paul Hawkshaw, and
Timothy Jackson (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001), 145–184; Timothy L. Jackson, “The Adagio of the Sixth
Symphony and the Anticipatory Tonic Recapitulation in Bruckner, Brahms and Dvorák,” in Perspectives
on Anton Bruckner, 206–227; Edward Laufer, “Some Aspects of Prolongation Procedures in the Ninth
Symphony (Scherzo and Adagio),” in Bruckner Studies, ed. Timothy L. Jackson and Paul Hawkshaw
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 209–255; Margaret Notley, “Formal Process as Spiritual
Progress: The Symphonic Slow Movements,” in The Cambridge Companion to Bruckner, 190–204;
Derrick Puffett, “Bruckner’s Way: The Adagio of the Ninth Symphony,” Music Analysis 18 (1999): 5–99;
John Parkany, “Kurth’s Bruckner and the Adagio of the Seventh Symphony,” 19th Century Music 11
(1988): 262–281; Adolf Nowak, “Die Wiederkehr in Bruckners Adagio,” in Anton Bruckner: Studien zu
Werk und Wirkung, ed. Christoph-Hellmut Mahling (Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1988), 159–170; and Peter
VanDyke, “The Inauguratory Theme of the Adagio from Bruckner's Symphony no. 9 as Paradigmatic of a
 9

IV. STATEMENT OF PRIMARY THESIS

Bruckner’s treatment of large-scale form and the textual idiosyncrasies of his

symphonies are central to the study of his music’s reception history. Past assessments of

these two aspects have often worked hand in hand to produce pejorative discourses that

tend to construct his oeuvre as defective and problematic. Using Bruckner’s symphonic

slow movements as a case study, I will develop an analytical approach that will aim for a

richer, more historically informed, and sympathetic understanding of Bruckner’s music

by exploring, from a formal perspective, the dialogic relation of each version of his

symphonic slow movements with both its other versions (the “inward” dialogue) and a

larger established repertoire (the “outward” dialogue).

V. REVIEW OF THE SCHOLARLY LITERATURE

The last 20 years have seen a great growth of interest in reshaping the ways in

which we assess Bruckner’s music and life. Two central features of this reappraisal have

been 1) a departure from the postwar focus on determining the “definitive” versions of

Bruckner’s works; and 2) a new commitment to critically reassess the Brucknerian

picture inherited from pre-1950s scholarship. The resulting “new Bruckner perspective”19

notwithstanding, no comprehensive study addresses aspects related to Bruckner’s

treatment of form in his symphonic slow movements. Similarly, the potential for dialogic

interplay between the multiple realizations of individual Bruckner symphonies has not

yet been explored. However, a great deal of this new literature, along with the vast body

'Second Practice' of Nineteenth-Century Tonality” (Masters thesis, State University of New York at
Buffalo, 2011).
19
Gault, The New Bruckner, 6–7.
 10

of twentieth-century German- and English-language research, can usefully inform a new

study in this direction. The following overview is organized in two broad categories:

musicological studies and theoretical and analytical approaches.

Musicological Studies

Perhaps the biggest challenge faced by postwar Bruckner musicological research

has been reconsidering the picture that Bruckner’s contemporaries and prewar music

scholars draw of him. As Margaret Notley explains, Bruckner’s “early supporters, like his

detractors, stressed his naivete [sic], creating a one-dimensional character: a devout

perpetual bumpkin—who nevertheless managed to write some of the most complicated

music of the nineteenth century.”20 This picture depicted a simple man whose genius

stemmed from a God-given instinct (or racially given in some ethnocentric renditions)

that compensates for his lack of intellectual depth. Such a perspective, pervasive in the

German prewar literature, is reflected in the four-volume Bruckner biography of August

Göllerich and Max Auer, by far the most comprehensive Bruckner study published before

World War II.21 Seeking to present a more historically plausible representation of

Bruckner, recent scholarship has undertaken a critical source-based approach that

attempts to disentangle the agendas of early Bruckner studies and ultimately to establish

clearer distinctions between fact-based interpretations and overtly mythical accounts.22

The resulting literature—which comprises, among many other things, studies of cultural

20
Margaret Notley, “Bruckner Problems, in Perpetuity,” 19th Century Music 30 (2006): 82.
21
August Göllerich and Max Auer, Anton Bruckner, ein Lebens- und Schaffensbild, 4 vols.
(Regensburg: Bosse, 1922–1937).
22
For a summary of the main traits in pre-1950s Bruckner reception history, with much emphasis
on its underlying strategies and motivations, see Christa Brüstle, “The Musical Image of Bruckner,” in The
Cambridge Companion to Bruckner, 244–260.
 11

appropriation, reevaluations of Bruckner’s psychological pathologies, and critical

accounts of his historical context—provides the modern scholar with an interpretation

that conveys a more coherent reciprocity between the composer’s life and oeuvre.23 Of

special relevance for the proposed study is the archivally based biographical research that

illuminates aspects of Bruckner’s musical background (e.g., his knowledge of

contemporary and past repertoire and his acquaintance with the theoretical and analytical

models of his time). Chief among these are the volumes comprising the series Anton

Bruckner Dokumente und Studien and Wiener Bruckner-Studien, Crawford Howie’s two-

volume documentary biography, and Andrea Harrandt and Otto Schnieder’s two-volume

collection of Bruckner’s letters.24

Theoretical and Analytical Approaches

Theoretical and analytical interest in Bruckner’s music has emerged in two main

waves of research. Considering that their beginnings roughly coincide with the onset of

the first and last quarters of the 20th century, theoretical and analytical approaches to

