# Bruckner: Genius or dunce? Both?



## Tallisman

My love for Bruckner is more intense than for any other composer. But listening to figures like Brahms, from the perspective of '*craft*', I cannot avoid the opinion that Bruckner pales in comparison. This isn't an issue to me, because beauty and craft are separate, though closely linked, and beauty and drama simply abound in Bruckner on a scale that makes Brahms look... earthbound.

Brahms was someone who could take a mediocre idea and transform it and develop it through sheer craft and cleverness into something extraordinary. I think I remember Leonard Bernstein noting that the tunes in Brahms' 4th are 'self-developing', which signifies a very natural musical genius to me. I think Bruckner was struck by divine ideas, but so many have commented on the disjointed nature of his symphonies. This disjointed quality never bothered me, because I think a symphony can be somewhat episodic and still have this overarching logic, and I personally love his repetition. Bruckner's forms are often rigid but majestic, and at other times have as organic a flow as any other music, especially at slow tempos. But the fugue of Bruckner's 5th, though extraordinary in its own way, was clearly a great labour for him and I admit the word that came to me upon first listening to it years ago was indeed 'laborious'. One never gets this sense in Brahms.

Could we say Brahms had greater mastery of 'horizontal harmony' (trajectory of ideas) whereas Bruckner was a sublime vertical thinker (the lush, spacious textures of the adagios of the 6th and 7th, for example)?

I'd like to read your thoughts. And please don't say 'apples and oranges' because comparison is often highly instructive in aesthetics :tiphat:


----------



## Fabulin

Tallisman said:


> Could we say Brahms had greater mastery of 'horizontal harmony' (trajectory of ideas)


I would say that's the least of Brahms' talents, and one of Bruckner's greater.

Sooner pigs would start flying than Brahms would come up with this [8:42]:


----------



## Tallisman

Fabulin said:


> I would say that's the least of Brahms' talents, and one of Bruckner's greater.


Interesting! What some consider development, others consider rambling and vice versa. Whether something makes harmonic sense largely is a matter of the individual ear. I like that Bruckner's symphonies have landmark spots and pauses, or periods of obvious (some would say crude) transition. I like my symphonies more like cathedrals and less like rivers. I cannot fault the adagio of the 6th for flow of ideas. It emanates from a divine sense of form and order.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

My impression is very similar. Bruckner had to work extraordinarily hard at his craft, and I always feel that, by the time we get to the codas of blazing glory, it's the end of a long and hard-fought battle that culminates in victory and deserves to be celebrated. Some people might think that these gargantuan symphonies are simply pretentious and egoistic, but I couldn't disagree more. I think Bruckner wrote every note from the bottom of his heart, and truly believed that his faith inspired what he put onto paper. He was a simple, naive man who knew what he believed and what he wanted to do in life, and stuck to it. Wagner's music may have greatly influenced his style, but Bruckner lets his music breathe with rustic vitality and resplendent grandeur alike, not trying to create a radical new art form to change the world, but simply striving to reach the heavenly spheres through his heartfelt craft. We can also hear undercurrents of the symphonies of Schubert, Brahms, and Schumann in his style, but I really do think that he was a totally unique voice who didn't care about living up to expectations. True, his works have many flaws. I am rarely as engaged with his finales as I am with the rest of the symphonies, since they often seem unnecessarily elongated and full of too many unrealized ideas. The finale of the 5th, for example, though obviously a staggering compositional achievement, has yet to really click with me even though I love the rest of the symphony. And I am extremely picky about performances, since there are many misguided conductors who simply stack a bunch of overblown, brassy climaxes on top of each without making sense of the architecture, and who try to speed through to get to the end. But when it comes down to it, Bruckner is a top 10 composer for me because he has that oh-so-elusive blend of beauty, austerity, simplicity, complexity, meekness, and splendor that only he can deliver.


----------



## DeepR

I couldn't make comparisons in the technical sense and I'm sure he has his strengths and weaknesses. But I've heard enough to know intuitively that his music is absolutely brilliant and unique. When it comes to symphonies, Bruckner doesn't have to bow to anyone.
After I've spent some serious time with his music, I always connect to it deeply. What seems laboured or even awkward af first, becomes entirely natural and logical later on, given enough time. The finale of the 5th included, especially that one. It has lit me up inside like only a few pieces of music have and I enjoy every moment of it. I love its themes and the way they are combined in one giant complex "puzzle" leading up to a complete and total victory. How is this any more "laborious" than any other finest moments of the great symphonists?
In fact I'm going to listen to it right now.


----------



## mbhaub

There's a way of comparing the two that is often overlooked: Bruckner had written his 5th _before_ Brahms wrote his 1st. Bruckner seems so much more advanced, more modern than the more staid Brahms. They were both great composers, but Bruckner was far less prolific and much less successful. Another issue I have is this constant reference to Bruckner as somehow being inspired by the "divine". His symphonies were written at the height of the romantic movement, and too often conductors forget that - Bruckner was not a late-romantic; his music is closer to Schubert and Schumann than Mahler.

Now, if there was any composer who understood the long line, that horizontal movement, it was Bruckner! His sense of architecture is breathtaking, and unfortunately there just haven't been that many conductors (or audiences) who can see the big picture and make sense of it all; hence the episodic nature of so many performances and recordings. His music must flow and not be bogged down by slowly lingering over some fine points. That's why I respond to recordings that get on with it - Chailly, Solti, Wand, Karajan. The conductors who foolishly find God in Bruckner and perform as if the music is some sacred doctrine bore me to tears.


----------



## DeepR

mbhaub said:


> His music must flow and not be bogged down by slowly lingering over some fine points. That's why I respond to recordings that get on with it - Chailly, Solti, Wand, Karajan. The conductors who foolishly find God in Bruckner and perform as if the music is some sacred doctrine bore me to tears.


Very much agreed!


----------



## EdwardBast

Tallisman said:


> Could we say Brahms had greater mastery of 'horizontal harmony' (trajectory of ideas) whereas Bruckner was a sublime vertical thinker (the lush, spacious textures of the adagios of the 6th and 7th, for example)?
> 
> I'd like to read your thoughts. And please don't say 'apples and oranges' because comparison is often highly instructive in aesthetics


IMO, Brahms had a greater mastery of everything: Form, harmony, counterpoint, melodic invention, the art of variation. He composed great chamber music, songs, concertos, and solo piano music. Brahms' Fourth Symphony is far superior to any orchestral work of Bruckner by any standard I'd care to entertain.


----------



## Jacck

EdwardBast said:


> IMO, Brahms had a greater mastery of everything: Form, harmony, counterpoint, melodic invention, the art of variation. He composed great chamber music, songs, concertos, and solo piano music. Brahms' Fourth Symphony is far superior to any orchestral work of Bruckner by any standard I'd care to entertain.


yet if forced to choose, I'd take the Bruckner symphony cycle over the Brahms cycle to a desert island


----------



## mbhaub

So why doesn't Bruckner "travel" so well? The symphonies are hugely popular in Germany, to a lesser extent in Austria. Outside of those two countries, his music is pretty rare really. Chicago used to play the symphonies regularly, but then they were also recording them - for several different conductors. Some of the major bands might do one a year, but that can't even be assumed. I've never encountered a symphony at any summer festival in the US. Is it any better in London, the Musical Capital of the World?


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

mbhaub said:


> So why doesn't Bruckner "travel" so well? The symphonies are hugely popular in Germany, to a lesser extent in Austria. Outside of those two countries, his music is pretty rare really. Chicago used to play the symphonies regularly, but then they were also recording them - for several different conductors. Some of the major bands might do one a year, but that can't even be assumed. I've never encountered a symphony at any summer festival in the US. Is it any better in London, the Musical Capital of the World?


Bruckner doesn't "sell" to those who just want to attend a nice concert evening. My MN Orchestra is doing Bruckner 9 this month, and though I applaud them for their repertoire choices, I can't see any classical newcomers really walking away "converted." This is music that can be a transcendental concert hall experience, but only within a very certain state of mind. And I can't imagine that musicians really like having to put up with the huge stamina/endurance limits that Bruckner poses! Question for the orchestra musicians here - is Bruckner an "idiomatic" writer? Is his music easy to play, or is it just the length that can be exasperating? Brass players sure have to have some iron lungs, I would think!


----------



## DaveM

I find the title of this thread bothersome. I don’t see how, under any circumstances, a composer would have the label of a ‘dunce’ (unless he/she had presented a few minutes of silence and given it a name as a musical work).


----------



## Roger Knox

I believe it was Mahler who said of Bruckner: "Half the time he is a simpleton, and the other half he is God." How does one come to conclusions about such a composer? Listening to Bruckner's magnificent String Quintet we realize that he was a superb contrapuntist, as well as a master of harmony and sonority. And the counter-melodies in his symphonies are superb too. As for comparing Bruckner to Brahms, I won't say "apples and oranges." Rather it's an example of composers with very different musical values, each creating a large catalogue of works in various genres. Overall comparison is hard. Comparing one work to another is more realistic in my view.


----------



## Tallisman

They seem to love him in Japan!


----------



## Tallisman

DaveM said:


> I find the title of this thread bothersome. I don't see how, under any circumstances, a composer would have the label of a 'dunce' (unless he/she had presented a few minutes of silence and given it a name as a musical work).


Not remotely a statement of my own opinion, for Bruckner is my favourite composer. But you need to read some of the reviews of the hostile commentators on his work, because 'dunce' is tame compared to the barrage of intellectual assault levelled at his work especially in the early years.

Gustav Dömke, 1886:

_We recoil in horror before this rotting odor, which rushes into out nostrils from the disharmonies of this putrefactive counterpoint. His imagination is so incurably sick and warped that anything like regularity in chord progressions and period structure simply do not exist for him. Bruckner composes like a drunkard!_


----------



## Tallisman

Jacck said:


> yet if forced to choose, I'd take the Bruckner symphony cycle over the Brahms cycle to a desert island


I'd take only either the 7th or 8th over the entire Brahms cycle.


----------



## Tallisman

mbhaub said:


> *Now, if there was any composer who understood the long line, that horizontal movement, it was Bruckner! His sense of architecture is breathtaking,* and unfortunately there just haven't been that many conductors (or audiences) who can see the big picture and make sense of it all; hence the episodic nature of so many performances and recordings. His music must flow and not be bogged down by slowly lingering over some fine points.


You are right. You've convinced me that it put it inaccurately when I talked of horizontal and vertical movement. I think within individual movements, Bruckner's sense of line, pacing and orchestral movement is second-to-none. However, the symphonies as a whole often do not tie together in the same way Brahms' do. Bruckner wrote perfect movements but I can't say he wrote a perfect symphony because finales were evidently such a source of trouble to him. Now take Brahms 4. None of its individual movements reach Brucknerian heights (what music does?) but I cannot but call it one of the most coherent 4-movement symphonic packages ever elaborated. It is a sustained attack of energy and intellect.


----------



## DavidA

I think comparing Brahms with Bruckner is like comparing chalk and cheese. This is the mistake foolish critics like Hanslick made who couldn't think out of their own box. Brahms was essentially a classicist born out of time which is fine but Bruckner was far more future looking. How on earth anyone can say he was a 'dunce' or a 'simpleton' is beyond me - at least musically. His music is highly sophisticated. And don't forget he didn't write his first symphony till he was middle aged!


----------



## Phil loves classical

I like Bruckner's orchestration better. And for me Brahms was better at chamber works. So against the OP, I say 'apples and oranges'.


----------



## DaveM

Tallisman said:


> Not remotely a statement of my own opinion, for Bruckner is my favourite composer. But you need to read some of the reviews of the hostile commentators on his work, because 'dunce' is tame compared to the barrage of intellectual assault levelled at his work especially in the early years.
> 
> Gustav Dömke, 1886:
> 
> _We recoil in horror before this rotting odor, which rushes into out nostrils from the disharmonies of this putrefactive counterpoint. His imagination is so incurably sick and warped that anything like regularity in chord progressions and period structure simply do not exist for him. Bruckner composes like a drunkard!_


And those are his good points! 

As noted in another thread, how could one not love this opening for the Andante (and that from one of Bruckner's relatively underrated symphonies!)?


----------



## Heck148

DeepR said:


> Very much agreed!


Yes, Bruckner has to move along, not fast, not rushed, but with forward momentum....not choppy and episodic (a real challenge with Anton).
I go for conductors like Solti, von Matacic, Walter, Barenboim (1st-CSO set)....they keep it moving, with tremendous climaxes...by and large, the Teutonic guys are, for me, too ponderous, portentous...the music is too belabored, bloated....


----------



## MarkW

Many people whose opinions I respect -- including on this forum -- think highly of his music, so on an absolute level I would never denigrate him. But on a personal level, his music has never spoken to me. Go figure.


----------



## janxharris

MarkW said:


> Many people whose opinions I respect -- including on this forum -- think highly of his music, so on an absolute level I would never denigrate him. But on a personal level, his music has never spoken to me. Go figure.


I too remain unmoved.


----------



## Enthusiast

I'm not sure why Brahms makes a good comparison but it seems to me that it can only lead to recognising the limits of Bruckner when actually his music is wonderful. But Brahms? If we just look at symphonies you have four symphonies that are with Beethoven's and the late Mozarts the greatest even written, symphonies that just leave you wondering "where did _that _come from?" - so it seems to me. And I am not talking about what influenced Brahms - we know much about that - but something deeper in the music, "the music's soul" if you will. Brahms is deservedly one of the great 3 Bs. His symphonies are not comfortable listening and don't fit easily in your brain!

There are some in this thread who hear it differently and I must confess to almost feeling sorry for them! They seem to miss so much that is most important (to me) in music.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> I'm not sure why Brahms makes a good comparison but it seems to me that it can only lead to recognising the limits of Bruckner when actually his music is wonderful. But Brahms? If we just look at symphonies you have four symphonies that are with Beethoven's and the late Mozarts the greatest even written, symphonies that just leave you wondering "where did _that _come from?" - so it seems to me. And I am not talking about what influenced Brahms - we know much about that - but something deeper in the music, "the music's soul" if you will. Brahms is deservedly one of the great 3 Bs. His symphonies are not comfortable listening and don't fit easily in your brain!
> 
> There are some in this thread who hear it differently and I must confess to almost feeling sorry for them! They seem to miss so much that is most important (to me) in music.


Surely Enthusiast you must recognize that we are all 'missing' that which we don't/can't appreciate that others do and can?


----------



## Jacck

Enthusiast said:


> I'm not sure why Brahms makes a good comparison but it seems to me that it can only lead to recognising the limits of Bruckner when actually his music is wonderful. But Brahms? If we just look at symphonies you have four symphonies that are with Beethoven's and the late Mozarts the greatest even written, symphonies that just leave you wondering "where did _that _come from?" - so it seems to me. And I am not talking about what influenced Brahms - we know much about that - but something deeper in the music, "the music's soul" if you will. Brahms is deservedly one of the great 3 Bs. His symphonies are not comfortable listening and don't fit easily in your brain!
> 
> There are some in this thread who hear it differently and I must confess to almost feeling sorry for them! They seem to miss so much that is most important (to me) in music.


I like both Brahms and Bruckner and see no reason to constantly compare and rank the composers. I doubt that musicology is an exact science, where each symphony can be quantified with a number and then compared. The religious glorification of Beethoven, Mozart or Brahms is absurd and irrational. So when someone says that a symphony by Brahms is so much more "deeper" than a symphony by X, I call that pseudoscientific religious BS.


----------



## Art Rock

As much as I adore the Brahms cycle (to my taste the most consistent in high quality, with only Sibelius coming close), I'd take Bruckner's 9th (3 mvmt version) over all 4 of Brahms combined. Of course, since I don't know much about the craft required, this is purely based on my own enjoyment of the results. It reminds me when my wife (professional artist, oil painting) and I visit a museum, and I find out she spends most of her time looking at technique and details of the exhibited works - while I just look at the result.


----------



## HerbertNorman

Art Rock said:


> As much as I adore the Brahms cycle (to my taste the most consistent in high quality, with only Sibelius coming close), I'd take Bruckner's 9th (3 mvmt version) over all 4 of Brahms combined. Of course, since I don't know much about the craft required, this is purely based on my own enjoyment of the results. It reminds me when my wife (professional artist, oil painting) and I visit a museum, and I find out she spends most of her time looking at technique and details of the exhibited works - while I just look at the result.


Same here, I enjoy Brahms more than I enjoy Bruckner... don't know why , but I like his work better.


----------



## janxharris

HerbertNorman said:


> Same here, I enjoy Brahms more than I enjoy Bruckner... don't know why , but I like his work better.


You might want to re-read Art Rock's post.


----------



## Fabulin

Enthusiast said:


> I'm not sure why Brahms makes a good comparison but it seems to me that it can only lead to recognising the limits of Bruckner when actually his music is wonderful. *But Brahms? If we just look at symphonies you have four symphonies that are with Beethoven's and the late Mozarts the greatest even written*, symphonies that just leave you wondering "where did _that _come from?" - so it seems to me. And I am not talking about what influenced Brahms - we know much about that - but something deeper in the music, "the music's soul" if you will. Brahms is deservedly one of the great 3 Bs. His symphonies are not comfortable listening and don't fit easily in your brain!
> 
> There are some in this thread who hear it differently and I must confess to almost feeling sorry for them! They seem to miss so much that is most important (to me) in music.


I wonder where does _that _come from.


----------



## Enthusiast

Jacck said:


> I like both Brahms and Bruckner and see no reason to constantly compare and rank the composers. I doubt that musicology is an exact science, where each symphony can be quantified with a number and then compared. The religious glorification of Beethoven, Mozart or Brahms is absurd and irrational. So when someone says that a symphony by Brahms is so much more "deeper" than a symphony by X, I call that pseudoscientific religious BS.


I agree about ranking although I can't help but see composers in "groups of greatness" while being unable to choose between those who share a group (I could probably get all composers into one of four groups). But I am not coming from musicology or science in my post. Nor am I being religious. I'm talking about love and how some works can consistently deliver amazement _to me_. There is nothing religious in glorifying the music of Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms - I am simply responding to what I get from their music. You seem to resent it but I can't see why. Perhaps you feel left out? As for being irrational, I can't imagine why you feel love has to be rational.

Your use of the word "deeper" is a quotation from my post that totally misrepresents what I said. I did not use the word for the purpose of comparison between works or composer but to describe going below the "musicological surface" of a piece of music, _*any piece of music*_. As for the suggestion that I am guilty of "pseudoscientific religious BS", I am baffled. Where am I pretending to be scientific? It is pretty clear I am not. And what makes you think I even believe the matter can be settled with science? As for religious? Where does that come from? BS - it is not an expression I would use (even just to myself) for your taste and I find it offensive when it is applied to mine. I suggest you get over yourself and your intellectual insecurity.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> I'm not sure why Brahms makes a good comparison but it seems to me that it can only lead to recognising the limits of Bruckner when actually his music is wonderful. But Brahms? If we just look at symphonies you have four symphonies that are with Beethoven's and the late Mozarts the greatest even written, symphonies that just leave you wondering "where did _that _come from?" - so it seems to me. And I am not talking about what influenced Brahms - we know much about that - but something deeper in the music, "the music's soul" if you will. Brahms is deservedly one of the great 3 Bs. His symphonies are not comfortable listening and don't fit easily in your brain!
> 
> There are some in this thread who hear it differently and I must confess to almost feeling sorry for them! They seem to miss so much that is most important (to me) in music.


Do you accept that we are all 'missing' that which we don't/can't appreciate - something which others do and can appreciate?


----------



## Judith

Definitely genius. Grown to love Bruckner over time because his symphonies are interesting and by no means boring. Maybe feel this way because I do love works that are underrated


----------



## millionrainbows

You could compare it to a dance. Brahms knows more, and can stretch further, and jump higher, but the overall effect is not "sexy."
Whereas Bruckner is more simple harmonically, he is a master of the "gesture." (that's why he is popular in Japan. They understand 'gesture.') He flows, is elegant, and turns us on, whereas Brahms is a stiff, awkward, stodgy old fart. Who wants to look at that?

Genius or dunce? That's not the criteria we use when looking a a naked woman dancing.


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> Do you accept that we are all 'missing' that which we don't/can't appreciate - something which others do and can appreciate?


Umm. Yes. Why not? It is a way of thinking that has helped me often to persevere with composers that I was feeling short-changed by.


----------



## millionrainbows

janxharris said:


> Do you accept that we are all 'missing' that which we don't/can't appreciate - something which others do and can appreciate?


No, it means that some of us are looking for different things. Some of us like the nice, visceral pleasure of a tanned, muscular body, and others of us are looking for a dinner partner who knows a lot about wine.


----------



## amfortas

millionrainbows said:


> No, it means that some of us are looking for different things. Some of us like the nice, visceral pleasure of a tanned, muscular body, and others of us are looking for a dinner partner who knows a lot about wine.


Some of us want both in one. We're called "single."


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> No, it means that some of us are looking for different things. Some of us like the nice, visceral pleasure of a tanned, muscular body, and others of us are looking for a dinner partner who knows a lot about wine.


..and some musos look for someone (anyone) who'll pay for dinner.


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> No, it means that some of us are looking for different things. Some of us like the nice, visceral pleasure of a tanned, muscular body, and others of us are looking for a dinner partner who knows a lot about wine.


I don't see any discrepancy between our statements. If you are looking for x then you won't appreciate y if y does not contain some element of x.


----------



## larold

_Could we say Brahms had greater mastery of 'horizontal harmony' (trajectory of ideas) whereas Bruckner was a sublime vertical thinker (the lush, spacious textures of the adagios of the 6th and 7th, for example)?_

I don't find much relationship between the way the two created music. They thought very differently. Their commonality is they composed coincidentally.

Brahms was a throwback, a classicist, some of whose ideas and forms went back to the Renaissance. He was an unfriendly person who had well-known feuds with peers including Tchaikovsky. His camp was typically critical of Bruckner as well. Brahms music looked back to Beethoven, among others.

Bruckner was a world-class organist whose sonority builds like steppes of a mountain trail where ideas started in strings are followed by woodwinds and then by brass. He was influenced by Beethoven but also by Liszt and Wagner, the forerunners of his time. Bruckner's music looked ahead to Mahler, among others.


----------



## Enthusiast

larold said:


> _
> Brahms was a throwback, a classicist, some of whose ideas and forms went back to the Renaissance. He was an unfriendly person who had well-known feuds with peers including Tchaikovsky. His camp was typically critical of Bruckner as well. Brahms music looked back to Beethoven, among others.
> _


_

I agree with much of what you said but not quite the above. Surely Brahms was a true Romantic? His approach was often classical but this is with a small c and he was no throwback! I think there has always been a tension between the classical and the romantic - Mozart, for example, surely had romantic tendencies and perhaps Handel did, too. Brahms did look back (he did so with modesty) but I am not convinced he didn't also look forward. I can think of few composers who seem to have arrived almost fully formed to the extent he did._


----------



## larold

Brahms had romantic ideas certainly; he secretly loved Robert Schumann's daughter and, when she decided to marry another, wrote his Alto Rhapsody to extoll his longing and loss. He later lusted after Schumann's wife after Robert died.

However, I don't find his music "romantic" in the vein of his peer Tchaikovsky. The latter's gestures are always bigger, always more emotional, and he regularly named his music after romantic legends such as Romeo and Juliet. Brahms didn't do much of that save his vocal music. His was absolute music in a Beethovenian vein.

You could argue this the difference between romantic and late romantic; I wouldn't since they were alive and composed at the same time.

I believe Brahms was probably a man born in the wrong century for what he did artistically. Had he never lived and never written music what romantic composer after him wouldn't have been there? in other words whom did he influence and in what way. To me he was ultraconservative like St. Saens.

Bruckner, on the other hand, clearly influenced Mahler -- who played his symphonies all the time in both Vienna and New York. Had there never been a Bruckner I wonder if there would have been a Mahler.


----------



## Tallisman

I wish people would pay more attention to Brahms instead of regurgitating the standard opinion that he is a backward-looking classicist. In fact there are strikingly modern details in Brahms, a sense of rhythm that I find almost unparalleled, subtle ways of subverting harmony. Just because he doesn't wash you in waves of obvious chromaticism like Wagner doesn't mean he wasn't incredibly hip and modern. He is not just a continuation of Beethoven, he is constantly adding new harmonic flavours that you will not find in his precursors. People would do well to treat Brahms' music as he wished it to be treated (as purely abstract, purely musical, rather than listening against a background of opinions. Therein lies the magic)


----------



## Guest

He had great skill, an unmistakable style, but a rather limited range of expression. There are works of Bruckner that I love, but I don't think of him as an equal of the transcendent greats such as Brahms.


----------



## Guest

Tallisman said:


> I wish people would pay more attention to Brahms instead of regurgitating the standard opinion that he is a backward-looking classicist. In fact there are strikingly modern details in Brahms, a sense of rhythm that I find almost unparalleled, subtle ways of subverting harmony. Just because he doesn't wash you in waves of obvious chromaticism like Wagner doesn't mean he wasn't incredibly hip and modern. He is not just a continuation of Beethoven, he is constantly adding new harmonic flavours that you will not find in his precursors. People would do well to treat Brahms' music as he wished it to be treated (as purely abstract, purely musical, rather than listening against a background of opinions. Therein lies the magic)


Agree completely.


