text:
Josef Anton Bruckner (German: [ˈantoːn ˈbʁʊknɐ] ⓘ; 4 September 1824 – 11 October 1896) was an Austrian composer and organist best known for his symphonies and sacred music, which includes Masses, Te Deum and motets. The symphonies are considered emblematic of the final stage of Austro-German Romanticism because of their rich harmonic language, strongly polyphonic character, and considerable length.[1] Bruckner's compositions helped to define contemporary musical radicalism, owing to their dissonances, unprepared modulations, and roving harmonies.
Unlike other musical radicals such as Richard Wagner and Hugo Wolf, Bruckner showed extreme humility before other musicians, Wagner in particular. This apparent dichotomy between Bruckner the man and Bruckner the composer hampers efforts to describe his life in a way that gives a straightforward context for his music. Hans von Bülow described him as "half genius, half simpleton".[2] Bruckner was critical of his own work and often reworked his compositions. There are several versions of many of his works.
His works, the symphonies in particular, had detractors, most notably the influential Austrian critic Eduard Hanslick and other supporters of Johannes Brahms, who pointed to their large size and use of repetition,[3] as well as to Bruckner's propensity for revising many of his works, often with the assistance of colleagues, and his apparent indecision about which versions he preferred. On the other hand, Bruckner was greatly admired by subsequent composers, including his friend Gustav Mahler.
Life and career Edit
Early life Edit
Anton Bruckner was born in Ansfelden (then a village, now a suburb of Linz) on 4 September 1824. The ancestors of Bruckner's family were farmers and craftsmen; their history can be traced as far back as the 16th century. They lived near a bridge south of Sindelburg, which led to their being called "Bruckhner an der Bruckhen" (bridgers on the bridge). Bruckner's grandfather was appointed schoolmaster in Ansfelden in 1776; this position was inherited by Bruckner's father, Anton Bruckner Sr., in 1823.[4] It was a poorly paid but well-respected position in the rural environment.[5][6] Bruckner Sr. married Therese Helm, and they had eleven children, Anton Bruckner being the eldest.[7]
Music was a part of the school curriculum, and Bruckner's father was his first music teacher.[5] Bruckner learned to play the organ early as a child. He was very dedicated to the instrument just as he was later in life in composing, often practising for 12 hours a day.[8] He entered school when he was six, proved to be a hard-working student, and was promoted to upper class early. While studying, Bruckner also helped his father in teaching the other children. After Bruckner received his confirmation in 1833, Bruckner's father sent him to another school in Hörsching. The schoolmaster, Johann Baptist Weiß, was a music enthusiast and respected organist. Here, Bruckner completed his school education and refined his skills as an organist. Around 1835 Bruckner wrote his first composition, a Pange lingua – one of the compositions which he revised at the end of his life.[9] When his father became ill, Anton returned to Ansfelden to help him in his work.
Teacher's education Edit
Bruckner's father died in 1837, when Bruckner was 13 years old. The teacher's position and house were given to a successor, and Bruckner was sent to the Augustinian monastery in Sankt Florian to become a choirboy.[5][10] In addition to choir practice, his education included violin and organ lessons. Bruckner was in awe of the monastery's great organ, which was built during the late baroque era and rebuilt in 1837, and he sometimes played it during church services. Later, the organ was to be called the "Bruckner Organ". Despite his musical abilities, Bruckner's mother sent her son to a teaching seminar in Linz in 1841.
After completing the seminar with an excellent grade, Bruckner was sent as a teacher's assistant to a school in Windhaag. The living standards and pay were appalling and Bruckner was constantly humiliated by his superior, teacher Franz Fuchs. Despite the difficult situation, Bruckner never complained or rebelled; a belief in his own inferiority was to remain one of Bruckner's main personal traits during his whole life. He stayed at Windhaag from age 17 to 19, teaching subjects that had nothing to do with music.
Prelate Michael Arneth noticed Bruckner's bad situation in Windhaag and awarded him a teacher's assistant position in the vicinity of the monastic town of Sankt Florian, sending him to Kronstorf an der Enns for two years. Here he would be able to have more of a part in musical activity. The time in Kronstorf was a much happier one for Bruckner. Between 1843 and 1845, Bruckner was the pupil of Leopold von Zenetti in Enns.[11] Compared to the few works he wrote in Windhaag, the Kronstorf compositions from 1843 to 1845 show a significantly improved artistic ability, and finally the beginnings of what could be called "the Bruckner style".[12] Among the Kronstorf works is the vocal piece Asperges me (WAB 4), which the young teacher's assistant, out of line given his position, signed with "Anton Bruckner m.p.ria. Comp[onist]". This has been interpreted as a lone early sign of Bruckner's artistic ambitions. Otherwise, little is known of Bruckner's life plans and intentions.[13]
Organist in Sankt Florian Edit
After the Kronstorf period, Bruckner returned to Sankt Florian in 1845 where, for the next 10 years, he would work as a teacher and an organist.[4] In May 1845, Bruckner passed an examination, which allowed him to begin work as an assistant teacher in one of the village schools of Sankt Florian. He continued to improve his education by taking further courses, passing an examination giving him permission to also teach in higher education institutes, receiving the grade "very good" in all disciplines.[14] In 1848 Bruckner was appointed an organist in Sankt Florian and in 1851 this was made a regular position.[5] In Sankt Florian, most of the repertoire consisted of the music of Michael Haydn, Johann Georg Albrechtsberger and Franz Joseph Aumann.[15] During his stay in Sankt Florian, Bruckner continued to work with Zenetti.[16]
Study period Edit
In 1855, Bruckner, aspiring to become a student of the famous Vienna music theorist Simon Sechter, showed the master his Missa solemnis (WAB 29), written a year earlier, and was accepted. The education, which included skills in music theory and counterpoint among others, took place mostly via correspondence, but also included long in-person sessions in Vienna. Sechter's teaching would have a profound influence on Bruckner. Later, when Bruckner began teaching music himself, he would base his curriculum on Sechter's book Die Grundsätze der musikalischen Komposition (Leipzig 1853/54).[17]
Largely self-taught as a composer, Bruckner only started composing seriously at age 37 in 1861. Bruckner studied further with Otto Kitzler, who was nine years younger than him and who introduced him to the music of Richard Wagner, which Bruckner studied extensively from 1863 onwards. Bruckner considered the earliest orchestral works (the "study" Symphony in F minor, the three orchestral pieces, the March in D minor and the Overture in G minor, which he composed in 1862–1863), mere school exercises, done under the supervision of Otto Kitzler. He continued his studies to the age of 40. Broad fame and acceptance did not come until he was over 60 (after the premiere of his Seventh Symphony in 1884). In 1861 he had already made the acquaintance of Franz Liszt who, like Bruckner, had a strong, Catholic religious faith and who first and foremost was a harmonic innovator, initiating the new German school together with Wagner. In May 1861 he made his concert debut, as both composer and conductor of his Ave Maria, set in seven parts.[18] Soon after Bruckner had ended his studies under Sechter and Kitzler, he wrote his first mature work, the Mass in D Minor. From 1861 to 1868, he alternated his time between Vienna and Sankt Florian. He wished to ensure he knew how to make his music modern, but he also wanted to spend time in a more religious setting.
The Vienna period Edit
In 1868, after Sechter had died, Bruckner hesitantly accepted Sechter's post as a teacher of music theory at the Vienna Conservatory, during which time he concentrated most of his energy on writing symphonies. These symphonies were poorly received, at times considered "wild" and "nonsensical". His students at the Conservatory included Richard Robert.[19] His student, Friedrich Klose, wrote a book about his impressions of Bruckner as a composer and a teacher.[20]
He later accepted a post at the Vienna University in 1875,[21] where he tried to make music theory a part of the curriculum. Overall, he was unhappy in Vienna, which was musically dominated by the critic Eduard Hanslick. At the time, there was a feud between advocates of the music of Wagner and Brahms; by aligning himself with Wagner, Bruckner made an unintentional enemy out of Hanslick. He was not without supporters, though. Deutsche Zeitung's music critic Theodor Helm, and famous conductors such as Arthur Nikisch and Franz Schalk constantly tried to bring his music to the public, and for this purpose proposed "improvements" for making Bruckner's music more acceptable to the public. While Bruckner allowed these changes, he also made sure in his will to bequeath his original scores to the Austrian National Library in Vienna, confident of their musical validity.[citation needed]
In addition to his symphonies, Bruckner wrote Masses, motets and other sacred choral works, and a few chamber works, including a string quintet. Unlike his romantic symphonies, some of Bruckner's choral works are often conservative and contrapuntal in style; however, the Te Deum, Helgoland, Psalm 150 and at least one Mass demonstrate innovative and radical uses of chromaticism.