23
On the Nazi appropriation of Bruckner’s music, see Bryan Gilliam, “The Annexation of Anton
Bruckner: Nazi Revisionism and the Politics of Appropriation,” Musical Quarterly 78 (1994): 584–604
[Reprinted in Bruckner Studies, 72–90]; the ensuing discussion in Manfred Wagner, “Response to Bryan
Gilliam regarding Bruckner and National Socialism,” Musical Quarterly 80 (1996): 118–123; and Gilliam,
“Bruckner's Annexation Revisited: A Response to Manfred Wagner,” Musical Quarterly 80 (1996): 124–
131. On psychologically oriented Bruckner studies, see Constantin Floros, “On Unity between Bruckner’s
Personality and Production,” in Perspectives on Anton Bruckner, 285–298; and Horton, Bruckner’s
Symphonies, 223–257. On Bruckner’s historical context, see Andreas Harrandt, “Musical Life in Upper
Austria in the Mid-Nineteenth Century”; and “Bruckner in Vienna,” in The Cambridge Companion to
Bruckner, 15–25 and 26–38.
24
Crawford Howie, Anton Bruckner: A Documentary Biography, 2 vols. (Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin
Mellen Press, 2002); Andrea Harrandt, ed., Anton Bruckner: Brief I, 2nd ed., vol. 24/I of Anton Bruckner
Sämtliche Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Vienna: Musikwissenschaftlicher Verlag, 2009); Andrea
Harrandt and Otto Schneider, eds., Anton Bruckner: Brief II, vol. 24/II of Anton Bruckner Sämtliche Werke.
Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Vienna: Musikwissenschaftlicher Verlag, 2003); Franz Grasberger et al., eds.,
Anton Bruckner Dokumente und Studien (Vienna: Musikwissenschaftlicher Verlag, 1979– ); Renate
Grasberger et al., eds., Wiener Bruckner-Studien (Vienna: Musikwissenschaftlicher Verlag, 2009– ).
 12

Bruckner’s music might be organized under two categories, pre-war and contemporary.

Among the pre-war literature, two lines of inquiry were the most influential: that of the

early-20th-century “energeticist” school, and that of the so-called “Bayreuthians.”25 The

latter is exemplified by theorists such as Alfred Lorenz and Karl and Alfred Grunksy,

whose work—very much in vogue in German-speaking countries during the 1920s and

1930s—consisted of a mixture of Hegelian-inspired dialectical formal analysis and right-

wing ideology.26 These authors’ ultimate goal was to present Bruckner’s music as

conveying the völkisch-nationalistic and arch-conservative ideology inspired by

Wagner’s Regenerationslehre.27 Despite the insidious nature of its ideological impetus,

an understanding of the Bayreuthians’ analytical methods might prove indispensable in

assessing the textual outcomes of early-twentieth-century Bruckner editions (e.g., those

by Robert Haas).

The energeticist perspective is represented by the work of Ernst Kurth and August

Halm, in which the conceptualization and description of dynamic processes of tension

and release in Bruckner’s music constituted a central concern.28 Of special significance

25
On early 20th-century energeticist approaches, see Lee Rothfarb, “Energetics,” in The
Cambridge History of Western Music Theory, ed. Thomas Christensen (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2002), 936–944. On the Bayreuthians, see Stephen McClatchie, “Bruckner and the Bayreuthians; or
Das Geheimnis der Form bei Anton Bruckner,” in Bruckner Studies, 110–121; and Horton, Bruckner
Symphonies, 64–68 and 71–82.
26
For examples of these author’s work, see Alfred Lorenz, Das geheimnis der form bei Richard
Wagner, 4 vols. (1924–1933; repr., Tutzing: Verlegat Bei Hans Schneider, 1966); Karl Grunsky, Frage der
Bruckner-Auffassung (Stuttgart: Heyder, 1936), Anton Bruckner (Stuttgart: J. Engelhorns Nachf., 1922),
and Anton Bruckners Symphonien (Berlin: Schlesinger, 1908); and Hans Alfred Grunsky. “Neues zur
Formenlehre,” Zeitschrift für Musikwissenschaft 16 (1934): 35–42, and “Der erste Satz von Bruckner’s
Neunter. Ein Bild höchster Formvollendung,” Die Musik 18 (1925): 21–34 and 104–112. An account of
Lorenz’s ideas is found in Stephen McClatchie, “Alfred Lorenz as Theorist and Analyst” (PhD diss., The
University of Western Ontario, 1994).
27
McClatchie, “Bruckner and the Bayreuthians,” 110.

28
Enrst Kurth, Bruckner, 2 vols (Berlin: Hesse, 1925), and Romantische Harmonik und ihre Krise
in Wagners „Tristan“ (Berne: Haupt, 1920); August Halm, Von zwei Kulturen der Musik,. 3rd ed.
 13

for this investigation is the hermeneutic potential of Kurth’s account of Bruckner’s

symphonic form as dynamic waves, and the expressively suggestive metaphoric language

of his theoretical apparatus.29

Contemporary theoretical and analytical approaches to Bruckner’s music have

focused on two areas of inquiry: his handling of form, and the tonal strategies and

harmonic practices displayed by his music. Within the first category, the work of Warren

Darcy on deformational procedures in Bruckner’s symphonies, along with Julian

Horton’s critical reaction to it, explicitly inform the proposed study.30 However, these

authors’ sole focus on the symphonies’ outer movements limits the extent to which their

findings could be directly extrapolated to my own research. In studies of Bruckner’s tonal

strategies and harmonic practices, three trends stand out: 1) Schenkerian-oriented studies,

in which the main focus has been investigating the techniques underlying large-scale

tonal organization in Bruckner’s works;31 2) approaches based on characteristic idioms of

late-nineteenth-century extended harmony and transformational techniques, which mainly