----------



## Enthusiast

I find a love of nature in Brahms and an inclusive warmth - Romantic qualities - as well as emotions and feelings and a rejection of past orthodoxies and hierarchies (so his Requiem is a German Requiem). His orchestra is a Romantic orchestra and he gives the brass lots of work to do. His chamber music is passionate in the extreme. Just because he controlled it all with discipline and traditional structures might make him something of a conservative but hardly a Classical throwback.


----------



## larold

I can't agree with ideas of romanticism being espoused here. I think both Beethoven and Schubert, each of whom died before Brahms was born, were more romantic than him. Compare any of Schubert's greatest songs -- Erlking, any of the Winterreise songs, An Schwager Kronos, Gretchen am Spinnrad -- and compare them to anything Brahms wrote to see the difference. 

I would also say Beethoven's Eroica and Choral symphonies, just to name two, were far more romantic in outlook than any of Brahms' in part because they were written an an expression of ideas as much as music. So too the Schubert "Unfinished" symphony with its ideals of life undone, Dvorak's expression of the new world, and Tchaikovsky's expression of pathos, in each case done via a symphony. 

These were benchmarks of romanticism. Brahms did nothing like this. 

I'm not trying to diminish Brahms greatness; surely he was one of the great composers. But he was not particularly romantic or a man of his time. The romantic era was one where gestures became larger than ever, images more dramatic, tempos more erratic, and forms more expansive than ever before. 

In terms of form Brahms wasn't romantic at all. Liszt was one of the great romantics in this way, expanding sonata format so recaps went on ad finitum. Brahms stayed strictly in classical forms throughout his life. 

Brahms lived in the romantic 19th century so surely he was romantic -- rather like any of us living in the era of the Internet, cell phone and tablet are all techno-wizards. It isn't possible for us to go back and live like people did in 1950 and Brahms couldn't do that either. But every indication of the way he composed music indicated that's where his sensibilities lied, not in modern ways.


----------



## Fabulin

Baron Scarpia said:


> He had great skill, an unmistakable style, but a rather limited range of expression. There are works of Bruckner that I love, but I don't think of him as an equal of the transcendent greats such as Brahms.


I would swap the names.


----------



## Enthusiast

I'm listening to the 2nd piano concerto of Brahms and trying to think of it as a Classical work. I just can't.


----------



## larold

You mean you can't think of it as comparable to Mozart or Haydn? Neither can I.

For romance compare it to the Rachmaninoff Second, Tchaikovsky First or Furtwangler or Busoni concertos of the next century...or take away the first movement...and see what you think.


----------



## bz3

I think Brahms 4 might be the best symphony ever composed, and the only other symphony I would say that about is Beethoven's 6th. Still, I hold Bruckner in a higher regard as a composer for symphony. I didn't really understand what the OP meant by Bruckner as a dunce as it wasn't clear, but I certainly disagree with the 'half simpleton, half god' Mahlerism. Provincial? Probably, but I think always (and especially these days) the provincial are likely to be both more shrewd and scrutable than the urbanites.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Enthusiast said:


> I find a love of nature in Brahms and an inclusive warmth -


Echoes my own sentiments to a tee. :tiphat:


----------



## violadude

larold said:


> I can't agree with ideas of romanticism being espoused here. I think both Beethoven and Schubert, each of whom died before Brahms was born, were more romantic than him. Compare any of Schubert's greatest songs -- Erlking, any of the Winterreise songs, An Schwager Kronos, Gretchen am Spinnrad -- and compare them to anything Brahms wrote to see the difference.
> 
> I would also say Beethoven's Eroica and Choral symphonies, just to name two, were far more romantic in outlook than any of Brahms' in part because they were written an an expression of ideas as much as music. So too the Schubert "Unfinished" symphony with its ideals of life undone, Dvorak's expression of the new world, and Tchaikovsky's expression of pathos, in each case done via a symphony.
> 
> These were benchmarks of romanticism. Brahms did nothing like this.
> 
> I'm not trying to diminish Brahms greatness; surely he was one of the great composers. But he was not particularly romantic or a man of his time. The romantic era was one where gestures became larger than ever, images more dramatic, tempos more erratic, and forms more expansive than ever before.
> 
> In terms of form Brahms wasn't romantic at all. Liszt was one of the great romantics in this way, expanding sonata format so recaps went on ad finitum. Brahms stayed strictly in classical forms throughout his life.
> 
> Brahms lived in the romantic 19th century so surely he was romantic -- rather like any of us living in the era of the Internet, cell phone and tablet are all techno-wizards. It isn't possible for us to go back and live like people did in 1950 and Brahms couldn't do that either. But every indication of the way he composed music indicated that's where his sensibilities lied, not in modern ways.


It's true that Brahms wasn't as "into" the Romantic outlook in the way you describe it with your post. But at the same time, you can't say that on a musical level, is music is backwards looking. Harmonically, rhythmically and melodically his music was certainly "caught up with the times" and not backwards looking at all.






Just listen to the first piece in that set and you can clearly hear that it was written however many decades after Schubert and Beethoven.


----------



## violadude

Baron Scarpia:

"He had great skill, an unmistakable style, but a rather limited range of expression. There are works of Bruckner that I love, but I don't think of him as an equal of the transcendent greats such as Brahms. "



Fabulin said:


> I would swap the names.


Music is subjective so I hesitate to jump in here, but I really can't see how anyone can claim Brahms is expressively more limited than Bruckner. To me, Bruckner seems almost objectively more limited in expression, however much someone may enjoy that expression. Or maybe I should say, he wrote with a more focused expression to put things in more positive terms.


----------



## bz3

violadude said:


> Baron Scarpia:
> 
> "He had great skill, an unmistakable style, but a rather limited range of expression. There are works of Bruckner that I love, but I don't think of him as an equal of the transcendent greats such as Brahms. "
> 
> Music is subjective so I hesitate to jump in here, but I really can't see how anyone can claim Brahms is expressively more limited than Bruckner. To me, Bruckner seems almost objectively more limited in expression, however much someone may enjoy that expression. Or maybe I should say, he wrote with a more focused expression to put things in more positive terms.


I never understood the idea that Bruckner wasn't varied nor the idea that he 'wrote the same symphony nine times.' Sounds like something someone who doesn't like the composer would say as I see his symphonies as varied as anyone's. Even Mahler to me seems to have a more narrow focus to me, despite the fact he wrote a few cantatas and called them symphonies.


----------



## violadude

bz3 said:


> I never understood the idea that Bruckner wasn't varied *nor the idea that he 'wrote the same symphony nine times.' Sounds like something someone who doesn't like the composer would say* as I see his symphonies as varied as anyone's. Even Mahler to me seems to have a more narrow focus to me, despite the fact he wrote a few cantatas and called them symphonies.


Well, I didn't say anything like this. I was saying, in comparison to Brahms, Bruckner seems to have a more focused and unified expression spanning across his works.


----------



## Woodduck

Bruckner was great at what he did, but what he did is highly peculiar, and his work exhibits a limited range of expression in a limited number of forms. From symphony to symphony, the tunes differ but the concepts and goals are mostly similar. This can be said of many artists, but not of most we regard as representing the apex of achievement in their fields. The variety of form and feeling, and the quest for new horizons, which we find to varying degrees in Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, etc., is not characteristic of Bruckner, who seems to be obsessed by a singular, entrancing vision which he strives to realize unswervingly and with increasing purity and depth. 

I would never call Bruckner a dunce, but I do think of him as an eccentric introvert and a kind of savant, almost autistic in relation to the rest of the cultural milieu in which he lived. His world is profoundly unlike anyone else's, a separateness he maintained precisely by knowing and respecting his limits. The influence of Wagner has been much exaggerated; there was veneration, but Wagner's sensual, histrionic and ever-expanding emotional world was outside Bruckner's path. Similarly, there isn't much of Bruckner in Mahler.


----------



## Becca

Woodduck said:


> Bruckner was great at what he did, but what he did is highly peculiar, and his work exhibits a limited range of expression in a limited number of forms. *From symphony to symphony, the tunes differ but the concepts and goals are mostly similar. This can be said of many artists, but not of most we regard as representing the apex of achievement in their fields.* The variety of form and feeling, and the quest for new horizons, which we find to varying degrees in Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, etc., is not characteristic of Bruckner, who seems to be obsessed by a singular, entrancing vision which he strives to realize unswervingly and with increasing purity and depth.


The first part could also be said of Mahler, but definitely not the second.


----------



## Becca

Tallisman said:


> Could we say Brahms had greater mastery of 'horizontal harmony' (trajectory of ideas) whereas Bruckner was a sublime vertical thinker (the lush, spacious textures of the adagios of the 6th and 7th, for example)?


I really fail to see how the adagio of the 7th is not a very successful 'trajectory of ideas'.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> Bruckner was great at what he did, but what he did is highly peculiar, and his work exhibits a limited range of expression in a limited number of forms. From symphony to symphony, the tunes differ but the concepts and goals are mostly similar. This can be said of many artists, but not of most we regard as representing the apex of achievement in their fields. The variety of form and feeling, and the quest for new horizons, which we find to varying degrees in Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, etc., is not characteristic of Bruckner, who seems to be obsessed by a singular, entrancing vision which he strives to realize unswervingly and with increasing purity and depth.
> 
> I would never call Bruckner a dunce, but I do think of him as an eccentric introvert and a kind of savant, almost autistic in relation to the rest of the cultural milieu in which he lived. His world is profoundly unlike anyone else's, a separateness he maintained precisely by knowing and respecting his limits. The influence of Wagner has been much exaggerated; there was veneration, but Wagner's sensual, histrionic and ever-expanding emotional world was outside Bruckner's path. Similarly, there isn't much of Bruckner in Mahler.


Without defining exactly what might demonstrate variety or otherwise (and do so without bias), it's difficult to accept your assertion (in an objective sense). Certainly the beginning of Mozart's Dissonant String Quartet and Beethoven's Grosse Fuge do show great vision.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Isn't the definition of the word "variety" quite widely understood? And, when applied to Bruckner in comparison with other major composers, isn't the meaning crystal clear?


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Isn't the definition of the word "variety" quite widely understood? And, when applied to Bruckner in comparison with other major composers, isn't the meaning crystal clear?


Not from my perspective.


----------



## larold

As a Bruckner lover I can understand comments about the composer being perceived as singly dimensional or lacking variety. This is for the most part because people only know him from his popular symphonies.

Most people don't know he composed early piano music; if you hear that it will add dimension to your idea of the composer. Some of his earlier choral works, such as the "Windhagg" mass, Libera me motet, Tantum Ergo or even the Mass No. 1, written between the so-called "Study" and Die Nulte" symphonies, or even the later, very austere Mass No. 3 scored for woodwinds and voices, would show dimension you probably don't know. There's a lot of Palestrina in him.

Also did you know he wrote two song-like string quintets? The greatest oddity about Bruckner is he was a world class organist whose organ music is virtually unknown to the world. Try any of this and hear a composer you do not know.

Profil has a 23-disk box with all this and a lot more for people that want to better know this composer. It includes Gerd Schaller's recordings of the symphonies if that matters.


----------



## Fabulin

Don't forget this cool march:


----------



## bz3

violadude said:


> Well, I didn't say anything like this. I was saying, in comparison to Brahms, Bruckner seems to have a more focused and unified expression spanning across his works.


Okay then my mistake and I would say that's fair. Though I would disagree if we limit our discussion to Brahms's symphonies.

What I meant to say was that Bruckner's strict adherence to his version of sonata form (which is vastly differently from other composers' versions) and his strict adherence to traditional symphony structure do not preclude him from being expressively varied. I think it was his peculiar sonata form that led to the well-worn expression I quoted about writing the same symphony nine times. If he'd done it just once that particular symphony would probably be remembered like the Eroica.


----------



## Becca

bz3 said:


> the well-worn expression I quoted about writing the same symphony nine times


Of course he didn't ... he wrote it 11 times  (0 & 00)


----------



## hammeredklavier

larold said:


> Some of his earlier choral works, such as the "Windhagg" mass, Libera me motet, Tantum Ergo or even the Mass No. 1,


----------



## bz3

Becca said:


> Of course he didn't ... he wrote it 11 times  (0 & 00)


Why I oughtta....


----------



## millionrainbows

hammeredklavier said:


>


God, that's a tall woman! Are you sure that isn't the "Windhagg?"


----------



## 1996D

Bruckner is like Dvorak, there is a lack of content, of depth. The same can be said about Liszt and Mendelssohn.

These are composers that lack depth of creativity; that rely on ornamentation. It results in music that doesn't last many hearings, it quickly stales.

They're all good melodists though, that's what makes them popular.


----------



## Becca

It is only March 1st but I will give ^^ The Most Absurd Post of the Year Award for 2020.


----------



## 1996D

Becca said:


> It is only March 1st but I will give ^^ The Most Absurd Post of the Year Award for 2020.


Listen to Bruckner next to Mahler, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms etc. and you'll see my point.

His music progresses into nothing, there is no depth of exploration, he simply repeats. Liszt's Dante and Faust Symphonies are perfect examples of this - music that goes nowhere, superficial music.

Bruckner's the better orchestrator, that's the main difference, but personally I think Liszt is the better melodist, all up to taste. Both are very good at producing attractive melodies, that's what makes their music worth hearing.


----------



## johnredford09

I agree with you about Brahms. He could pull simple movements together to make a brilliant composition. One piece he composed is a polyphonic, a cappella Christmas song called The White Dove that is just wonderful (I think my favorite Christmas song of all), but it's often overlooked. Surprisingly, most people are not aware of it, even Brahms enthusiasts.


----------



## DaveM

1996D said:


> Listen to Bruckner next to Mahler, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms etc. and you'll see my point.
> 
> His music progresses into nothing, there is no depth of exploration, he simply repeats. Liszt's Dante and Faust Symphonies are perfect examples of this - music that goes nowhere, superficial music.
> 
> Bruckner is a better orchestrator than Liszt, that's the main difference.


You haven't listened to much Bruckner have you. Have no idea why you are making comparisons with Liszt. Btw, being a good orchestrator isn't usually associated with music that goes nowhere or is superficial.


----------



## Becca

1996D said:


> Listen to Bruckner next to Mahler, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms etc. and you'll see my point.


I have, many, many times, by many different conductors/orchestras, all of which tells me what I already said.


----------



## 1996D

DaveM said:


> You haven't listened to much Bruckner have you. Have no idea why you are making comparisons with Liszt. Btw, being a good orchestrator isn't usually associated with music that goes nowhere or is superficial.


I'm going to hear his 9th soon with Gergiev conducting, I actually quite enjoy his melodies and orchestration. But he is very rightfully a second rate composer and well behind Richard Strauss and Sibelius in my opinion, there is nothing of note about his form, or really about anything he does except for what's mentioned.

But he's a nice change of pace, and Gergiev can bring out the emotion of the 9th, which is an excellent symphony in terms of that. As a Romantic he delivers.


----------



## 1996D

Becca said:


> I have, many, many times, by many different conductors/orchestras, all of which tells me what I already said.


You might be a sensory type of listener, putting emotion above all else, which is fine, I'm not critiquing Bruckner in that sense. For more abstract listeners who enjoy counterpoint and music that keeps on giving in terms of novelty, with form that continuously digs deeper, Bruckner is quite lacking.


----------



## Becca

...and you might be quite wrong.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> Bruckner is like Dvorak, there is a lack of content, of depth. The same can be said about Liszt and Mendelssohn.
> 
> These are composers that lack depth of creativity; that rely on ornamentation. It results in music that doesn't last many hearings, it quickly stales.
> 
> They're all good melodists though, that's what makes them popular.


Someone else has already called this absurd. Thanks to her, I don't have to.

Neither Bruckner nor Dvorak lacks content or depth. Neither relies on ornamentation (_ornamentation?!_). Their music only stales quickly if you don't care for it. Dvorak's wonderful melodies are indeed a major factor in his popularity, but not the only factor. Bruckner wrote good melodies, but he is not known as a melodist. That is not what makes him as popular as he is, though calling him popular, as classical composers go, is a bit of a stretch.



> Listen to Bruckner next to Mahler, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms etc. and you'll see my point.


Who does "etc." include (I ask with trepidation)?



> His music progresses into nothing, there is no depth of exploration, he simply repeats.


You simply don't appreciate the depths he's exploring and his manner of exploring them. Many people don't. It's OK. His methods are peculiar. Maybe he'll get through to you someday.



> Bruckner's the better orchestrator, that's the main difference, but personally I think Liszt is the better melodist, all up to taste.


You think _orchestration_ is the main difference between Bruckner and Liszt? Man, where are your ears? They are miles apart in every way that matters.



> Both are very good at producing attractive melodies, that's what makes their music worth hearing.


That's a bizarre notion. You're just not hearing what the music is saying.



> there is nothing of note about his form, or really about anything he does except for what's mentioned.


His form is precisely what is most notable about him. No one constructs a movement like Bruckner; no one brings to familiar forms his peculiar sense of time (which a friend of mine, who was just beginning to "get" Bruckner, called "spatial"). It's the major difficulty people have in understanding and liking his music, but it's what makes him special to many who love him.

Be patient. Return to Bruckner periodically as the years go by. Eventually you may discover the transcendental power that others find in him, and you'll now that his essence is beyond orchestration, melodies, and "ornamentation."

I would strongly recommend to a skeptic Furtwangler's interpretations of the 8th and 9th symphonies. He brings to Bruckner a burning passion that others rarely match.


----------



## 1996D

Becca said:


> ...and you might be quite wrong.


Ok, mind you that by superficial I meant in terms of musical structure, in terms of musical depth of creativity, not emotionally. Bruckner uses repetition a lot, that's where the comparison to Liszt begins, and it continues on in their dramatic ability. Bruckner was a fan too.

Some people can handle repetition, but others need constant novelty.


----------



## Becca

Given that you know very little about me, your statements border on being offensive.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> Neither Bruckner nor Dvorak lacks content or depth. Neither relies on ornamentation (_ornamentation?!_). Their music only stales quickly if you don't care for it. Dvorak's wonderful melodies are indeed a major factor in his popularity, but not the only factor. Bruckner wrote good melodies, but he is not known as a melodist. That is not what makes him as popular as he is, though calling him popular, as classical composers go, is a bit of a stretch.


By ornamentation I mean that they have ways of bypassing having to use creativity, which is harder to call upon. They recycle material - Bruckner is the greatest 'environmentalist' along with Liszt. They use the same musical ideas and repeat them in slightly different ways throughout their pieces. Dvorak and Mendelssohn also have their ways, although different. Both of them take what would seem to be the opposite route of trying to imitate good form, but fall well short and end up producing works with a lightness and lack of rigor.

All of them are the complete antithesis of Bach, and their music can create great boredom. They really depend on great performance by the musicians (especially for chamber and solo works) and conductor.

Because of their lack of creativity every phrase has to be performed with great emotion in order to keep interest.



> That's a bizarre notion. You're just not hearing what the music is saying.


All of them have their moments but as a whole their works have many instances where you don't need to pay attention, they are simply repeating or singing a very simple tune. Compare that to any of the masters and that simply does not apply: they demand your complete attention and even concentration at times for the entirety of their works - so much is going on for the mind to absorb. While you can listen to Bruckner while having a conversation and still grasp everything he's doing for almost the entirety of his works.

He's a simpleton, a genius only in his ability to convey emotion, and that depends entirely on the performers. In that way he is the conductor's dream, left completely free to make the piece his own because of its simplicity and call to emotion and performance.


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> By ornamentation I mean that they have ways of bypassing having to use creativity, which is harder to call upon. They recycle material - Bruckner is the greatest 'environmentalist' along with Liszt. They use the same musical ideas and repeat them in slightly different ways throughout their pieces. Dvorak and Mendelssohn also have their ways, although different. Both of them take what would seem to be the opposite route of trying to imitate good form, but fall well short and end up producing works with a lightness and lack of rigor.
> 
> All of them are the complete antithesis of Bach, and their music can create great boredom. They really depend on great performance by the musicians (especially for chamber and solo works) and conductor.
> 
> Because of their lack of creativity every phrase has to be performed with great emotion in order to keep interest.
> 
> All of them have their moments but as a whole their works have many instances where you don't need to pay attention, they are simply repeating or singing a very simple tune. Compare that to any of the masters and that simply does not apply: they demand your complete attention and even concentration at times for the entirety of their works - so much is going on for the mind to absorb. While you can listen to Bruckner while having a conversation and still grasp everything he's doing for almost the entirety of his works.
> 
> He's a simpleton, a genius only in his ability to convey emotion, and that depends entirely on the performers. In that way he is the conductor's dream, left completely free to make the piece his own because of its simplicity and call to emotion and performance.


Your opinion is interesting but it would require a lot more detail and specificity if you want give it some objectivity. 'Masters' in the context in which you use it remains subjectively defined - unless you recognise it merely means popular.


----------



## 1996D

janxharris said:


> Your opinion is interesting but it would require a lot more detail and specificity if you want give it some objectivity. 'Masters' in the context in which you use it remains subjectively defined - unless you recognise it merely means popular.


There are levels, Bach is probably the most creative, it just never ends with him. Mozart, Beethoven would follow, but almost all the greats with a significant percentage of their works in the standard repertoire are highly creative, the ones I listed are the exceptions.

It's not completely related to popularity, after all Bach is so creative many find him incomprehensible. Bruckner is perhaps overrated considering he gets compared to Mahler, who in all honesty makes him look like a Pygmy.

Mendelssohn and Dvorak, those are in Bruckner's level. Liszt was a great innovator at the piano, and foresaw impressionism, so I'd put him ahead.


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> There are levels, Bach is probably the most creative, it just never ends with him. Mozart, Beethoven would follow, but almost all the greats with a significant percentage of their works in the standard repertoire are highly creative, the ones I listed are the exceptions.
> 
> *It's not completely related to popularity, after all Bach is so creative many find him incomprehensible.* Bruckner is perhaps overrated considering he gets compared to Mahler, who in all honesty makes him look like a Pygmy.
> 
> Mendelssohn and Dvorak, those are in Bruckner's level. Liszt was a great innovator at the piano, and foresaw impressionism, so I'd put him ahead.


In justifying that it's not just about popularity you offer this: _"after all Bach is so creative many find him incomprehensible."_? So you consider that you have objective insight regarding this matter 1996D? Yet you merely proffer your subjective view; it's interesting and valuable but it doesn't trump anyone else's.


----------



## 1996D

janxharris said:


> In justifying that it's not just about popularity you offer this: _"after all Bach is so creative many find him incomprehensible."_? So you consider that you have objective insight regarding this matter 1996D? Yet you merely proffer your subjective view; it's interesting and valuable but I it doesn't trump anyone else's.


Well, it might make a work hard to digest, like Mahler 6th, that took ~50 years to be recognized, and is still today not viewed as it should be. Counterpoint monsters are usually disliked and only time can break them down, sometimes like in Bach's case it takes a very long time indeed. When did people really start liking Bach? 1820? 1850? It took people like Beethoven and Liszt to recognize the works and play them for the aristocracy. Bach got ignored for awhile after his death.

So no it's not a matter of popularity.


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> Well, it might make a work hard to digest, like Mahler 6th, that took ~50 years to be recognized, and is still today not viewed as it should be. Counterpoint monsters are usually disliked and only time can break them down, sometimes like in Bach's case it takes a very long time indeed. When did people really start liking Bach? 1820? 1850? It took people like Beethoven and Liszt to recognize the works and play them for the aristocracy. Bach got ignored for awhile after his death.
> 
> So no it's not a matter of popularity.


Sorry but I am not aware of any argument for putting Bach, Beethoven and Mozart at the top that isn't based on popularity. As you mention, Mahler was not greatly rated as a composer during his lifetime; he would not have featured in a poll of composer greats like he is now. He does so now because he is popular.


----------



## 1996D

janxharris said:


> Sorry but I am not aware of any argument for putting Bach, Beethoven and Mozart at the top that isn't based on popularity. As you mention, Mahler was not greatly rated as a composer during his lifetime; he would not have featured in a poll of composer greats like he is now. He does so now because he is popular.


Unless you asked Berg, Webern, and Schoenberg, or Alma Mahler. Every composer will have his admirers, often times highly competent musicians and composers, but yes it is hard for complex music to be digested by the more general public at the time of its release.

Time however is the great test. I did not list the three because they're popular but because they are really the best, you can put Mahler and Brahms up there with them as well. This is all in terms of pure musical ability and creativity, not taste - they are just the hardest to replicate, to get to that level many, many things need to happen.


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> Unless you asked Berg, Webern, and Schoenberg, or Alma Mahler. Every composer will have his admirers, often times highly competent musicians and composers, but yes it is hard for complex music to be digested by the more general public at the time of its release.
> 
> Time however is the great test. I did not list the three because they're popular but because they are really the best, you can put Mahler and Brahms up there with them as well. This is all in terms of pure musical ability and creativity, not taste - they are just the hardest to replicate.


