Bruckner, Anton (EN)

Bruckner Joseph Anton, *4 September 1824 Ansfelden (near Linz), †4 September 1896, Vienna, Austrian composer. He came from a family of a country teacher, settled in Ansfelden from 1776. His father, Anton Bruckner (†1837), devoted much of his time to music, directing the choir and instrumental ensemble at the parish church in Ansfelden; his mother, Therese Heim (†1860), sang in the choir. Young Bruckner grew up in an atmosphere of interest in music. From his early childhood, he played the violin and organ, he was a chorister in his father’s band, and at the age of 10, he replaced him at the organ during services. In 1835–36 Bruckner stayed with his uncle J.B. Weiss, a teacher and organist in Hörsching near Linz, where, in addition to school, he took his first systematic music lessons: organ playing and general bass. Thanks to Weiss, he became acquainted with Haydn’s oratorios and Mozart’s masses. His first attempts at composition come from this time – organ preludes and the motet Pange lingua. In December 1836, due to his father’s illness, Bruckner returned to Ansfelden to help him, and later – despite his young age – to replace him in teaching and church duties. Occasionally, he also played the violin for dancing during weddings and folk entertainments. After his father’s death, Bruckner, who had a beautiful soprano voice, became a singer (Sangerknabe) at the Abbey of St. Florian. He attended school there and also learned general bass with M. Bogner, violin with M. Gruber and organ with A. Kattinger; in the monastery church, he gained access to a wonderful instrument (the largest in Austria next to the organ in St. Stephen’s Church in Vienna), built in 1770–77 by F.K. Krismann, and reworked in 1837 by J.G. Fischer. After graduating from school in 1839, he continued to study organ playing and at the same time prepared to become a teacher. In October 1840, Bruckner went to Linz to complete a year’s studies at a teachers’ seminary. He also studied music there, especially harmony, under the supervision of A. Dürrnberger. His stay in Linz allowed him to become familiar with, apart from religious music, the orchestral works of Beethoven and Weber. Bruckner’s polyphonic interests are evidenced by his own copy of Kunst der Fuge by J.S. Bach.

After completing his teacher training in 1841, Bruckner took up teaching work as a teacher’s assistant, first in Windhaag near Freistadt on the Czech border (1841–43), then in Kronstorf near Steyr (1843–45). However, he continued his musical studies under L. von Zenetti, regens chori in Enns; he continued to learn general bass, organ and piano, studying the D.G. Türk’s textbook, organ chorales and Wohltemperiertes Klavier by J.S. Bach. He also earned money by playing for dances. Contact with folk music became a source of folk elements in his mature work in the future. In Steyr, he encountered Schubert’s music, which made a great impression on him. At that time, Bruckner began working on large forms: in Windhaag he wrote the Mass in C major (1842), and in Kronstorf – the Choral Mass in F major for Maundy Thursday (1844). Of the smaller religious works, the most valuable is the motet Tantum ergo in D major (1843). During his stay in Kronstorf, the composer reached for secular genres for the first time: he wrote the first piece for the men’s choir An dem Feste (1843) and the cantata Vergissmeinnicht (1845).

In May 1845, Bruckner passed his second teaching examination and in the autumn of that year he took up a position as a junior teacher at St. Florian; he spent the next 10 years of his life there. He further educated himself, studying Abhandlung von der Fuge by F.W. Marpurga, works by Renaissance and Baroque masters (including J.S. Bach’s organ preludes and fugues) and Viennese classics. He also became acquainted with the organ works of Mendelssohn, whose oratorio Paulus performed in Linz made a strong impression on him. For many years he could not decide to give up the teaching profession and even considered the position of monastery organist, obtained after Kattinger’s permanent departure (1851), as a side job. He continued to improve his teaching qualifications and attended teaching courses; in January 1855, he passed an examination entitling him to teach in secondary schools. Shyness and lack of self-confidence also accompanied his composing activities during his stay in St. Florian. He usually composed all his works for specific occasions, and their artistic shape was determined by the purpose of the composition and the usually limited performance possibilities. Despite this, he created two larger works, heralding a mature period of his work: Requiem (1849) and Missa solemnis (1854), as well as the Magnificat (1852) and a number of smaller religious works to Latin texts. Religious compositions to German texts were also created, including Psalm 22 (1852). Secular work is represented by 4 cantatas: Entsagen (1851), Arneth-Kantate (1852), Jodok-Kantate (1855) and the most outstanding of them, Mayr-Kantate (1855), as well as a larger number of men’s quartets written for a group of friends (Bruckner sang first bass). Piano pieces (mainly dances) and organ pieces are – with the exception of Vorspiel und Fuge in C minor (1847) – of marginal importance.