(Stuttgart: E. Klett, 1947), and Die Symphonie Anton Bruckners. 2nd ed. (Munich: G. Müller, 1923).
English translations of Kurth’s and Halm’s work appear in Lee Rothfarb, trans., Ernst Kurth: Selected
Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991); and Kelly Laura Lynn, “August Halm's ‘Von
zwei Kulturen der Musik’: A Translation and Introductory Essay” (PhD diss., University of Texas at
Austin, 2008). For discussions of Kurth’s and Halm’s work, see Lee Rothfarb, August Halm: A Critical and
Creative Life in Music (Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2009) and Ernst Kurth as Theorist and
Analyst (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988).
29
See, for example, Rothfarb, trans., Ernst Kurth: Selected Writings, 151 – 207.
30
Warren Darcy, “Bruckner’s Sonata Deformations” in Bruckner Studies, 256–277; Julian Horton,
“Bruckner's Symphonies and Sonata Deformation Theory” Journal of the Society for Musicology in Ireland
1 (2005): 5–17.
31
See, for example, Jackson, “The Adagio of the Sixth Symphony”; Edward Laufer, “Continuity
in the Fourth Symphony (First Movement),” in Perspectives on Anton Bruckner, 114–144, and “Some
Aspects of Prolongation Procedures”; Kay Lindberg, “Aspects of Form and Voice-Leading Structure in the
First Movements of Anton Bruckner’s Symphonies Nos. 1, 2, and 3” (PhD diss., Sibelius Academy,
Helsinki, 2014); and Boyd Pomeroy, “Bruckner and the Art of Tonic Estrangement: The First Movement of
the Seventh Symphony,” in Johannes Brahms und Anton Bruckner im Spiegel der Musiktheorie, ed.
Christoph Hust (Goettingen: Hainholz, 2011), 147–175.
 14

concentrate on local harmonic motions;32 and 3) historically informed approaches that

focus on the application of Sechterian theory and other manifestations of fundamental-

bass theory to the study of Bruckner’s music.33 The aforementioned theoretical and

analytical approaches will provide useful tools for the proposed study inasmuch as no

thorough consideration of formal issues can afford to neglect tonal and harmonic matters.

Finally, there are a few books in which eclectic methodologies and

interdisciplinary pursuits have produced a new type of Bruckner research that posits

questions and answers beyond traditional disciplinary and methodological boundaries.34

Chief among these is Julian Horton’s book on Bruckner’s symphonies, an

interdisciplinary study motivated by “the conviction that critical difficulties are best

32
See, for example, William Benjamin, “Tonal Dualism in Bruckner’s Eight Symphony,” in The
Second Practice of Nineteenth-Century Tonality, eds. William Kinderman and Harald Krebs (Lincoln, NE:
University of Nebraska Press, 1996), 237–258; Christoph Hust, “Heptatonik und Hexatonik in Bruckners
Fünfter Symphonie,” in Johannes Brahms und Anton Bruckner im Spiegel der Musiktheorie, 83–120;
Puffett, “Bruckner’s Way”; Miguel Ramírez, “Chromatic-Third Relations in the Music of Bruckner: A Neo
Remaniann Perspective,” Music Analysis 23 (2013): 155–209, and “Analytical Approaches to the Music of
Anton Bruckner: Chromatic-Third Relation in Selected Late Compositions” (PhD diss., University of
Chicago, 2009); Kevin Swinden, “Bruckner and Harmony,” in The Cambridge Companion to Bruckner,
205–227, and “Harmonic Tropes and Plagal Dominant Structures in the Music of Anton Bruckner:
Theoretical Investigation with Two Case Studies” (PhD diss., State University of New York at Buffalo,
1997); and Horton, Bruckner’s Symphonies, 96–143.
33
The term fundamental bass refers to a theoretical and analytical tool first devised in the 18th
century by Rameau. It comprises a succession of chord roots (similar to a bass line) meant to depict the
succession of fundamentals or chord generators of a given chord progression. The major exponent of
fundamental bass theory in the 19th century was Simon Sechter, Bruckner’s theory professor and
predecessor at the Vienna Conservatory. On the application of fundamental bass theory to the study of
Bruckner’s music, see Graham Phipps, “Bruckner’s Free Application of Strict Sechterian Theory with
Stimulation from Wagnerian Sources: An Assessment of the First Movement of the Seventh Symphony,” in
Perspectives on Anton Bruckner, 228–258; Elmar Seidel, “Simon Sechters Lehre von der richtigen Folge
der Grundharmonien und Bruckners Harmonik—Erwägungen zur Analyse Brucknerscher Musik,” in Anton
Bruckner: Tradition und Fortschritt in der Kirchenmusik des 19. Jarhunderts, ed. F. W. Riedel (Sinzig:
Studio, Verlag Schwewe, 2001), 307–338; Frederick Stocken, Simon Sechter's Fundamental-Bass Theory
and Its Influence on the Music of Anton Bruckner (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 2009); David
Chapman, Bruckner and the Generalbass Tradition (Vienna: Musikwissenschaftlicher Verlag, 2010); and
Jonathan Brooks, “Imagined Sounds: Their Role in the Strict and Free Compositional Practice of Anton
Bruckner” (PhD diss., University of North Texas, 2008).
34
See, for example, Gault, The New Bruckner; Constantin Floros, Anton Bruckner: The Man and
the Work, trans. Ernest Bernhardt-Kabisch (New York: Peter Lang, 2011); and Benjamin Korstvedt, Anton
Bruckner: Symphony No. 8 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).
 15

addressed as part of a general nexus of analytical, textual, philosophical, historical and

social matters.”35 Without aspiring to such comprehensiveness, the proposed

investigation will aim to an engagement with different strands of scholarship.

VI. ORGANIZATION

I. Introduction: Bruckner and the Symphonic Slow Movement (SSM)

II. What Bruckner Inherited: The SSM before 1860

III. Defining the Text: Fassungen and Editions of Bruckner’s SSMs

IV. Bruckner’s Sonata-Theory Workshop: Overall Form in Bruckner’s SSMs

A. Symphony 00 (Study Symphony)
B. Symphony 0 (Nullte Symphony)
C. Symphony 6
D. Symphony 7
E. Symphony 9
F. String Quintet

V. The Medial Caesura in Bruckner’s SSMs: Revisiting Darcy’s MC Paradigms

VI. Bruckner’s (Re) Visions and the Dialogical Play: Inward and Outward Dialogues
A. Symphony 1
B. Symphony 2
C. Symphony 3
D. Symphony 4
E. Symphony 5
F. Symphony 8

VII. Bruckner’s Expressive Cores: A Hermeneutic Excursion through Bruckner’s SSMs

VIII. Conclusions

35
Horton, Bruckner Symphonies, ix.
 16

VII. METHODOLOGY

This project will build primarily on the dialogical perspective of James Hepokoski

and his work with Warren Darcy on sonata form. It also will draw on the form-functional

approach of William Caplin36 and the methodological eclecticism of Julian Horton. The

ideas of these authors, as different as they are, effectively complement each other and

together constitute powerful tools for analyzing the highly individualized forms of the

late Romantic period. Finally, given that harmony and voice-leading are key ingredients

in the generation of musical form, I will supplement these formal perspectives with a

Schenkerian approach to tonal structure. The following discussion briefly illustrates

selected aspects of my analytical and interpretative method.