Biographers generally characterize Bruckner as a "simple" provincial man,[22] and many biographers have complained that there is huge discrepancy between Bruckner's life and his work. For example, Karl Grebe said: "his life doesn't tell anything about his work, and his work doesn't tell anything about his life, that's the uncomfortable fact any biography must start from."[23] Anecdotes abound as to Bruckner's dogged pursuit of his chosen craft and his humble acceptance of the fame that eventually came his way. Once, after a rehearsal of his Fourth Symphony in 1881, the well-meaning Bruckner tipped the conductor Hans Richter: "When the symphony was over," Richter related, "Bruckner came to me, his face beaming with enthusiasm and joy. I felt him press a coin into my hand. 'Take this' he said, 'and drink a glass of beer to my health.'" Richter, of course, accepted the coin, a Maria Theresa thaler, and wore it on his watch-chain ever after.
Bruckner was a renowned organist in his day, impressing audiences in France in 1869, and the United Kingdom in 1871, giving six recitals on a new Henry Willis organ at Royal Albert Hall in London and five more at the Crystal Palace. Though he wrote no major works for the organ,[24] his improvisation sessions sometimes yielded ideas for the symphonies. He taught organ performance at the Conservatory; among his students were Hans Rott and Franz Schmidt. Gustav Mahler, who called Bruckner his "forerunner", attended the conservatory at this time.[25]
Bruckner was a lifelong bachelor who made numerous unsuccessful marriage proposals to teenage girls. One such was the daughter of a friend, called Louise; in his grief he is believed to have written the cantata "Entsagen" (Renunciation). His affection for teenage girls led to an accusation of impropriety where he taught music, and while he was exonerated, he decided to concentrate on teaching boys afterwards. His calendar for 1874 details the names of girls who appealed to him, and the list of such girls in all his diaries was very long. In 1880 he fell for a 17-year-old peasant girl in the cast of the Oberammergau Passion Play. His interest in teenage girls seems to have been motivated by his fear of sin; he believed that (unlike older women) he could be certain that he was marrying a virgin. His unsuccessful proposals to teenagers continued when he was past his 70th birthday; one prospect, Berlin hotel chambermaid Ida Buhz, came near to marrying him but broke off the engagement when she refused to convert to Catholicism.[26][27][28] He suffered from periodic attacks of depression, with his numerous failed attempts to find a female companion only adding to his unhappiness.[29]
In July 1886, the Emperor decorated him with the Order of Franz Joseph.[30] He most likely retired from his position at the University of Vienna in 1892, at the age of 68. He wrote a great deal of music that he used to help teach his students.
Bruckner died in Vienna in 1896 at the age of 72. He is buried in the crypt of the monastery church at Sankt Florian, immediately below his favorite organ.[31] He had always had a morbid fascination with death and dead bodies,[32] and left explicit instructions regarding the embalming of his corpse.
The Anton Bruckner Private University for Music, Drama, and Dance, an institution of higher education in Linz, close to his native Ansfelden, was named after him in 1932 (as the "Bruckner Conservatory Linz" until 2004). The Bruckner Orchestra Linz was also named in his honor.
Compositions Edit
Sometimes Bruckner's works are referred to by WAB numbers, from the Werkverzeichnis Anton Bruckner, a catalogue of Bruckner's works edited by Renate Grasberger.
The revision issue has generated controversy. A common explanation for the multiple versions is that Bruckner was willing to revise his work on the basis of harsh, uninformed criticism from his colleagues. "The result of such advice was to awaken immediately all the insecurity in the non-musical part of Bruckner's personality," musicologist Deryck Cooke writes. "Lacking all self-assurance in such matters, he felt obliged to bow to the opinions of his friends, 'the experts,' to permit ... revisions and even to help make them in some cases."[33] This explanation was widely accepted when it was championed by Bruckner scholar Robert Haas, who was the chief editor of the first critical editions of Bruckner's works published by the International Bruckner Society; it continues to be found in the majority of program notes and biographical sketches concerning Bruckner. Haas's work was endorsed by the Nazis and so fell out of favour after the war as the Allies enforced denazification.[34] Haas's rival Leopold Nowak was appointed to produce a whole new critical edition of Bruckner's works. He and others such as Benjamin Korstvedt and conductor Leon Botstein argued that Haas's explanation is at best idle speculation, at worst a shady justification of Haas's own editorial decisions. Also, it has been pointed out that Bruckner often started work on a symphony just days after finishing the one before.[35] As Deryck Cooke writes, "In spite of continued opposition and criticism, and many well-meaning exhortations to caution from his friends, he looked neither to right nor left, but simply got down to work on the next symphony."[33] The matter of Bruckner's authentic texts and the reasons for his changes to them remains politicised and uncomfortable.[34]
Symphonies Edit
"Bruckner expanded the concept of the symphonic form in ways that have never been witnessed before or since. … When listening to a Bruckner symphony, one encounters some of the most complex symphonic writing ever created. As scholars study Bruckner's scores they continue to revel in the complexity of Bruckner's creative logic."[36]
Bruckner composed eleven symphonies, the first, the Study Symphony in F minor in 1863, the last, the unfinished Symphony No. 9 in D minor in 1887–96. With the exception of Symphony No. 4 (Romantic), none of Bruckner's symphonies originally had a subtitle and in the case of those that now do, the nicknames or subtitles did not originate with the composer.
Style Edit
Bruckner's symphonies are scored for a fairly standard orchestra of woodwinds in pairs, four horns, two or three trumpets, three trombones, tuba (from the second version of the Fourth), timpani and strings. The later symphonies increase this complement, but not by much. Notable is the use of Wagner tubas in his last three symphonies. Only the Eighth has harp, and percussion besides timpani in all versions. (The Seventh, in some versions, features a single cymbal crash alongside a triangle roll at the climax of the second movement). Bruckner's style of orchestral writing was criticized by his Viennese contemporaries (Eduard Hanslick and his circle), but by the middle of the twentieth century, musicologists recognized that his orchestration was modeled after the sound of his primary instrument, the pipe organ, i.e., alternating between two groups of instruments, as when changing from one manual of the organ to another.
Structure Edit
The structure of Bruckner's symphonies is in a way an extension of that of Beethoven's symphonies. Bruckner's symphonies are in four movements.[37]
- The first movement, in 4
4 or 2
2, is, from Symphony No. 2 on, an allegro in modified sonata form with three thematic groups.[38] The first group is mostly displayed in piano or pianissimo on a tremolo of the string instruments and is, after a long crescendo, repeated in tutti. The second group, melodious and in ABA' lied form, is mostly of contrapuntal structure. The third group, mostly rhythmical and often in unison, is sometimes a variant of the first group, as in Symphony No. 4. The often extensive development is followed by a modified and somewhat shortened reprise[39] and a powerful coda.
- The second movement, mostly an adagio in 4
4, is generally in ABA′B′A″ lied form. The first thematic group, sometime rhythmical, is developed and magnified in the third and fifth parts. The second group is mostly a melody in cantilena form.[40] The adagio is put in third position in the first version of Symphony No. 2, and in Symphony No. 8 and Symphony No. 9.
- The scherzo in 3
4 and in minor mode is often fiery. The, sometimes very short, trio is more melodious and often in Ländler form. The da capo reprise, in Bruckner's early symphonies, ends with a short, powerful coda. The revised version of the Symphony No. 4 features a scherzo – the "Hunt scherzo" – in which the outer sections are in 2
4 and in major mode.
- The Finale, in 4
4 or 2
2, is, as the first movement, an allegro in modified sonata form with three thematic groups. The first group, often a kind of introduction, is followed by a second, melodious and often contrapuntal group, and a third, rhythmical and often in unison, group, which is sometimes a variant of the first group, as in Symphony No. 2. The development, often of dramatic character, is followed by a less formal reprise, which is sometimes inverted (C′B′A') as in Symphony No. 7,[41] and a coda in which the first thematic group of the first movement is magnified. In the coda of Symphony No. 8, the first thematic group of all four movements are magnified.