Ok 1996D, your assertion (I assume it's a claim to objectivity) is that the 'three' are the best; what is your reasoning?


----------



## 1996D

janxharris said:


> Ok 1996D, your assertion (I assume it's a claim to objectivity) is that the 'three' are the best; what is your reasoning?


I started composing 8 years ago and went through all the levels, every year adding complexities, slowly but surely getting to this level. There was more improvement in this last year than in the seven prior, I take it it was the brain maturing, but the music is objectively much more complex.

Imagine going through creating things from what sounds minimalistic to what flows like a symphony; the growth you feel is like a child growing into a man; it's that objective. To get to the level of those three at their prime there are many, many steps, and it's not at all subjective - the level is as real as human height - you can see it and feel it.


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> I started composing 8 years ago and went through all the levels, every year adding complexities, slowly but surely getting to this level. There was more improvement in this last year than in the seven prior, I take it it was the brain maturing, but the music is objectively much more complex.
> 
> Imagine going through creating things from what sounds minimalistic to what flows like a symphony; the growth you feel is like a child growing into a man; it's that objective. To get to the level of those three at their prime there are many, many steps, and it's not at all subjective - the level is as real as human height - you can see it and feel it.


But 1996D, with all respect, this is your perspective. It's certainly valuable - and your elevation of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart to the 'Big Three' is shared by a lot of classical music lovers - but you are just giving us your opinion. You have not made an objective case.


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> Sorry but I am not aware of any argument for putting Bach, Beethoven and Mozart at the top that isn't based on popularity. As you mention, Mahler was not greatly rated as a composer during his lifetime; he would not have featured in a poll of composer greats like he is now. He does so now because he is popular.


Popular can mean many very different things here. It can be identified as a proportion of the whole population or of a particular population. Or it can merely be expressed in numbers (and not as a proportion of bigger numbers). Whatever way you choose those three names (often with Brahms as a fourth) end up on top. The great majority of critics choose them. The great majority of musicians choose them. The public choose them and have been doing so for some time - although for much of the past the new and fashionable were people's first choices. Anyway, with such popularity we do seem to be approaching some sort of consensus and objectivity. You can counter by saying the such popularity is still just popularity and is not really an objective measure of quality. But what is quality in music? It is about success in pleasing and impressing people.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> Popular can mean many very different things here. It can be identified as a proportion of the whole population or of a particular population. Or it can merely be expressed in numbers (and not as a proportion of bigger numbers). Whatever way you choose those three names (often with Brahms as a fourth) end up on top. The great majority of critics choose them. The great majority of musicians choose them. The public choose them and have been doing so for some time - although for much of the past the new and fashionable were people's first choices. Anyway, with such popularity we do seem to be approaching some sort of consensus and objectivity. You can counter by saying the such popularity is still just popularity and is not really an objective measure of quality. But what is quality in music? It is about success in pleasing and impressing people.


It is accepted that an argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument. You disagree?


----------



## Enthusiast

1996D said:


> *I started composing 8 years ago *and went through all the levels, every year adding complexities, slowly but surely getting to this level. There was more improvement in this last year than in the seven prior, I take it it was the brain maturing, but the music is objectively much more complex.


Are you younger than you seem or ... how did a sudden desire to compose come into your life? And where does you confidence and conviction in your ability to do something that you are a mere starter in come from?


----------



## 1996D

Enthusiast said:


> Popular can mean many very different things here. It can be identified as a proportion of the whole population or of a particular population. Or it can merely be expressed in numbers (and not as a proportion of bigger numbers). Whatever way you choose those three names (often with Brahms as a fourth) end up on top. The great majority of critics choose them. The great majority of musicians choose them. The public choose them and have been doing so for some time - although for much of the past the new and fashionable were people's first choices. Anyway, with such popularity we do seem to be approaching some sort of consensus and objectivity. You can counter by saying the such popularity is still just popularity and is not really an objective measure of quality. But what is quality in music?* It is about success in pleasing and impressing people.*


Yes but across the ages, not just in one's lifetime. Music that endures is great music, that's the goal.


----------



## 1996D

Enthusiast said:


> Are you younger than you seem or ... how did a sudden desire to compose come into your life? And where does you confidence and conviction in your ability to do something that you are a mere starter in come from?


Early 20s. I started hearing music in my head since childhood but not actually composing until my teens and good music not until now.

I went through many forms and styles, including less tonal, almost atonal music. Everything was tried only to conclude that tonality and complex structure is where the future lies.

You'll all be able to hear soon, it's a prelude and three large orchestral works based on a philosophical work. I'll make a post about the premise.


----------



## Enthusiast

^  Ha - I had you down as a 60 year old. But you have still got lots of time to learn to understand all that music you look down on now.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> Popular can mean many very different things here. It can be identified as a proportion of the whole population or of a particular population. Or it can merely be expressed in numbers (and not as a proportion of bigger numbers). Whatever way you choose those three names (often with Brahms as a fourth) end up on top. The great majority of critics choose them. The great majority of musicians choose them. The public choose them and have been doing so for some time - although for much of the past the new and fashionable were people's first choices. Anyway, with such popularity we do seem to be approaching some sort of consensus and objectivity. You can counter by saying the such popularity is still just popularity and is not really an objective measure of quality. But what is quality in music? It is about success in pleasing and impressing people.


You merely assert that such composers are popular - that is not in dispute. But inferring that this somehow makes such composers 'better' than others is unsupported and can be seen as arrogant.


----------



## 1996D

Enthusiast said:


> ^  *Ha - I had you down as a 60 year old.* But you have still got lots of time to learn to understand all that music you look down on now.


That's high praise. As they say youth is wasted on the young.

I don't look down on it anymore, I think I did because I thought I wasted years off my life pursuing it, but now the usefulness of that road has revealed itself in the form of originality. I'm thankful for modernism and its wild experiments, and all composers should come to understand its value.

It frees the mind and aids in the finding of one's true voice; I'm ready now; the music has everything a debut should have. Any more and it would be greed.


----------



## Room2201974

1996D said:


> I started composing 8 years ago and went through all the levels, every year adding complexities, slowly but surely getting to this level. There was more improvement in this last year than in the seven prior, I take it it was the brain maturing, but the music is objectively much more complex.
> 
> Imagine going through creating things from what sounds minimalistic to what flows like a symphony; the growth you feel is like a child growing into a man; it's that objective. To get to the level of those three at their prime there are many, many steps, and it's not at all subjective - the level is as real as human height - you can see it and feel it.


Every thread that *1996D* posts in eventually gets around to his compositional abilities. Its like an egomusical adjunct to Godwin's Law.


----------



## 1996D

Room2201974 said:


> Every thread that *1996D* posts in eventually gets around to his compositional abilities. Its like an egomusical adjunct to Godwin's Law.


I'm releasing this week and/or next. It's called a build up.

I've talked the talk, now I'm going to walk it.


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> You merely assert that such composers are popular - that is not in dispute. But inferring that this somehow makes such composers 'better' than others is unsupported and can be seen as arrogant.


I think you didn't read my post. My argument was that 
- when when the quality in question is about the ability to move people (it isn't about a quality that doesn't depend on people ... like whether the Earth is flat or not)
and 
- when informed opinion (informed people) over centuries concerning who wrote the greatest music has consistently come up with the same result,

then you are pretty near an objective fact. The key to something close to objectivity being found in the subjective experiences of communities of people is that the only measure of quality in art that makes sense is its ability move experienced purveyors. It isn't 100% reliable but the results for those top 3 are so robust that that particular finding is reliable.

Of course, there are caveats and the logic only holds for the forms of music that the subjects really are informed about. So it tells us nothing about how Western classical music compares with other traditions or even very modern music. But I think we can take it as fact that Bach Mozart and Beethoven were the three greatest composers in Western classical music.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> I think you didn't read my post. My argument was that
> - when when the quality in question is about the ability to move people (it isn't about a quality that doesn't depend on people ... like whether the Earth is flat or not)
> and
> - when informed opinion (informed people) over centuries concerning who wrote the greatest music has consistently come up with the same result,
> 
> then you are pretty near an objective fact. The key to something close to objectivity being found in the subjective experiences of communities of people is that the only measure of quality in art that makes sense is its ability move experienced purveyors. It isn't 100% reliable but the results for those top 3 are so robust that that particular finding is reliable.


This is an argumentum ad populum which is a logical fallacy. That Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are popular isn't in question.

You explicitly make reference to "_informed opinion (informed people)_" - this from wiki:

_The fallacy is similar in structure to certain other fallacies that involve a confusion between the justification of a belief and its widespread acceptance by a given group of people. When an argument uses the appeal to the beliefs of a group of experts, it takes on the form of an appeal to authority._

You are entitled to believe such and such composers are 'better' than others but you have not demonstrated that as objective fact.


----------



## Room2201974

1996D said:


> I'm releasing this week and/or next. It's called a build up.
> 
> I've talked the talk, now I'm going to walk it.


And right on cue......waffling from your own self identified deadline of March 4. I've ordered a case of Vermont's Best® Maple Syrup for the whole forum. We're gonna need it.


----------



## 1996D

Room2201974 said:


> And right on cue......waffling from your own self identified deadline of March 4. I've ordered a case of Vermont's Best® Maple Syrup for the whole forum. We're gonna need it.


No, it'll be the weekends of the 7th and 14th.


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> I'm releasing this week and/or next. It's called a build up.
> 
> I've talked the talk, now I'm going to walk it.


Have you made a recording?


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> But I think we can take it as fact that Bach Mozart and Beethoven were the three greatest composers in Western classical music.


Without demonstrating why that is objectively so it remains just your view.


----------



## 1996D

janxharris said:


> Have you made a recording?


It's all ready, I'll be making a post in the main forum this week.


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> This is an argumentum ad populum which is a logical fallacy. That Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are popular isn't in question.
> 
> You explicitly make reference to "_informed opinion (informed people)_" - this from wiki:
> 
> _The fallacy is similar in structure to certain other fallacies that involve a confusion between the justification of a belief and its widespread acceptance by a given group of people. When an argument uses the appeal to the beliefs of a group of experts, it takes on the form of an appeal to authority._
> 
> You are entitled to believe such and such composers are 'better' than others but you have not demonstrated that as objective fact.


Maybe you should take your nose out of Wiki where the examples you quote are not the same as the view you are trying to expose as fallacious. Of course, my relying on a particular group has no validity outside of that group. It applies to that group. I said as much in my post.

But the other half of my argument concerns what success, value and greatness add up to when we are talking about art. They add up to being able to move people - so we measure greatness by asking people with considerable experience of the art in question. Combine that with the reliable finding that the three composers have always topped lists of those composers who the group, "informed people", consider greatest. This gives you a likelihood - nearly a certainty - that another survey of the same group would give you the same result.

There is probably a name for the fallacy that you are guilty of, which is treating the value of art as a physical quality (i.e. a quality that is not measured by its impression on people).

Of course, if you want to suggest that quality and value in art has nothing to do with the affect of that art on people then you can proceed with your argument. But if greatness in art is not about its capacity to move us what is it about? Greatness in art is not like speed or hardness or volume: it is not measurable in the way you want to measure it. That doesn't mean we can't draw robust conclusions about its relative value.


----------



## Art Rock

Enthusiast said:


> Of course, if you want to suggest that quality and value in art has nothing to do with the affect of that art on people then you can proceed with your argument. But if greatness in art is not about its capacity to move us what is it about?


I agree with this statement. Also, however, because we know that art affects different people differently, there's a clearly a substantial subjective effect to the quality and value in art. *On average* indeed the usual three suspects end up on top of the list of composers when averaging the taste of a sufficiently large number of people - and both for professionals and non-professionals by the way. It is a very big leap though to conclude that they are objectively therefore the best. A leap I'm not taking.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Not a "very big leap" at all. It is to do with probability. Ask another group of experienced listeners and your chance of getting a different result is less that 0.01%. There are plenty of facts in science that are not so reliable.

Going down such lists to lower positions like "10th greatest" will lead to problems but they will be clearly identified because results will vary and we will not be able to draw reliable and predictive conclusions about relative greatness in such a precise way. The same will happen if we try to settle which of the top 3 is in the #1 position: there will be much less agreement.

BTW the fact that even with our top 3 list, there are one or two outliers in each group doesn't make the conclusion less valid. If it worries you, though, the variance in our experienced listener groups can be measured will be very small.


----------



## Art Rock

It still requires averaging over a large group.

For instance, from the exercise I did end 2019, if I just look at the first 20 people responding, the top 3 would be Beethoven - Mahler - Bach.

Also, looking at individual submissions, from the 40 ranked submissions the top 3 contained the following numbers of the usual top three in their own top three:

3: 5 lists
2: 12 lists 
1: 17 lists 
0: 6 lists


----------



## Enthusiast

I'm not talking about the membership of this group, let alone those who participated in your survey. I agree these tell us very little about the quality of music.


----------



## Art Rock

Enthusiast said:


> I'm not talking about the membership of this group, let alone those who participated in your survey. I agree these tell us very little about the quality of music.


So you do not consider your fellow TC members experienced listeners?


----------



## Enthusiast

We are a very mixed group. But it isn't just that - the sub-group who self select to participate in the surveys run here is likely to be a particularly skewed group.


----------



## Classical Playlists

Wow is this threa(d)(t) still about Bruckner or what?

I think it may be interestring to note that Bruckner knew everything about music that was to know at the period. He was a master of every form, and you can hear that frequently. But the voice he tried to create, wasn't one to make the forms he learned as perfect as possible. His voice became the most important theme of his pieces, where the form of the piece was giving some help. And he is a genius, so that's why his voice is so deeply moving, original and forever.

So please, '1996D', don't break down Bruckner.
You should praise your own favourites instead.

Every composer is the best!
If there is one that isn't, than there is only more to learn!


----------



## mbhaub

Classical Playlists said:


> He was a master of every form...


Well, not really. Bruckner was a symphonist. The large scale architecture is what he thrived on. Symphonic development was his goal, whether in symphonies or the masses, which are quite symphonic. In other forms he wasn't very successful, for example the piano music, the Overture in G, a couple of marches. And he never wrote any theatrical works: no opera, ballet, incidental music came from his pen. It was the symphony that consumed him. He was a thorough master of harmony, counterpoint, and even orchestration.


----------



## Jacck

mbhaub said:


> Well, not really. Bruckner was a symphonist. The large scale architecture is what he thrived on. Symphonic development was his goal, whether in symphonies or the masses, which are quite symphonic. In other forms he wasn't very successful, for example the piano music, the Overture in G, a couple of marches. And he never wrote any theatrical works: no opera, ballet, incidental music came from his pen. It was the symphony that consumed him. He was a thorough master of harmony, counterpoint, and even orchestration.


I agree, though his string quintet is quite decent too (I have not heard his quartet).


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> Popular can mean many very different things here. It can be identified as a proportion of the whole population or of a particular population. Or it can merely be expressed in numbers (and not as a proportion of bigger numbers). Whatever way you choose those three names (often with Brahms as a fourth) end up on top. The great majority of critics choose them. The great majority of musicians choose them. The public choose them and have been doing so for some time - although for much of the past the new and fashionable were people's first choices. Anyway, with such popularity we do seem to be approaching some sort of consensus and objectivity. You can counter by saying the such popularity is still just popularity and is not really an objective measure of quality. But what is quality in music? It is about success in pleasing and impressing people.


I'm pleasantly surprised. Do I detect a change since the great elephant vs. great artist debate?


----------



## DaveM

janxharris said:


> It is accepted that an argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument. You disagree?


Latin does not imply gravitas. I wish people would dump that phrase when this subject comes up.


----------



## Bulldog

Enthusiast said:


> We are a very mixed group. But it isn't just that - the sub-group who self select to participate in the surveys run here is likely to be a particularly skewed group.


Would you mind explaining that last sentence?


----------



## Woodduck

Anybody seen Bruckner lately? I think he's still around, in case anyone agrees with me that he's more worthy of attention than the clueless and barely comprehensible dismissals of him by TCs newest musical sensation. This thread is feeling like a press conference with Trump, where there's more questioning of answers than answering of questions.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> I'm pleasantly surprised. Do I detect a change since the great elephant vs. great artist debate?


Not really a change. I have always thought that we can rank composers in broad groups and that the consensus among anyone who might know about who the very greatest were is so strong as to be very close to an objective fact. But the consensus weakens as we go down the list and (as I say in one of my posts above) I don't think it applies anyway to more recent composers (not that I am saying that any of them is as great as our top 3).


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> Anybody seen Bruckner lately?


He happens to be in my front room at the moment. 





https://youtu.be/k673McEb86c


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> Anybody seen Bruckner lately? I think he's still around, in case anyone agrees with me that he's more worthy of attention than the clueless and barely comprehensible dismissals of him by TCs newest musical sensation. This thread is feeling like a press conference with Trump, where there's more questioning of answers than answering of questions.


I criticized his extensive use of repetition and recycling of material, which is very fair. Only he and Liszt use as much repetition among the composers locked in the standard repertoire - it's something that absolutely must be said when talking about him.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> I criticized his extensive use of repetition and recycling of material, which is very fair. Only he and Liszt use as much repetition among the composers locked in the standard repertoire - it's something that absolutely must be said when talking about him.


If that's all you had said I wouldn't have responded as I did. Great job of ignoring my objections.

Repetition is not in itself a fault. One needs to understand the artistic purpose being served. That's a matter of intuition. You get it or you don't.

Most of your comments on Bruckner show you haven't a clue who he is. Suggestion: have some humility toward music others love and you don't yet comprehend. Time can work miracles.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> If that's all you had said I wouldn't have responded as I did. Great job of ignoring my objections.
> 
> Repetition is not in itself a fault. One needs to understand the artistic purpose being served. That's a matter of intuition. You get it or you don't.
> 
> Most of your comments on Bruckner show you haven't a clue who he is. Suggestion: have some humility toward music others love and you don't yet comprehend. Time can work miracles.


He uses repetition because he lacks creativity, it's a coping mechanism. He's not holding back or thinking about artistic purpose, those are simply his limitations. The composer never holds back, you can rest assured that every faculty at his disposal is being used, and with him he is consistent throughout his 9 symphonies.

I made it clear that I'm not talking about his ability to display emotion, which is his strength, only about his creative talent. I also posted about enjoying his music, which is good in moderation. Now obviously music that employs heavy repetition will stale faster, how fast depending on the memory of the listener.

You might also have an emotional attachment to his music, which is fine but can cause great bias. Remember that the critique is purely technical and referring to his skill and craft, or perhaps more so his creative talent when compared to the greats -- if you love his soul then that's great and that should indeed be enough.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> He uses repetition because he lacks creativity, it's a coping mechanism.


No, he doesn't. No, it isn't. Who are you, the Doktor Freud of aesthetics?



> He's not holding back or thinking about artistic purpose, those are simply his limitations.


How do you know what he's not thinking about? Answer: You don't.



> The composer never holds back, you can rest assured that every faculty at his disposal is being used.


Fuzzy thinking, vague language, or both. You need to rest less assured.



> I made it clear that I'm not talking about his ability to display emotion, which is his strength, only about his creative talent.


No one's talking about emotional displays.



> I also posted about enjoying his music, which is good in moderation.


Like chocolate cheesecake?



> Now obviously with heavy repetition music will stale faster.


Any music? Stale for whom? There's nothing "obvious" about this.

You find a great deal of nonsense "obvious." I've seen a small (fortunately) number of people coming onto this forum who think that their artistic perceptions and opinions have unquestionable, objective, universal validity. You're an extreme case.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> No, he doesn't. No, it isn't. Who are you, the Doktor Freud of aesthetics?


I rest my case. Many great minds share my opinion on Bruckner and his limitations, perhaps you should read on it.

If you love his soul then that's great and that should indeed be enough.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> I rest my case. Many great minds share my opinion on Bruckner and his limitations, perhaps you should read on it.
> 
> If you love his soul then that's great and that should indeed be enough.


You have no case. Who are the "many great minds" who share your ideas about Bruckner? Is this like Trump constantly telling us "many people are saying"? I have never, in seven decades of living, read anyone, great or not, claiming that

_"Bruckner is like Dvorak, there is a lack of content."

"These are composers that lack depth of creativity; that rely on ornamentation."

"It results in music that doesn't last many hearings, it quickly stales."

"They're all good melodists though, that's what makes them popular."

"His music progresses into nothing, there is no depth of exploration, he simply repeats."

"Bruckner's the better orchestrator, that's the main difference, but personally I think Liszt is the better melodist...Both are very good at producing attractive melodies, that's what makes their music worth hearing."_

I'd go on with the quotes, but there's no need. It's all obvious bullspit. "Great minds" don't say these things about Bruckner. You're just making up a self-justification, the way our imposter of a president makes stuff up to suit his purposes.

What it doesn't take a great mind to see is that you are a bullspitter who thinks his mind and still-not-demonstrated musical talent are God's gift to the universe. Either that or you're just trolling everyone here. But you know what? No one is buying it.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> You have no case. Who are the "many great minds" who share your ideas about Bruckner? Is this like Trump constantly telling us "many people are saying"? I have never, in seven decades of living, read anyone, great or not, claiming that
> 
> _"Bruckner is like Dvorak, there is a lack of content."
> 
> "These are composers that lack depth of creativity; that rely on ornamentation."
> 
> "It results in music that doesn't last many hearings, it quickly stales."
> 
> "They're all good melodists though, that's what makes them popular."
> 
> "His music progresses into nothing, there is no depth of exploration, he simply repeats."
> 
> "Bruckner's the better orchestrator, that's the main difference, but personally I think Liszt is the better melodist...Both are very good at producing attractive melodies, that's what makes their music worth hearing."_
> 
> I'd go on with the quotes, but there's no need. It's all obvious bullspit. "Great minds" don't say these things about Bruckner. You're just making up a self-justification, the way our imposter of a president makes stuff up to suit his purposes.
> 
> What it doesn't take a great mind to see is that you are a bullspitter who thinks his mind and still-not-demonstrated musical talent are God's gift to the universe. Either that or you're just trolling everyone here. But you know what? No one is buying it.


You are such a trouble maker, always looking forward to it...

"Impossibly boring without personality, awkward & dull, masked in solemnity." -- Bernstein on Brcukner

There are many more but you're not worth it, you're just a drama queen. I know now to disregard your opinion on my music.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> You are such a trouble maker, always looking forward to it...
> 
> "Impossibly boring without personality, awkward & dull, masked in solemnity." -- Bernstein on Brcukner
> 
> There are many more but you're not worth it, you're just a drama queen. I know now to disregard your opinion on my music.


So Bernstein is bored by Bruckner. That's his problem. Is he a "great mind" who agrees with the nonsense you've uttered? I must have missed that part.

The fact that some people don't enjoy a composer means nothing, which is something you're going to need to remember when your world-changing music fails to live up to the pretensions of its composer. We can hardly wait.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> So Bernstein is bored by Bruckner. That's his problem. Is he a "great mind" who agrees with the nonsense you've uttered? I must have missed that part.
> 
> The fact that some people don't enjoy a composer means nothing, which is something you're going to need to remember when your world-changing music fails to live up to the pretensions of its composer. We can hardly wait.


Lack of content results in boredom, lack of depth of creativity results in boredom, music that employs repetition quickly stales and that results in boredom -- "His music progresses into nothing, there is no depth of exploration, he simply repeats." -- couldn't have said it any better. I not only stand by every word but I double down.

Go away now, you have shown enough for me to confidently ignore you.


----------



## Woodduck

This thread has become clotted with so much irrelevant nonsense that a return to serious thought about the nature of this composer and the reasons for the love, the dislike, and the bafflement he inspires seems in order. I'm repeating here a post from six years ago which I hope might suggest a possible fruitful line of inquiry.

*BRUCKNER AND THE MEANING OF TIME*

I have long felt that Bruckner is the oddest first-rank composer in the entire history of music (well, there's Berlioz, but indulge me). This oddness doesn't reside in the elements of his musical language; his melodies are easily comprehended, his rhythms are foursquare, his harmonies mostly common practice, his orchestration distinctive in its division into "choirs" but not otherwise startling. What makes him unique, and, I suspect, problematic for some listeners, is his concept of time.

It's often remarked that Bruckner is constantly stopping in the middle of one idea and switching inexplicably to a different one, or that he keeps building up to climaxes but then frustrates expectations by breaking off before he gets there. Well, as peculiar and unpromising as it sounds, this is an accurate description of his typical formal procedures. It isn't merely that he constructs a movement in distinct sections, or that he alternates contrasting ideas. There's plenty of musical precedent for doing those things. No, the difficulty is that the harmonic idioms which Bruckner employed had been evolving for centuries to express a sense of time as progression. From the increasingly large scale movements of the Baroque, which used modulation to create tension and to heighten the pleasure of final release; to the dramatic dialectics of Classical sonata form, with its unstable harmonic narratives guided irresistibly through conflict and opposition to resolution; and then to the unprecedented harmonic exploration of the Romantic age in the pursuit of expression which reached a critical climax in the Wagnerian music drama - through all these changes of style and sensibility, Western music continued to embody, through tonal harmony (in which we speak of chord progressions), a sense of time as progress or movement toward a goal (how this teleological sense of time derives from our Greco-Judeo-Christian philosophical roots is a matter for a different discussion). This kind of progressive harmony is what Bruckner inherited and used. But he used it in the context of large scale forms which seem to contradict its very nature. And I'm inclined to think that this is what keeps many people from appreciating and enjoying his music.