The 1889 Version and Second Published Edition of Bruckner’s Symphony No. 3/II:

A Two-Dimensional Dialogic Approach

Inward and Outward Perspectives

The slow movement of Bruckner’s Third Symphony is perhaps the most extreme

example of the kind textual multiplicity often associated with an individual Bruckner

symphony. The extant versions and early editions of the work amount to seven distinct

realizations.37 These can be organized under three broader compositional stages: 1) an

early stage comprising the first version (1873, henceforth 73v) and two alternative

versions (1874 and 1876, henceforth 74v and 76v respectively); 2) an intermediate stage

comprising the 1877 version and the 1879 first published edition (henceforth 77v and 79e

36
William Caplin, Classical Form: A Theory of Formal Functions for the Instrumental Music of
Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998).
37
For an overview of the dates of composition and sources for the extant versions and early
editions of the movement, see Table 1 (p. 19).
 17

respectively); and a late stage comprising the 1889 version and the 1890 second

published edition (henceforth 89v and 90e respectively).38 Among the different textual

readings of the movement, those of the last stage take on special interest when considered

from the point of view of the movements’ formal organization. From the perspective of

the movement’s outward dialogue and following the terminology laid out in Hepokoski

and Darcy’s Sonata Theory,39 formal organization in 89v and 90e may be characterized

as follows: exposition (mm. 1–96), comprising P (mm. 1–29), TR (mm. 29–40), S (S1.1 =

mm. 41–72; S1.2 = mm. 73–86), and C (mm. 86–96) spaces (see Example 1, p. 18);

development (mm. 96–153), comprising an S-based developmental half-rotation;40 an

aborted recapitulation (mm. 154–199), comprising only P-based modules;41 and a 23-

measure coda.

From a structural-expressive viewpoint the aborted recapitulation constitutes an

unexpected turn in the movement’s dramatic trajectory. As Hepokoski and Darcy explain,

in a sonata form, “the recapitulation delivers the telos of the entire sonata—the point of

essential structural closure (ESC), the goal toward which the entire sonata-trajectory has

been aimed. This is normally the first satisfactory I: PAC within the recapitulation’s part

2 that proceeds onward to different material.”42 Along these lines, by purging the

38
As will become clear below, commonality of formal type is the main grouping criteria in this
threefold organization (see column three in Table 1).

39
On Sonata Theory’s terminology and standard formal abbreviations, see Hepokoski and Darcy,
Elements of Sonata Theory, xxv–xxviii. A brief overview of the basics of the Sonata Theory approach is
found in ibid., 14–22.
40
On developmental rotation (i.e., the development’s rhetorical/thematic layout), see ibid., 205–
207. On developmental half rotations, see ibid., 217. On the rotational principle in general, see ibid., 611–
614.

41
On recapitulations with suppressed S/C space, see ibid., 247–249.
42
Ibid., 232.
 18

recapitulation of any material from the exposition’s part 2 (i.e., S and C), Bruckner

prevents the movement from attaining ESC, in turn producing a sonata failure.43

Interestingly, the characteristic feature of this “failing” trajectory, namely the lack of S-

based modules, rules out not only the attainment but even the possibility of attempting a

satisfactory ESC. For the purpose of distinguishing this expressive trajectory from milder

instances of sonata failure (i.e., where S is recapitulated but fails to attain ESC), I

characterize it as an instance of double failure inasmuch as sonata-failure conditions can

be said to be overdetermined or heightened.

Example 1. Exposition of Bruckner’s Third Symphony/II (89v and 90e)

An alternative interpretation shifts the focus from the dialogic outwardness of the

individual exemplar to the inwardness of the movement’s textual multiplicity (its alter

egos, so to speak). Considering that 89v and 90e constitute the latest conceptual stage of

the movement, it will be worth tracing its compositional history to see how Bruckner

arrived at them.

43
My use of the term failure corresponds to that in Hepokoski and Darcy’s usage in ibid., 177–
179 and 245–249. In its narrower sense, “sonata failure” refers to a compositional-narrative strategy
characterized by the non-fulfillment of the main generic requirement of a recapitulation, namely the
securing of the ESC. In this sense, the term must not be understood as a compositional weakness but as a
deformational gesture.
 19

Date44 Version / Editor45 Sonata Type

February 24– 1873 / Nowak46 Type 3 sonata (with Prf/Coda complex)47
May 24, 1873
1874 1874 / Carragan48 Type 3 sonata (with Prf/Coda complex)
1876 1876 / Nowak49 Type 3 sonata (with Prf/Coda complex)
October 1877 1877 / Nowak50 Type 2 sonata (with Prf/Coda complex)
1878 1st published edition (1879) / Type 2 sonata (with Prf/Coda complex)
Rättig (publisher)51
February 17– 1889 / Nowak52 Outward dialogue: Type 3 (with aborted
22, 1889 recapitulation and coda)
Inward dialogue: aborted Type 3 (with
Prf/Coda complex and without recapitulation)
1889–1890 2nd published edition (1890) Outward dialogue: Type 3 (with aborted
/ J. Schalk (editor), Rättig recapitulation and a coda)
53
(publisher) Inward dialogue: aborted Type 3 (with
Prf/Coda complex and without recapitulation)
Table 1. Textual sources for the slow movement of Bruckner’s Third Symphony.54

44
Date of composition or revision(s).
45
Unless otherwise noted, all versions are published by Musikwissenschaftlicher Verlag on behalf
of the Internationalen Bruckner-Gesellschaft.