Nicholas Temperley writes in the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (1980) that Bruckner
alone succeeded in creating a new school of symphonic writing.... Some have classified him as a conservative, some as a radical. Really he was neither, or alternatively was a fusion of both.... [H]is music, though Wagnerian in its orchestration and in its huge rising and falling periods, patently has its roots in older styles. Bruckner took Beethoven's Ninth Symphony as his starting-point.... The introduction to the first movement, beginning mysteriously and climbing slowly with fragments of the first theme to the gigantic full statement of that theme, was taken over by Bruckner; so was the awe-inspiring coda of the first movement. The scherzo and slow movement, with their alternation of melodies, are models for Bruckner's spacious middle movements, while the finale with a grand culminating hymn is a feature of almost every Bruckner symphony.[42]
Bruckner is the first composer since Schubert about whom it is possible to make such generalizations. His symphonies deliberately followed a pattern, each one building on the achievements of its predecessors.... His melodic and harmonic style changed little, and it had as much of Schubert in it as of Wagner.... His technique in the development and transformation of themes, learnt from Beethoven, Liszt and Wagner, was unsurpassed, and he was almost the equal of Brahms in the art of melodic variation.[43]
Deryck Cooke adds, also in the New Grove,
Despite its general debt to Beethoven and Wagner, the "Bruckner Symphony" is a unique conception, not only because of the individuality of its spirit and its materials, but even more because of the absolute originality of its formal processes. At first, these processes seemed so strange and unprecedented that they were taken as evidence of sheer incompetence.... Now it is recognized that Bruckner's unorthodox structural methods were inevitable.... Bruckner created a new and monumental type of symphonic organism, which abjured the tense, dynamic continuity of Beethoven, and the broad, fluid continuity of Wagner, in order to express something profoundly different from either composer, something elemental and metaphysical.[44]
In a concert review, Bernard Holland described parts of the first movements of Bruckner's sixth and seventh symphonies as follows: "There is the same slow, broad introduction, the drawn-out climaxes that grow, pull back and then grow some more – a sort of musical coitus interruptus."[45]
In the 2001 Second Edition of the New Grove, Mark Evan Bonds called the Bruckner symphonies "monumental in scope and design, combining lyricism with an inherently polyphonic design.... Bruckner favored an approach to large-scale form that relied more on large-scale thematic and harmonic juxtaposition. Over the course of his output, one senses an ever-increasing interest in cyclic integration that culminates in his masterpiece, the Symphony No. 8 in C minor, a work whose final page integrates the main themes of all four movements simultaneously."[46]
In 1990, the American artist Jack Ox gave a paper called The Systematic Translation of Anton Bruckner's Eighth Symphony into a series of Thirteen Paintings at the Bruckner Symposium in Linz Austria; here she structurally analyzed all of the Eighth Symphony's themes. She then proceeded to show how she mapped this musical data into a series of twelve large, painted visualizations.[47] The conference report was published in 1993.[48]
The Bruckner Problem Edit
"The Bruckner Problem" refers to the difficulties and complications resulting from the numerous contrasting versions and editions that exist for most of the symphonies.[49] The term gained currency following the publication (in 1969) of an article dealing with the subject, "The Bruckner Problem Simplified" by musicologist Deryck Cooke, which brought the issue to the attention of English-speaking musicians.[50]
The first versions of Bruckner's symphonies often presented an instrumental, contrapuntal and rhythmic complexity (Brucknerian rhythm "2 + 3", use of quintuplets), the originality of which has not been understood and which were considered unperformable by the musicians. In order to make them "performable", the symphonies, except Symphonies No. 5, No. 6 and No. 7, have been revised several times. Consequently, there are several versions and editions, mainly of Symphonies 3, 4 and 8, which have been deeply emended by Bruckner's friends and associates, and it is not always possible to tell whether the emendations had Bruckner's direct authorization.
Looking for authentic versions of the symphonies, Robert Haas produced during the 1930s a first critical edition of Bruckner's works based on the original scores. After World War II other scholars (Leopold Nowak, William Carragan, Benjamin-Gunnar Cohrs et al.) carried on with this work.
Sacred choral works Edit
Bruckner was a devoutly religious man, and composed numerous sacred works. He wrote a Te Deum, five psalm settings (including Psalm 150 in the 1890s), a Festive cantata, a Magnificat, about forty motets (among them eight settings of Tantum ergo, and three settings of both Christus factus est and Ave Maria), and at least seven Masses.
The three early Masses (Windhaager Messe, Kronstorfer Messe and Messe für den Gründonnerstag), composed between 1842 and 1844, were short Austrian Landmessen for use in local churches and did not always set all the numbers of the ordinary. His Requiem in D minor of 1849 is the earliest work Bruckner himself considered worthy of preservation. It shows the clear influence of Mozart's Requiem (also in D minor) and similar works of Michael Haydn. The seldom performed Missa solemnis, composed in 1854 for Friedrich Mayer's installation, was the last major work Bruckner composed before he started to study with Simon Sechter, with the possible exception of Psalm 146, a large work, for SATB soloists, double choir and orchestra.
The three Masses which Bruckner wrote in the 1860s and revised later on in his life are more often performed. The Masses numbered 1 in D minor and 3 in F minor are for solo singers, mixed choir, organ ad libitum and orchestra, while No. 2 in E minor is for mixed choir and a small group of wind instruments, and was written in an attempt to meet the Cecilians halfway. The Cecilians wanted to rid church music of instruments entirely. No. 3 was clearly meant for concert, rather than liturgical performance, and it is the only one of his Masses in which he set the first line of the Gloria, "Gloria in excelsis Deo", and of the Credo, "Credo in unum Deum", to music. In concert performances of the other Masses, these lines are intoned by a tenor soloist in the way a priest would, with a line of plainsong.
Secular vocal works Edit
As a young man Bruckner sang in men's choirs and wrote music for them. Bruckner's secular choral music was mostly written for choral societies. The texts are always in German. Some of these works were written specifically for private occasions such as weddings, funerals, birthdays or name-days, many of these being dedicated to friends and acquaintances of the composer.[51] This music is rarely performed. Biographer Derek Watson characterizes the pieces for men's choir as being "of little concern to the non-German listener".[52] Of about 30 such pieces, a most unusual and evocative composition is the song Abendzauber (1878) for men's choir, man soloist, yodelers and four horns.
Bruckner also composed 20 Lieder, of which only a few have been published. The Lieder that Bruckner composed in 1861–1862 during his tuition by Otto Kitzler have not been WAB classified.[53] In 2013 the Austrian National Library was able to acquire a facsimile of the Kitzler-Studienbuch, the autograph manuscript hitherto unavailable to the public. The facsimile is edited by Paul Hawkshaw and Erich Wolfgang Partsch in Band XXV of Bruckner's Gesamtausgabe.[54]
Bruckner composed also five name-day cantatas, as well as two patriotic cantatas, Germanenzug and Helgoland, on texts by August Silberstein. Germanenzug (WAB 70), composed in 1863–1864, was Bruckner's first published work. Helgoland (WAB 71), for TTBB men's choir and large orchestra, was composed in 1893 and was Bruckner's last completed composition and the only secular vocal work that he thought worthy enough to bequeath to the Austrian National Library.
Other works Edit
During his apprenticeship with Otto Kitzler, Bruckner composed three short orchestral pieces and a March in D minor as orchestration exercises. At that time he also wrote an Overture in G minor. These works, which are occasionally included in recordings of the symphonies, show already hints of Bruckner's emerging style.
A String Quartet in C minor and the additional Rondo in C minor, also composed in 1862, were discovered decades after Bruckner's death. The later String Quintet in F Major of 1879, contemporaneous with the Fifth and Sixth symphonies, has been frequently performed. The Intermezzo in D minor, which was intended to replace its scherzo, is not frequently performed.
A Symphonisches Präludium (Symphonic Prelude) in C minor was discovered by Mahler scholar Paul Banks in the Austrian National Library in 1974 in a piano duet transcription. Banks ascribed it to Gustav Mahler, and had it orchestrated by Albrecht Gürsching. In 1985 Wolfgang Hiltl, who had retrieved the original score by Rudolf Krzyzanowski, had it published by Doblinger (issued in 2002). According to scholar Benjamin-Gunnar Cohrs, the stylistic examination of this "prelude" shows that it is all Bruckner's. Possibly Bruckner had given a draft-score to his pupil Krzyzanowski, which already contained the string parts and some important lines for woodwind and brass, as an exercise in instrumentation.[55]
Bruckner's Two Aequali of 1847 for three trombones are solemn, brief works. The Military march of 1865 is an occasional work as a gesture of appreciation for the Militär-Kapelle der Jäger-Truppe of Linz. Abendklänge of 1866 is a short character piece for violin and piano.
Bruckner also wrote a Lancer-Quadrille (c. 1850) and a few other small works for piano. Most of this music was written for teaching purposes. Sixteen other pieces for piano, which Bruckner composed in 1862 during his tuition by Kitzler, have not been WAB classified.[56] A facsimile of these pieces is found in the Kitzler-Studienbuch.[54]
Bruckner was a renowned organist at the St Florian's Priory, where he improvised frequently. Those improvisations were usually not transcribed, so that only a few of his works for organ has survived. The five Preludes in E-flat major (1836–1837), classified WAB 127 and WAB 128, as well as a few other WAB-unclassified works, which have been found in Bruckner's Präludienbuch, are probably not by Bruckner.[57]
Bruckner never wrote an opera, and as much as he was a fan of Wagner's music dramas, he was uninterested in drama.[58] In 1893 he thought about writing an opera called Astra based on a novel by Gertrud Bollé-Hellmund.[59] Although he attended performances of Wagner's operas, he was much more interested in the music than the plot. After seeing Wagner's Götterdämmerung, he asked: "Tell me, why did they burn the woman at the end?"[60] Nor did Bruckner ever write an oratorio.