Bruckner's odd formal procedures do, I think, have a "logic" which transcends their paradoxical appearance. But paradox itself is the very essence of that "logic," to comprehend which we are compelled to invoke ideas as fundamental to our perception of reality as they are resistant to final understanding: ideas, in short, of the "spiritual." This will come as no surprise to lovers of the composer, or probably to most listeners who have sensed that Bruckner's music is "about" something rather far removed from everyday experience and common emotional categories. Certainly something like this can be said about much great music; transcendence of the mundane or the "normal" may even be to some extent a defining characteristic of greatness. But Bruckner is stunningly explicit about it: by his unblinking stylistic eccentricity he lays down the gauntlet and virtually dares us to follow him to vistas of the soul largely unexplored by most of the music of his time.

_In my view, what Bruckner is doing is this: by setting up expectations of formal development through harmonic progression and dynamic growth, yet refusing to allow his musical ideas to fulfill directly the expectations thus set up, but rather parceling them out over a vast soundscape and developing them incrementally, in disjunct stages, he is refusing to allow time to be the final arbiter of form in the very art - namely, music - which most essentially exists in time. And in so refusing, he is stating that what is of ultimate significance in life (of which art is an analogue) is something which includes and pervades the temporal world but exists, unchanging, beyond it.
_
For Bruckner, this was God. For us who listen to Bruckner, it may be whatever we feel to be transcendent within us. But however we conceive it, it is the thing which makes our experience of his music magnificent and unique.


----------



## 1996D

^ All excuses for his lack of intellect.


----------



## DavidA

1996D said:


> I rest my case. *Many great minds share my opinion on Bruckner an*d his limitations, perhaps you should read on it.
> 
> If you love his soul then that's great and that should indeed be enough.


Funny that great conductors such as Furtwangler, Karajan, Jochum, Celi, Barenboim, and a host of others should have recorded the symphonies. Presumably they were not among the 'great minds'?


----------



## 1996D

DavidA said:


> Funny that great conductors such as Furtwangler, Karajan, Jochum, Celi, Barenboim, and a host of others should have recorded the symphonies. Presumably they were not among the 'great minds'?


I mentioned how he can be a conductor's dream because of the simplicity of the music yet its call for emotion and drama. If I was conducting I'd love Bruckner; as a listener less so.

Very much like Liszt, playing it is much more enjoyable than listening, although in that case it takes perhaps more practice, but you'll indeed see many pianists singing the praises of Liszt. As a listener it's so important that the music have constant innovation; the form has to flow. That's why people love Beethoven.

I've focused a lot on making my music accessible, and have gone through composing what ended up being quite boring works. Going from the form of Bruckner to that of Beethoven's takes quite a bit of doing.


----------



## DaveM

1996D said:


> I mentioned how he can be a conductor's dream because of the simplicity of the music yet its call for emotion and drama. If I was conducting I'd love Bruckner; as a listener less so.
> 
> Very much like Liszt, playing it is much more enjoyable than listening, although in that case it takes perhaps more practice, but you'll indeed see many pianists singing the praises of Liszt. As a listener it's so important that the music have constant innovation; the form has to flow. That's why people love Beethoven.
> 
> I've focused a lot on making my music accessible, and have gone through composing what ended up being quite boring works. Going from the form of Bruckner to that of Beethoven's takes quite a bit of doing.


I don't think you realize how much your thoughts contradict each other. Emotion and drama present in works such as Bruckner would IMO be a challenge for any conductor rather than a dream based on simplicity.. I have no experience as a conductor, do you? But proof of the challenge is in the wide variation of interpretation by conductors and the mixed results from the choices they make, not to mention the decision on which version to use given the many re-writes by Bruckner.

Still not sure what your fixation with comparing Liszt and Bruckner is. They couldn't be more different.


----------



## 1996D

DaveM said:


> I don't think you realize how much your thoughts contradict each other. *Emotion and drama present in works such as Bruckner would IMO be a challenge for any conductor *rather than a dream based on simplicity.. I have no experience as a conductor, do you? But proof of the challenge is in the wide variation of interpretation by conductors and the mixed results from the choices they make, not to mention the decision on which version to use given the many re-writes by Bruckner.
> 
> Still not sure what your fixation with comparing Liszt and Bruckner is. They couldn't be more different.


Of course but it's the kind of challenge they like. I doubt conductors enjoy rehearsing Mahler's complex counterpoint, it's a nightmare, and very few get it right. I do enjoy writing counterpoint but it's the hardest thing.

Bruckner and Liszt have so much in common, both use repetition, both love drama, both had a close connection to Wagner. Bruckner even offered to dedicate one of his symphonies to Liszt but was refused.

Maybe you're not familiar with Liszt's symphonies but you'll hear the repetition in them and a language that inspired Wagner deeply. Very dramatic works, with horrible form but very beautiful moments.


----------



## 1996D

The man who did it first.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> I mentioned how he can be a conductor's dream because of the simplicity of the music yet its call for emotion and drama. If I was conducting I'd love Bruckner; as a listener less so.


How would you know whether he's a "conductor's dream"? If he is, it isn't because the music is simple. Bruckner's "simplicity" is deceptive. It's notoriously difficult to create the necessary sense of progression and cumulative force in lengthy works which gradually unfold and evolve episodically. Many conductors - many more than formerly - do seem to find the challenge worthwhile.



> Very much like Liszt, playing it is much more enjoyable than listening...


So you've played Bruckner in an orchestra? What instrument? How many of his works? Under what conductors?



> As a listener it's so important that the music have constant innovation...


No music has "constant innovation." Most people find it possible to enjoy enormously a variety of music that contains very little or nothing innovative. If you require constant innovation you're not going to enjoy much of the vast repertoire of world music.



> I've focused a lot on making my music accessible, and have gone through composing what ended up being quite boring works. Going from the form of Bruckner to that of Beethoven's takes quite a bit of doing.


Undoubtedly it would take quite a bit of doing, if you had actually done it. Who knows whether you have (it's more than doubtful) - and who cares anyway, since we have none of the music but only a perpetual stream of announcements that it's coming soon?

I see you're still determined to suck up the air in the room and tell us about yourself even after I tried to get the discussion back on track, to which your only response was to say something dismissive and meaningless. Really, isn't it time for you to get your little ego off the stage and leave the spotlight on Bruckner where it belongs? There are "great minds" - those impress you, right? - who actually think he's worth it.


----------



## 1996D

How open-minded are you Woodduck? Listen to Liszt's Dante symphony, I think you'll see my point.

I've already announced the dates, and my announcements have served and will continue to serve their purpose. Now please, stop taking everything so personally - Bruckner isn't your friend, you don't know him, he's long dead and resting in peace.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> Of course but it's the kind of challenge they like. I doubt conductors enjoy rehearsing Mahler's complex counterpoint, it's a nightmare, and very few get it right.


A great many conductors get Mahler's counterpoint "right" (and of course you're the authority on what's "right"?). Why wouldn't they, and why wouldn't they enjoy it? It's their job - a conductor's job. You think they're doing something they dislike just for the money? Good grief.



> I do enjoy writing counterpoint but it's the hardest thing.


Who cares?



> Bruckner and Liszt have so much in common, both use repetition, both love drama, both had a close connection to Wagner. Bruckner even offered to dedicate one of his symphonies to Liszt but was refused.


This stuff is utterly superficial, as was Bruckner's" connection" to Wagner. Bruckner's abstract language, his sense of musical form, its peculiar austerity, its blocked-out, episodic progression and "spatialization" of the time dimension, is utterly unlike the dramatic aesthetic of Wagner, and not much like the protean Liszt.



> Maybe you're not familiar with Liszt's symphonies but you'll hear the repetition in them and a language that inspired Wagner deeply. Very dramatic works, with horrible form but very beautiful moments.


You seem obsessed with repetition. Repetition can mean different things in different styles. It's not automatically something to dismiss or criticize if your goal is to understand Bruckner and how he's similar to or different from other composers.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> How open-minded are you Woodduck? Listen to Liszt's Dante symphony, I think you'll see my point.
> 
> I've already announced the dates, and my announcements have served and will continue to serve their purpose. Now please, stop taking everything so personally - Bruckner isn't your friend, you don't know him, he's long dead and resting in peace.


I know Liszt's symphonies. The theatrical opening of the "Dante" symphony couldn't possibly be Bruckner.

This is a thread about Bruckner. It isn't about you or me. I'm not the one talking about my own work, or pretending to have played Bruckner and pretending to know how conductors feel about conducting his or Mahler's music.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> You seem obsessed with repetition. Repetition can mean different things in different styles. It's really unimportant if your goal is to understand Bruckner and how he's similar to or different from other composers.


He's boring, his form is primitive. His 9th is good only because he wrote it as an old man with years of pain behind him, that he can gracefully replicate in the music and his humanity can be shown in its greatest sense.

As a composer there is nothing to take from him, nothing at all.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> I know Liszt's symphonies.
> 
> This is a thread about Bruckner. It isn't about you or me. I'm not the one talking about my own work, or pretending to have played Bruckner and pretending to know how conductors feel about conducting his or Mahler's music.


Everything I say is genuine.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> You will eat your words very soon, you know my music is coming this weekend and next right? *Everything I say is* *genuine*, you sound like a fool to me and will to the world; I'd be careful.


Since time began the world has been full of cocky little know-it-alls in their teens and twenties who have no idea how little they actually know, and who think their elders are fools. So just keep talking, junior. Not that you need encouragement. By the way, where's the "genuine" evidence that you've played Bruckner? Which symphonies? Under which conductors? Could you have one of them post something to that effect?


----------



## Enthusiast

So coming back to Bruckner has led us back to one of those tiresome threads that have those who don't like the composer arguing that "because he always does x, he is a poor composer" and those who do like Bruckner saying otherwise. It used to be Schubert so at least we have a fresher subject. 

Bruckner was so obviously a great composer who composed a number of works that have immense power and are incidentally totally unique. But it is easy to see/hear why some might not like him, isn't it? If only those who don't like him could see just as easily what it is that makes others love his music so much (without putting them down as having be conned).


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> Since time began the world has been full of cocky little know-it-alls in their teens and twenties who have no idea how little they actually know, and who think their elders are fools. So just keep talking, junior. Not that you need encouragement. By the way, where's the "genuine" evidence that you've played Bruckner? Which symphonies? Under which conductors? Could you have one of them post something to that effect?


I never said that. I've performed Bruckner arrangements on the piano and I just finished performing my own works like Hans Zimmer does. How else do you think I'm releasing large orchestral works?

Technology is a wonderful thing, you can perform your own compositions, in what's a mixture of musicianship and conducting, with a little engineering to go along. It's very hard at first, especially coordinating the counterpoint, but I got the hang of it.

Once you hear my music you'll stop being such a rascal; honestly I'd rather you not and just went away, but you just don't seem to want to do that.


----------



## Enthusiast

1996D said:


> His 9th is good only because he wrote it as an old man with years of pain behind him, _*that he can gracefully replicate *_in the music and his humanity can be shown in its greatest sense.


So it is good? But only because he was old? BTW, how do you "replicate pain" in music? And do you really find the 9th "graceful"?


----------



## Woodduck

Enthusiast said:


> So coming back to Bruckner has led us back to one of those tiresome threads that have those who don't like the composer arguing that "because he always does x, he is a poor composer" and those who do like Bruckner saying otherwise. It used to be Schubert so at least we have a fresher subject.
> 
> Bruckner was so obviously a great composer who composed a number of works that have immense power and are incidentally totally unique. But it is easy to see/hear why some might not like him, isn't it? If only those who don't like him could see just as easily what it is that makes others love his music so much (without putting them down as having be conned).


Part of the problem may be the word "dunce" in the thread title. It's like hanging a target on poor Bruckner's back. It hardly matters that his detractors can't even shoot within the circle, much less hit the bullseye. If you catch my drift.


----------



## 1996D

Enthusiast said:


> So it is good? But only because he was old? BTW, how do you "replicate pain" in music? And do you really find the 9th "graceful"?


It's hard to describe. You hear the humanity of this man, you identify with it, with what the music is saying.

Of course the 9th is graceful, it's the culmination of a man's life. All the work he put into composing is displayed, and even with his limitations this is to be respected.


----------



## Enthusiast

Bulldog said:


> Would you mind explaining that last sentence?


A survey (or something similar) asks a group of people a set of questions. If the group is truly representative of the population whose views you are looking into then its results will be more meaningful. The more varied the group's responses are the larger the group you need to sample and, of course, the people you survey should be randomly chosen. If the group is made up of those who come forward (who self-select) then you are introducing bias as they are different in at least one way from those who do not come forward ... and it is likely that they will differ in other ways, too. So surveys that are with self-selecting groups produce skewed results. Even a method that arrived at the views of the entire membership would tell us little about the classical music loving community's views. And these exercises and games we play here do not even tell us anything reliable about the views of the membership - only of those who choose to participate in the exercise/game.

It doesn't mean the exercises and games are not fun but it does mean that they cannot be taken seriously. But you know all this.


----------



## DavidA

1996D said:


> I mentioned how he can be a conductor's dream because of the simplicity of the music yet its call for emotion and drama. If I was conducting I'd love Bruckner; as a listener less so.
> 
> Very much like Liszt, playing it is much more enjoyable than listening, although in that case it takes perhaps more practice, but you'll indeed see many pianists singing the praises of Liszt. As a listener it's so important that the music have constant innovation; the form has to flow. That's why people love Beethoven.
> 
> I've focused a lot on making my music accessible, and have gone through composing what ended up being quite boring works. *Going from the form of Bruckner to that of Beethoven's takes quite a bit of doing.*


I'm assuming the leading conductors of the day of queuing up to conduct your compositions as they are Bruckner? And people flocking to hear them? But then, no-one wanted to hear Bruckner in his day!


----------



## Enthusiast

Woodduck said:


> Part of the problem may be the word "dunce" in the thread title. It's like hanging a target on poor Bruckner's back. It hardly matters that his detractors can't even shoot within the circle, much less hit the bullseye. If you catch my drift.


Yes "dunce" doesn't help. When I first starting listening to Bruckner the LP notes often (usually) had fun with what a simple man Bruckner was and how his worship of Wagner led him to regularly humiliate himself. These days we have a more detailed knowledge of the man.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> Maybe you should take your nose out of Wiki where the examples you quote are not the same as the view you are trying to expose as fallacious. Of course, my relying on a particular group has no validity outside of that group. It applies to that group. I said as much in my post.
> 
> But the other half of my argument concerns what success, value and greatness add up to when we are talking about art. They add up to being able to move people - so we measure greatness by asking people with considerable experience of the art in question. Combine that with the reliable finding that the three composers have always topped lists of those composers who the group, "informed people", consider greatest. This gives you a likelihood - nearly a certainty - that another survey of the same group would give you the same result.
> 
> There is probably a name for the fallacy that you are guilty of, which is treating the value of art as a physical quality (i.e. a quality that is not measured by its impression on people).
> 
> Of course, if you want to suggest that quality and value in art has nothing to do with the affect of that art on people then you can proceed with your argument. But if greatness in art is not about its capacity to move us what is it about? Greatness in art is not like speed or hardness or volume: it is not measurable in the way you want to measure it. That doesn't mean we can't draw robust conclusions about its relative value.


I didn't quote examples, but the wiki site states:

"It (ie argumentum ad populum) uses an appeal to the beliefs, *tastes*, or values of a group of people, stating that because a certain opinion or attitude is held by a majority, it is therefore correct." (my emphasis)

Nothing in that statement precludes applying it to classical music tastes. Appealing to popularity or authority is not a valid argument. You would need to provide solid reasons why such views might back up you claim.

Your assertion:
"...I think we can take it as fact that Bach Mozart and Beethoven were the three greatest composers in Western classical music...." merely equates to the fact that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are the most popular.


----------



## larold

_He uses repetition because he lacks creativity, it's a coping mechanism._

I've heard this nonsense about Bruckner before. The same people seem to refuse to apply it to J.S. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Mahler and about everyone else. Mozart's operas and harmonie musik are so full of repeats he must have been the most unimaginative composer in history with coping needs beyond compare. There are 32 repeats in the Gran Partita alone.

Using repeats is classic musical theory to embed the themes on the listener. Every song you have ever sang or heard repeats itself. Every symphony repeats all the major themes at least once regardless of the creativity of the composer.

The late romantics beginning with Liszt used them differently than Mozart and Beethoven; Bruckner used them much differently -- varying the repeats by one or two notes each time to create a cascading affect in the music. Listening to Bruckner repeats is like climbing the steppes of a mountain: they all look the same but if you read the score you'll see marginal differences.

In fact it took a great deal more creativity to create this type of music than simply playing the same music over and over again a la exposition and other repeats. This is one reason romantic music is so popular -- it just doesn't do the same thing over and over and it goes on longer.

I once heard Stokowski conduct the Mozart Symphony 35 without repeats; it was over in 15 minutes. If you remove the repeats from a Brahms symphony it ends in about 25 minutes.

If you conduct Bruckner and remove the exact repeats way more than half the music is still there.


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> Your assertion:
> "...I think we can take it as fact that Bach Mozart and Beethoven were the three greatest composers in Western classical music...." merely equates to the fact that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are the most popular.


I am tired of this. No! My argument does not equate to one that those three composers are the most popular. But if you can't follow my reasoning and can only recognise an apparent resemblance of it to a famous fallacy then what can I say? But, instead, how about you tell me what greatness in art (or just in music) is. If you can define greatness you can probably come some way towards measuring it


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> I am tired of this. No! My argument does not equate to one that those three composers are the most popular. But if you can't follow my reasoning and can only recognise an apparent resemblance of it to a famous fallacy then what can I say? But, instead, how about you tell me what greatness in art (or just in music) is. If you can define greatness you can probably come some way towards measuring it


Your argument only mentions 'moving people' and the views of 'experts' - that's popularity.

How is it an 'apparent resemblance'? If you could demonstrate why Bach's, Mozart's and Beethoven's compositions are generally superior to the rest of the field then you might have a case - but defining what exactly constitutes objectively 'better' would be rather tricky I would assume. Where would the focus be? Form, counterpoint, harmony, originality, repetition?


----------



## Enthusiast

^ That's called dodging my question. Its a famous fallacy, too. I'll repeat myself:

*What is greatness is art?*


----------



## DaveM

janxharris said:


> Your assertion:
> "...I think we can take it as fact that Bach Mozart and Beethoven were the three greatest composers in Western classical music...." merely equates to the fact that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are the most popular.


Of course, that Einstein was our greatest theoretical physicist merely equates to the fact that he was the most popular.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> ^ That's called dodging my question. Its a famous fallacy, too. I'll repeat myself:
> 
> *What is greatness is art?*


Ok, apologies - my opinion of what constitutes greatness in music would be subjective just like anyone else's so it would not serve to establish objective truth in this matter. I place high value on harmony, strong melody, motivic and organic development and avoidance of unnecessary repeats. I like music that has a strong (apparent) narrative.

Enthusiast, you are the one pushing your view that Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are superior composers to all others but your only evidence so far amounts to a logical fallacy. Those who value other composers above these might take offence - so I would say you should be called to account.


----------



## janxharris

DaveM said:


> Of course, that Einstein was our greatest theoretical physicist merely equates to the fact that he was the most popular.


I'm not actually averring that Bach, Beethoven and Mozart aren't the greatest - rather that such is not provable (or at least has not been). Music is not like science which makes testable predictions - making objective verification possible.

Your assertion requires defending DaveM.


----------



## DeepR

1996D said:


> It's all ready, I'll be making a post in the main forum this week.


Please don't. You have embarrassed yourself enough already.
But if you must, member compositions are posted in the Today's Composers forum.


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> Ok, apologies - my opinion of what constitutes greatness in music would be subjective just like anyone else's so it would not serve to establish objective truth in this matter. I place high value on harmony, strong melody, motivic and organic development and avoidance of unnecessary repeats. I like music that has a strong (apparent) narrative.
> 
> Enthusiast, you are the one pushing your view that Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are superior composers to all others but your only evidence so far amounts to a logical fallacy. Those who value other composers above these might take offence - so I would say you should be called to account.


I do wish you would stop saying I am guilty of a logical fallacy. If you understood the fallacy you accuse me of you would have dropped that line by now. But, it seems you don't trust yourself to _think _it through.

Your reasoning defeats itself. Greatness, you say, _is _a subjective quality. But instead of following that to its logical conclusion - that to assess or measure this subjective quality must mean measuring people's choices - you say that knowing this shows that greatness cannot be measured objectively. You then tell us what qualities _*you *_think make great music (a list few would accept as right and complete and anyway greatness tends to break rules) - with no evidence at all in support of your view.

Greatness in art _*is *_concerned with its ability to move people (you have now accepted this). Subjective opinions can be measured. Social scientists do so all the time, medical researchers do it, many other disciplines do it. And measurements it are objective measures. There are widely understood methods for doing this and there is no fallacy! But the real question is "what is it an objective measure of?" It may be, for example, a finding that a sample (selected by a given method) of a wider (named) population over a specified time period came to this conclusion. That will give you a true (objective) statement. Now, if a large sample of well informed people (this term can be defined for our case) has consistently had the same opinion about something for hundreds of years you have a pretty reliable statement and can even predict the result of repeating the procedure. Such a circumstance is very rare but it does seem to happen with expert views on the three greatest composers ... but not for, say, position 10 or 25.

Incidentally, it is not as you say "my view" that these three composers are top (although it is a view I am comfortable with). That is not what I am saying. I am merely observing that we seem to have a reliable finding about their preeminence.


----------



## Tallisman

Woodduck said:


> Bruckner was great at what he did, but what he did is highly peculiar, and his work exhibits a limited range of expression in a limited number of forms. From symphony to symphony, the tunes differ but the concepts and goals are mostly similar. This can be said of many artists, but not of most we regard as representing the apex of achievement in their fields. The variety of form and feeling, and the quest for new horizons, which we find to varying degrees in Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, etc., is not characteristic of Bruckner, who seems to be obsessed by a singular, entrancing vision which he strives to realize unswervingly and with increasing purity and depth. ... Similarly, there isn't much of Bruckner in Mahler.


As far as somewhat critical evaluations of Bruckner go, I think this is sensitive and fair and indicates a close and sympathetic listening of his work. I do feel, though, that when you spend a lot of time with his symphonic cycle, you definitely come to find that each symphony is its own contained world with its own character, though there are certainly recurrent strains. There fugal finale of the 5th is feels entirely anomalous, as are the strange rhythms of the first movement of the 6th. The 4th feels like a celebration of the terrestrial, of the 'Wald', the 9th is the eschaton etc.


----------



## Tallisman

Woodduck said:


> Part of the problem may be the word "dunce" in the thread title. It's like hanging a target on poor Bruckner's back. It hardly matters that his detractors can't even shoot within the circle, much less hit the bullseye. If you catch my drift.


Pure clickbait, I confess.


----------



## Tallisman

.......................


----------



## Tallisman

1996D said:


> Bruckner is like Dvorak, there is a lack of content, of depth. The same can be said about Liszt and Mendelssohn.
> 
> These are composers that lack depth of creativity; that rely on ornamentation. It results in music that doesn't last many hearings, it quickly stales.


Most of the time I'm completely willing to accept that other people hear things differently, but your opinion on Bruckner hear simply indicates that you haven't listened enough, or maybe you have but not closely or attentively. To compare him to Liszt or Mendelssohn is absurd and testifies to this dogmatism. In fact, how did you become so dismissive and sure of your own opinion to ever even lump composers diverse as Liszt, Mendelssohn and Dvorak into the same category?! I like none of those composers personally, but to falsely distil the many reasons I dislike them into an all-encompassing judgement on the inherent poverty of their creativity as you have done would be a great display of intellectual laziness.



1996D said:


> By ornamentation I mean that they have ways of bypassing having to use creativity, which is harder to call upon. They recycle material - Bruckner is the greatest 'environmentalist' along with Liszt. They use the same musical ideas and repeat them in slightly different ways throughout their pieces.
> 
> Because of their lack of creativity every phrase has to be performed with great emotion in order to keep interest.
> 
> All of them have their moments but as a whole their works have many instances where you don't need to pay attention
> While you can listen to Bruckner while having a conversation and still grasp everything he's doing for almost the entirety of his works.
> 
> He's a simpleton, a genius only in his ability to convey emotion, and that depends entirely on the performers. In that way he is the conductor's dream, left completely free to make the piece his own because of its simplicity and call to emotion and performance.


1) repetition does not imply lack of creativity. Repetition is a valid compositional device in the same way that variation is a valid compositional device. If you repeat an idea, it is not always because you don't have any others, it can be because you think that the context of the piece happens to demand an emphasis on that good idea rather than a shift to a new one.