The success of Missa solemnis and the decision of the professor at the Vienna Conservatory, S. Sechter, who, having read the work, agreed to take Bruckner as a student, finally prompted him to devote himself to the profession of a musician. At the strong persuasion of well-wishers, Bruckner took part in the competition for the position of cathedral organist in Linz (November 1855), was successful and settled in the capital of Upper Austria for over 12 years (1855–68). Every year (until 1861) he spent several weeks in Vienna, continuing his composition studies with Sechter; in 1858 he passed an exam in general bass, harmony and organ playing, in 1859 – in single counterpoint, and finally in 1861 (at the age of 37!) – the final exam at the conservatory in Vienna. He completed his studies with Sechter in Linz under O. Kitzler, focusing mainly on learning musical forms and romantic instrumentation, as well as studying Kompositionslehre by A.B. Marx and scores by Beethoven, Meyerbeer and Mendelssohn. Bruckner’s interest in the music of Liszt, Berlioz and Wagner dates from this period. Wagner’s early operas, especially Tannhäuser, had a strong influence on him; from 1865, when he heard the premiere of Tristan in Munich, that interest turned into a cult of sorts. Under the influence of Wagner, Bruckner’s first mature works were composed in the years 1864–68: 3 Masses and Symphony No. 1. As an organist and a phenomenal improviser, Bruckner was highly respected in Linz. His abundant vocal output from this period was related to his activities in the Frohsinn singing association, which, however, he treated as marginal; in 1860–61 and 1868, he served as bandmaster there and performed in this role several times abroad. On the occasion of these trips, as also in Linz, he met several outstanding representatives of the musical world who played an important role in his life: Wagner, H. von Bülow, E. Hanslick and the Viennese conductor J. Herbeck.

Failures in his personal and professional life (e.g. unsuccessful attempts to become a court organist in Vienna in 1862, concerts and performances of his works that failed to take place) led the composer, who was naturally mentally unstable, to breakdowns and depressions that hampered his work. Nevertheless, it was during his stay in Linz that the final crystallisation of his individual style took place. This period is divided into two clearly distinguishable phases. The first dates back to the years of study with Sechter and Kitzler (1855–63). The following were written: Psalm 146 (1860), Festkantate (1862), written on the occasion of laying the foundation stone for the new cathedral in Linz, and the 7-voice Ave Maria (1861), Bruckner’s most profound work of these years. In addition, in connection with his studies with Kitzler, he created sketches of piano sonatas, a string quartet and small orchestral compositions; the last two school works, i.e. Overture in G minor (1863) and Symphony in F minor (1863), are interesting as first attempts at great symphonic forms. The second phase (1863–68) was filled with free compositional work, unrestrained by the rigours imposed by teachers; next to Psalm 112 (1863) and the Germanenzug men’s choir (1863), three great masses were composed: No. 1 in D minor (1864), No. 2 in E minor (1866) and No. 3 in F minor (1868), as well as Symphony in D minor “No. 0” (1864, reworked in 1869) and Symphony No. 1 in C minor (1866). These first works representing Bruckner’s mature style met with mixed reception. The Mass in D minor was a great success in Linz in 1864, while the Symphony No. 1 was not recognised here (1868).