Bruckner Gesamtausgabe Edit
Published by Musikwissenschaftlicher Verlag in Vienna, the Bruckner Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Bruckner's Critical Complete Edition) comprises three successive editions.
- The first edition (1934–1944, Editorial Head: Robert Haas) included 'hybrid' scores for Symphonies 2 and 8 and other similar conflations for some other revised works.
- In the second edition (1951–1989, Editorial Head: Leopold Nowak) Nowak et al. went about publishing several versions of some works, in the process correcting some mistakes of Haas. After Nowak's resignation, (1990 onwards, Editorial Head: Herbert Vogg) William Carragan, Paul Hawkshaw, Benjamin-Gunnar Cohrs et al. are in the process of reviewing and further correcting the work of Haas and Nowak.[61]
- In 2011 it was decided to issue a new edition (editorial board: Paul Hawkshaw, Thomas Leibnitz, Andreas Lindner, Angela Pachovsky, Thomas Röder), which will include the content of the current edition and integrate it with sources that had been retrieved since its publication.
Reception in the 20th century Edit
Because of the long duration and vast orchestral canvas of much of his music, Bruckner's popularity has greatly benefited from the introduction of long-playing media and from improvements in recording technology.
Decades after his death, the Nazis strongly approved of Bruckner's music because they saw it as expressing the zeitgeist of the German volk, and Hitler even consecrated a bust of Bruckner in a widely photographed ceremony in 1937 at Regensburg's Walhalla temple. Bruckner's music was among the most popular in Nazi Germany.
Near the end of World War II, Adolf Hitler became enamored with the music of Bruckner, and, as a result, planned to convert the monastery of St. Florian in Linz – where Bruckner had played the organ, and where he was buried – into a repository of Bruckner's manuscripts. Hitler evicted the monks from the building and personally paid for the restoration of the organ and the institution of a Bruckner study center there. He also paid for the Haas collection of Bruckner's works to be published, and himself purchased material for the proposed library. Additionally, Hitler caused the founding of the Bruckner Symphony Orchestra, which began presenting concerts in Fall 1943. His plan for one of the bell towers in Linz to play a theme from Bruckner's Fourth Symphony never came to pass.[62] The Adagio from Bruckner's Seventh Symphony was broadcast by German radio (Deutscher Reichsrundfunk) when it announced the news of Hitler's death on 1 May 1945.
Today the Brucknerhaus in Linz, which opened in 1974, is named after him.
The approval by Hitler and the Nazis of his music did not hurt Bruckner's standing in the postwar media, and several movies and TV productions in Europe and the United States have used excerpts from his music ever since the 1950s, as they already did in the 1930s.[63] Nor did the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra ever ban Bruckner's music as they have Wagner's, even recording the Eighth Symphony with Zubin Mehta.
Bruckner's symphonic works, much maligned in Vienna in his lifetime, now have an important place in the tradition and musical repertoire of the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra.
In popular culture Edit
The life of Bruckner was portrayed in Jan Schmidt-Garre's 1995 film Bruckner's Decision, which focuses on his recovery in an Austrian spa. Ken Russell's TV movie The Strange Affliction of Anton Bruckner, starring Peter Mackriel, also fictionalizes Bruckner's real-life stay at a sanatorium because of obsessive-compulsive disorder (or 'numeromania' as it was then described).[64]
In addition, Visconti used the music of Bruckner for his Senso (1954), its plot concerned with the Austrian invasion of Italy in the 1860s."[65] The score by Carl Davis for the restoration of the 1925 film Ben-Hur takes "inspiration from Bruckner to achieve reverence in biblical scenes."[66]
See also Edit
References Edit
Notes Edit
- ^ (in French) Paul-Gilbert Langevin, Anton Bruckner – apogée de la symphonie, l'Age d'Homme, Lausanne, 1977 – ISBN 978-2-8251-0880-2
- ^ In German "halb Genie, halb Trottel". This description is often, but mistakenly, attributed to Gustav Mahler. Hans-Joachim Hinrichsen: "»Halb Genie, halb Trottel«. Hans von Bülows Urteil über Anton Bruckner". In: IBG-Mitteilungsblatt 55 (2000), pp. 21–24.
- ^ "The laconic idiom of restraint, the art of mere suggestion, involving economy of means and form, is not theirs." Bruno Walter observed, comparing Bruckner and Gustav Mahler (see Walter 1940).
- ^ a b Rudolf Kloiber: Handbuch der klassischen und romantischen Symphonie. Breitkopf & Härtel, Wiesbaden 1964. ISBN 978-3-7651-0017-8. Pages 241–285
- ^ a b c d Grebe, Karl (1972). Anton Bruckner. Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuchverlag. ISBN 978-3-499-50190-6.
- ^ Schönzeler, Hans-Hubert (1970). Bruckner. New York: Grossman Publishers. p. 8.
Josef Bruckner had twelve children, and one of them, Anton, born in 1791, became a teacher like his father. ... In 1823 he married Therese Helm from Streyr, a marriage which was to be blessed with eleven children, ... Their eldest was Josef Anton, born on 4 September 1824 and named after his grandfather.
- ^ "Bruckner in a nutshell". 52composers.com. Archived from the original on 27 July 2018. Retrieved 27 July 2018.
- ^ Classical Music (Visual Reference Guide Series).
- ^ Discography of Pange lingua WAB 31
- ^ Watson, Derek (1997). Bruckner. New York: Schuster & Macmillan. p. 3.
- ^ Paul-Gilbert Langevin, Anton Bruckner – apogée de la symphonie, pp. 17, 306
- ^ Grebe1972, p. 27.
- ^ Hinrichsen 2010, p. 18.
- ^ Grebe 1972, pp. 27–34.
- ^ Hawkshaw, Paul (2007). "Anton Bruckner's Counterpoint Studies at the Monastery of Saint Florian, 1845–55". The Musical Quarterly. 90 (1): 94.
- ^ "Bruckner Gemeinde". www.antonbruckner.at.
- ^ Hinrichsen, Hans-Joachim, ed. (2010). Bruckner Handbuch. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung and Carl Ernst Poeschel Verlag. p. 31.
- ^ "Bruckner: Motets – CD – CDA66062 – Anton Bruckner (1824–1896)". Hyperion Records. Retrieved 6 February 2014.
- ^ Henry-Louis de La Grange, Gustav Mahler: Volume 3. "Vienna: Triumph and Disillusion" (1904–1907), footnote 66, p. 486; Retrieved 28 August 2013
- ^ Klose, Friedrich (1927). Meine Lehrjahre bei Bruckner; Erinnerungen und Betrachtungen. Regensburg, G. Bosse.
- ^ Schönzeler 1970, p. 70: "In July 1875 Bruckner ... proposed yet a third time to the university of Vienna that a lectureship in harmony and counterpoint be created, and at long last, despite Hanslick's opposition, his application was successful. Bruckner was appointed to the post, and on 25 November 1875 he gave his opening oration."
- ^ Peter Gammond, Bluff Your Way in Music. London: Ravette Books (1985):: 33. "it is generally said that Bruckner was a very simple man ... If, after listening to one of his symphonies, you still feel that he was simple, then you are not the kind of person who should be reading this book."
- ^ Grebe 1972, p. [page needed].
- ^ Watson 1997, p. 73: "Unlike Franck or Reger, however, he [Bruckner] has not left a single composition of any value for his instrument."
- ^ Walter n.d.[incomplete short citation]
- ^ Wolff, Werner (1942), Anton Bruckner Rustic Genius, E.P. Dutton & Co
- ^ Wilson. C. (1966), Chords and Discords: Purely Personal Opinions on Music, Crown Publishers, p.40
- ^ Engel, G. (1940), "The Life of Anton Bruckner", in Chord and Dischord: A Journal of Modern Musical Progress, Bruckner Society of America, Inc., January 1940 – (Vol. 2, No.1)
- ^ "BRUCKNER, Anton (1824–1896)".
- ^ Watson 1997, p. 39.
- ^ Schönzeler 1970, p. 108: "Bruckner's ... body was taken to St. Florian. ... There, in a splendid sarcophagus, lie the earthly remains of Anton Bruckner, but from above the crypt, from the great 'Bruckner Organ', his living spirit still bursts forth."
- ^ Service, Tom (1 April 2014). "Sex, death and dissonance: the strange, obsessive world of Anton Bruckner". The Guardian. Retrieved 4 April 2018.
- ^ a b Cooke, New Grove (1980), 3:360.
- ^ a b Johnson, Stephen (10 January 1996), Bruckner: guilty or not guilty?, The Independent, UK, archived from the original on 7 May 2022
{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
- ^ Watson 1997, p. 46.
- ^ "Anton Bruckner – An Introduction by John F. Berky". Abruckner.com. Retrieved 30 June 2014.
- ^ "Carragan, William: Timed Analysis Tables – Anton Bruckner". www.abruckner.com.