2) If you performed one of your works that someone happened to find lacking in depth and they started to have a conversation, you would rightly accuse them of philistinism and arrogance. You either listen to music with all your attention, or you are not listening at all, no matter what the music is, out of respect for human creative expression. When the trashiest modern pop comes on, I don't pretend that I'm taking it in at all. I either give it my full attention, in which case it gives nothing back and I can then dismiss it, or I can just hear it in the background without listening, in which case I reserve aesthetic judgement until I have paid attention. You are pretending that you can still take in all that Bruckner has to say whilst not really listening, which is just an insult to creative expression and to aesthetic appreciation.

3) If you knew Bruckner, and it is clear by this point you really don't, you would know that he is a conductor/orchestra's nightmare. Any conductor who thinks Bruckner is easy is guaranteed not to understand him. In fact, I think almost no other composer has been so repeatedly mis-interpreted, precisely because the score speaks its own very unique language which the composer is either in touch with or not.


----------



## Tallisman

1996D said:


> Gergiev can bring out the emotion of the 9th, which is an excellent symphony in terms of that.


First fallacy: to think that Gergiev could ever successfully interpret Bruckner :lol: It's not emotional. It's not Tchaikovsky. It's a cosmic statement.


----------



## Dimace

A very unlucky comparison this one... Bruckner is the composer who found the God. (the God is the Beethoven) This means that his work (his symphonies to be more accurate), can be directly compare in quality terms to Beethoven. Brahms is a very good and extremely beloved composer worldwide. I love both, but I admire only the Anton, when it comes to symphonies. 

*not to be forgotten> Brahms was a virtuoso pianist. He performed alone and alongside many great pianists of his time. Bruckner was a great organ player. This, maybe, explain their symphonic approach. Also: Brahms is a pure classical composer. (many say Beethoven's successor) Anton is a romantic composer. To compare apples and oranges isn't a very good method for successful conclusions. (if we make something like this, Beethoven is better pianist than my Master. Go and say something like this in public. They will assume that you are crazy, or that you listen only German Folk Music from Bayern...)


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Bruckner is about stretching the possibilities of sound, of construction, of melody, of space, of light and darkness, of contrast, to their breaking points. His music is the most purely abstract I've ever heard. Only once you can think about it as a towering cathedral of sonic material rather than thinking within more traditional elements of form can you really appreciate him. Here's the ultimate litmus test as to whether you're a natural fit for Bruckner - listen to the Adagio of the 7th Symphony, and let it wash over. Don't try to focus on every detail, just let it happen. If you aren't ready to burst out in tears of ecstasy by the time the final climax comes, you just may not be tailor-made for him.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

A composer I really need to give more attention to. I've listened to his 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th (as well as some shorter choral works), but I admittedly don't have nearly enough familiarity with his symphonies to have an adequate understanding of their form and musical expression. I've been listening to him more lately (mainlly 8th and 9th) and his works have been growing on me the more I get to know them. I can easily see him becoming one of my favorites in the near future. Everyone always talks about his adagios, but I find his scherzos equally impressive.


----------



## DavidA

I think it's hilarious that people are even debating this when great conductors have fallen over themselves to conduct and record these works. Obviously they see things in them that some of the guys on here (including our budding Beethovens) don't. Why not just say there is some music that just doesn't work for you? Saying Bruckner was a simpleton (musically at any rate) is something that could only be said by someone who knows nothing about music. He may have been a simpleton in some ways (like refusing to sit while Wagner was present) but musically he sure wasn't.


----------



## Fabulin

Tallisman said:


> First fallacy: to think that Gergiev could ever successfully interpret Bruckner :lol: It's not emotional. It's not Tchaikovsky. It's a cosmic statement.


Unless we are talking the _Fourth_. Gergiev is superb in this one.


----------



## Red Terror

I don't know that Bruckner was a genius per se, but he was definitely an exceptional composer. Point in case, I'd rather listen to the old boy's 4th symphony than to anything by Handel.


----------



## DavidA

Red Terror said:


> I don't know that Bruckner was a genius per se, but he was definitely an exceptional composer. Point in case, *I'd rather listen to the old boy's 4th symphony than to anything by Handel*.


Funny I think Handel is the absolute summit of genius. Strange how different things suit


----------



## Red Terror

DavidA said:


> Funny I think Handel is the absolute summit of genius. Strange how different things suit


Handel was indeed a genius, but not one whose work appeals to me. I prefer J.S. Bach.


----------



## Roger Knox

DavidA said:


> Saying Bruckner was a simpleton (musically at any rate) is something that could only be said by someone who knows nothing about music. He may have been a simpleton in some ways (like refusing to sit while Wagner was present) but musically he sure wasn't.


My unlucky Post #13 in this thread reads in part: "I believe it was Mahler who said of Bruckner: 'Half the time he is a simpleton, and the other half he is God.' " Unfortunately the single word "simpleton" has been picked up in later posts.

Bruckner's behavior was provincial. Mahler was being ironic about the composer who he nevertheless had learned a lot from. You mention Bruckner always standing when Wagner was present; he also tried to give a conductor who had led his work a small tip. At one point Bruckner had the idea that music should _always_ be composed in four-bar phrases! In Vienna, he was initially received as an unsophisticated musician from rural upper Austria. Mahler's ironic comment reflects the patronizing attitude of the Vienna environment, but it also conveys Mahler's genuine admiration of the religious nature and the unique genius of Bruckner's music.


----------



## mbhaub

Tallisman said:


> Any conductor who thinks Bruckner is easy is guaranteed not to understand him. In fact, I think almost no other composer has been so repeatedly mis-interpreted, precisely because the score speaks its own very unique language which the composer is either in touch with or not.


Spot on! I've had the privilege of playing symphonies 3, 4, 7, and 9 (in a completed version). Only in case of the 7th was the conductor on top of the challenges. It all looks so simple on paper - beat a 4 pattern, or 5. Maybe a 6. Then we're in 1. The the hapless conductor realizes just how difficult it all it- how to make it sound correctly, to find proper tempos, get the phrasing together. And then make sense of it all so it isn't so episodic. They all revel in the huge, brassy sections but are lost elsewhere. Of course, I'll never forgive or forget the kapellmeister who showed up with an version of the score different from the parts and spent a lot of time screaming and yelling at us because we couldn't play what his score said.


----------



## DaveM

janxharris said:


> I'm not actually averring that Bach, Beethoven and Mozart aren't the greatest - rather that such is not provable (or at least has not been). Music is not like science which makes testable predictions - making objective verification possible.
> 
> Your assertion requires defending DaveM.


Have done so frequently during the more than one long discussions about it. Not going to repeat it except to say that creating melodies, developing them, orchestrating in original ways and so on are skills and there are objective ways to show that some are more skilled at it than others. Not to mention that creating something that has attracted countless people from different cultures for centuries goes well beyond simple popularity.

And why do I have to be the one to prove or defend anything? Seems to me that this comment is the one that needs to be defended:
_"...I think we can take it as fact that Bach Mozart and Beethoven were the three greatest composers in Western classical music...." merely equates to the fact that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are the most popular."_

Dumbing down the accomplishment and success of the music of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven to that of 'mere popularity' equates it to popularity on the level of Britney Spears and Justin Bieber. Of course, the music of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven is popular; my issue is with the premise that it is a fact that these composers are great based totally on simple popularity.


----------



## 1996D

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Bruckner is about stretching the possibilities of sound, of construction, of melody, of space, of light and darkness, of contrast, to their breaking points. His music is the most purely abstract I've ever heard. Only once you can think about it as a towering cathedral of sonic material rather than thinking within more traditional elements of form can you really appreciate him. Here's the ultimate litmus test as to whether you're a natural fit for Bruckner - listen to the Adagio of the 7th Symphony, and let it wash over. Don't try to focus on every detail, just let it happen. If you aren't ready to burst out in tears of ecstasy by the time the final climax comes, you just may not be tailor-made for him.


I would argue his music is the opposite of abstract, it's on the surface, musically one dimensional, and you can see everything that goes on technically, nothing surprises. Contrast this with Mahler and it's night and day, with him every new hearing you discover something new, every conductor can emphasize different instruments during counterpoint and it creates a completely different symphony. There is just so much material, a true creative genius.

With only 15 min of Mahler material in any of his late works you have a whole Bruckner symphony. The latter is really just suited for those who like emotion and not complexity.

This is real depth, and Mahler displays it throughout his symphony.


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> I would argue his music is the opposite of abstract, it's on the surface, musically one dimensional, and you can see everything that goes on technically, nothing surprises. Contrast this with Mahler and it's night and day, with him every new hearing you discover something new, every conductor can emphasize different instruments during counterpoint and it creates a completely different symphony. There is just so much material, a true creative genius.
> 
> With only 15 min of Mahler material in any of his late works you have a whole Bruckner symphony. The latter is really just suited for those who like emotion and not complexity.
> 
> This is real depth, and Mahler displays it throughout his symphony.


Of course the musical "depth" is one thing, although I'm not sure if I exactly understand how you measure it and whether it should be the indicator of a "creative genius". There're, after all, many VERY different interpretations of Bruckner symphonies, some better than the others and proving that there is a lot of material in his compositions too if that's the way you want to measure it.

But then, very importantly, there is also the depth in the meaning of music - you cannot just neglect the reasons why someone wrote something. Wagner is a great example - you're missing quite a lot of his genius if you don't know the reasons why he wrote something and what philosophy his compositions are conveying. Bruckner as a religious person had his own philosophy and worldview that he reflects in his music, as does any other composer. I don't think it's correct to just take the score and evaluate whether someone is a musical genius or not, and after all, Mahler himself held Bruckner in a high regard. Although composing is mainly about the music, it's not all about the music.


----------



## DavidA

1996D said:


> I would argue his music is the opposite of abstract, it's on the surface, musically one dimensional, and you can see everything that goes on technically, nothing surprises. Contrast this with Mahler and it's night and day, with him every new hearing you discover something new, every conductor can emphasize different instruments during counterpoint and it creates a completely different symphony. There is just so much material, a true creative genius.
> 
> With only 15 min of Mahler material in any of his late works you have a whole Bruckner symphony. The latter is really just suited for those who like emotion and not complexity.
> 
> This is real depth, and Mahler displays it throughout his symphony.


This is just words. You're comments are just repetitions. What on earth is 'one the surface' ? It's meaningless. The same 5hing has been said about Mahler a thousand times by stuff I've read. If you haven't read that about Mahler you haven't lived long! Just say Bruckner doesn't do it for you. Don't try and justify it.


----------



## 1996D

annaw said:


> Of course the musical "depth" is one thing, although I'm not sure if I exactly understand how you measure it and whether it should be the indicator of a "creative genius". There're, after all, many VERY different interpretations of Bruckner symphonies, some better than the others and proving that there is a lot of material in his compositions too if that's the way you want to measure it.
> 
> But then, very importantly, there is also the depth in the meaning of music - you cannot just neglect the reasons why someone wrote something. Wagner is a great example - you're missing quite a lot of his genius if you don't know the reasons why he wrote something and what philosophy his compositions are conveying. Bruckner as a religious person had his own philosophy and worldview that he reflects in his music, as does any other composer. I don't think it's correct to just take the score and evaluate whether someone is a musical genius or not, and after all, Mahler himself held Bruckner in a high regard. Although composing is mainly about the music, it's not all about the music.


I agree, Bruckner has his talents, he just shouldn't be compared to Mahler or even R. Strauss or Sibelius. He has great moments and he commands emotion well, he had power as a person, strength--he expresses it very well musically--and produces beautiful melodies. But his form is primitive, there is nothing intellectual about his music, nothing whatsoever.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> I would argue his music is the opposite of abstract, it's on the surface, musically one dimensional, and you can see everything that goes on technically, nothing surprises.


None of that constitutes "the opposite of abstract." Do you know what "abstract" means?



> Contrast this with Mahler and it's night and day, with him every new hearing you discover something new, every conductor can emphasize different instruments during counterpoint and it creates a completely different symphony. There is just so much material, a true creative genius.


Mahler has a lot of "material," yes. So what? That doesn't equate to value or meaning. Just as a pithy haiku may be more meaningful and valuable than a sprawling treatise on supralapsarianism, a Schubert sonata may touch the spirit more deeply than a symphony of a thousand. Impressive means needn't imply significant ends.

And no, different performances don't create "a completely different symphony," for Pete's sake.



> With only 15 min of Mahler material in any of his late works you have a whole Bruckner symphony.


No you don't.



> The latter is really just suited for those who like emotion and not complexity.


Your "analyses" of Bruckner are really just suited for those who think that any off-the-wall opinion has merit if repeated enough times.


----------



## DavidA

1996D said:


> I agree, Bruckner has his talents, he just shouldn't be compared to Mahler or even R. Strauss or Sibelius. He has great moments and he commands emotion well, he had power as a person, strength--he expresses it very well musically--and produces beautiful melodies. But his form is primitive, there is nothing intellectual about his music, nothing whatsoever.


Of course h3 shouldn't be compared to Mahler, Strauss or Sibelius. He wrote different kids of music. You honestly don't think Strauss was an 'intellectual' do you? Salome? Intellectual? :lol:


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> Your "analyses" of Bruckner are really just suited for those who think that any off-the-wall opinion has merit if repeated enough times.


It's not a matter of opinion, study his scores, it's like reading Harry Potter while Mahler is Goethe. I already agreed with you that Bruckner has beautiful moments, I don't know what else you want.

Are you going to argue that bad form doesn't matter? That simple music is better than complex one?


----------



## janxharris

DaveM said:


> Have done so frequently during the more than one long discussions about it. Not going to repeat it except to say that *creating melodies, developing them, orchestrating in original ways and so on are skills and there are objective ways to show that some are more skilled at it than others.* Not to mention that creating something that has attracted countless people from different cultures for centuries goes well beyond simple popularity.


I would be interested to see these arguments.



> And why do I have to be the one to prove or defend anything? Seems to me that this comment is the one that needs to be defended:
> _"...I think we can take it as fact that Bach Mozart and Beethoven were the three greatest composers in Western classical music...." merely equates to the fact that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are the most popular."_
> 
> Dumbing down the accomplishment and success of the music of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven to that of 'mere popularity' equates it to popularity on the level of Britney Spears and Justin Bieber. Of course, the music of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven is popular; my issue is with the premise that it is a fact that these composers are great based totally on simple popularity.


There was no dumbing down of these composers DaveM. I was responding to what I considered a logical fallacy - that the justification for the big three's supposed superiority amounts to little more than an appeal to popularity.


----------



## 1996D

DavidA said:


> Of course h3 shouldn't be compared to Mahler, Strauss or Sibelius. He wrote different kids of music. You honestly don't think Strauss was an 'intellectual' do you? Salome? Intellectual? :lol:


Strauss makes Bruckner look very slow indeed, it would the latter a million years of practice to be able to write through-composed music.


----------



## DavidA

1996D said:


> It's not a matter of opinion, study his scores, it's* like reading Harry Potter while Mahler is Goethe*. I already agreed with you that Bruckner has beautiful moments, I don't know what else you want.
> 
> Are you going to argue that bad form doesn't matter? That simple music is better than complex one?


You think the likes of Karajan, Furtwangler, Jochum would have agreed with you? One fallacy that fools people like you is that relative simplicity is to be dismissed. Actually those of us who have been involved in communicating know that simplicity is to be celebrated. Who has communicated to more peopke? J K Rowling or Goerthe?


----------



## Enthusiast

Red Terror said:


> Handel probably was a genius, but not one whose work appeals to me. Why bother with him when there's J.S. Bach?


Bach and Handel could not be more different. If you go to Handel looking for Bach it is no wonder you find him lacking. But you might find in Handel some of the things that Bach lacks.


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> It's not a matter of opinion, study his scores, it's like reading Harry Potter while Mahler is Goethe. I already agreed with you that Bruckner has beautiful moments, I don't know what else you want.
> 
> Are you going to argue that bad form doesn't matter? That simple music is better than complex one?


If it's not a matter of opinion then you are making a grand claim to objectivity are you not?


----------



## 1996D

DavidA said:


> You think the likes of Karajan, Furtwangler, Jochum would have agreed with you? One fallacy that fools people like you is that relative simplicity is to be dismissed. Actually those of us who have been involved in communicating know that simplicity is to be celebrated. Who has communicated to more peopke? J K Rowling or Goerthe?


It is music coming from another world, it is coming from eternity. - Herbert von Karajan on Mahler's 9th

They knew the pecking order, I never said Bruckner was not worth playing, conducting, or listening, only that he is behind first-rate composers, which many of you seem to not want to admit.

If you really can't hear how slow his music is and how awkward his form and flow are, then there is nothing more to talk about.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> It's not a matter of opinion, study his scores, it's like reading Harry Potter while Mahler is Goethe.






> I already agreed with you that Bruckner has beautiful moments, I don't know what else you want.


You don't? Really? How about I want to see an end to loopy value judgments trotted out with fanatical persistence as if they were objective facts to which all must bow. We have another member here who is similarly confused when the urge to throw Schubert and Chopin under the bus overpowers his rational faculties. It's a plague.



> Are you going to argue that bad form doesn't matter?


Why would I do that?



> That simple music is better than complex one?


It can be.

None of this establishes one single thing about the value of Bruckner's art. Or anyone else's.


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> It is music coming from another world, it is coming from eternity. - Herbert von Karajan on Mahler's 9th
> 
> They knew the pecking order, I never said Bruckner was not worth playing, conducting, or listening, only that he is behind first-rate composers, which many of you seem to not want to admit.
> 
> If you really can't hear how slow his music is and how awkward his form and flow are, then there is nothing more to talk about.


What is the actual pecking order then 1996D?


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> I never said Bruckner was not worth playing, conducting, or listening, *only that he is behind first-rate composers,* which many of you seem to not want to admit.


What a dishonest claim. You haven't cluttered up this thread with crazy notions "only" to say that some other composers are greater than Bruckner (which, by the way, most of us would agree with). Do I need to list all the other things you've "only" said?



> If you really can't hear how slow his music is and how awkward his form and flow are, then there is nothing more to talk about.


Good. It's past time that you found nothing more to talk about.


----------



## 1996D

janxharris said:


> If it's not a matter of opinion then you are making a grand claim to objectivity are you not?


You prefer everything to be subjective?


----------



## Red Terror

Woodduck said:


> ...those who think that any off-the-wall opinion has merit if repeated enough times.


It worked for Hitler ... and Trump ... with apologies to Hitler.


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> You prefer everything to be subjective?


Indeed.........................


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> What a dishonest claim. You haven't cluttered up this thread with crazy notions "only" to say that some other composers are greater than Bruckner (which, by the way, most of us would agree with). Do I need to list all the other things you've "only" said?


I doubled down on everything I said. His music is pleasant, it doesn't exert the mind, you could be doing something else and not miss anything.

This is my experience, you can disagree, but you can't tell me I don't know him, because I do.


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> You prefer everything to be subjective?


Are you making a claim to objectivity? Does your opinion trump others who disagree with you? You said, 'it's not a matter of opinion.'


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> It's not a matter of opinion, study his scores, it's like reading Harry Potter while Mahler is Goethe. I already agreed with you that Bruckner has beautiful moments, I don't know what else you want.
> 
> Are you going to argue that bad form doesn't matter? *That simple music is better than complex one?*


Why is complex music better 1996D?


----------



## 1996D

janxharris said:


> Why is complex music better 1996D?





janxharris said:


> Indeed.........................


You're right a lot is, but there are things that can be proved. Woodduck is saying that Bruckner's artistry overcomes his lack of content, his bad form, and awkward flow, which is true, but is it enough to make him comparable to Mahler? No.

Most would agree, Bruckner is to my knowledge less performed than Mahler, even in what is his peak popularity. Now, if I'm right, time will be the ultimate test and as audiences continue to digest these composers, there will be a fading of Bruckner's popularity. The past tells us that complex music lasts through the ages, and takes a very long time to stale, only getting better with time as audiences familiarize with it.

Time will tell all.


----------



## NLAdriaan

What a pitiful fight this Bruckner-thread has become. 

So, Bruckner was a meticulous craftsman, studying long hours to become a master of the counterpoint. 
He was not a typical great artist, in the eyes of his peers he was a simpleton, with very peculiar personal preferences.

His work is straight as can be, in all its glory it remains an early form of minimal music for a huge orchestra. Difficult for a conductor to play it right. And always an event to hear it live, more than the smaller scale symphonies that might have heavier artistic weight. Bruckner might as well be called a Wagner with no frills, delivering us a clear architectural view in the style of Escher, leaving out the overload of heavy Rubens-style ballast. 

Rubens vs Escher vs Rembrandt (which composer would be Rembrandt), it is fun to compare them, it does not make much sense to rate them. This only leads to the tiring dumb-and-dumber postings in this thread.


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> You're right a lot is, but there are things that can be proved. Woodduck is saying that Bruckner's artistry overcomes his lack of content, his bad form, and awkward flow, which is true, but is it enough to make him comparable to Mahler? No.
> 
> Most would agree, Bruckner is to my knowledge less performed than Mahler, even in what is his peak popularity. Now, if I'm right, time will be the ultimate test and as audiences continue to digest these composers, there will be a fading of Bruckner's popularity. The past tells us that complex music lasts through the ages, and takes a very long time to stale, only getting better with time as audiences familiarize with it.
> 
> Time will tell all.


I am still unclear why you are focusing on 'complex music' without qualification. Lots of complex music doesn't last more than one performance.


----------



## 1996D

NLAdriaan said:


> What a pitiful fight this Bruckner-thread has become.
> 
> So, Bruckner was a meticulous craftsman, studying long hours to become a master of the counterpoint.
> He was not a typical great artist, in the eyes of his peers he was a simpleton, with very peculiar personal preferences.
> 
> His work is straight as can be, in all its glory it remains an early form of minimal music for a huge orchestra. Difficult for a conductor to play it right. And always an event to hear it live, more than the smaller scale symphonies that might have heavier artistic weight. Bruckner might as well be called a Wagner with no frills, delivering us a clear architectural view in the style of Escher, leaving out the overload of heavy Rubens-style ballast.
> 
> Rubens vs Escher vs Rembrandt (which composer would be Rembrandt), it is fun to compare them, it does not make much sense to rate them. This only leads to the tiring dumb-and-dumber postings in this thread.


Will it last though? Minimal music runs its course, I'm sure you can relate to a piece becoming boring over time.

This is why as a composer you must be robust, with creative thoroughness. Music endures because it's honest and deep, complex and perfect.

Yesterday I listened to Mozart's Symphony no. 29 which was played a lot in my childhood, and of which I thought nothing special of, just another Mozart work, yet it left me in awe of his beauty, something I thought wouldn't be possible because I thought I knew it too well already; there couldn't possibly be new complexities to appreciate; but there were. It has beautiful counterpoint, every note has a purpose, and form that commands attention and leaves the soul replenished.

Something like that will never stale, it will be played until we're extinct.


----------



## DavidA

1996D said:


> *It is music coming from another world, it is coming from eternity. - Herbert von Karajan on Mahler's 9th*
> 
> They knew the pecking order, I never said Bruckner was not worth playing, conducting, or listening, only that he is behind first-rate composers, which many of you seem to not want to admit.
> 
> If you really can't hear how slow his music is and how awkward his form and flow are, then there is nothing more to talk about.


Interesting then that Karajan valued Bruckner's 8th above all the symphonies he conducted


----------



## 1996D

DavidA said:


> Interesting then that Karajan valued Bruckner's 8th above all the symphonies he conducted


I highly doubt that. Most pianists love playing Liszt but I doubt they'd rank any of his works as the best.

There is no quote or evidence whatsoever of Karajan stating this.


----------



## DavidA

1996D said:


> I highly doubt that. Most pianists love playing Liszt but I doubt they'd rank any of his works as the best.
> 
> There is no quote or evidence whatsoever of Karajan stating this.


Oh dear! So history has to be ignored to fit in with your theory?


----------



## 1996D

DavidA said:


> Oh dear! So history has to be ignored to fit in with your theory?


Find the quote, there is none. There is one on Mahler's 9th though.


----------



## DavidA

1996D said:


> Find the quote, there is none. There is one on Mahler's 9th though.


So because you find one quote on Mahler's ninth that over-ride's everything else? Man! History is built on such things? :lol:


----------



## 1996D

DavidA said:


> So because you find one quote on Mahler's ninth that over-ride's everything else? Man! History is built on such things? :lol:


Listen to Karajan's Mahler 9th, it is his greatest accomplishment by far, regardless of how he may have enjoyed playing Bruckner's 8th. The quote confirms how he thought the 9th was from the heavens, and the performance reassures it further.


----------



## Fabulin

The 7th of March will tell who is the dunce... am I right?


----------



## Sad Al

It seems Mahler's 9th and Bruckner's 8th are their best works. I have Ancerl's Mahler 9th (1966) and Thielemann's Bruckner 8th (2009), any opinions?


----------



## 1996D

Fabulin said:


> The 7th of March will tell who is the dunce... am I right?


This Saturday 7th is the release of my very friendly and accessible prelude to the 3 large scale works of which the first will be released the 14th of March and the other two later this year. The prelude runs five and a half minutes.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Ancerl's Mahler 9 is a great one. I'm not sure Karajan's is but it is certainly not bad. But it is a field filled with some very find performances.