Bruckner’s fame as an excellent organist and improviser earned him the position of professor of general bass, counterpoint and organ at the conservatory in Vienna (after Sechter, who died in 1867), where he moved in 1868. He was also an organist in the court band here. From 1875 he was a lecturer at the university. Bruckner’s most important compositions were created during the Viennese period: the remaining symphonies, the String Quintet and the Te Deum. He left Vienna quite often for performances of his works and for visits to Wagner in Bayreuth. He went several times as an organist to perform in France (1869), England (1871) and Switzerland (1880); his performances in London in particular brought him stunning success. As a composer, it was much more difficult for him to achieve success. This was related to the unfortunate position he took, almost against his will, in the musical environment of Vienna. Deeply religious, until the end of his life, he felt best in the clerical environment and reluctantly, only under the influence of Wagner’s cult, he joined the dispute between the “conservative” and “progressive” parties. From the moment he dedicated his Symphony No. 3 to Wagner in 1873 and joined the Wagner-Verein in Vienna, he was considered a representative of the “Young German” group and was on the index of critics (with Hanslick at the head) and the conservative audience of Vienna. In the 1970s, performances of Bruckner’s works (masses, first three symphonies) were rare; there were artistic disasters (e.g. during the performance of Symphony No. 3 in Vienna in 1877). It was only in the 1980s that his music began to gain recognition, mainly thanks to several enthusiastic conductors, such as F. and J. Schalek, F. Löwe, A. Nikisch, G. Mahler. In 1881, a new version of Symphony No. 4 triumphed in Vienna, and in 1881–85 the Quintet, performed several times next to the String Quintet, gained popularity and the Te Deum consolidated the composer’s position, which after 1885, when aesthetic disputes began to subside, was already unshakable. In 1891, Bruckner was promoted to an honorary doctorate by the University of Vienna. The last years of his life were spent working on Symphony No. 9, which he did not manage to finish; the broadly sketched finale remained in sketches.

The Viennese period of Bruckner’s work was almost entirely filled with symphonic music. Most of the symphonies written in Vienna have been preserved in two or more versions: Symphony No. 2 in C minor has 3 versions (1872, 1876, 1877 – dedicated to Liszt), Symphony No. 3 in D minor – 3 versions (1873, 1877, 1889), Symphony No. 4 in E-flat major – 3 versions (1874, 1878, 1880), Symphony No. 5 in B-flat major – 2 versions (both 1878), Symphony No. 8 in C minor – 2 versions (1887, 1890 – dedicated to Emperor Franz Joseph I). Bruckner also adapted Symphony No. 1 written in Linz in Vienna (1891, the so-called Viennese version, dedicated to the University of Vienna on the occasion of the awarding of an honorary doctorate). Only Symphony No. 6 in A major (1881), Symphony No. 7 in E major (1883, dedicated to King Ludwig II of Bavaria) and Symphony No. 9 in D minor (unfinished) have survived in one version (if we ignore all the less thorough alterations and retouching not included in this list). Often, until the last phase of work on the work, Bruckner was not convinced of the validity of his creative reasons and accepted the slightest comments from his friends as a pretext for countless changes and “improvements.” The same applied to symphonies already completed and performed. This attitude led “benevolent” conductors and publishers to impose far-reaching retouches on the composer, as well as to introduce – allegedly in his interest – arbitrary changes (even in editions published during his lifetime). All this greatly complicated the problem of the original versions of Bruckner’s symphonies, which has not been fully explained to this day despite the painstaking research of R. Haas and A. Orel and, more recently, L. Nowak. Bruckner’s Viennese years brought – apart from the symphony and the String Quintet in F major (1879) – a number of vocal and instrumental compositions that remained in the shadow of his symphonic works. Of the 11 religious works from this period, two extensive works come to the fore: Te Deum (1884) and Psalm 150 (1892). Among the 10 men’s choirs created in Vienna (or during trips to St. Florian), the most outstanding is Heligoland for men’s choir and orchestra (1893).