- ^ William Carragan: The Bruckner Brand, Part 1 – The Three-Theme Exposition
- ^ "Torring, Ebbe: Essay & Appendix on Recapitulations in Bruckner Symphonies – Anton Bruckner". www.abruckner.com.
- ^ William Carragan: The Bruckner Brand, Part 2 – The Five-Part Song Form
- ^ William Carragan – Bruckner's Golden Arches
- ^ Temperley, New Grove (1980), 18:461–462.
- ^ Temperley, New Grove (1980), 18:462.
- ^ Cooke, New Grove (1980), 3:365.
- ^ Holland, Bernard (25 January 2008). "In a Show of Accessibility, Schumann Joins Bruckner". The New York Times.
- ^ Bonds, New Grove (2001), 24:839.
- ^ "Bruckner". intermediaprojects.org.
- ^ Ox, Anton Bruckner Institute Linz (1993), 83:101.
- ^ H. C. Robbins Landon, The Symphonies of Joseph Haydn. London: Universal Edition & Rockliff (1955): 101. "The Bruckner problem is ... complicated by the fact that not only did the composer often revise his own works but to a certain extent sanctioned the alterations, even those on the largest scale, which his pupils and others found it advisable to make. The case of Haydn is simpler, since we are not faced with two or more alternatives but with one."
- ^ Cooke 1969.
- ^ "Anton Bruckner's Critical Complete Edition – Songs and secular choral works". Mwv.at. Retrieved 30 June 2014.
- ^ Watson 1997, p. 72: "They are of little concern to the non-German listener and do not represent important stages in Bruckner's creative unfolding."
- ^ "Discography of Bruckner's secular choral music by Hans Roelofs". Brucknerdiskografie.nl. Retrieved 19 June 2020.
- ^ a b Kitzler Study Book – Facsimile ISBN 978-3-900270-99-5
- ^ "Benjamin-Gunnar Cohrs: Symphonisches Präludium – Composed by Anton Bruckner?, 2006/rev.2010" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 27 September 2013. Retrieved 30 June 2014.
- ^ "Discography of Bruckner's piano works by Hans Roelofs". Brucknerdiskografie.nl. Archived from the original on 10 December 2014. Retrieved 30 June 2014.
- ^ "Bruckner's organ works listed and commented by Hans Roelofs". Brucknerdiskografie.nl. Retrieved 19 June 2020.
- ^ Watson 1997, p. 19: "Studying Tristan Bruckner used a piano score without text – a sign of how unconcerned he was with opera as drama."
- ^ Watson 1997, pp. 45–46.
- ^ Keith William Kinder, The Wind and Wind-chorus Music of Anton Bruckner. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group (2000): 51, note 14
- ^ "Anton Bruckner (1824–1896) – Kritische Gesamtausgabe". Mwv.at. Retrieved 30 June 2014.
- ^ Evans, Richard J. (2008) The Third Reich at War. New York: Penguin Books. p. 579. ISBN 978-0-14-311671-4
- ^ "Bruckner in the Movies, TV and Radio". Abruckner.com. Retrieved 27 August 2012.
- ^ Charles P. Mitchell, The Great Composers Portrayed on Film: 1913 through 2002. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers (2004): 49 – 50
- ^ Cooke 2008, p. 437.
- ^ Cooke, Mervyn (2008). A History of Film Music. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 39.
Sources Edit
- Bruckner, Anton. Symphony No. 8/2, C minor, 1890 version. Edited by Leopold Nowak. New York: Eulenberg, 1994.
- Cooke, Deryck (1969), "The Bruckner Problem Simplified", The Musical Times, CX (1511): 59–62, ISSN 0027-4666, JSTOR 953722
- Gilliam, Bryan (1997). "The Annexation of Anton Bruckner: Nazi Revisionism and the Politics of Appropriation". In Jackson, Timothy L.; Hawkshaw, Paul (eds.). Bruckner Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 72–91. ISBN 978-0-521-57014-5.
- Uwe Harten, Anton Bruckner. Ein Handbuch. Residenz Verlag, Salzburg, 1996. ISBN 978-3-7017-1030-0.
- Korstvedt, Benjamin M. Anton Bruckner: Symphony No. 8 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 19.
- The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. Stanley Sadie, (London: Macmillan, 1980), 20 vols. ISBN 978-0-333-23111-1.
- The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, second edition, ed. Stanley Sadie, (London: Macmillan, 2001), 29 vols. ISBN 978-0-333-60800-5.
- Horton, Julian, "Bruckner's Symphonies: Analysis, Reception and Cultural Politics", 2004, Cambridge.
- Korstvedt, Benjamin (2004), "Bruckner editions: the revolution revisited", in Williamson, John (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Bruckner, Cambridge Companions to Music, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-00878-5
- James R. Oestreich, "Problems and Detours on Bruckner's Timeline", The New York Times, 10 July 2005, Sec. Arts and Leisure, p. 23.
- Walter, Bruno (November 1940), "Bruckner and Mahler", Chord and Dischord, Bruckner Society of America, II (2): 2–12, retrieved 29 July 2006
- Cornelis van Zwol, Anton Bruckner 1824–1896 – Leven en werken, Thoth, Bussum, Netherlands, 2012 ISBN 978-90-6868-590-9
Further reading Edit
- Göllerich, August (25 October 1896). "Anton Bruckner †". Neue musikalische Presse (in German). 5 (43): 361. Retrieved 11 May 2020 – via RIPM.[permanent dead link]
- Helm, Theodor (18 October 1896). "Anton Bruckner †". Neue musikalische Presse (in German). 5 (42): 1–5. Retrieved 11 May 2020 – via RIPM.[permanent dead link]
- "Anton Bruckner †". Neue Berliner Musikzeitung (in German). 50 (43): 361. 22 October 1896. Retrieved 11 May 2020 – via RIPM.[permanent dead link]
- Tovey, Donald Francis (1911). . In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
- Encyclopedia Americana. 1920. .
External links Edit
- Free scores by Anton Bruckner in the Choral Public Domain Library (ChoralWiki)
- Free scores by Anton Bruckner at the International Music Score Library Project (IMSLP)
- The Bruckner Society of America
- The Bruckner Journal devoted to Anton Bruckner, edited by Ken Ward, caters for lay enthusiasts, musicians and academics. Produced in the UK
- Bruckner Discography edited by John F. Berky and Hans Roelofs – Detailed listing recordings of Anton Bruckner's works. Also includes articles and free downloads


text:
Comic books browse by: Shop category:
Artist Jorge ZentnerAvailable series in store category "Comic books"
Jorge Zentner in the COMICLOPEDIA
" Jorge Zentner studied journalism and psychology and started his career working as a reporter in Argentina. In 1977, he had to flee his home country, and lived successively in Israel, Spain and France. In 1979 he met Carlos Sampayo, and began his career as a comic writer. Two..." [ Read more ]

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Allover print in-house artwork. Relaxed fit with top button collar enclosure.
Model is wearing size medium.
(Model Height: 6' 2" , 187 CM)
Flat rate of $20 for international shipping on orders totaling up to $99.
Flat rate $25 for international shipping on orders over $100.
All orders are shipped via Fedex Express and provided with tracking information. Items typically arrive 2-3 business days after shipping.
Returns must be made within 14 business days of delivery and are only accepted for defected items. Customers must contact us at email@example.com before making a return.
The returned item(s) must be unworn and the original tags must be attached and shipped with tracking information. Please note – customers will not be refunded for initial shipping costs.
Store credit for our online store will be given for the retail price of item(s) purchased. Once item(s) are received and inspected, store credit will be issued for returned items. We are not responsible for risk of loss or damage during return shipment.
Items purchased during seasonal sales cannot be returned or exchanged.
Orders typically ship within 5 business days. You will receive an email with your tracking information one your order is shipped. If you do not receive an email within 3 days of of placing your order, please email us at firstname.lastname@example.com.
Please note that all international orders are shipped delivery duties unpaid (DDU). Customs, duties and taxes are not included in the item price or shipping cost. When you place an international order, you agree to pay any applicable customs, duties, or taxes imposed by your country.
Unfortunately, we cannot calculate these charges prior to your order being placed, and are unable to cover them for customers. Any applicable fees will be collected from you by the carrier upon delivery. If duties and taxes are not paid for by the customer and there is a refusal upon delivery, customers will not be reimbursed for their order.


text:
Steve Rother is an American citizen, currently living in Las Vegas. He used to be an entrepreneur, until he became a Lightworker and an author. 5 books have been published so far, which have been translated into 11 different languages.
His change from entrepreneur to Lightworker happened following a spiritual experience on new year's eve 1996. That night, he started saying things which, according to himself, did not originate from himself, but came from "the group". A group of 9 'energetic entities'. These 'messages' brought by 'the group' were bundled in books.
Together with his wife Barbara, he travels around the globe, spreading these messages from the group and putting them into practice. His activities are managed by a non-profit organisation called 'Lightworker Corporation'.