Leopold Nowak’s edition of this version is based on the 1874 signed copy (Bayreuth, Richard-
46

Wagner Archive, II Cb 2) that Bruckner presented as a gift to Richard Wagner.

47
On the Prf/Coda complex, see footnote 56 below.

Carragan’s edition is based on the 1874 manuscript copy (Vienna, Austrian National Library,
48

Mus. Hs. 6033) that Bruckner keep to himself, which contains autograph additions. Carragan’s edition
remains unpublished; however, it has been recorded by Gerd Schaller and the Philharmonie Festiva
(Symphony No. 3 in D minor, dir. Gerd Schaller, Profil CD PH 12022, 2011). On the 1874 version, see
William Carragan, “The 1874 Bruckner Third: Three Between Two,” ABruckner.com
http://www.abruckner.com/articles/articlesEnglish/carragan1874Third/ (accessed April 20, 2015).
49
Bruckner detached pages from the extant autograph score of the 1876 version (Vienna, Archive
of the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde, A 173) and used them as part of the autograph score for the 1877
version (Vienna, Austrian National Library, Mus. Hs. 19.475). For his edition of the 1876 version Nowak
identified the exported pages and restored the 1876 autograph score.

Nowak’s edition of this version is based on the final form of the 1873–1878 autograph score
50

(Vienna, Austrian National Library, Mus. Hs. 19.475).

The first published edition is based on the Stichvorlage (engraver’s copy) prepared by Bruckner
51

and an unknown copyist (Vienna, Austrian National Library, Mus. Hs. 34.611).
52
Nowak’s edition of this version is based on the Stichvorlage (Vienna, Austrian National Library,
Mus. Hs. 6081) prepared by Bruckner for the second published edition of the piece.
53
The second published edition is based on Bruckner’s Stichvorlage for this edition (see, note 52),
but includes various changes made (possibly by Joseph Schalk) before the final printing.
 20

73v is a Type 3 sonata (i.e., a sonata form comprising exposition, development

and recapitulation)55 with an appended Prf/Coda complex:56 exposition, mm. 1–88;

development, mm. 89–128; recapitulation, mm. 129– 224; and Prf/Coda complex, mm.

225–278 (Prf= mm. 225–256; coda= mm. 257–278). 74v and 76v include a number of

changes; these, however, do not affect the formal plan of 73v.57 In the case of both 77v

and 79e the changes do involve formal reworking: Bruckner cut P, TR, and the

54
The information contained in this table (and its associated footnotes) is drawn from Thomas
Röder, III. Symphony d-Moll, vol. 3 (Revisionsbericht) of Anton Bruckner Sämtliche Werke. Kritische
Gesamtausgabe (Vienna: Musikwissenschaftlicher Verlag, 1997).
55
On the generic layout of Type 3 sonatas, see Figure 2.1b in Hepokoski and Darcy, Elements of
Sonata Theory, 17. For a brief overview of the various sonata types specified by Sonata Theory, see ibid.,
344–345.
56
A conspicuous feature of the sonata-form dialogue of Bruckner’s symphonic slow movements is
the deployment of a Prf/Coda complex following a retransitional passage at the end of the recapitulatory
space. In its most characteristic form, this formal idiom comprises, first, an extended section (Prf)
displaying one or more P-based processes of textural, dynamic, and harmonic intensification (Steigerung),
the goal of which not uncommonly coincides with a contextually stable fortissimo 6/4 chord; and second, a
shorter section (the coda proper) characterized by a variety of recessive processes that compensate for the
monumental energy-gaining and subsequent discharging process of the previous section. An important
rhetorical aspect of the first portion of the complex (i.e., the Prf section) is its “refrainness,” which infuses
Bruckner’s symphonic slow movements with a rondo-like character. Consequently, the first part of the
complex is labeled Prf, the “rf” superscript standing for “refrain.” For a paradigmatic example of the
Brucknerian Prf/Coda complex, see the slow movement of his Seventh Symphony (P rf= mm. 157–193;
coda= mm. 193–219.
How the Prf/Coda complex fits into the sonata-form dialogue is a matter of interpretation better
approached on a case-by-case basis. In general, the question is to what extent the analyst wants to stress the
hybridization of sonata and rondo procedures. In the case of 73v, for example, the analyst is confronted
with choosing between two possibilities: On the one hand, the P rf portion of the complex can be thought as
retrospectively affecting the overall form of the movement, thus producing an interpretation in dialogue
with a Type 43 sonata. (On the Type 43 sonata, see Hepokoski and Darcy, Elements of Sonata Theory, 405–
407.) On the other hand, the Prf/Coda complex as a whole can be thought as a “parageneric space” that in
no fundamental way challenges the Type 3 status of the movement. (On parageneric spaces, see ibid., 281–
305.) Considering the absence of P-modules right after the exposition (a defining feature of the Type 4
sonata) and the use of a P theme that lacks the kind of rondo-character normally associated with Type 4
opening themes, an interpretation along the lines of a Type 4 3 dialogue seems too far-fetched.
Consequently, the form of this movement is labeled in Table 1 as Type 3 with an appended P rf/Coda
complex.
57
The changes are more extensive in the 1876 version, which is 11 measures longer than its
predecessors and includes important textural modifications (see, e.g., the violins’ descending pattern, mm.
230ff, recalling the overture to Wagner’s Tannhäuser).
 21

antecedent phrase of S from the recapitulation (mm.132–183 in 76v), with the effect of

changing the formal plan from a Type 3 to a Type 2 sonata.58

In light of the aforementioned compositional history, the changes in 89v and 90e

can be understood as consummating a careful process of recapitulatory disintegration (see

Example 2 below): Bruckner first deleted mm. 136–157 and 172–181 from 79e and then

recomposed mm. 158–171 from the same edition (i.e., took apart the S/C space that

functions as the Type 2 tonal-resolution space in 79e).59 As a result, in 89v and 90e, the

end of the development connects directly with what had been the Prf/Coda complex in all

previous versions, completely bypassing the recapitulatory space. Accordingly, the

inward dialogues of 89v and 90e are described in Table 1 as Type 3 with Prf/Coda

complex and without recapitulation.