Bruckner’s historical role comes down mainly to his achievements in the field of symphony. In the past, it was believed that in his symphonies he referred to classical patterns, using Wagner’s harmonic and instrumental achievements. Also in this area, Bruckner’s style would constitute a kind of synthesis of classical traditions with Wagner’s symphonic style. This view was expressed by F. Blume in MGG, pointing to two works that, like milestones, marked Bruckner’s path: Beethoven’s 9^th Symphony and Wagner’s Tristan and Isolde. This view is too simplified to constitute the basis for the description and evaluation of Bruckner’s symphony, although in fact both composers mentioned had a significant influence on Bruckner. But not only them. In 1938, F. Oeser drew attention to a number of details in the treatment of form, which reveal Bruckner’s close relationship with the model of the symphony created by Schubert, the only early Romantic who managed to overcome the compelling influence of Beethoven’s symphony. This model involves the introduction of thematic and sound planes, homogeneous in theme and colour, instead of the classical sonata form factors. Bruckner referred directly and faithfully, although creatively, to Schubert’s proposals. His exposition of the sonata form took the form of three contrasted thematic groups: themes no. 1, 2 and 3. Group 1 of the theme corresponds to the first theme and the first link of the classical sonata form, group 2 of the theme corresponds to the second theme and the second link, and group 3 of the theme corresponds to the epilogue; additionally, there is usually a short final formula. Thematic groups are clearly separated from each other. Each of them is based on limited motif material and develops on the principle of processing and expanding a small cell into larger structures. The homogeneity of the groups, even more pronounced than in Schubert’s, is achieved by the simplest or most sophisticated means (e.g. basing the entire first thematic group on tremolo strings in Symphony No. 2, ostinato counterpoints or counterpoint ensembles in most symphonies). In this respect, Bruckner was more consistent than Schubert and emphasised the colour factor more strongly. Oeser saw the reason for this state of affairs in the exuberant sense of musical space, perspective “depth of sound,” expressed in unusual dynamic contrasts or sound oppositions. The origin of these effects is easily visible in the organ registration.

While the connections between Bruckner’s symphonies and Schubert’s music concern the model and concept of the symphonic form itself, they share more external features with Beethoven; one can point to the great size and monumentalism of Bruckner’s symphony, which has its source in Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, to the analogous crossing of forms (e.g. the combination of a double fugue with the sonata form in the finale of Symphony No. 5), to similar ways of integrating the cycle (e.g. quotations of the main themes of the current course in finale of the Symphony No. 5, modelled on Beethoven’s Symphony No. 9), although Bruckner went much further in this respect, finally using direct motivic analogies. The connections with Wagner’s music come down to harmony and instrumentation; the transfer of Wagner’s achievements in the field of musical drama to symphonic music aroused sharp objections from conservative critics (E. Hanslick wrote about the ghastly “Katzenjammerstil” in his review of the Symphony No. 8). In fact, Bruckner’s symphonies (this also applies to the String Quintet) are quite independent in this respect, so there can be no question of slavish imitation, as many authors would suggest. What made it different from Wagner’s designs was, among other things, different creative paths, and different interests, as well as Bruckner’s influences from Austrian folk music, religious music of the Catholic Church, and organ textures.

Assessing Bruckner’s historical role is a very difficult task, perhaps even impossible at the current stage of research. This is a completely separate work, incompatible with any notions of Romanticism or its era in general, as anachronistic as it is groundbreaking and fertile. The vast literature on the subject reveals the helplessness of researchers for whom the mysterious peculiarity of this artistic phenomenon arouses the greatest interest, but also embarrassment. Bruckner had as little in common with Wagner as with Brahms, and counting him among the protagonists of the New German school was as much a misunderstanding as placing him under the banner of “pure form.” It is no coincidence that A. Einstein’s assessment of Bruckner’s music comes down to a very general formula of “timeless art” (Music in the Romantic era). As an author of religious music, Bruckner played a special historical role, because, in the second half of the 19^th century, he was the only composer of this rank in the German-speaking area who devoted so much attention to the music of the Catholic Church and who was able to refresh and creatively transform the great traditions of previous centuries (from Gregorian chant, through pre-classical and classical traditions, to more recent Schubert patterns). As a symphonist, Bruckner followed the line drawn by Schubert. Previous historiography has traditionally highlighted the Beethoven-Wagner trend in the 19^th century, ignoring or putting into the shadow the Schubert-Bruckner line. This incorrect position requires verification, especially in the light of the further development of musical art (to this day), in the light of which the Schubert-Bruckner concept of thematic and sound planes turns out to be particularly durable and fruitful.