text:
Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exempts from disclosure under the Act "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party . . . in litigation with the agency." Petitioner Federal Trade Commission (FTC) conducted an investigation of a subsidiary of respondent in connection with a civil penalty action against the subsidiary in Federal District Court filed by the Department of Justice. The action was later dismissed with prejudice when the Government declined to comply with a discovery order. Thereafter, respondent filed a request with the FTC for disclosure of certain documents concerning the investigation of the subsidiary, but the FTC denied the request on the ground that the documents were exempt from disclosure under Exemption 5. Respondent then brought suit in Federal District Court to compel release of the documents. The District Court held that the documents were exempt from disclosure under Exemption 5 as, inter alia, attorney work product. The Court of Appeals held that the documents generated during the action against the subsidiary could not be withheld on the basis of the work-product rule unless the FTC could show that "litigation related to the terminated action exists or potentially exists." The court reasoned that the work-product rule encompassed by Exemption 5 was coextensive with the work-product privilege under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, and that a requirement that documents must be disclosed in the absence of the existence or potential existence of related litigation best comported with the fact that the work-product privilege is a qualified one.
Under Exemption 5, attorney work product is exempt from mandatory disclosure without regard to the status of the litigation for which it was prepared. By its own terms, Exemption 5 requires reference to whether discovery would normally be required during litigation with the agency. Under a literal reading of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3), the work product of agency attorneys would not be subject to discovery in subsequent litigation unless there was a showing of need and thus would fall within the scope of Exemption 5. But regardless of how Rule 26(b)(3) is construed, the Court of Appeals erred in construing Exemption 5 to protect work-product material only if related litigation [462 U.S. 19, 20] exists or potentially exists. The test under Exemption 5 is whether the documents would be "routinely" or "normally" disclosed upon a showing of relevance. The Court of Appeals' determination that its rule concerning related litigation best comported with the qualified nature of the work-product rule is irrelevant in the FOIA context. Whether its immunity from discovery is absolute or qualified, a protected document cannot be said to be subject to "routine" disclosure. Work-product materials are immune from discovery unless the one seeking discovery can show substantial need in connection with subsequent litigation. Such materials are thus not "routinely" or "normally" available to parties in litigation and hence are exempt under Exemption 5. This result, by establishing a discrete category of exempt information, implements the FOIA's purpose to provide "workable" rules. Pp. 23-28.
217 U.S. App. D.C. 47, 671 F.2d 553, reversed.
WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and MARSHALL, POWELL, REHNQUIST, STEVENS, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which BLACKMUN, J., joined, post, p. 28.
Deputy Solicitor General Geller argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Lee, Assistant Attorney General McGrath, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Leonard Schaitman.
Daniel S. Mason argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Frederick P. Furth, Michael P. Lehmann, and Richard M. Clark.
JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, mandates that the Government make its records available to the public. Section 552(b)(5) exempts from disclosure "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party . . . in litigation with the agency." It is well established that this exemption was intended to encompass the attorney work-product rule. The question presented in this case is the extent, if any, to which the work-product component of Exemption 5 applies when the litigation for which the requested documents were generated has been terminated. [462 U.S. 19, 21]
In 1972, the Federal Trade Commission undertook an investigation of Americana Corp., a subsidiary of respondent Grolier Inc. The investigation was conducted in connection with a civil penalty action filed by the Department of Justice. 1 In 1976, the suit against Americana was dismissed with prejudice when the Government declined to comply with a District Court discovery order. In 1978, respondent filed a request with the Commission for disclosure of documents concerning the investigation of Americana. 2 The Commission initially denied the entire request, stating that it did not have any information responsive to some of the items and that the remaining portion of the request was not specific enough to permit the Commission to locate the information without searching millions of documents contained in investigatory files. The Commission refused to release the few items that were responsive to the request on the basis [462 U.S. 19, 22] that they were exempt from mandatory disclosure under 552(b)(5). 3
Pursuant to the Commission's Rules, respondent appealed to the agency's General Counsel. Following review of respondent's request, and after a considerable process of give and take, the dispute finally centered on seven documents. 4 Following in camera inspection, the District Court determined that all the requested documents were exempt from disclosure under 552(b)(5), either as attorney work product, as confidential attorney-client communications, or as internal predecisional agency material. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that four documents generated during the Americana litigation could not be withheld on the basis of the work-product rule unless the Commission could show that "litigation related to the terminated action exists or potentially exists." 5 217 U.S. App. D.C. 47, 50, 671 F.2d 553, 556 (1982).
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the work-product rule encompassed by 552(b)(5) was coextensive with the work-product privilege under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [462 U.S. 19, 23] A requirement that documents must be disclosed in the absence of the existence or potential existence of related litigation, in the Court of Appeals' view, best comported with the fact that the work-product privilege is a qualified one. We granted the Commission's petition for certiorari, 459 U.S. 986 (1982). Because we find that the Court of Appeals erred in its construction of Exemption 5, we reverse.
Section 552(b) lists nine exemptions from the mandatory disclosure requirements that "represen[t] the congressional determination of the types of information that the Executive Branch must have the option to keep confidential, if it so chooses." EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 80 (1973). The primary purpose of one of these, Exemption 5, was to enable the Government to benefit from "frank discussion of legal or policy matters." S. Rep. No. 813, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (1965). See H. R. Rep. No. 1497, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 10 (1966). In keeping with the Act's policy of "the fullest responsible disclosure," S. Rep. No. 813, at 3, Congress intended Exemption 5 to be "as narro[w] as [is] consistent with efficient Government operation." Id., at 9. See H. R. Rep. No. 1497, at 10.
Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals found that the documents at issue were properly classified as "work product" materials, and there is no serious argument about the correctness of this classification. 6 "It is equally clear that Congress had the attorney's work-product privilege specifically in mind when it adopted Exemption 5," the privilege being that enjoyed in the context of discovery in civil litigation. NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 154 -155 (1975); H. R. Rep. No. 1497, at 10; S. Rep. No. 813, at 2. [462 U.S. 19, 24]
In Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510 (1947), the Court recognized a qualified immunity from discovery for the "work product of the lawyer"; such material could only be discovered upon a substantial showing of "necessity or justification." An exemption from discovery was necessary because, as the Hickman Court stated:
Prior to 1970, few District Courts had addressed the question whether the work-product immunity extended beyond the litigation for which the documents at issue were prepared. Those courts considering the issue reached varying results. 7 By 1970, only one Court of Appeals had addressed the issue. In Republic Gear Co. v. Borg-Warner Corp., 381 F.2d 551, 557 (CA2 1967), the Court of Appeals held that documents prepared in connection with litigation that was on [462 U.S. 19, 25] appeal were not subject to discovery in a related case. The court also noted that there was potential for further related litigation. Thus, at the time FOIA was enacted in 1966, other than the general understanding that work-product materials were subject to discovery only upon a showing of need, no consensus one way or the other had developed with respect to the temporal scope of the work-product privilege.
In 1970, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended to clarify the extent to which trial preparation materials are discoverable in federal courts. Rule 26(b)(3) provides, in pertinent part:
We need not rely exclusively on any particular construction of Rule 26(b)(3), however, because we find independently that the Court of Appeals erred in construing Exemption 5 to protect work-product materials only if related litigation exists or potentially exists. The test under Exemption 5 is whether the documents would be "routinely" or "normally" disclosed upon a showing of relevance. NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 421 U.S., at 148 -149. At the time this case came to the Court of Appeals, all of the Courts of Appeals that had decided the issue under Rule 26(b)(3) had determined that work-product materials retained their immunity from discovery after termination of the litigation for which the documents were prepared, without regard to whether other related litigation is pending or is contemplated. 8 In addition, an overwhelming majority of the Federal District Courts reporting decisions on the issue under Rule 26(b)(3) were in accord with that view. 9 "Exemption 5 incorporates [462 U.S. 19, 27] the privileges which the Government enjoys under the relevant statutory and case law in the pretrial discovery context." Renegotiation Board v. Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp., 421 U.S. 168, 184 (1975) (emphasis added). Under this state of the work-product rule it cannot fairly be said that work-product materials are "routinely" available in subsequent litigation.
The Court of Appeals' determination that a related-litigation test best comported with the qualified nature of the work-product rule in civil discovery - a proposition with which we do not necessarily agree - is irrelevant in the FOIA context. It makes little difference whether a privilege is absolute or qualified in determining how it translates into a discrete category of documents that Congress intended to exempt from disclosure under Exemption 5. Whether its immunity from discovery is absolute or qualified, a protected document cannot be said to be subject to "routine" disclosure.
Under the current state of the law relating to the privilege, work-product materials are immune from discovery unless the one seeking discovery can show substantial need in connection with subsequent litigation. Such materials are thus not "routinely" or "normally" available to parties in litigation and hence are exempt under Exemption 5. This result, by establishing a discrete category of exempt information, implements the congressional intent to provide "workable" rules. See S. Rep. No. 813, at 5; H. R. Rep. No. 1497, at 2.