Meanwhile, I don't understand why we are evaluating Bruckner by comparing him with very different composers. Well-chosen comparisons can sometimes tell you something about the value of a composer but Bruckner was something of a one-off and there are no obviously helpful comparisons to be made. Brahms and now Mahler are not at all comparable with Bruckner except at the level of person preference. I have seen many posting over the years that they love Bruckner but don't enjoy Mahler so personal preferences go both ways - there is no consensus.


----------



## Sad Al

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Ancerl's Mahler 9 is a great one. I'm not sure Karajan's is


Ozawa says (in the book 'Absolutely on music' written by Murakami) that Karajan's Mahler 9 is 'just wonderful, especially the finale'. They spend many pages discussing Mahler (but not Bruckner!). Today I must listen to Ancerl's Mahler 9 which has spent a few silent years in my crazy collection of about 1000 CDs.


----------



## DavidA

1996D said:


> Listen to Karajan's Mahler 9th, it is his greatest accomplishment by far, regardless of how he may have enjoyed playing Bruckner's 8th. The quote confirms how he thought the 9th was from the heavens, and the performance reassures it further.


Sorry mate, you are trying to rewrite history on the basis of your subjective opinion of Karajan's Man;ler 9th


----------



## DavidA

1996D said:


> This Saturday 7th is the release of my very friendly and accessible prelude to the 3 large scale works of which the first will be released the 14th of March and the other two later this year. The prelude runs five and a half minutes.


Bruckner watch out!


----------



## 1996D

DavidA said:


> Bruckner watch out!


He's dead and resting in peace.


----------



## Sad Al

1996D said:


> He's dead and resting in peace.


No, according to science he isn't resting in peace but he's ceased to exist. If he would rest in peace (i.e. obey all those RIPs) he would still be doing something. Actually whenever you write RIP that means 'you are dead but you still exist, you still think, you still feel, you feel all those worms that are eating you'...


----------



## Jacck

Sad Al said:


> No, according to science he isn't resting in peace but he's ceased to exist. If he would rest in peace (i.e. obey all those RIPs) he would still be doing something.


his soul returned to God into eternity, where it is "resting" beyond space and time


----------



## larold

It seems Mahler's 9th and Bruckner's 8th are their best works. I have Ancerl's Mahler 9th (1966) and Thielemann's Bruckner 8th (2009), any opinions?

I'd disagree with your "best work" assessments and say I enjoyed Ancerl's Mahler for a time. It is more direct and less inflected than a lot of other performances of that work. Thielemann to me seemed to be a modern run-of-the-mill Germanic conductor trying to resurrect the Germanic way of the past. He is effective but not great, I'd say. If you want spirituality in the Bruckner 8th others do it better -- Wand in Lubeck cathedral, Karajan and Giulini to name three. It you want a more objective account Beinum's is tremendous.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Mahler 9 and Bruckner 8 are my two favorite symphonies ever. Do I feel the need to choose between them? Heck no! Mahler and Bruckner were two totally different artists with totally different things to say. Karajan conducted them both wonderfully. They both feature transcendent Adagios. By the time they’re finished, it feels like all the experience of a lifetime has been contained within them. 

Where has this thread gone? Back to OP - Bruckner was a genius. Comparing him to others of his time does him a major disservice.


----------



## Sad Al

Interesting, larold. Beinum is in mono sound isn't it? I have wasted years listening to Bach and I am not too familiar with more advanced music like symphonies and rap and Eurovision hits. I sort of like obsolete things like Sibelius 4th (Beecham is ok, Sibelius liked it too). I don't want spirituality in the Bruckner or in anything else, I just want to make love with Ronald McDonald. Life is short!


----------



## DavidA

Sad Al said:


> No, according to science he isn't resting in peace but he's ceased to exist. If he would rest in peace (i.e. obey all those RIPs) he would still be doing something. Actually whenever you write RIP that means 'you are dead but you still exist, you still think, you still feel, you feel all those worms that are eating you'...


Please note that science does not deal with the possibility of an after life. It deals with the natural not the spiritual


----------



## Sad Al

Exactly, my dear Watson. Science deals with the natural, i.e. evolution, i.e. anything natural. All natural is a function of time. Not the spiritual which is timeless. And all spiritual is Platonic as Platon explained in his Timaeus. But Platon was trained by Socrates (not the beer addicted footballer).

E.g. Bach. After c. 1720 there is no evolution at all. By 1720 Bach had got rid of the nuisance of time and everything he ever wrote after 1720 was supernatural.

Bach's work after 1720 isn't any better that his pre-1720 stuff.


----------



## Tallisman

1996D said:


> With only 15 min of Mahler material in any of his late works you have a whole Bruckner symphony. The latter is really just suited for those who like emotion and not complexity.


How many more absurdities are you going to type up? They're coming thick and fast. Right now they bear no resemblance to an opinion informed by intelligent and attentive listening, I'm afraid. On your opinion Wagner, Furtwangler, Jochum, Karajan, Sibelius, Mahler etc (all of whom greatly admired Brucker) therefore had no ear for complexity, and yet you have used quotations from many of these people in bolstering your claims.


----------



## Tallisman

1996D said:


> It is music coming from another world, it is coming from eternity. - Herbert von Karajan on Mahler's 9th


No one is debating Mahler's skill as a composer (though on certain occasions I might call attention to Mahler's frequent lack of taste and control).
If you knew anything about Karajan's relationship to Bruckner and Mahler you would know that Karajan was largely indifferent to much of Mahler's music, although he certainly came round to the 5th and 9th in later life. His real passion out of the two was Bruckner, whose full 1-9 he recorded, most of them many times. Karajan's personal pecking order would have placed Bruckner significantly higher than Wagner. To trot out a Karajan quote about Mahler to bolster an argument about Bruckner being inferior to Mahler was the wrong move. If you're so concerned with bolstering your argument by appeal to the opinions of great conductors and composers (which generally I am not), have a think about Furtwangler's assessment of the finale of Bruckner's 5th as ''surpassing all others in the symphonic literature'' (some would consider that an extreme opinion, but it's certainly not as patently absurd as your 'Bruckner is to Mahler as JK Rowling is to Goethe')

A book of Mahler's letters to his wife Alma was published a while ago. Buy it, look for 'Bruckner' in the index, and you will find one letter where Mahler says of the adagio of Bruckner's 6th that it represents a level of composition he had not yet achieved (and this was in Mahler's mature phase already). I am almost certain that Karajan would agree with me that in fact he never would. But that is irrelevant. Regardless of handpicked quotations from 'great minds', you haven't shown that you have paid any attention to Bruckner's music in and for itself without imposing your dogmatic criteria and composer-rankings on him.


----------



## Tallisman

1996D said:


> Woodduck is saying that Bruckner's artistry overcomes his lack of content, his bad form, and awkward flow, which is true, but is it enough to make him comparable to Mahler? No.


You haven't even paid attention to what Woodduck is saying. He is disputing _precisely_ your belief that Bruckner has a lack of content, bad form, and awkward flow. Bruckner's content is rich, you just don't happen to like it at the moment, which is fine I suppose. We wouldn't be listening to him today had he followed the advice of his critics to change his style to be more academic (you seem to mistake academic standards for level of intellect and complexity). His flow is awkward only to those who impose the formal standards of other composers on to him, which Bruckner subverts beautifully, because that was his personal language which reveals its deep logic and structure to you once you stop talking over the music and listen to it with unprejudiced ears. I think he makes Mahler's symphonies look like temper tantrums, but hey ho.


----------



## larold

_Interesting, larold. Beinum is in mono sound isn't it? I have wasted years listening to Bach and I am not too familiar with more advanced music like symphonies and rap and Eurovision hits. I sort of like obsolete things like Sibelius 4th (Beecham is ok, Sibelius liked it too). I don't want spirituality in the Bruckner or in anything else, I just want to make love with Ronald McDonald. Life is short!_

Some people adapt to "historic" sound better than others ... and some people want super audio sound ahead of artistic issues.

The sound on Beinum's CD is mono but hardly low fidelity; it sounds terrific. I think of his interpretation as perfectly matching the music's nickname -- apocalyptic. There isn't much spirituality in it, however. You can try it out on YouTube:






If you choose to buy the CD the whole thing is on one though the original Philips pressing is somewhat rare. There is a more recent pressing mating it to other Bruckner recordings he made.


----------



## larold

_Listen to Karajan's Mahler 9th, it is his greatest accomplishment by far, regardless of how he may have enjoyed playing Bruckner's 8th_

I agree Karajan's Mahler 9 made near the end of his life is a remarkable recording, one of the better ones I know from the conductor. He is especially good in the two long threnodies that surround the music, the first and last movements. He finds a certainty in them other conductors miss...though the contrasts with the burlesque is not as great as I know elsewhere. There is nothing superficial or simpleminded about his reading and his orchestra, like always, is with him all the way.

The Ancerl version, mentioned elsewhere around here, is very different -- far more direct with less or no philosophizing. Bruno Walter's late life edition is another way, a warmer, more human look at Mahler's end of life teleschope. Abbado is similar to Walter. All ways are equally valid and satisfying, in my opinion. Just depends what you want from Mahler.

Over my life I learned the Mahler 9 (and many of his bigger works) was too much for me, made too many demands on my time and consciousness not to mention my intellect. I've fairly withdrawn from Mahler in recent years for this reason, confining myself to his more compact works like the First and Fourth symphonies and the songs. I have no doubt he is worth exploring for anyone willing to take the journey, however.


----------



## Sad Al

Hats off to larold. This Bruckner 8 conducted by Beinum indeed sounds terrific. I know Beinum's Bach d-minor keyboard concerto that he recorded with Lipatti. I always listen to the Bach d-minor concerto. There are four letters in Bruckner and Mahler in which I trust: B, A, C, H. Bach is God.


----------



## DavidA

Sad Al said:


> Exactly, my dear Watson. Science deals with the natural, i.e. evolution, i.e. anything natural. All natural is a function of time. Not the spiritual which is timeless. And all spiritual is Platonic as Platon explained in his Timaeus. But Platon was trained by Socrates (not the beer addicted footballer).
> 
> E.g. Bach. After c. 1720 there is no evolution at all. By 1720 *Bach had got rid of the nuisance of time* and everything he ever wrote after 1720 was supernatural.
> 
> Bach's work after 1720 isn't any better that his pre-1720 stuff.


Funny! Why is my hair going grey then? :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Tallisman said:


> No one is debating Mahler's skill as a composer (though on certain occasions I might call attention to Mahler's frequent lack of taste and control).
> If you knew anything about Karajan's relationship to Bruckner and Mahler *you would know that Karajan was largely indifferent to much of Mahler's music,* although he certainly came round to the 5th and 9th in later life. His real passion out of the two was Bruckner, whose full 1-9 he recorded, *most of them many times.* Karajan's personal pecking order would have placed Bruckner significantly higher than Wagner. To trot out a Karajan quote about Mahler to bolster an argument about Bruckner being inferior to Mahler was the wrong move. If you're so concerned with bolstering your argument by appeal to the opinions of great conductors and composers (which generally I am not), have a think about Furtwangler's assessment of the finale of Bruckner's 5th as ''surpassing all others in the symphonic literature'' (some would consider that an extreme opinion, but it's certainly not as patently absurd as your 'Bruckner is to Mahler as JK Rowling is to Goethe')
> 
> A book of Mahler's letters to his wife Alma was published a while ago. Buy it, look for 'Bruckner' in the index, and you will find one letter where Mahler says of the adagio of Bruckner's 6th that it represents a level of composition he had not yet achieved (and this was in Mahler's mature phase already). I am almost certain that Karajan would agree with me that in fact he never would. But that is irrelevant. Regardless of handpicked quotations from 'great minds', you haven't shown that you have paid any attention to Bruckner's music in and for itself without imposing your dogmatic criteria and composer-rankings on him.


While agreeing with most of your post your statement that 'Karajan was largely indifferent to Mahler' is a common misconception. Ahead of the Mahler centenary in 1960 he tried conclusions with Das Lied von der Erde but the BPO simply was not ready for Mahler at that stage. (He also had to battle an anti-Stravinsky faction in the orchestra.) The problem lay in the orchestra rather than Karajan although of course HvK was no Mahler specialist. It took Barbirolli to warm the BPO up and breach the defences with some famous concerts. Karajan then went on to record the 4th, 5th, 6th and 9th as well as Das Lied. He looked at the score of the competed 10th but decided at his advanced age it was beyond him to learn. 
As for Bruckner, the only symphonies he recorded more than once outside his BPO cycle for DG were the 4th, 7th and 8th although some live performances of the 9th are available.


----------



## Woodduck

Tallisman said:


> I think he makes Mahler's symphonies look like temper tantrums, but hey ho.


First prize to an aphorism worthy of Stravinsky. There's more to it than meets the eye, just as there's more to Bruckner than meets the ear.

Many years ago I knew a fellow - call him George - who was a passionate Mahlerian. For a long time he didn't get Bruckner at all. But he was curious by nature, and he listened persistently to Bruckner's symphonies and talked constantly with music-loving friends who he was happy to concede might know something he didn't. My own experience of Bruckner was limited then; I loved the 8th symphony in one of Furtwangler's magnificent recordings, but hadn't thought deeply about him otherwise. So it was fascinating to talk with George about his perceptions of the composer.

It was clear to George that Mahler and Bruckner inhabited quite different emotional universes. A psychologist by profession, he saw Mahler - accurately, I think - as the most nakedly "psychological" of composers, audibly and constantly in tension with life. George pointed out that the word "tense" has two meanings: as an adjective, it comes from the Latin_ tensus,_ meaning "stretched," while as a noun it comes from the French _tens,_ meaning "time." This interesting confluence of meanings points up the nature of the eternal struggle of life as a battle with time.

Western music had evolved a language uniquely suited to the depiction of the unfolding of time's inevitable, and inevitably deadly, progress, and Mahler, coming at the effective end of that evolution (which had climaxed in late Romanticism, particularly in the crisis of Wagner's _Tristan_), gathered together all the resources of his art to stretch (_tensus_) the "tension of time" to (but never quite beyond) the breaking point. But even at the moment when music had been pushed toward its expressive limits by Wagner, a different sensibilty was being represented in the works of Bruckner, whose music used the language of European music in a most peculiar way: he used it to contradict its own essence, and to try to overcome time's claim on man's mortal existence. I talked about this in post #134 (itself a revisiting of an earlier discussion on the forum), and will repeat my summation here:

_By setting up expectations of formal development through harmonic progression and dynamic growth, yet refusing to allow his musical ideas to fulfill directly the expectations thus set up, but rather parceling them out over a vast soundscape and developing them incrementally, in disjunct stages, he is refusing to allow time to be the final arbiter of form in the very art - namely, music - which most essentially exists in time. And in so refusing, he is stating that what is of ultimate significance in life (of which art is an analogue) is something which includes and pervades the temporal world but exists, unchanging, beyond it. For Bruckner, this was God. For us who listen to Bruckner, it may be whatever we feel to be transcendent within us.
_
George came to understand the "spiritual" language of Bruckner, as he had already understood the "psychological" language of Mahler, and was able to appreciate the composer's genius and the esteem in which others held him. That was decades ago, and it would be interesting to know how he views these composers now. I do recall with amusement that when I gave the confirmed Mahlerian a recording of _Tristan und Isolde_ to listen to, he told me that he had to turn it off because it was just too intense!

"Intense" - "tense" - "tensus" - "tens"... Perhaps he now finds in Bruckner a sublime refuge from the struggle of life and the battle with time.


----------



## DaveM

janxharris said:


> I would be interested to see these arguments.
> 
> There was no dumbing down of these composers DaveM. I was responding to what I considered a logical fallacy - that the justification for the big three's supposed superiority amounts to little more than an appeal to popularity.


So the 'logical fallacy' is that 'the justification for the big three's supposed superiority amounts to little more than an appeal to popularity'? So you are agreeing with me?

In the case of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, they are popular because they are great, not great because they are popular, a perspective apparently missed by a number here.


----------



## larold

_Many years ago I knew a fellow - call him George - who was a passionate Mahlerian. For a long time he didn't get Bruckner at all._

I read the post and understand. Still it seems disbelief to me that someone who understands Mahler's complex language doesn't understand Bruckner's. They are using the same alphabet and Bruckner's words are half the duration.


----------



## Woodduck

larold said:


> _Many years ago I knew a fellow - call him George - who was a passionate Mahlerian. For a long time he didn't get Bruckner at all._
> 
> I read the post and understand. Still it seems disbelief to me that someone who understands Mahler's complex language doesn't understand Bruckner's. They are using the same alphabet and Bruckner's words are half the duration.


Well, English and Italian use the same alphabet too!

I think that for all his complexity Mahler is much easier for many people than Bruckner. He doesn't ask for patience, inner stillness and receptiveness; he's right in your face, telling you what he means and what to feel (although his feelings can get complicated ). If Bruckner is a Quaker meeting, Mahler is a camp meeting.


----------



## DavidA

larold said:


> _Many years ago I knew a fellow - call him George - who was a passionate Mahlerian. For a long time he didn't get Bruckner at all._
> 
> I read the post and understand. Still it seems disbelief to me that someone who understands Mahler's complex language doesn't understand Bruckner's. They are using the same alphabet and Bruckner's words are half the duration.


I can understand it completely - they are two entirely different composers.


----------



## Tallisman

Woodduck said:


> But even at the moment when music had been pushed toward its expressive limits by Wagner, a different sensibilty was being represented in the works of Bruckner, whose music used the language of European music in a most peculiar way: he used it to contradict its own essence, and to try to overcome time's claim on man's mortal existence.


I think this is an insightful summation, and I'm inclined to agree. I also thought it a wonderful aspect of Bruckner that he loves to maintain pulse, which is something Wagner often eschews (I suppose in opera you sometimes have to). What a wonderful paradox that the transcendence of time should be found in steadily aligning oneself with rhythmic equilibrium. This I feel raises his music above the turbulence of human emotion, and into drama on a cosmic scale.

My comment on Mahler was insincere, really, as his symphonies were some of the first works I loved and I still think they are works of great value and import, but I often do lose patience with his manic changes. Just when I feel we are catching sight of some divine mountainous landscape viewed by no one in particular (i.e. when he is at his most Brucknerian...), he rudely shifts us back to the level of subjectivity and its chaos of personal neuroses.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Tallisman said:


> I think this is an insightful summation, and I'm inclined to agree. I also thought it a wonderful aspect of Bruckner that he loves to maintain pulse, which is something Wagner often eschews (I suppose in opera you sometimes have to). What a wonderful paradox that the transcendence of time should be found in steadily aligning oneself with rhythmic equilibrium. This I feel raises his music above the turbulence of human emotion, and into drama on a cosmic scale.
> 
> My comment on Mahler was insincere, really, as his symphonies were some of the first works I loved and I still think they are works of great value and import, but I often do lose patience with his manic changes. Just when I feel we are catching sight of some divine mountainous landscape viewed by no one in particular (i.e. when he is at his most Brucknerian...), he rudely shifts us back to the level of subjectivity and its chaos of personal neuroses.


For me, "subjectivity and its chaos of personal neuroses" is what Mahler is all about. I adore his music, but I don't listen to it nearly as often as my other favorite composers because it's not music for everyday. It's music about deep and diabolical passions, metaphysical quests, restless and anguished searching. Bruckner is all about stability and certainty - I never find his structures predictable or blase, but somehow or other, whenever we get to the final coda, it feels as if that's the only way it possibly could have ended. It's like we've run that long and patient race to be rewarded with a pat on the back from Anton and an exhortation of "well done for sticking through it!". While I usually finish a Mahler symphony with more questions than answers, and I think this is how Mahler would have wanted it. This might all be too philosophical and pedantic, but I think it's important to discuss in relation to the music of these two titans. But then again, why do they always get compared? The only thing they have in common is gigantism.


----------



## Fabulin

I find the whole "pushing music to expressive limits", or "pushing tonality to its limits" to be grossly overused. I've read it written about Beethoven, Liszt, Wagner, Brahms, Korngold, Scriabin, Debussy, Mahler, R. Strauss...


----------



## 1996D

Tallisman said:


> You haven't even paid attention to what Woodduck is saying. He is disputing _precisely_ your belief that Bruckner has a lack of content, bad form, and awkward flow. Bruckner's content is rich, you just don't happen to like it at the moment, which is fine I suppose. We wouldn't be listening to him today had he followed the advice of his critics to change his style to be more academic (you seem to mistake academic standards for level of intellect and complexity). His flow is awkward only to those who impose the formal standards of other composers on to him, which Bruckner subverts beautifully, because that was his personal language which reveals its deep logic and structure to you once you stop talking over the music and listen to it with unprejudiced ears. I think he makes Mahler's symphonies look like temper tantrums, but hey ho.


He definitely did the most with the talent he had, but to think that he had a choice to use good form is hilarious. You don't choose to be a creative genius, it's a gift.

Form is incredibly difficult to learn, if not impossible, and if the music doesn't come naturally from your head into the world there will never be anything to it, it will be a lie.

Bruckner wrote that way because that was his potential, and if you enjoy it great, personally I enjoy his 9th. It's very clear though how far he is from being a creative genius.

Good form requires an immense amount of creativity, it drains you and leaves you like you've just finished a marathon, even if you're a natural at it and compose explosively with great inspiration. Bruckner certainly didn't do that, you can hear the breaks in his music; every bit of careful planning behind the construction. It doesn't flow from his head into reality, he's like a writer writing a page a week, and all you read is how fragmented and uninspired his book is.

Credit to him goes for being so untalented yet writing music at the level he did; he's like Beethoven without the genius of his form.


----------



## violadude

Fabulin said:


> I find the whole "pushing music to expressive limits", or "pushing tonality to its limits" to be grossly overused. I've read it written about Beethoven, Liszt, Wagner, Brahms, Korngold, Scriabin, Debussy, Mahler, R. Strauss...


Well, "limits" as defined by the limitations of the time period each composer was writing in and thus subject to change. It's certainly a valid descriptor of all those composers besides perhaps Korngold.


----------



## Fabulin

violadude said:


> Well, "limits" as defined by the *limitations of the time period* each composer was writing in and thus subject to change. It's certainly a valid descriptor of all those composers besides perhaps Korngold.


what do you mean by that?


----------



## violadude

Fabulin said:


> what do you mean by that?


I mean that, a group of composers in a certain time period will all be composing within the limits of a certain style, and then one or two composers of that time period will write something more outside the box of that certain style, and then lots of composers copy those new ideas until it becomes the status quo and the process continues on from there. That's how music evolves. I'm kind of surprised I have to explain this.


----------



## Woodduck

Fabulin said:


> I find the whole "pushing music to expressive limits", or "pushing tonality to its limits" to be grossly overused. I've read it written about Beethoven, Liszt, Wagner, Brahms, Korngold, Scriabin, Debussy, Mahler, R. Strauss...


Maybe the great innovators were all pushing limits, but some more radically or influentially than others? (I was about to exclaim,"KORNGOLD?!", but I see violadude has beat me to it.) In the present context, Bruckner didn't try to emulate the extreme limit-pushing of his idol, Wagner, but was pleased to take from him a few useful things in pursuit of his own wonderfully eccentric vision. Mahler, on the other hand, went the whole hog, to the point where his last two symphonies practically expire from emotional exhaustion (or at least I do when I listen to them, which is very rarely). Remember that "the symphony must contain the world" business that Sibelius rolled his eyes over?

What difference does it make how often something is said, when what matters is whether it's said truthfully and meaningfully?


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> He definitely did the most with the talent he had, but *to think that he had a choice to use good form is hilarious.* You don't choose to be a creative genius, it's a gift.
> 
> Form is incredibly difficult to learn, if not impossible, and *if the music doesn't come naturally from your head into the world there will never be anything to it*, it will be a lie.
> 
> Bruckner wrote that way because that was his potential, and if you enjoy it great, personally I enjoy his 9th. *It's very clear though how far he is from being a creative genius.
> *
> Good form requires an immense amount of creativity, it *drains you and leaves you like you've just finished a marathon*, even if you're a natural at it and *compose explosively* with great inspiration. *Bruckner certainly didn't do that,* you can hear the breaks in his music; every bit of careful planning behind the construction. It doesn't flow from his head into reality, *he's like a writer writing a page a week, and all you read is how fragmented and uninspired his book is.
> *
> Credit to him goes for being *so untalented* yet writing music at the level he did; *he's like Beethoven without the genius of his form.*


A person could easily go keel up in a catatonic state trying to answer all the arrogant and foolish things you say.

It may be "clear" to you that Bruckner was "not a creative genius." It may even be "clear" to you exactly how far (in miilimeters? in furlongs?) he was from being one. When challenged on that typically gaseous exhalation, you can, of course, always define "creative genius" so as to make your statement true by definition. Alas, such statements are generally not worth making in the first place. In this case we do know that people at least as knowledgeable and perceptive as you find the very opposite to be "clear." Shall we proceed to argue about whose mind is more "clear"?