Bruckner’s talent developed very slowly and reluctantly. This was due to several factors: 1. late decision to choose the profession of a musician (1855), and before that, concentration on teacher studies, exams, and work at school; 2. excessively long composition studies (until 1863), which as a result began to bring rather negative results (Sechter); 3. rural environment, which for years cut Bruckner off from great music or made contact with it difficult (until 1855); 4. long-term focus on functional music, intended for specific occasions, with specific conditions in mind (usually very modest) of a given environment, e.g. church (from childhood to the first years in Linz), singing movement (mainly in Linz), rural community (dance music); 5. a slow and reluctant creative process (although Bruckner worked very intensively), reflected in multiple remakes and creation of new versions. Most of the above-mentioned factors resulted from Bruckner’s specific mental structure, his excessive sensitivity, instability, shyness, and lack of faith in his own talent. These character traits gave rise to obstacles that made it difficult to make any decisions – life, professional and artistic. Therefore, it was only around the age of 40 that Bruckner dared to break free from the shackles of church-applied art, occasional compositions and the singing movement, and to go beyond the boundaries of fashion, custom and accepted norms in his works.

In his compositional work, Bruckner focused almost exclusively on: 1. vocal or vocal-instrumental religious music, 2. secular choral music, and 3. the symphonic form. However, while he began his symphonic work only in the 1960s, he practised forms of religious music from his early teenage years and formed his individual style based on them. In his early compositions, Bruckner referred to the tradition of Austrian church music (J. and M. Haydn, W.A. Mozart, F. Schubert) and the works of Renaissance and Baroque composers (e.g. Palestrina and composers of the Venetian school). The first larger works (masses from 1842 and 1844) clearly show their intended use for rural churches (in Windhaag and Kronstorf), hence their simplicity adapted to the modest performance possibilities. From his early years, Bruckner showed a tendency for bold harmonic combinations (organ preludes), complex modulations and sharp dissonances (Tantum ergo in D major); however, in this phase of creativity, these means lacked personal expression. From 1845 (Asperges me in A minor), contrapuntal means began to play an important role. Bruckner’s first major work with an orchestra, Requiem from 1849, revised in 1894 by the composer himself, refers to Mozart’s Requiem and the Neapolitan tradition, but goes far ahead in terms of harmony and in many details suggests comparisons with Wagner’s music, although Bruckner has not yet compared it touched. Also, Missa solemnis (1854), although it turns to classical models, announces in its size, treatment of form and orchestra three great masses written in Linz; Bruckner used a full Beethoven orchestra here for the first time. In the final years of the first period of his work, the dominant role was played by the influence of Mozart’s music (Libera in F minor 1854), in the texture, and especially in the harmonics, the influence of Schubert (Magnificat, Psalm 22). Mendelssohn’s influence was more visible in secular music and in religious works similar in form to a cantata (Psalm 146). Bruckner did not break with the Palestrian tradition (Ave Maria) and the Venetian tradition (Psalm 112).