Respondent urges that the meaning of the statutory language is "plain" and that, at least in this case, the requested [462 U.S. 19, 28] documents must be disclosed because the same documents were ordered disclosed during discovery in previous litigation. It does not follow, however, from an ordered disclosure based on a showing of need that such documents are routinely available to litigants. The logical result of respondent's position is that whenever work-product documents would be discoverable in any particular litigation, they must be disclosed to anyone under the FOIA. We have previously rejected that line of analysis. In NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., supra, we construed Exemption 5 to "exempt those documents, and only those documents, normally privileged in the civil discovery context." 421 U.S., at 149 . (Emphasis added.) It is not difficult to imagine litigation in which one party's need for otherwise privileged documents would be sufficient to override the privilege but that does not remove the documents from the category of the normally privileged. See id., at 149, n. 16.
Accordingly, we hold that under Exemption 5, attorney work product is exempt from mandatory disclosure without regard to the status of the litigation for which it was prepared. Only by construing the Exemption to provide a categorical rule can the Act's purpose of expediting disclosure by means of workable rules be furthered. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
[ Footnote 2 ] By letter to the Commission, respondent requested the following:
[ Footnote 3 ] The requested documents are subject to mandatory disclosure as "identifiable records" under 552(a)(3), unless covered by a specific exemption. In this case, the Commission claims exemption only under 552 (b)(5), which provides:
[ Footnote 4 ] The Commission released a number of documents after respondent filed this suit. Respondent abandoned its claim for many others. See n. 2, supra.
[ Footnote 5 ] Respondent withdrew its claim for disclosure of one of the seven documents. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment that another was exempt as an attorney-client communication, 217 U.S. App. D.C., at 48, n. 3, 671 F.2d, at 554, n. 3, and held that still another was clearly a predecisional document not subject to disclosure under Exemption 5, id., at 51, 671 F.2d, at 557. These rulings are not at issue here.
[ Footnote 6 ] Respondent makes some assertions concerning the ethical conduct of the Commission in continuing its investigations after the Americana suit had been instituted and claims that the work-product rule would not apply to documents containing evidence of unethical conduct. Respondent did not raise this issue before the District Court or the Court of Appeals and we decline to address it.
[ Footnote 7 ] See Honeywell, Inc. v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 50 F. R. D. 117 (MD Pa. 1970); Bourget v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 48 F. R. D. 29 (Conn. 1969); Stix Products, Inc. v. United Merchants & Mfrs., Inc., 47 F. R. D. 334 (SDNY 1969); LaRocca v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 47 F. R. D. 278 (WD Pa. 1969); Kirkland v. Morton Salt Co., 46 F. R. D. 28 (ND Ga. 1968); Chitty v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 36 F. R. D. 37 (EDSC 1964); Insurance Co. of North America v. Union Carbide Corp., 35 F. R. D. 520 (Colo. 1964); Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 207 F. Supp. 407 (MD Pa. 1962); Thompson v. Hoitsma, 19 F. R. D. 112 (NJ 1956); Tobacco and Allied Stocks, Inc. v. Transamerica Corp., 16 F. R. D. 534 (Del. 1954).
[ Footnote 8 ] See In re Murphy, 560 F.2d 326, 334 (CA8 1977); United States v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 542 F.2d 655 (CA6 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 945 (1977); Duplan Corp. v. Moulinage et Retorderie de Chavanoz, 487 F.2d 480, 483-384 (CA4 1973). See also In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 604 F.2d 798, 803 (CA3 1979) (work-product privilege continues at least when subsequent litigation is related). Cf. Kent Corp. v. NLRB, 530 F.2d 612 (CA5) (work-product privilege does not turn on whether litigation actually ensued), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 920 (1976).
[ Footnote 9 ] See In re Federal Copper of Tennessee, Inc., 19 B. R. 177 (Bkrtcy. MD Tenn. 1982); In re International Systems & Controls Corp. Securities Litigation, 91 F. R. D. 552 (SD Tex. 1981); United States v. Capitol Service, Inc., 89 F. R. D. 578 (ED Wis. 1981); In re LTV Securities Litigation, 89 F. R. D. 595 (ND Tex. 1981); First Wisconsin Mortgage Trust v. First [462 U.S. 19, 27] Wisconsin Corp., 86 F. R. D. 160 (ED Wis. 1980); Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 80 F. R. D. 718 (ND Ill. 1978); United States v. O. K. Tire & Rubber Co., 71 F. R. D. 465 (Idaho 1976); SCM Corp. v. Xerox Corp., 70 F. R. D. 508 (Conn.), appeal dism'd, 534 F.2d 1031 (1976); Burlington Industries v. Exxon Corp., 65 F. R. D. 26 (Md. 1974). See also Hercules, Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 434 F. Supp. 136 (Del. 1977) (protected when cases are closely related in parties or subject matter); Ohio-Sealy Mattress Mfg. Co. v. Sealy, Inc., 90 F. R. D. 45 (ND Ill. 1981) (protected in later related litigation).
JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom JUSTICE BLACKMUN joins, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
The Court rests its judgment on two alternative holdings: one a construction of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3), ante, at 26; the other a more limited holding under Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5), ante, at 26. I find the latter holding unpersuasive and accordingly would rest exclusively on the former. [462 U.S. 19, 29]
I agree wholeheartedly with the Court that Rule 26(b)(3) itself does not incorporate any requirement that there be actual or potential related litigation before the protection of the work-product doctrine applies. As the Court notes, "the literal language of the Rule protects materials prepared for any litigation or trial as long as they were prepared by or for a party to the subsequent litigation." Ante, at 25. A contrary interpretation such as that adopted by the Court of Appeals would work substantial harm to the policies that the doctrine is designed to serve and protect. We described the reasons for protecting work product from discovery in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947):
I do not understand the Court's holding on this point to be limited to the FOIA context. The Court itself quite accurately characterizes its first holding as a "particular construction of Rule 26(b)(3)." Ante, at 26. Indeed, it could hardly do otherwise, since the plain meaning of Exemption 5 is that the scope of the Exemption is coextensive with the scope of the discovery privileges it incorporates. "Exemption 5 . . . exempt[s] those documents, and only those documents, normally privileged in the civil discovery context." NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 149 (1975) (footnote omitted). See also id., at 154-155; Federal Open Market Committee v. Merrill, 443 U.S. 340, 353 (1979); Renegotiation Board v. Grumman Aircraft Corp., 421 U.S. 168, 184 (1975); EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 85 -86, 91 (1973). 3 Thus, nothing in either FOIA or our decisions construing it authorizes us to define the coverage of the work-product doctrine under Exemption 5 differently from the definition of its coverage that would obtain under Rule 26(b)(3) in an ordinary lawsuit. If a document is work product under the Rule, and if it is an "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandu[m] or lette[r]" under the Exemption, it is absolutely exempt. 4 [462 U.S. 19, 33]
Since the Court rejects the "related litigation" test under Rule 26(b)(3), and since that holding necessarily governs the application of the work-product doctrine under Exemption 5, it need go no further. The Court proceeds, however, to put forward a second holding directly under FOIA. It reasons that work product generated in connection with a prior, unrelated litigation would not be "`routinely' available in subsequent litigation," ante, at 27, because at the time of the Court of Appeals' decision in this case a majority of federal courts that had decided the issue had rejected the "related litigation" test. Ante, at 26-27. This holding apparently would preclude disclosure under FOIA even in a district or circuit where the precedents under Rule 26(b)(3) do incorporate the "related litigation" test, since the "majority view" does not depend on the location of the library in which one reads the cases. 5 I grant that uniformity of statutory interpretation is a good thing as a general matter, but I cannot see taking it this far.