I might say something about your contention that Bruckner wasn't inspired and didn't create good form because, according to your 20/20 hindsight (do you have spies with time machines?), he didn't compose "explosively" or feel drained afterward, and I might inquire as to what "Beethoven without form" could possibly mean. But it's all just too unbearably dumb to spend time with.

A true statement that others could respect would be, "I can't see why Bruckner is regarded as a great composer." But statements like that require of us a certain humility, or simply enough objectivity to notice that the contents of our brains are not a description of the universe. Good luck with that, genius.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> A person could easily go keel up in a catatonic state trying to answer all the arrogant and foolish things you say.
> 
> It may be "clear" to you that Bruckner was "not a creative genius." It may even be "clear" to you exactly how far (in miilimeters? in furlongs?) he was from being one. When challenged on that typically gaseous exhalation, you can, of course, always define "creative genius" so as to make your statement true by definition. Alas, such statements are generally not worth making in the first place. In this case we do know that people at least as knowledgeable and perceptive as you find the very opposite to be "clear." Shall we proceed to argue about whose mind is more "clear"?
> 
> I might say something about your contention that Bruckner wasn't inspired and didn't create good form because, according to your 20/20 hindsight (do you have spies with time machines?), he didn't compose "explosively" or feel drained afterward, and I might inquire as to what "Beethoven without form" could possibly mean. But it's all just too unbearably dumb to spend time with.
> 
> A true statement that others could respect would be, "I can't see why Bruckner is regarded as a great composer." But statements like that require of us a certain humility, or simply enough objectivity to notice that the contents of our brains are not a description of the universe. Good luck with that, genius.


I just came back from hearing his 9th with Gergiev and I'll say that the first movement is the exact definition of everything I said in that post; you can clearly hear each block of music being composed at a different time. That first movement has maybe five long breaks of creative flow, maybe more.

The second movement improves, there is a nice passage of good counterpoint, and the music starts taking shape. The third movement, very likely the best thing he ever composed, finally reaches flow, and everything the man has lived and suffered through his long life comes to climax, then slowly concludes in an homage to God.

The feeling after the symphony is one of peace and hope, yet after hearing Mahler's 9th it was pure awe, and a genuine feeling of truth that there was a man who gave every bit of his deep as the ocean soul to write such a masterpiece.

The difference in talent and genius between the two is profound. I stand by everything I posted.


----------



## DaveM

1996D said:


> I stand by everything I posted.


Alone on your island...


----------



## mbhaub

The last 10 or so pages here have been fun reading. Insane comments, and I'm pretty sure 199D is trolling to get reactions: some of the opinions are so stupid and detached from reality as can be. Bruckner not a genius? Any living composer today would give his/her soul to be as talented, to have his music so loved, performed and recorded. There isn't a single composer alive right now who can write anything as magnificent as Bruckner's 5th. The technical wizardry, the extraordinary mastery of harmony and counterpoint is breathtaking. 1996, eat your heart out.


----------



## 1996D

mbhaub said:


> The last 10 or so pages here have been fun reading. Insane comments, and I'm pretty sure 199D is trolling to get reactions: some of the opinions are so stupid and detached from reality as can be. Bruckner not a genius? Any living composer today would give his/her soul to be as talented, to have his music so loved, performed and recorded. There isn't a single composer alive right now who can write anything as magnificent as Bruckner's 5th. The technical wizardry, the extraordinary mastery of harmony and counterpoint is breathtaking. 1996, eat your heart out.


I rest my case, I know I'm right. Many people dislike Bruckner, and it's not for a lack of understanding. You're living in a bubble if you think otherwise, he is one of the most controversial composers in the standard repertoire.

People know what I'm saying, they just never bothered to articulate it. I just attended a Bruckner concert, that's much more than any of the people who dislike him would ever do for his music.

He is overrated in this forum, as such, it was the right thing to do to state my informed opinion - maybe that lets you see your bias.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> I stand by everything I posted.


Of course you do - _everything,_ no matter how ridiculous. Apparently You can't help yourself; you're incapable of letting yourself imagine a legitimate alternative to your views. It wouldn't even occur to you that people who've known music three times as long as you've been alive may be able to tell you anything of value, or that with time and maturity you may discover that the conceptions of things cherished in childhood have changed. God forbid you should do something as ego-crushing as to grow up.

Your latest remarks are as juvenile as the rest. No no one here who knows Bruckner's 9th needs your feeble dissection of its supposed flaws. Run along and do something useful to humanity.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> Of course you do - _everything,_ no matter how ridiculous. Apparently You can't help yourself; you're incapable of letting yourself imagine a legitimate alternative to your views. It wouldn't even occur to you that people who've known music three times as long as you've been alive may be able to tell you anything of value, or that with time and maturity you may discover that the conceptions of things cherished in childhood have changed. God forbid you should do something as ego-crushing as to grow up.
> 
> Your latest remarks are as juvenile as the rest. No no one here who knows Bruckner's 9th needs your feeble dissection of its supposed flaws. Run along and do something useful to humanity.


I only wrote with such confidence because my music is coming out - that'll back up everything.

You say I'm all talk but should expect me to be here walking, and I will be.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> I only wrote with such confidence because my music is coming out - that'll back up everything.


What difference would it make what your music sounds like? The fact that you think it would make a difference - that your own compositions could prove Bruckner's defective, or could prove that anything you've said on this forum has merit, is laughable. "See? Ya see? I can compose really nice music, so that Bruckner guy is a bungling amateur! Told ya! Told ya! Hahaha!'

Give me a break.

For those who missed them the first time, here are some of your pearls of wisdom:

_"Bruckner is like Dvorak, there is a lack of content."

"These are composers that lack depth of creativity; that rely on ornamentation."

"He uses repetition because he lacks creativity, it's a coping mechanism."

"It results in music that doesn't last many hearings, it quickly stales."

"They're all good melodists though, that's what makes them popular."

"His music progresses into nothing, there is no depth of exploration, he simply repeats."

"Bruckner's the better orchestrator, that's the main difference, but personally I think Liszt is the better melodist...Both are very good at producing attractive melodies, that's what makes their music worth hearing."

"Credit to him goes for being so untalented yet writing music at the level he did; he's like Beethoven without the genius of his form."

"Lack of content results in boredom, lack of depth of creativity results in boredom, music that employs repetition quickly stales and that results in boredom."

"All excuses for his lack of intellect."

"Very much like Liszt, playing it is much more enjoyable than listening."

"As a listener it's so important that the music have constant innovation."

"I doubt conductors enjoy rehearsing Mahler's complex counterpoint, it's a nightmare, and very few get it right."

"Bruckner and Liszt have so much in common, both use repetition, both love drama, both had a close connection to Wagner."

"He's boring, his form is primitive. His 9th is good only because he wrote it as an old man with years of pain behind him."

"As a composer there is nothing to take from him, nothing at all."

"I would argue his music is the opposite of abstract, it's on the surface, musically one dimensional, and you can see everything that goes on technically, nothing surprises."

"With Mahler every new hearing you discover something new, every conductor can emphasize different instruments during counterpoint and it creates a completely different symphony."

"With only 15 min of Mahler material in any of his late works you have a whole Bruckner symphony. The latter is really just suited for those who like emotion and not complexity."

"His form is primitive, there is nothing intellectual about his music, nothing whatsoever."

"He's like a writer writing a page a week, and all you read is how fragmented and uninspired his book is."

"It's not a matter of opinion, study his scores, it's like reading Harry Potter while Mahler is Goethe."

"His music is pleasant, it doesn't exert the mind, you could be doing something else and not miss anything."

"He definitely did the most with the talent he had, but to think that he had a choice to use good form is hilarious."

"Form is incredibly difficult to learn, if not impossible, and if the music doesn't come naturally from your head into the world there will never be anything to it."

"Credit to him goes for being so untalented yet writing music at the level he did."

"It's very clear how far he is from being a creative genius."

"Time will be the ultimate test and as audiences continue to digest these composers, there will be a fading of Bruckner's popularity."

"He is overrated in this forum, as such, it was the right thing to do to state my informed opinion - maybe that lets you see your bias.

"Everything I say is genuine."
_

"Criticism" of this calibre would get you laughed out of any music conservatory in the world. It must constitute a record for the largest number of dumb remarks ever crammed into one thread by a single person. But you "stand by everything," assure us that "everything you say is genuine," and suggest that such bilge will let us all see our "bias."

Yes, most of us have a bias. A bias against burying threads under stinking piles of a**holery.

You could prove to be a composer of the stature of Beethoven, and it wouldn't excuse the massive insult to our intelligence you've made of this thread.


----------



## 1996D

Yes, how many times do you want me to repeat that I stand firm?

There is a lack of content in most of Bruckner's symphonies (he uses repetition too often, he lacks creative thoroughness), the form is bad, he struggled mightily as a composer and only through a huge amount of work was he at the age of 40 able to begin composing seriously. It then took him 4 symphonies to reach the level that most today respect, and not until his 9th on his death bed was he able to achieve what Mahler did in his first, and Mozart at 18 years old.

Bruckner was not a natural talent, and yet again I'll repeat, everything posted comes from a genuine place. Composers have always been honest on other composers, this is the way things are -- there will be no lies, my thoughts on music will be made public. Including the praise already given thoroughly to the likes of Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Brahms, and Mahler. 

Handel, Haydn, Chopin, Schubert, Schumann, Wagner, R. Strauss -- these are all composers that are a massive step above Bruckner in terms of artistry and skill in composition -- feel free to analyze their scores along with the ones from the latter and tell me where I'm wrong. If it takes hearing a piano arrangement of his symphonies for you to see his poor form then let it please happen.

There has to be honesty. If he was alive today I probably wouldn't say what was said because it would be cruel, but he's long dead and resting in peace, and the man is so overrated here you would think he was Beethoven.

In the broader musical world he is not, he has many detractors and is kept in his rightful place. Bruckner doesn't fill seats, his symphonies must always be coupled with a very popular piece beforehand and I've seen people leave before his symphonies start.


----------



## Tallisman

1996D said:


> Bruckner doesn't fill seats, his symphonies must always be coupled with a very popular piece beforehand and I've seen people leave before his symphonies start.


The Four Seasons fill more seats than the Grosse Fugue.


----------



## 1996D

Tallisman said:


> The Four Seasons fill more seats than the Grosse Fugue.


Mahler fills seats.

Musical people enjoy large orchestras, just not the kind of writing of Bruckner. Pieces are judged as a whole and the latter bores most audiences. If anything it's a cautionary tale to next generations of composers to make their pieces flow or if that's beyond your ability, not to make them too long. Have the humility to write to a length suited for your level of creativity.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> I do wish you would stop saying I am guilty of a logical fallacy. If you understood the fallacy you accuse me of you would have dropped that line by now. But, it seems you don't trust yourself to _think _it through.


? The appeal to popularity _alone_ is a logical fallacy. You would need to demonstrated why the best works of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are objectively superior to the rest.



> Your reasoning defeats itself. Greatness, you say, _is _a subjective quality. But instead of following that to its logical conclusion - that to assess or measure this subjective quality must mean measuring people's choices - you say that knowing this shows that greatness cannot be measured objectively. You then tell us what qualities _*you *_think make great music (a list few would accept as right and complete and anyway greatness tends to break rules) - with no evidence at all in support of your view.


I'm not following you. Lots of people liking the 'big three' the most means lots of people like the 'big three' the most. It does not demonstrate in an objective way that their compositions trump other composer's works.

Why would I need to provide evidence to support my view of what constitutes good music? I wasn't affirming it as objective.



> Greatness in art _*is *_concerned with its ability to move people (you have now accepted this). Subjective opinions can be measured. Social scientists do so all the time, medical researchers do it, many other disciplines do it. And measurements it are objective measures. There are widely understood methods for doing this and there is no fallacy! But the real question is "what is it an objective measure of?" It may be, for example, a finding that a sample (selected by a given method) of a wider (named) population over a specified time period came to this conclusion. That will give you a true (objective) statement. Now, if a large sample of well informed people (this term can be defined for our case) has consistently had the same opinion about something for hundreds of years you have a pretty reliable statement and can even predict the result of repeating the procedure. Such a circumstance is very rare but it does seem to happen with expert views on the three greatest composers ... but not for, say, position 10 or 25.


Please see above.



> Incidentally, it is not as you say "my view" that these three composers are top (although it is a view I am comfortable with). That is not what I am saying. I am merely observing that we seem to have a reliable finding about their preeminence.


I would assume that most people would not actually elevate their views beyond the subjective.


----------



## 1996D

^ Filling seats + amount of time they've been filling seats. I mean if we're going to get real about it, people liking your music is the only thing that matters. It may happen after you die like in the case of many composers, but that's basically it.

When people love music, cultural enrichment happens, and when it reaches the people that have it in them to change the world, the music achieves political significance. This is the goal of art, to do good and enrich the lives of as many people, including people who will do important things in the world.


----------



## janxharris

DaveM said:


> So the 'logical fallacy' is that 'the justification for the big three's supposed superiority amounts to little more than an appeal to popularity'? So you are agreeing with me?
> 
> In the case of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, they are popular because they are great, not great because they are popular, a perspective apparently missed by a number here.


I am not disputing their greatness. I asked for an objective demonstration that their works are generally superior without using said logical fallacy.


----------



## Jacck

1996D said:


> ^ Filling seats + amount of time they've been filling seats. I mean if we're going to get real about it, people liking your music is the only thing that matters. It may happen after you die like in the case of many composers, but that's basically it.


many people read The Twilight Saga books (something about vampires, have not read it), and comparatively few read War and Peace. Does that mean that The Twilight Saga is better literature? All these popularity arguments are logical fallacies. By measuring popularity, you measure popularity. There is no way you can equate popularity with greatness. Anyone who claims the opposite has muddled thinking.


----------



## 1996D

Jacck said:


> many people read The Twilight Saga books (something about vampires, have not read it), and comparatively few read War and Peace. Does that mean that The Twilight Saga is better literature? All these popularity arguments are logical fallacies. By measuring popularity, you measure popularity. There is no way you can equate popularity with greatness. Anyone who claims the opposite has muddled thinking.


You missed my edit.

"When people love music, cultural enrichment happens, and when it reaches the people that have it in them to change the world, the music achieves political significance. This is the goal of art, to do good and enrich the lives of as many people, including people who will do important things in the world."


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> ? The appeal to popularity _alone_ is a logical fallacy. You would need to demonstrated why the best works of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are objectively superior to the rest.
> 
> I'm not following you. Lots of people liking the 'big three' the most means lots of people like the 'big three' the most. It does not demonstrate in an objective way that their compositions trump other composer's works.
> 
> Why would I need to provide evidence to support my view of what constitutes good music? I wasn't affirming it as objective.
> 
> Please see above.
> 
> I would assume that most people would not actually elevate their views beyond the subjective.


Let's drop it. You feel you are engaging with my points but your answers make it seem to me that you can't even see the points I have made. Perhaps my argument is too simple. I'm not really sure what your position is - you seem to tie yourself in knots (e.g. in your last sentence you talk about what individuals would claim when it is 100% that individual opinions do not come into my arguments).


----------



## Enthusiast

Jacck said:


> many people read The Twilight Saga books (something about vampires, have not read it), and comparatively few read War and Peace. Does that mean that The Twilight Saga is better literature? All these popularity arguments are logical fallacies. By measuring popularity, you measure popularity. There is no way you can equate popularity with greatness. Anyone who claims the opposite has muddled thinking.


I agree. Popularity has nothing to do with it. But you can begin to do things with popularity if you specify what population you are talking about. I think it likely that among experienced classical music fans Bruckner is more often enjoyed, revered even, than not. The great orchestras in Europe programme his music often.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> Let's drop it. You feel you are engaging with my points but your answers make it seem to me that you can't even see the points I have made. Perhaps my argument is too simple. I'm not really sure what your position is - you seem to tie yourself in knots (e.g. in your last sentence you talk about what individuals would claim when it is 100% that individual opinions do not come into my arguments).


We can drop it if you wish. I certainly don't understand how these statements are congruent:

"It is 100% that individual opinions do not come into my arguments"

"Greatness in art is concerned with its ability to move people"


----------



## 1996D

Enthusiast said:


> I agree. Popularity has nothing to do with it. But you can begin to do things with popularity if you specify what population you are talking about. I think it likely that among experienced classical music fans Bruckner is more often enjoyed, revered even, than not. The great orchestras in Europe programme his music often.


His music is aggressive and in a time where there is great anger and fear towards the world this music will see a spike in popularity. Even in this climate though it does not fill seats, you will never see a concert where they play only Bruckner, so who you see as experienced listeners might be a small niche.


----------



## Fabulin

1996D said:


> His music is aggressive and *in a time where there is great anger and fear towards the world* this music will see a spike in popularity. Even in this climate though it does not fill seats, you will never see a concert where they play only Bruckner, so who you see as experienced listeners might be a small niche.


I would like to see an explanation and proof of this supposed "fact".


----------



## 1996D

Fabulin said:


> I would like to see an explanation and proof of this supposed "fact".


My music addresses it actually, you'll see later today on the thread I'll start.


----------



## Room2201974

1996D said:


> My music addresses it actually, you'll see later today on the thread I'll start.


Whew! Good to see this thread getting back on the right track. Who wants to discuss dusty ole Bruckner when greatness is so near?


----------



## 1996D

Room2201974 said:


> Whew! Good to see this thread getting back on the right track. Who wants to discuss dusty ole Bruckner when greatness is so near?


Music expresses what words cannot, everyone here is familiar with Bruckner, now it's time for something new, something relevant to our age and future ones.


----------



## Room2201974

1996D said:


> Music expresses what words cannot, everyone here is familiar with Bruckner, now it's time for something new, something relevant to our age and future ones.


I believe it is highly more likely that Arnold Schoenberg once ordered a baker's dozen doughnuts than your music being "relevant to our age and future ones."


----------



## 1996D

Room2201974 said:


> I believe it is highly more likely that Arnold Schoenberg once ordered a baker's dozen doughnuts than your music being "relevant to our age and future ones."


Good, then your surprise will be great.


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> We can drop it if you wish. I certainly don't understand how these statements are congruent:
> 
> "It is 100% that individual opinions do not come into my arguments"
> 
> "Greatness in art is concerned with its ability to move people"


I agree you seem not to understand and don't know what I can do to help you. The point is partly about the reliability of the finding (when groups of the experienced are asked you get the same result) and partly about the fact that you are dealing with a quality (greatness in art) that is about the impact of art on the people who enjoy it. You need to move beyond the narrow subjective vs. objective distinction that you seem stuck with. Our ability to predict results with measurable reliability (which can be expressed statistically) is what matters.


----------



## Enthusiast

1996D said:


> His music is aggressive and in a time where there is great anger and fear towards the world this music will see a spike in popularity. Even in this climate though it does not fill seats, you will never see a concert where they play only Bruckner, so who you see as experienced listeners might be a small niche.


Sorry but that is just silly. A lot of Bruckner is long and only leaves a little time for (usually) the first half of the concert. The works chosen for this first half are rarely the attraction that causes people to buy tickets. I do think, though, that we tend to want experienced and well known conductors for our Bruckner concerts.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> I mean if we're going to get real about it, people liking your music is the only thing that matters. It may happen after you die like in the case of many composers, but that's basically it.


So, if we're "going to get real about it," the only thing that matters is that many of the greatest conductors love and perform the music of Bruckner. And they don't even ask your opinion. Do you think they'll start asking you, once you're famous, whether his symphonies are any good?


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> His music is aggressive and in a time where there is great anger and fear towards the world this music will see a spike in popularity.


:lol: What a complete misunderstanding of Bruckner. As if we hadn't figured that out already.



> you will never see a concert where they play only Bruckner


How often do you see a concert containing more than one symphony of Mahler? I would find the experience excruciating. Some of us can barely sit through his 3rd, 8th, 9th or 10th played by itself.

Chacun a son gout.


----------



## DaveM

On November 4, 2019 Dudamel and the LA Phil, no small venue, played a modern work, largely unknown, Andrew Norman’s Sustain, followed by a 70 minute (longer than usual) performance of the Bruckner Symphony 4 (Romantic). Here’s a scenario according to a post not far above: Hey dear wife, I’ve just bought $125 tickets for the concert on Saturday. Let’s go hear that new work ‘Sustain’ and leave before that awful Bruckner 4th.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Room2201974 said:


> I believe it is highly more likely that Arnold Schoenberg once ordered a baker's dozen doughnuts than your music being "relevant to our age and future ones."


For someone who rejects atonality and modernism, I think that already sort of rules out the first part.


----------



## DavidA

1996D said:


> His *music is aggressive and in a time where there is great anger and fear towards the world this music will see a spike in popularity*. Even in this climate though it does not fill seats, you will never see a concert where they play only Bruckner, so who you see as experienced listeners might be a small niche.


Pardon? Are we really listening to the same composer? I think there are parts of many composers which are angry and aggressive. Beethoven, Mahler for example. Even Chopin in places. For goodness sake stop making such silly statements to try and prove a point you can't For goodness sake stop making such silly statements to try and prove a point you can't win.


----------



## Fabulin

DavidA said:


> Pardon? Are we really listening to the same composer? I think there are parts of many composers which are angry and aggressive. Beethoven, Mahler for example. Even Chopin in places. *For goodness sake stop making such silly statements to try and prove a point you can't For goodness sake stop making such silly statements to try and prove a point you can't win.*


You are repeating yourself. Do you lack creativity, like Bruckner? :tiphat:


----------



## bz3

What an odd dude. So have we heard his earth-shattering compositions yet?


----------



## DaveM

The premise of people walking out before a performance of a Bruckner Symphony is nothing short of bizarre. No doubt that Bruckner is an acquired taste. My guess is that people very much into and aware of the usual composers tend to come to Bruckner later. But once they do, there’s no going back; you’re hooked. Which means that, since Bruckner-based concerts are harder to come by, they are well attended and if people miss anything it might be the opening work, but certainly not the Bruckner Symphony.


----------



## 1996D

DaveM said:


> The premise of people walking out before a performance of a Bruckner Symphony is nothing short of bizarre. No doubt that Bruckner is an acquired taste. My guess is that people very much into and aware of the usual composers tend to come to Bruckner later. But once they do, there's no going back; you're hooked. Which means that, since Bruckner-based concerts are harder to come by, they are well attended and if people miss anything it might be the opening work, but certainly not the Bruckner Symphony.


That's exactly what happened yesterday though, the people sitting next to me left before Bruckner's 9th started. They came to see Mendelssohn's violin concerto, and there were a few empty seats during Bruckner.

I don't know what there is to argue anymore, the main points were made, and in the end he's a second rate composer most people don't know, even in what is his peak popularity.

In a thread about whether he was genius or simpleton it probably falls in the middle--that's most likely what Mahler meant--and that's also the main reason for the criticism; precisely because people here compare him to Mahler, which is absolutely ridiculous. The difference in talent couldn't be larger.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> people here compare him to Mahler, which is absolutely ridiculous. The difference in talent couldn't be larger.


The only person obsessed with comparing Bruckner to Mahler is you. When others have mentioned them together, it's been for the purpose of understanding the differences in their aesthetic and emotional character. Only you are preoccupied with who is better or worse. It's a childish concern ("My daddy can beat up your daddy").

There IS a difference in "talent." Mahler is (IMO) the superior composer. But what's really ridiculous is to say that the difference couldn't be greater. Bruckner is far from being a nonentity. Only THAT would be a difference that "couldn't be greater." He was, on the contrary, a distinctive musical voice who left us some magnificent works. That they don't conform to your favored aesthetic criteria is of no importance to anyone but you.

It's unfortunate for any hope of rational discussion that you have the common young person's need to exaggerate, and to see everything as ultimate or absolute. It pushes what would be legitimate observations over the line into absurdity (when they have any legitimacy, which is definitely not all the time), and makes everything you claim as knowledge suspect. It explains the general suspicion here that your estimate of your own work is similarly exaggerated. Expectations for the heralded great work are obviously not high. But we shall see, shan't we? (I do have to say that attempting to prepare us with an extended passage from Plato's tedious _Republic_ is not promising. Program notes really ought to be pithy.)


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> The only person obsessed with comparing Bruckner to Mahler is you. When others have mentioned them together, it's been for the purpose of understanding the differences in their aesthetic and emotional character. Only you are preoccupied with who is better or worse. It's a childish concern ("My daddy can beat up your daddy").
> 
> There IS a difference in "talent." Mahler is (IMO) the superior composer. But what's really ridiculous is to say that the difference couldn't be greater. Bruckner is far from being a nonentity. Only THAT would be a difference that "couldn't be greater." He was, on the contrary, a distinctive musical voice who left us some magnificent works. That they don't conform to your favored aesthetic criteria is of no importance to anyone but you.
> 
> It's unfortunate for any hope of rational discussion that you have the common young person's need to exaggerate, and to see everything as ultimate or absolute. It pushes what would be legitimate observations over the line into absurdity (when they have any legitimacy, which is definitely not all the time), and makes everything you claim as knowledge suspect. It explains the general suspicion here that your estimate of your own work is similarly exaggerated. Expectations for the heralded great work are obviously not high. But we shall see, shan't we? (I do have to say that attempting to prepare us with an extended passage from Plato's tedious _Republic_ is not promising. Program notes really ought to be pithy.)