Bruckner’s mature style, characterising works created in the second period of his career (from 1864, i.e. in the last years of his stay in Linz and in the Vienna years), is an innovative synthesis of the polyphonic tradition with the means of Wagnerian harmony and instrumentation (Te Deum 1884), which is expressed not only in the treatment of the orchestral ensemble but also in the use of the voice as one of the orchestral instruments. A stylistic breakthrough was marked by three masses written in Linz (D minor 1864, E minor 1866, F minor 1868). Already in the Mass in D minor, a highly original theme and masterful sound combinations appeared, and the Mass cycle became coherent. In harmony, some solutions find analogies in Tristan and even in Wagner’s Parsifal; this fact prompted M. Auer to put forward the thesis that Bruckner’s attitude towards Wagner was not so much about looking for patterns, but about “kinship of the soul.” The most valuable is the Mass in F minor (called Grosse Messe), which stands on the line marked by the Mass in B minor by J.S. Bach and Missa solemnis by L. van Beethoven; the text of the Mass is the basis for the most personal statement, and the symphonic means used far exceed the framework of the liturgy. Bruckner’s deep faith and understanding of creativity as “God’s service,” expressed, for example, in sincere sympathy for the Cecilian movement, took on a form in the Mass in F minor mass that deviates most from the common notions of the composer’s “simple, childlike piety.” In the Viennese years, he focused almost exclusively on the symphonic form, so only two major works of religious music were created: Te Deum and Psalm 150; they crown Bruckner’s activity in this field.

In the field of secular choral music, Bruckner does not have such significant achievements. Pieces for a men’s quartet in St. Florian, for the Frohsinn singing association and other choirs in Linz are in the bland, though fashionable at the time, Liedertafel style and rarely equal Bruckner’s religious music. In the initial phase, he referred mainly to Mendelssohn’s patterns (Sternschnuppen), and to a lesser extent to Schubert’s (Die Geburt). More attractive are the cantatas (1845–62), extensive compositions composed of choral numbers, recitatives, arias, and ensemble passages, often striving for the motivic unity of the cycle. The turning point between the first and second periods of his work is marked by Germanenzug (1863), Bruckner’s first work published in print, richer than his predecessors, including thanks to the introduction of contrapuntal means and the solo treatment of instruments. In the men’s choirs from the second period of his work, although they are more mature, Bruckner did not manage to exceed the limits imposed by the singing movement; only the “symphonic choir” Heligoland (1893) – according to M. Auer “one of the most difficult, but also the most outstanding works in all literature for men’s choir” – refers more clearly to the composer’s symphonic works. Despite the exceptions indicated, Bruckner’s importance in this field is secondary.

Literature:

Documentation — R. Grasberger Werkverzeichnis Anton Bruckners, Tutzing 1977; R. Grasberger Bruckner-Bibliographie (bis 1974), «Anton Bruckner Dokumente und Studien» IV, Graz 1985; W. Kirsch Die Bruckner-Forschung seit 1945. Eine kommentierte Bibliographie, 4 parts, AMI LIII–LVI, 1981–84; R. Grasberger Bruckner-Ikonographie, 1^st part: 1854–1924, «A. Bruckner Dokumente und Studien» VII, Graz 1990; L.T. Lovallo Anton Bruckner. A Discography, Berkeley 1991; W. Beck Anton Bruckner. Ein Lebensbild mit neuen Dokumenten, Dornach 1995; Anton Bruckner. Briefe, published by A. Harrandt and O. Schneider, vol. 1, Vienna 1998.