Example 2. Recapitulatory disintegration in Bruckner’s Third Symphony/II

58
On the Type 2 sonata, see Hepokoski and Darcy, Elements of Sonata Theory, 353–387. The
Type 2 sonata, although rare by this time, it is found in at least one other movement by Bruckner, the finale
of the Seventh Symphony.

59
On Type 2 tonal resolution, see ibid., 353–355 and 380.
 22

We might now turn to consider the movement’s inwardness from a structural-

expressive point of view. As pointed out above, an interesting feature of the movement’s

early (i.e., 1873–76) and middle (i.e., 1877–78) stages is that the recapitulation, despite

engaging S/C modules, is unable to secure the tonic—let alone attain a satisfactory ESC.

The resulting nonresolving recapitulation (a “failed sonata”) has the effect of placing the

burden of restoring and securing the proper tonal level (i.e., the tonic) on the Prf/Coda

complex—a compositional space that lies beyond the sonata-process boundaries. As

Darcy writes, once sonata failure has occured, “the coda is the music’s final chance to

attain the redemption that traditional sonata methods have been unable to secure. . . . It is

a ‘do or die’ situation: somehow the music must draw strength from outside the sonata

form proper and, in a sense, transcend that form in order to achieve a breakthrough from

darkness into light.”60 In this connection, the triggering of the Prf/Coda complex calls for

interpretation along such lines. As it turns out in this case, the Prf/Coda complex proves

incapable of fully accomplishing the task: despite the sonorous splendor of multiple

textural apotheoses, their off-tonic quality does nothing but seal the movement’s fate.

When tonic cadential confirmation is finally attained (see. e.g., mm. 271–273 in 73v),

both the plagal quality of the progression involved and the recessive dynamic that follows

produce an atmosphere of valediction (benediction) that suggests peaceful resignation

rather than ultimate success.61

60
Darcy, “Bruckner’s Sonata Deformations,” 275–276.
61
More to the point, as Constantin Floros notes, “towards the end of the Adagio (at rehearsal N),
Bruckner quotes the sleep motif from Wagner’s Walküre, surely no coincidence: my sense is that the
quotation refers to the memory of the deceased mother [i.e., Bruckner’s mother], conveying the concrete
meaning of ‘Rest in peace.’” (Constantin Floros, Anton Bruckner: The Man and the Work, trans. Ernest
Bernhardt-Kabisch [New York: Peter Lang, 2011], 116)
 23

If the nonresolving recapitulation transfers the burden of resolution to the

Prf/Coda complex in the movement’s early and middle stages, the absence of

recapitulatory space in 89v and 90e does nothing to change that. Therefore, when in 89v

and 90e the Prf/Coda complex fails to provide a parageneric solution to the sonata-formal

crisis, the function of the Prf/Coda complex as “fate sealer” remains the same as in, say,

73v or 79e. Nevertheless, the absence of a recapitulation entails a modification of the

movement’s expressive narrative. Whereas in the outward dialogues of 89v and 90e, the

sonata-formal crisis only takes shape after the onset of the recapitulation, in the inward

dialogues of 89v and 90e the crisis is triggered by the suppressing of the recapitulation.

Thus, although both inward and outward dialogues of 89v and 90e produce a doubly-

failed sonata process (i.e., a sonata that fails to attain and attempt to ESC), such a failure

takes on a special form in the inward dialogue: what has been aborted is not the

recapitulation but the sonata as a whole (see Example 3 below). Accordingly, the inward

dialogues of 89v and 90e are described as aborted Type 3 sonatas (i.e., Type 3 sonatas

without recapitulation) in Table 1.

Example 3. Inward and outward processes of sonata failure in 89v and 90e
 24

The Dialogical Play

As shown in Table 1, a feature of both 89v and 90e is that their formal

functionality is conditional upon the dialogic dimension: choosing between describing

these movements in terms of their inward or outward dialogic dimensions has both

formal and interpretative implications. It does not seem too far-fetched to suppose, then,

that if a given listener is sufficiently aware of both sonata-formal generic expectations

(the outward regulative principles) and the movement’s compositional history (the inward

regulative principle), his or her experience of 89v and 90e will subsume both dialogical

dimensions. If so, the resulting two-dimensional dialogue can be said to inhabit a

conceptual space between the two kinds of dialogue, a point of interaction that I,

borrowing from Kofi Agawu’s semiotic theory of Classical repertoire, characterize as a

region of dialogical play.62

As one would expect, this dialogical play is of special interest when, as in the case

of 89v and 90e, the overlapping interpretations are not the same and thus allow for a

compound, perhaps richer, interpretation. In 89v and 90e, the two intersecting

interpretations—namely, aborted sonata and aborted recapitulation—comprise a dramatic

trajectory characterized by the exacerbation of sonata-failure conditions. As Hepokoski

and Darcy note, “the demonstration of ‘sonata failure’ became an increasingly attractive

option in the hands of nineteenth-century composers who, for one reason or another,

wished to suggest the inadequacy of the Enlightenment-grounded solutions provided by

62
In Agawu’s semiotic theory of Classical music the “notion of play” is meant to characterize the
region of interaction between structural (harmonic) and expressive (topical) dimensions. Agawu (after
Roman Jakobson) refers to these dimensions as introversive and extroversive semiosis (see Kofi Agawu,
Playing with Signs [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991], 23–25 and 127–134). In my adaptation
of Agawu’s region of play, processes of introversive and extroversive semiosis are substituted by inward
and outward formal dialogues.
 25

generic sonata practice.”63 Along these lines, the failure-strategies that come together in

the dialogical play of 89v and 90e (i.e., aborted sonata and aborted recapitulation) invite a

larger interpretation in which failure, locally constructed as a lack of strength or self-

assurance, paradoxically seem to represent an act of self-determination.

63
Hepokoski and Darcy, Elements of Sonata Theory, 254.
 26

VIII. SOURCES

Agawu, Victor Kofi. Playing with Signs: A Semiotic Interpretation of Classical Music.
Princeton University Press, 1991.