I confess that the source from which the Court draws its reasoning is a mystery to me. I know of no other statutory context in which the test of discoverability (or anything else) is not what the correct view of the law is, but what the current [462 U.S. 19, 34] majority view is. 6 Certainly the plain language of the statute is to the contrary; it directs a court to exempt material "which would not be available by law to a party . . . in litigation with the agency." 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5) (emphasis added). "By law" presumably means "by the law as correctly construed by the court deciding the case at hand," not "by the law as construed (whether correctly or incorrectly) by a majority of other federal courts." The Court draws the words "routinely" and "normally" from Sears, supra, at 149, and n. 16. But as a quick perusal of that case reveals, all we were saying there was that once a privilege is held to apply under Exemption 5, it applies absolutely, without regard to whether a party in ordinary discovery might be able to overcome the privilege by some showing of need (an understanding the Court itself embraces, ante, at 28). Alternatively, the Court cites our statement in Grumman Aircraft, supra, at 184, that "Exemption 5 incorporates the privileges which the Government enjoys under the relevant statutory and case law in the pretrial discovery context." Ante, at 26-27 (emphasis by the Court). Again, however, the context of the quoted passage makes clear that it refers simply to the extent to which the correct state of the law with regard to a privilege may be embodied in cases interpreting a statute or erecting a nonstatutory privilege. The scope of the work-product doctrine on a particular disputed point, for example, may be laid out in some binding precedent of the district court entertaining a given FOIA suit, of the court of appeals for that circuit, or of this Court. Absent a controlling [462 U.S. 19, 35] precedent, of course, the district court would ordinarily look to the decisions of other courts to inform its own construction of Rule 26(b)(3). But nothing in Exemption 5, Sears, Grumman Aircraft, or anything else of which I am aware authorizes or directs that district court to do anything other than to determine what the legally correct interpretation of the doctrine is, and then to apply it - even if the interpretation it reaches is contrary to that of a majority of other courts. Under the Court's reading of the word "routinely," however, it appears that the district court would be obliged to adhere to the majority view even if there were unmistakable precedent in its circuit construing Rule 26(b)(3) to the contrary. I see no warrant for this astonishing principle. Hence, although I agree with the Court's construction of Rule 26(b)(3), I join only its judgment.
[ Footnote 1 ] It is possible, I suppose, that such suits might be considered "related" in a very broad reading of the Court of Appeals' "related litigation" test; the courts adopting the test have not had occasion to explore its outer boundaries. But this possibility merely reveals a dilemma: If the test is read so broadly as to classify similar but factually unrelated suits as "related," it is virtually no limitation on the work-product doctrine at all, since almost any work-product document otherwise discoverable under Rule 26(b)(1) will have originated in "related" litigation. But to the extent that the "related" test is read any more narrowly than that, it threatens to cause the harm discussed in text. Hence, the test is either harmful or toothless.
[ Footnote 2 ] See generally, e. g., In re Murphy, 560 F.2d 326, 333-335 (CA8 1977); United States v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 542 F.2d 655, 659-660 (CA6 1976); Duplan Corp. v. Moulinage et Retorderie de Chavanoz, 509 F.2d 730 (CA4 1974); Duplan Corp. v. Moulinage et Retorderie de Chavanoz, 487 F.2d 480 (CA4 1973).
The Court of Appeals reasoned that "[e]xtending the work-product protection only to subsequent related cases best comports with the fact that the privilege is qualified, not absolute." 217 U.S. App. D.C. 47, 50, 671 F.2d 553, 556 (1982) (footnote omitted). In my view, this mistakes by 180 degrees the significance of the qualified nature of the privilege. As another Court of Appeals has explained:
[ Footnote 3 ] But see Federal Open Market Committee v. Merrill, 443 U.S., at 354 : "[I]t is not clear that Exemption 5 was intended to incorporate every privilege known to civil discovery." Of course, it is settled that the Exemption does incorporate the work-product doctrine. NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S., at 154 -155.
[ Footnote 4 ] We held in Sears that Exemption 5 does not apply to "final opinions" explaining agency actions already taken or agency decisions already made. Id., at 150-154. The gist of our holding was that such documents are not within any privilege incorporated into Exemption 5 - specifically, that they [462 U.S. 19, 33] are not covered by the Government's executive privilege. Ibid. The same would be true of the work-product doctrine; it is difficult to imagine how a final decision could be "prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial," Rule 26(b)(3). It is also questionable whether such decisions would constitute "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters," 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5).
[ Footnote 5 ] Presumably, this principle would work in reverse as well. That is, if the settled law of a particular district under Rule 26(b)(3) were that a particular type of document (some sort of investigative report, say) is within the work-product doctrine, but a majority of other courts disagreed, the district court entertaining a FOIA suit would be obliged to follow the majority view and grant disclosure, even though the same document would not be "routinely" disclosed in an ordinary lawsuit in that district.
[ Footnote 6 ] One might posit a different sort of incorporation of case law - one in which the relevant law was that in existence in 1966, when FOIA was enacted. The Court wisely declines to adopt this reading. There is nothing in FOIA that indicates that it intended to "freeze" the law that existed in 1966; the phrase "available by law" certainly seems to refer to the law at any given time. Indeed, this reading would preclude recognition of subsequent changes in statutory law, such as the adoption of Rule 26(b)(3) in 1970. [462 U.S. 19, 36]
Was this helpful?
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)


text:
1973 Ford Bronco - DNA Splice
If Chevy Made the Bronco
Related Video
Twenty-five years ago, Todd White -- a Chevy guy -- was mud running a first-generation Bronco. He loved the size of the Broncos for his off-roading needs, and the timeless good looks of its body style can never be argued. Like any off-roader, Todd would break and wear out parts that had to be replaced, so he eventually came to own three parts' Broncos that he could scavenge from -- a '69, a '73, and a '77. But in 1989, Todd suddenly sold his Bronco at the Spring Jamboree in Springfield, Illinois.
While he didn't regret the decision, Todd did miss having a Bronco, and quickly started to build himself another one based on the frame of his '73 parts truck. As a restaurant owner in a resort town, he had only the down times during winter between busy tourist seasons to build his Bronco. For the first couple years he made steady progress, and his custom-built Bronco was shaping up nicely. But then a fiberglass replacement body Todd had purchased was found to be off by a mile. Nothing fit correctly and the fiberglass had even incurred some warping. Before the body could be addressed, another project came Todd's way, and the Bronco was shoved into a corner. Over the next two and a half decades, multiple boat and car projects monopolized his winter downtime. But he never forgot the Bronco. Todd had wanted to build his ideal Bronco, with all his carefully selected pieces, since 1989. And it would eventually come to fruition.
In 2012, he was able to roll a Chevy-powered Bronco out of his garage. With front leaf springs, too! This is obviously no ordinary first-gen Bronco. Todd had assembled almost the entire Bronco himself, using his experience building a number of vehicles in the Michigan area to decide how he wanted his custom off-road toy to end up. A modified 383 Chevy small-block feeds power into a TH400 auto transmission that is adapted to a Dana 20 transfer case. The axles and frame are still genuine Bronco, but the fiberglass body guarantees no rust issues, and the all-leaf spring suspension is the most maintenance-free and climate-resistant setup his Bronco could have.
Not to fuel the fire for Ford purists, but unfortunately, the fresh Chevy small-block developed a catastrophic crankshaft issue only 400 miles into its short life, leaving Todd's Bronco dormant for another couple years while he diagnosed the reason for the engine failure. Two days before our photo shoot, Todd White finally got his '73 Bronco back on (off) the road for good, possibly encouraged by the chance of a feature. If that is in fact the case, we're happy to have been the motivation Todd needed to get his off-road toy buttoned up, so he could enjoy Michigan's wonderful off-road areas once again.
Vehicle: 1973 Ford Bronco
Owner/hometown:Todd White, Saugatuck, Michigan
Chassis: Stock Bronco, custom front spring hangers, custom engine crossmember and mounts
Engine: 383ci small-block Chevy, 10:1 compression, Dart II heads (202 angled plug), COMP Cams hydraulic camshaft, Edelbrock intake manifold and 750cfm carburetor, Accel ignition coil and spark plugs, Allstar cast-iron ram horn exhaust manifolds, Flex-a-Lite electric fans
Transmission/T-case: TH400 transmission with Advance Adapters' adapter to mate up to Dana 20 transfer case, twin-stick T-case shifters
Front Axle: Dana 44 with Trac-Lok differential and 4.56:1 gears, axle truss
Rear Axle: Ford 9-Inch with 4.56 gears, axle truss
Front suspension: A&B front leaf springs on custom spring hangers, 4 inches of lift, Rancho RS5000 dual shocks
Rear suspension: A&B leaf springs, 4 inches of lift, Rancho RS5000 shocks
Steering: Factory Bronco T-link crossover steering
Brakes: Chevy truck Hydroboost brake booster, stock Bronco front disc and JFZ four-piston caliper rear disc setup, Allstar proportioning valve
Interior: Owner-restored, Grant steering wheels, Jaz seats, Corbeau four-point harnesses, AutoMeter gauges, B&M transmission shifter
Tires/wheels: Mickey Thompson 36x15.50R15 Baja MTZ radials on 15x12 Classic II rims
Other: 25-year labor of love to build from a $400 parts truck, fiberglass body with lots of custom reworking, owner-sprayed Torch Red Matrix paint, dual batteries, rear tonneau cover, front and rear twin tube bumpers with KC HiLites lights
MotorTrend Recommended Stories
Trending Pages
2024 Ford Mustang 0-60 MPH and 1/4-Mile Times: Dark Horse, GT, and EcoBoost Tested
Was the Next Toyota Camry Just Caught in Plain Sight?
2024 Volkswagen Atlas First Test: Comfortable Commutes Are the Top Priority
Record Breaking! The Best HOT ROD Drag Week Performances of All Time
Hyundai and Kia's Free Locks to Thwart "Kia Boys" Theft Sprees Are Junk