Special publications — Anton Bruckner zum 150. Geburtstag. Eine Ausstellung im Prunksaal der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek, ed. F. Grasberger, Vienna 1974; Bruckner-Studien, ed. O. Wessely, Vienna 1975; Anton Bruckner in Lehre und Forschung. Symposium zu Bruckners 150. Geburtstag, Regensburg 1976; Anton Bruckner, «Musik-Konzepte» XXIII/XXIV, ed. H.-K. Metzger and R. Riehn, Munich 1982; Anton Bruckner. Studien zu Werk und Wirkung, festschrift of W. Wiora, ed. Ch.-H. Mahling, «Mainzer Studien zur Musikwissenschaft» XX, Tutzing 1988; serial publications are of particular importance for research on Bruckner’s life and work: «Anton Bruckner Dokumente und Studien des Anton Bruckner – Instituts Linz», ed. F. Grasberger, Graz 1979–; Bruckner-Jahrbuch, ed. F. Grasberger, from 1982/83 O. Wessely, Linz 1980—; reports from Bruckner symposia are also semi-serial in nature: Bruckner-Symposium, Linz 1978; Bruckner-Symposium “Die Fassungen” (Linz 1980), ed. F. Grasberger, Linz 1981; Bruckner-Symposium. Die österreichische Symphonie nach Anton Bruckner (Linz 1981), Bruckner-Interpretation (Linz 1982), 2 vol., ed. O. Wessely, Linz 1983; Bruckner-Symposion. Johannes Brahms und Anton Bruckner (Linz 1983), ed. O. Wessely, Linz 1985; Bruckner-Vorträge. Österreichisch-ungarisches Bruckner-Symposion (Budapest 1983/84), ed. O. Wessely, Linz 1985; Bruckner-Symposion. Wagner und die Neudeutschen in Österreich (Linz 1984), ed. O. Wessely, Linz 1986; Bruckner-Vorträge. Anton Bruckner e la musica sacra (Rome 1986), ed. O. Wessely, Linz 1987; Bruckner-Symposion. Anton Bruckner und die Kirchenmusik (Linz 1985), ed. O. Wessely, Linz 1988; Bruckner-Symposion. Musikstadt Linz – Musikland Oberösterreich, ed. R. Grasberger, Linz 1993; Bruckner-Symposion. Bruckner-Rezeption, ed. R. Grasberger, Linz 1994; Bruckner-Symposion. Anton Bruckner Persönlichkeit und Werk (Linz 1992), ed. E. Maier, Vienna 1995; Bruckner-Symposion. Entwicklungen, Parallelen, Kontraste – Zur Frage einer “österreichischen Symphonik,” ed. R. Grasberger, A. Harrandt, U. Harten, E. Maier, E.W. Partsch, Vienna 1996; Vom Ruf zum Nachruf. Künstlerschicksale in Österreich – Anton Bruckner. Landesausstellung, Oberösterreich 1996, ed. H. Litschel, Linz 1996; Anton Bruckner. Ein Handbuch, ed. U. Harten, Salzburg 1996; H. Schaefer Anton Bruckner. Ein Führer durch Leben und Werk, Berlin 1996; F. Scheder Anton Bruckner. Chronologie, 2 vol., Tutzing 1996; Bruckner Studies, ed. T.L. Jackson and P. Hawkshaw, New York 1997; Bruckner-Symposion. Bruckner-Freunde, Bruckner-Kenner auf, ed. R. Grasberger, A. Harrandt, U. Harten, E. Maier, E.W. Partsch, Vienna 1997.

Monographs, biographical contributions — S. Martinotti Anton Bruckner, Parma 1973; O. Loerke Anton Bruckner. Ein Charakterbild, Frankfurt am Main 1976; E. Storni Bruckner, Madrid 1978; T. Antonicek Anton Bruckner und die Wiener Hofmusikkapelle, Graz 1979; Anton Bruckner in Wien. Eine kritische Studie zu seiner Persönlichkeit, ed. F. Grasberger, «Anton Bruckner. Dokumente und Studien» III, Graz 1980; E. Maier, F. Zamazal Anton Bruckner und Leopold von Zenetti, Graz 1980; M. Wagner Bruckner, Munich 1983; K. Grebe Anton Bruckner, translation from German, Fiesole 1983; M. Hansen Anton Bruckner, Leipzig 1987; T. Leibnitz Die Brüder Schalk und Anton Bruckner, «Publikationen des Instituts für Österreichische Musikdokumentation» XIV, Tutzing 1988; S. Lieberwirth Anton Bruckner und Leipzig. Die Jahre 1884–1902, «Anton Bruckner. Dokumente und Studien» VI, Graz 1988; S. Lieberwirth Bruckner und Leipzig. Vom Werden und Wachsen einer Tradition, Leipzig 1990; R. Grasberger, E.W. Partsch Bruckner skizziert. Ein Porträt in ausgewählten Erinnerungen und Anekdoten, Vienna 1991; K. Traxler, H. Roiss Anton Bruckner und Windhaag bei Freistadt, Windhaag 1992; H. Kreczi Bruckner-Orchester Linz und Brucknerhaus, Vienna 1992; E. Maier Persönlichkeit. Zugänge zu einer „inneren Biographie” Anton Bruckners, Vienna 1994; H. Slapnicka, R. Zinnhobler, O. Wessely Staat, Kirche, Schule in Oberösterreich. Zu Anton Bruckners sozialhistorischem Umfeld, Vienna 1994; D. Watson Bruckner, Oxford 1996.