Benjamin, William E. “Tonal Dualism in Bruckner’s Eight Symphony.” In The Second

Practice of Nineteenth-Century Tonality. Edited by William Kinderman and
Harald Krebs. 237–258. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1996.

Brooks, Jonathan. “Imagined Sounds: Their Role in the Strict and Free Compositional
Practice of Anton Bruckner.” PhD diss., University of North Texas, 2008.

Brüstle, Christa. “The Musical Image of Bruckner.” In The Cambridge Companion to

Bruckner, edited by John Williamson, 244–260. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2004.

Caplin, William. Classical Form: A Theory of Formal Functions for the Instrumental
Music of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. New York: Oxford University Press,
1998.

Carragan, William. “Bruckner Versions, Once More (Revised).” ABruckner.com.

http://www.abruckner.com/articles/articlesEnglish/carraganwilliamversions/
(accessed March 5, 2015).

______. “The 1874 Bruckner Third: Three Between Two.” ABruckner.com

http://www.abruckner.com/articles/articlesEnglish/carragan1874Third/ (accessed
April 20, 2015).

Chapman, David. Bruckner and the Generalbass Tradition. Wiener Bruckner-Studien 2.

Vienna: Musikwissenschaftlicher Verlag, 2010.

Cooke, Deryck. “The Bruckner Problem Simplified.” Musical Times 110 (1969): 20–22,
142–144, 362–365, 479–482, 828.

Darcy, Warren. “Bruckner’s Sonata Deformations.” In Bruckner Studies. Edited by

Timothy L. Jackson and Paul Hawkshaw, 256–277. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1997.

Floros, Constantin. Anton Bruckner: The Man and the Work. Translated by Ernest
Bernhardt-Kabisch. New York: Peter Lang, 2011.

______. “On Unity between Bruckner’s Personality and Production.” In Perspectives on

Anton Bruckner. Edited by Crawford Howie, Paul Hawkshaw, and Timothy
Jackson, 285–298. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001.
 27

Gault, Dermot. The New Bruckner: Compositional Development and the Dynamics of
Revision. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011.

Gilliam, Bryan. “Bruckner's Annexation Revisited: A Response to Manfred Wagner.”

Musical Quarterly 80 (1996): 124–131.

______. “The Annexation of Anton Bruckner: Nazi Revisionism and the Politics of
Appropriation.” Musical Quarterly 78 (1994): 584–604. [Reprinted in Bruckner
Studies. Edited by Timothy L. Jackson and Paul Hawkshaw, 72–90. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1997.]

Göllerich, August, and Max Auer. Anton Bruckner, ein Lebens- und Schaffensbild . 4
vols. Regensburg: Bosse, 1922–1937.

Grout, Donald J., and Claude Palisca. A History of Western Music. 6th ed. New York:
Norton, 2001.

Grunsky, Hans Alfred. „Neues zur Formenlehre.“ Zeitschrift für Musikwissenschaft 16

(1934): 35–42.

_____. „Der erste Satz von Bruckner’s Neunter. Ein Bild höchster Formvollendung.“ Die
Musik 18 (1925): 21–34 and 104–112.

Grunsky, Karl. Frage der Bruckner-Auffassung. Stuttgart: Heyder, 1936.

______. Anton Bruckner. Stuttgart: J. Engelhorns Nachf., 1922.

______. Anton Bruckners Symphonien. Berlin: Schlesinger, 1908.

Halm, August. Von zwei Kulturen der Musik. 3rd ed. Stuttgart: E. Klett, 1947.

______. Die Symphonie Anton Bruckners. 2nd ed. Munich: G. Müller, 1923.

Hatten, Robert. “The Expressive Role of Disjunction: A Semiotic Approach to Form and
Meaning in the Fourth and Fifth Symphonies.” In Perspectives on Anton
Bruckner. Edited by Crawford Howie, Paul Hawkshaw, and Timothy Jackson,
145–184. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001.

Harrandt, Andrea. “Musical Life in Upper Austria in the Mid-Nineteenth Century.” In

The Cambridge Companion to Bruckner, edited by John Williamson, 15–25.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

______. “Bruckner in Vienna.” In The Cambridge Companion to Bruckner, edited by

John Williamson, 26–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
 28

Harrandt, Andrea, ed. Anton Bruckner: Brief I. 2nd ed. Vol. 24/I of Anton Bruckner
Sämtliche Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Vienna: Musikwissenschaftlicher
Verlag, 2009.

Harrandt, Andrea, and Otto Schneider, eds. Anton Bruckner: Brief II. Vol. 24/II of Anton
Bruckner Sämtliche Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Vienna:
Musikwissenschaftlicher Verlag, 2003.

Hepokoski, James. “Beethoven Reception: The Symphonic Tradition.” In The Cambridge

History of Nineteenth-Century Music, edited by Jim Samson, 424–459.
Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Hepokoski, James, and Warren Darcy. Elements of Sonata Theory: Norms, Types, and
Deformations in the Late-Eighteenth-Century Sonata. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2006.

Horton, Julian. “Bruckner's Symphonies and Sonata Deformation Theory.” Journal of the
Society for Musicology in Ireland 1 (2005): 5–17.

______. Bruckner’s Symphonies: Analysis, Reception and Cultural Politics. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Howie, Crawford. Anton Bruckner: A Documentary Biography. 2 vols. Lewiston, N.Y.:

Edwin Mellen Press, 2002.

Hust, Christoph. “Heptatonik und Hexatonik in Bruckners Fünfter Symphonie.” In

Johannes Brahms und Anton Bruckner im Spiegel der Musiktheorie, edited by
Christoph Hust, 83–120. Goettingen: Hainholz, 2011.

Jackson, Timothy L. “The Adagio of the Sixth Symphony and the Anticipatory Tonic
Recapitulation in Bruckner, Brahms and Dvorák.” In Perspectives on Anton
Bruckner. Edited by Crawford Howie, Paul Hawkshaw, and Timothy Jackson,
206–227. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001.

Korstvedt, Benjamin. “Bruckner Editions: The Revolution Revisited.” In The Cambridge

Companion to Bruckner, edited by John Williamson, 121–137. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2004.