Analytical dissertations — K. Wöss Ratschläge zur Aufführung der Symphonien Anton Bruckners, Linz 1974; P. Gülke Der schwierige Jubilar. Zu Anton Bruckners 150. Geburtstag, „Musik und Gesellschaft” XXIV, 1974; K.G. Feilerer Bruckners Kirchenmusik und der Caecilianismus, “Österreichische Musik-Zeitschrift” 1974; T. Wünschmann Anton Bruckners Weg als Symphoniker, Steinfeld 1976; Anton Bruckner. Apogée de la Symphonie, ed. P-G. Langevin, Lausanne 1977; P. Barford Bruckner Symphonies, Londyn 1978; C.C. Röthig Studien zur Systematik des Schaffens von Anton Bruckner auf der Grundlage zeitgenössischer Berichte und autographer Entwürfe, Göttingen 1978; G. Beninato Intorno all’opera di Anton Bruckner e disegno di una teoria di estetica musicale, Venice 1978; B. Pociej Szkice z późnego romantyzmu, Kraków 1978; C. Floros Brahms und Bruckner. Studien zur musikalischen Exegetik, Wiesbaden 1980; M. Wagner Der Wandel des Konzepts. Zu den verschiedenen Fassungen von Bruckners Dritter, Vierter und Achter Sinfonie, Vienna 1980; A.C. Howie Traditional and Novel Elements in Bruckner’s Sacred Music, „The Musical Quarterly” LXVII, 1981; H. Federhofer H. Schenkers Bruckner-Verständnis, “Archiv für Musikwissenschaft” XXXIX, 1982; W. Notter Schematismus und Evolution in der Sinfonik Anton Bruckners, «Freiburger Schriften zur Musikwissenschaft» XIV, Munich 1983; L. Nowak Über Anton Bruckner. Gesammelte Aufsätze 1936–1984, Vienna 1985; T. Röder Motto und symphonischer Zyklus. Zu den Fassungen von Anton Bruckners Vierter Symphonie, “Archiv für Musikwissenschaft” XLII, 1985; P. Barford Bruckner Symphonies, London 1986; H.-H. Schönzeler Zu Bruckners IX. Symphonie. Die Krakauer Skizzen, Vienna 1987; T. Röder Auf dem Weg zur Bruckner-Symphonie. Untersuchungen zu den ersten beiden Fassungen von Anton Bruckners Dritter Symphonie, Beih. zum “Archiv für Musikwissenschaft” XXXVI, Wiesbaden 1987; P. Gülke Brahms – Bruckner. Zwei Studien, Kassel 1989; Bruckner als Modell. Bilder im Wandel, ed. R. Grasberger, E. Maier, Linz 1990; W. Steinbeck Anton Bruckner. Neunte Symphonie d-moll, «Meisterwerke der Musik», Munich 1993; W.E. Benjamin Tonal Dualism in Bruckners Eight Symphony. The Second Practice of Nineteenth-Century Tonality, Lincoln 1996; L. Lütteken Die Apotheose des Chorals. Zum Kontext eines Kompositionsgeschichtlichen Problems bei Brahms und Bruckner, Stuttgart 1997.