––––––. “Between Formlessness and Formality: Aspects of Bruckner’s Approach to

Symphonic Form.” In The Cambridge Companion to Bruckner. Edited by John
Williamson, 170–189. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

______. Anton Bruckner: Symphony No. 8. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

2000.

Kurth, Ernst. Bruckner. 2 vols. Berlin: Hesse, 1925.

 29

______. Romantische Harmonik und ihre Krise in Wagners „Tristan“. Berne: Haupt,
1920.

Laufer, Edward. “Continuity in the Fourth Symphony (First Movement).” In Perspectives

on Anton Bruckner. Edited by Crawford Howie, Paul Hawkshaw, and Timothy
Jackson, 114–144. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001.

______. “Some Aspects of Prolongation Procedures in the Ninth Symphony (Scherzo and
Adagio).” In Bruckner Studies. Edited by Timothy L. Jackson and Paul
Hawkshaw, 209–255. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Lindberg, Kay. “Aspects of Form and Voice-Leading Structure in the First Movements of
Anton Bruckner’s Symphonies Nos. 1, 2, and 3.” PhD diss., Sibelius Academy,
2014.

Lorenz, Alfred. Das geheimnis der form bei Richard Wagner. 4 Vols. 1924–1933.
Reprint, Tutzing: Verlegat Bei Hans Schneider, 1966.

Lynn, Kelly Laura. “August Halm's Von zwei Kulturen der Musik: A Translation and
Introductory Essay.” PhD diss., University of Texas at Austin, 2008.

McClatchie, Stephen. “Bruckner and the Bayreuthians; or Das Geheimnis der Form bei
Anton Bruckner.” In Bruckner Studies. Edited by Timothy L. Jackson and Paul
Hawkshaw, 110–121. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

______. “Alfred Lorenz as Theorist and Analyst.” PhD diss., The University of Western
Ontario, 1994.

Notley, Margaret. “Bruckner Problems, in Perpetuity.” 19th Century Music 30 (2006):

81–93.

______. “Formal Process as Spiritual Progress: The Symphonic Slow Movements.” In

The Cambridge Companion to Bruckner. Edited by John Williamson, 190–204.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Nowak, Adolf. “Die Wiederkehr in Bruckners Adagio.” In Anton Bruckner: Studien zu

Werk und Wirkung. Edited by Christoph-Hellmut Mahling, 159–170. Tutzing:
Hans Schneider, 1988.

Parkany, John. “Kurth’s Bruckner and the Adagio of the Seventh Symphony.” 19th
Century Music 11 (1988): 262–281.

Plantinga, Leon. Romantic Music. New York: Norton, 1984.

 30

Phipps, Graham. “Bruckner’s Free Application of Strict Sechterian Theory with

Stimulation from Wagnerian Sources: An Assessment of the First Movement of
the Seventh Symphony.” In Perspectives on Anton Bruckner. Edited by Crawford
Howie, Paul Hawkshaw, and Timothy Jackson, 228–258. Aldershot: Ashgate,
2001.

Pomeroy, Boyd. “Bruckner and the Art of Tonic Estrangement: The First Movement of
the Seventh Symphony.” In Johannes Brahms und Anton Bruckner im Spiegel der
Musiktheorie, edited by Christoph Hust, 147–175. Goettingen: Hainholz, 2011.

Puffett, Derrick. “Bruckner’s Way: The Adagio of the Ninth Symphony.” Music Analysis
18 (1999): 5–99.

Ramírez, Miguel. “Chromatic-Third Relations in the Music of Bruckner: A Neo

Remaniann Perspective.” Music Analysis 23, nr. 2 (2013): 155–209.

______. “Analytical Approaches to the Music of Anton Bruckner: Chromatic-Third

Relation in Selected Late Compositions.” PhD diss., The University of Chicago,
2009.

Röder, Thomas. “Master and Disciple United: The Finale of the Third Symphony.” In
Perspectives on Anton Bruckner. Edited by Crawford Howie, Paul Hawkshaw,
and Timothy Jackson, 93–113. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001.

______. III. Symphony d-Moll. Vol. 3 (Revisionsbericht) of Anton Bruckner Sämtliche

Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Vienna: Musikwissenschaftlicher Verlag, 1997.

Rothfarb, Lee. August Halm: A Critical and Creative Life in Music. Rochester:
University of Rochester Press, 2009.

______. “Energetics.” In The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory, edited by

Thomas Christensen, 927–955. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

______. Ernst Kurth as Theorist and Analyst. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania

Press, 1988.

Rothfarb, Lee, trans. Ernst Kurth: Selected Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1991.

Seidel, Elmar. “Simon Sechters Lehre von der richtigen Folge der Grundharmonien und
Bruckners Harmonik—Erwägungen zur Analyse Brucknerscher Musik.” In Anton
Bruckner: Tradition und Fortschritt in der Kirchenmusik des 19. Jarhunderts.
Edited by F. W. Riedel, 307–338. Sinzig: Studio, Verlag Schwewe, 2001.

Stocken, Frederick. Simon Sechter's Fundamental-Bass Theory and Its Influence on the
Music of Anton Bruckner. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 2009.
 31

Swinden, Kevin. “Bruckner and Harmony” In The Cambridge Companion to Bruckner.

Edited by John Williamson, 205–227. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2004.

______. “Harmonic Tropes and Plagal Dominant Structures in the Music of Anton
Bruckner: Theoretical Investigation with Two Case Studies.” PhD diss., State
University of New York at Buffalo, 1997.

VanDyke, Peter. “The Inauguratory Theme of the Adagio from Bruckner's Symphony no.
9 as Paradigmatic of a 'Second Practice' of Nineteenth-Century Tonality.” Master
thesis, The State University of New York at Buffalo, 2011.

Wagner, Manfred. “Response to Bryan Gilliam regarding Bruckner and National

Socialism.” Musical Quarterly 80 (1996): 118–123.

Walker, Arthur, and Crawford Howie. “Anton Bruckner’s Works: Published Scores of
the Various Versions.” The Bruckner Journal 9, no. 1 (2005):25–31.