That's your opinion, I think all music has a meaning, and history has taught us that letting it be known clearly by the composer saves the embarrassment of having people ridiculously name works, like naming a work about the mother of God "Symphony of a thousand", which to this day burdens the masterpiece with the idea of it being excessive, even if Mahler made it abundantly clear what it was about.

I chose to make it even clearer because a lot of people fail to understand The Republic.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> That's your opinion, I think all music has a meaning, and history has taught us that letting it be known clearly by the composer saves the embarrassment of having people ridiculously name works, like naming a work about the mother of God "Symphony of a thousand", which to this day burdens the masterpiece with the idea of it being excessive.


Telling people what your work is supposed to say to them is your prerogative, but there are good reasons why most artists have preferred to allow their work to speak for itself (and that includes your beloved Mahler, who generally had specific meanings in mind but generally declined to publish them). As a painter, I was always pleased to hear other people's unbiased and unprompted reactions; often they will tell us things about our work we never thought of, as Wagner once observed in a letter to his friend August Roeckel. The greater a work of art, the richer in possible meaning it tends to be, and "programs" can narrow a listeners perceptions. In any case, music survives on its intrinsic merits, so programs matter little in the long run.

Btw, I will try immediately to forget having been told that Mahler's 8th is about "the mother of God." Such an idea limits the meaning of the music most annoyingly. "Symphony of a thousand" is innocuous by comparison. I mean, it IS a big piece...


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> Telling people what your work is supposed to say to them is your prerogative, but there are good reasons why most artists have preferred to allow their work to speak for itself (and that includes your beloved Mahler, who generally had specific meanings in mind but generally declined to publish them). As a painter, I was always pleased to hear other people's unbiased and unprompted reactions; often they will tell us things about our work we never thought of, as Wagner once observed in a letter to his friend August Roeckel. The greater a work of art, the richer in possible meaning it tends to be, and "programs" can narrow a listeners perceptions. In any case, music survives on its intrinsic merits, so programs matter little in the long run.
> 
> Btw, I will try immediately to forget having been told that Mahler's 8th is about "the mother of God." Such an idea limits the meaning of the music most annoyingly. "Symphony of a thousand" is innocuous by comparison. I mean, it IS a big piece...


That's fine, but I think The Republic is a misunderstood work and the purpose of the music is to bring clarity to its meaning, or even simply draw people to it.

Whatever you interpret is fine, and you'll understand what you want to understand, but simply the fact that you find the work tedious is telling enough that my work will make you see it in a different way. Putting music that is the opposite of tedious into a work that's difficult to understand is, I think, a great accomplishment.

I thought about nothing else but The Republic while composing.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> I agree you seem not to understand and don't know what I can do to help you. The point is partly about the reliability of the finding (when groups of the experienced are asked you get the same result) and partly about the fact that you are dealing with a quality (greatness in art) that is about the impact of art on the people who enjoy it. You need to move beyond the narrow subjective vs. objective distinction that you seem stuck with. Our ability to predict results with measurable reliability (which can be expressed statistically) is what matters.


A more detailed analysis of what 'experienced' means here might help: how much music have they heard and have they given equal weight to lesser known works? Their views are to be respected, but if others are equally moved by less popular composers then it's difficult to see how we can objectively infer inferiority. That would be a leap I and many others are unwilling to make.


----------



## Jacck

janxharris said:


> A more detailed analysis of what 'experienced' means here might help: how much music have they heard and have they given equal weight to lesser known works? Their views are to be respected, but if others are equally moved by less popular composers then it's difficult to see how we can objectively infer inferiority. That would be a leap I and many others are unwilling to make.


there is also the sheep mentality effect. Everyone says that Mozart is great, and so must be great. Many people are unable to form their own opinion, and take over opinions of their surroundings. You cannot really study any music conservatory and hold the opinion that Mozart is not great, otherwise you would be ostracized or even expelled from the school. Many people will deny that they are sheep and that the vast majority of their opinions are not their own, but taken over from society (being it political or musical opinions), but they just lack self-awareness.

PS: I do think that Mozart was a great composer, but I do not like the cult status build around him.


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> A more detailed analysis of what 'experienced' means here might help: how much music have they heard and have they given equal weight to lesser known works? Their views are to be respected, but if others are equally moved by less popular composers then it's difficult to see how we can objectively infer inferiority. That would be a leap I and many others are unwilling to make.


No-one is asking you to leap anywhere or like anything. I'm just saying that the consensus on who are the three greatest composers appears to be robust and reliable. It doesn't mean you have to like or even get their music. That is up to you and your own taste. However, I have found that a little humility in the face of a consensus that I am initially out of sympathy with can encourage me to discover wonderful music that I had at first been indifferent to. The music of Debussy is a case in point.


----------



## DavidA

Jacck said:


> there is also the sheep mentality effect. *Everyone says that Mozart is great, and so must be great. *Many people are unable to form their own opinion, and take over opinions of their surroundings. You cannot really study any music conservatory and hold the opinion that Mozart is not great, otherwise you would be ostracized or even expelled from the school. Many people will deny that they are sheep and that the vast majority of their opinions are not their own, but taken over from society (being it political or musical opinions), but they just lack self-awareness.
> 
> PS: I do think that Mozart was a great composer, but I do not like the cult status build around him.


Well everyone who is a physicist I know holds that Einstein and Newton and Maxwell were great too. As just about everyone who is anything as a musician holds that Mozart is great then it might be a good idea to assume he is great.


----------



## Jacck

DavidA said:


> Well everyone who is a physicist I know holds that Einstein and Newton and Maxwell were great too. As just about everyone who is anything as a musician holds that Mozart is great then it might be a good idea to assume he is great.


music (or art in general) is not physics. One big difference is that there is an objective criterion of truth in physics, while there is no objective criterion of greatness in music. It is widely accepted today, that while Einstein was a pioneer in many aspects of physics (theory of relativity), he never accepted quantum theory and thus found himself on the wrong side of the debate. So yes, even Eistein was not perfect and got some things wrong. One the other hand we are forced to believe that everything Mozart ever wrote was pure gold, touched by god. (truth is, that while he wrote some amazing things, he also wrote some boring music)


----------



## Enthusiast

Jacck said:


> there is also the sheep mentality effect. Everyone says that Mozart is great, and so must be great. *Many people are unable to form their own opinion, and take over opinions of their surroundings. *You cannot really study any music conservatory and hold the opinion that Mozart is not great, otherwise you would be ostracized or even expelled from the school.* Many people will deny that they are sheep and that the vast majority of their opinions are not their own, but taken over from society (being it political or musical opinions), but they just lack self-awareness.
> *
> PS: I do think that Mozart was a great composer, but I do not like the cult status build around him.


I'm sorry but the sentences I have bolded are borderline offensive. Why do you need to impugn people's reasons and motivations in pursuing their taste? Why can't you get on with your own preferences and leave others to their's without seeing them as sheep (and yourself as a brave and exploring lone wolf, I suppose)? It makes you seem very insecure that you need to put others down in this way. I doubt any serious classical music lovers are subject to the effect you describe and I feel sure that, although there may be some intolerant lecturers, universities do no such thing as insist that their students love Mozart. To do so would be like a red rag to a bull for many students.


----------



## DavidA

Jacck said:


> music (or art in general) is not physics. One big difference is that there is an objective criterion of truth in physics, while there is no objective criterion of greatness in music. It is widely accepted today, that while Einstein was a pioneer in many aspects of physics (theory of relativity), he never accepted quantum theory and thus found himself on the wrong side of the debate. So yes, even Eistein was not perfect and got some things wrong. One the other hand we are forced to believe that everything Mozart ever wrote was pure gold, touched by god. (truth is, that while he wrote some amazing things, he also wrote some boring music)


Yes but opinion is opinion. The only criterion for greatness is the informed opinion of others. You are entirely wrong in saying that to assume Mozart was great we have to believe everything he wrote was pure gold. I don't believe anyone has made that assumption. The problem is to try and make your point to try and make people say things they don't say. Please don't do this.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I agree that it's nonsense to claim that Mozart's every note is revered (by the establishment?!) ... I think the opposite is true. But there are gems from all stages of his output. The 1st symphony (K 16), written when he was 8, is an adorable work. It may be that factor - that some of his early pieces are great - which is leading Jacck astray?


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> No-one is asking you to leap anywhere or like anything. I'm just saying that *the consensus on who are the three greatest composers* appears to be robust and reliable. It doesn't mean you have to like or even get their music. That is up to you and your own taste. However, I have found that a little humility in the face of a consensus that I am initially out of sympathy with can encourage me to discover wonderful music that I had at first been indifferent to. The music of Debussy is a case in point.


There is a difference between stating one's favourite and actually averring objective greatness. You know for certain that they are affirming their view as object? Or are you making that inference?

Your earlier thread statement was explicit:



Enthusiast said:


> But I think we can take it as fact that Bach Mozart and Beethoven were the three greatest composers in Western classical music.


This implies compositional superiority over other composers; I think such would require rigorous argument. As far as I can see all we have been proffered is mere extrapolation.


----------



## janxharris

I still struggle with Bruckner but this is a nice section from his 9th:


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> There is a difference between stating one's favourite and actually averring objective greatness. You know for certain that they are affirming their view as object? Or are you making that inference?
> 
> Your earlier thread statement was explicit:
> 
> This implies compositional superiority over other composers; I think such would require rigorous argument. As far as I can see all we have been proffered is mere extrapolation.


Your words seem stuffed with import but you have not yet responded to my argument. You have merely repeatedly disagreed with my conclusions as "impossible". But tell me: what is "compositional superiority" and how do you say it should or could be recognised?


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> Your words seem stuffed with import but you have not yet responded to my argument. You have merely repeatedly disagreed with my conclusions as "impossible". But tell me: what is "compositional superiority" and how do you say it should or could be recognised?


I infer that compositional superiority is what you are affirming when you state:

_But I think we can take it as fact that Bach Mozart and Beethoven were the three greatest composers in Western classical music._

I may consider a work as displaying compositional superiority (because of it's well-crafted transitions, sense of balance and contrast, development of motifs, dramatic expression etc), but this would all be subjective. I would not dare to elevate it to the objective.

Sorry if I am not answering you as you intend - I am trying to.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Aside from being an incomplete list, the criteria you recognise as necessary (but presumably not sufficient?) for compositional superiority are indeed matters of opinion. They are also "internal" to the works. I base my argument on the impact of three composers upon classical music fans over 150 years or more - what happens to their music in the world they were writing for. BTW there is nothing in my argument that says that everyone (every individual) has to value those three composers over all others. Some will, some won't.


----------



## Jacck

DavidA said:


> Yes but opinion is opinion. The only criterion for greatness is the informed opinion of others. You are entirely wrong in saying that to assume Mozart was great we have to believe everything he wrote was pure gold. I don't believe anyone has made that assumption. The problem is to try and make your point to try and make people say things they don't say. Please don't do this.


Mozart is by far the most overrated composer of all the time. BUT at the same time he's still one of the greatest composer ever (top10)


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Aside from being an incomplete list, the criteria you recognise as necessary (but presumably not sufficient?) for compositional superiority are indeed matters of opinion. They are also "internal" to the works. I base my argument on the impact of three composers upon classical music fans over 150 years or more - what happens to their music in the world they were writing for. BTW there is nothing in my argument that says that everyone (every individual) has to value those three composers over all others. Some will, some won't.


Indeed - no intention of completeness was implied.

Basing your argument as you do seems to be inference only. You make no attempt to show in detail how such and such work displays objective superiority in it's composition. I asked:

_There is a difference between stating one's favourite and actually averring objective greatness. You know for certain that they are affirming their view as objective? Or are you making that inference?_

If most people are merely speaking about their experience and are not promoting objectivity then I don't see why anyone should make such an inference in interpreting polls. And - even if they are attempting objectivity - it would still need detailed argument to be acceptable.


----------



## janxharris

Jacck said:


> Mozart is by far the most overrated composer of all the time. BUT at the same time he's still one of the greatest composer ever (top10)


And, out of interest, you are or you are not elevating this opinion to something objectively verifiable?


----------



## janxharris

Bruckner's Ninth has really grown on me...thanks to this thread.


----------



## DavidA

Jacck said:


> *Mozart is by far the most overrated composer of all the time*. BUT at the same time he's still one of the greatest composer ever (top10)


According top you. Funny most people don't tend to agree with you!

'Listening to Mozart, we cannot think of any possible improvement.'
(George Szell)


----------



## Jacck

DavidA said:


> Yes but opinion is opinion. The only criterion for greatness is the informed opinion of others. You are entirely wrong in saying that to assume Mozart was great we have to believe everything he wrote was pure gold. I don't believe anyone has made that assumption. The problem is to try and make your point to try and make people say things they don't say. Please don't do this.





DavidA said:


> 'Listening to Mozart, we cannot think of any possible improvement.'
> (George Szell)


thanks for providing a concrete example of this and thus confirming my point.


----------



## Jacck

janxharris said:


> And, out of interest, you are or you are not elevating this opinion to something objectively verifiable?


both the words "overrated" and "great" are subjective judgements, so obviously this is just my own subjective opinion of Mozart.


----------



## millionrainbows

The Bruckner/Brahms comparison was much more productive and relevant. Mozart presents his own set of "genius or dunce" problems, especially since he was a child composer, and was working for royals.


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> The Bruckner/Brahms comparison was much more productive and relevant. Mozart presents his own set of "genius or dunce" problems, especially since he was a child composer, and was working for royals.


You might dare to be more explicit.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Jacck said:


> there is also the sheep mentality effect. Everyone says that Mozart is great, and so must be great. Many people are unable to form their own opinion, and take over opinions of their surroundings. You cannot really study any music conservatory and hold the opinion that Mozart is not great, otherwise you would be ostracized or even expelled from the school. Many people will deny that they are sheep and that the vast majority of their opinions are not their own, but taken over from society (being it political or musical opinions), but they just lack self-awareness.
> PS: I do think that Mozart was a great composer, but I do not like the cult status build around him.


Well, I think your preference for Schubert is "sheep-mentality". He's more like a 19th century pop-classical crossover composer rather than a real classical composer in terms of sense of structure. And you're drawn to his popsong-like structures. 
It's objective fact Haydn, Handel, Hummel, CPE Bach (who are always ranked far below him in TC rankings) made far greater impact in the history of music than him in terms of real classical music making. Mozart was the reason Tchaikovsky became a composer himself. (_This "revelation" of the music of Don Giovanni on the threshold of adulthood was a crucial factor in his decision a few years later to leave behind him the security of a career in the civil service and to aspire to become a composer. As he later confessed to Nadezhda von Meck in a letter from 1878 "The music of Don Giovanni was the first music which produced a tremendous impression on me. It awoke a holy enthusiasm in me which would later bear fruit. Through this music I entered that world of artistic beauty inhabited only by the greatest geniuses [...] It is to Mozart that I am obliged for the fact that I have dedicated my life to music. He gave the first impulse to my musical powers and made me love music more than anything else in the world"_) 
It's doubtful if Schubert even belongs in top 30 in this regard. Beautiful songs, pleasant melodies.. That's about it. No sense of structure.
No wonder why Philip Glass admires Schubert (and even has the same birthday as him).

Die Zauberharfe.. Hahahahahahahaha .. An undertalented Mozart-wannabe.. Hahahahahahahaha


----------



## 1996D

Jacck said:


> Mozart is by far the most overrated composer of all the time. BUT at the same time he's still one of the greatest composer ever (top10)


At 18 years of age he was already better than 99.9% of composers in history were at any age. His talent was supreme.


----------



## hammeredklavier

1996D said:


> At 18 of age he was already better than 99.9% of composers in history were at any age. His talent was supreme.


Salus infirmorum: 15m23s
Agnus dei: 23m50s





Credo: 8m3s


----------



## Jacck

hammeredklavier said:


> Die Zauberharfe.. Hahahahahahahaha .. An undertalented Mozart-wannabe.. Hahahahahahahaha


Mozart composed 20 operas, but just about 6 or 7 are still performed today, which means that just about 30% of his output is worthwhile. So it is also with his symphonies and pretty much with everything he wrote. As a listener, I have limited time on this Earth and must decide, where I want to invest my listening time. I do like to revisit Mozart from time to time and his greatest works are masterpieces, but I do not want to spend my time listening to the other 70% of his oeuvre, because I feel the time is better spend on other composers.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Jacck said:


> Mozart composed 20 operas, but just about 6 or 7 are still performed today, which means that just about 30% of his output is worthwhile. So it is also with his symphonies and pretty much with everything he wrote. As a listener, I have limited time on this Earth and must decide, where I want to invest my listening time. I do like to revisit Mozart from time to time and his greatest works are masterpieces, but I do not want to spend my time listening to the other 70% of his oeuvre, because I feel the time is better spend on other composers.


Your post doesn't address the point I raised. The point I was making - Schubert was never objectively "important" in terms of influence and impact to deserve the place he has in TC rankings (4th~6th, which is just plain ridiculous - This is doing great disservice to the real masters of classical music, CPE Bach, Hummel, Haydn, Handel etc.).

Now - If you ask my personal opinion on Schubert's music - I don't find anything in Schubert particularly interesting. (To be honest, finding his "faults" is the sole reason why I listen to his music). How many of Schubert's 600+ songs worth listening to?
You can say you like all of them and all of them are good in your opinion. That's fine. I respect your preference.

But again - us individuals' preferences have nothing to do with Schubert's objective place in classical music development and history. Heck, "Classical music" isn't even what everyone in this world wants to hear today. - You could make an argument modern pop music is more relevant to our age. Does that change the history of "what was important in classical music history"? No. The fact that people prefer pop more than classical today doesn't affect our view of the development and history of classical music.


----------



## Jacck

^^^ I do not care about these endless rankings and comparisons. They might have some value for a newcomer to classical music to serve as a roadmap, ie to show him what to listen to, what the others consider worthwhile. But otherwise I see no point arguing if Mozart was greater than Schubert or vice versa. I think they both had great natural talent, and composed very different music, and they both died too young. Schubert composed some amazing music towards the end of his life.


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> But again - us individuals' preferences have nothing to do with Schubert's objective place in classical music development and history.


Please do provide us with 'Schubert's objective place in classical music'.


----------



## Enthusiast

Jacck said:


> Mozart composed 20 operas, but just about 6 or 7 are still performed today, which means that just about 30% of his output is worthwhile. So it is also with his symphonies and pretty much with everything he wrote. As a listener, I have limited time on this Earth and must decide, where I want to invest my listening time. I do like to revisit Mozart from time to time and his greatest works are masterpieces, but I do not want to spend my time listening to the other 70% of his oeuvre, because I feel the time is better spend on other composers.


It is fairly easy to sort out which works of Mozarts are the really good ones. They tend to come from later in his life but there are quite a few among the others from earlier. Put together there is more than enough excellent Mozart to keep you listening for the rest of your life. Why count the less wonderful pieces?


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> Indeed - no intention of completeness was implied.
> 
> Basing your argument as you do seems to be inference only. You make no attempt to show in detail how such and such work displays objective superiority in it's composition. I asked:
> 
> _There is a difference between stating one's favourite and actually averring objective greatness. You know for certain that they are affirming their view as objective? Or are you making that inference?_
> 
> If most people are merely speaking about their experience and are not promoting objectivity then I don't see why anyone should make such an inference in interpreting polls. And - even if they are attempting objectivity - it would still need detailed argument to be acceptable.


It was obvious that your list was not intended as complete (your use of "etc" demonstrated that).

You are trying to move the goalposts - I have been talking about three composers in comparison with all others. I have not been talking about specific works and the logic I have used (the logic you still seem not to get) tells me nothing about individual works. And if it did it would still not involve me in analysing those works. I am, anyway, 100% convinced that such analysis is only of any value at all after you have decided what you make of the work. You might then look for clues for how and why it succeeds or fails. But whatever you do it will be just your opinion.

I am not sure what you mean by referring to polls as if I were an advocate of them.

But, seriously, we should not be having this discussion in this thread. It is rude of us.


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> Now - If you ask my personal opinion on Schubert's music - I don't find anything in Schubert particularly interesting.


First movement of Schubert's Piano Sonata No. 21.


----------



## Jacck

Enthusiast said:


> It is fairly easy to sort out which works of Mozarts are the really good ones. They tend to come from later in his life but there are quite a few among the others from earlier. Put together there is more than enough excellent Mozart to keep you listening for the rest of your life. Why count the less wonderful pieces?


I personally don't have a favorite composer in the sense that I could say: this is my absolute favorite composer above all others. I like diversity and variability to chose from. Mozart is just one of the musical flavors for me, just like one day I take a vanilla ice cream and next time a pistachio ice cream. So one day I can listen to Debussy, then to Bach, then to Mozart, then to Schoenberg. And none of them is really above the others.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Jacck said:


> *Mozart composed 20 operas, but just about 6 or 7 are still performed today*, which means that just about 30% of his output is worthwhile. So it is also with his symphonies and pretty much with everything he wrote. As a listener, I have limited time on this Earth and must decide, where I want to invest my listening time. I do like to revisit Mozart from time to time and his greatest works are masterpieces, but I do not want to spend my time listening to the other 70% of his oeuvre, because I feel the time is better spend on other composers.





Jacck said:


> Overrated: most Mozart symphonies
> underrated: Glazunov, Braga Santos, Atterberg, Casella, Stenhammar, Dukas, Nielsen, Magnard, Schmidt, Scriabin, Fibich etc.


You seem to be contradicting yourself. Most of Mozart's lesser/early works *are not performed.* But you still said in another thread they're overrated. 
So by your logic, the underrated symphonies (by Glazunov and others) you mentioned in that thread are not performed often because they are not good (like Mozart's lesser/early works) ?
Is "underrated" synonymous with "I like", and "overrated" synonymous with "I dislike"?
I think Allegro con brio is another member who seems to confuse the two concepts.
You say there are some 'extreme claims' made on Mozart's music, (how all the notes are perfect), but there are ones made on other composers as well:

_"Beethoven tells you what it's like to be Beethoven and Mozart tells you what it's like to be human. Bach tells you what it's like to be the universe."_
_"Beethoven's late string quartets are the pinnacle of Western civilization"_


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> It was obvious that your list was not intended as complete (your use of "etc" demonstrated that).
> 
> You are trying to move the goalposts - I have been talking about three composers in comparison with all others. I have not been talking about specific works and the logic I have used (the logic you still seem not to get) tells me nothing about individual works. And if it did it would still not involve me in analysing those works. I am, anyway, 100% convinced that such analysis is only of any value at all after you have decided what you make of the work. You might then look for clues for how and why it succeeds or fails. But whatever you do it will be just your opinion.
> 
> I am not sure what you mean by referring to polls as if I were an advocate of them.
> 
> But, seriously, we should not be having this discussion in this thread. It is rude of us.


I could start a new thread if you wish.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ No, no. That's OK. I think we have given these ideas a good run and there have been many such threads.


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> Please do provide us with 'Schubert's objective place in classical music'.


I've been making posts to explain it both directly and indirectly on this forum. Have you looked at any of them?
For example,



hammeredklavier said:


> I think there's a good reason why Rossini completely disregarded Schubert when he said this: "The Germans have always been at every time the greatest harmonists and the Italians the greatest melodists. But from the moment that the North produced a Mozart, we of the South were beaten on our own ground, because this man rises above both nations, uniting in himself all the charms of Italian melody and all the profundity of German harmony"
> underrated compared to Schubert's orchestral works:





hammeredklavier said:


> _"Wagner, according to Cosima, considered Mozart a "grosser Chromatiker.""_
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=x7jADwAAQBAJ&pg=PA291
> _"Richard Wagner, a great admirer of the Requiem, was particularly fond of the Benedictus as well as the Recordare."_
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=JVEgAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA62


Come on, let's face it. Schubert never made an impact like the Big Three did.

---------



janxharris said:


> First movement of Schubert's Piano Sonata No. 21.


A perfect example of his vampy, padded-out methods :lol:


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> You seem to be contradicting yourself. Most of Mozart's lesser/early works *are not performed.* But you still said in another thread they're overrated.


There's no contradiction. It's perfectly possible to overrate music that's rarely performed. Such music may be overrated by people who think it's underrated.

But why is all this "overrated/underrated" foolishness worth anyone's time? And isn't this thread about Bruckner?


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Now - If you ask my personal opinion on Schubert's music - I don't find anything in Schubert particularly interesting. (To be honest, finding his "faults" is the sole reason why I listen to his music).


I doubt that anyone wants your personal opinion on Schubert's music.

Your confession of your reason for listening to Schubert is sickeningly honest. How long do you intend to go on indulging your childish compulsion to pull the wings off of butterflies? The compulsion to "rate" and "rank" composers is bad enough. To devalue art which is widely esteemed and loved and has made the world a more beautiful place is to spread disease among the healthy.

Go back to your sickroom. Leave Schubert to those whose reasons to listen to him do him the honor he deserves.


----------



## DavidA

Jacck said:


> both the words "overrated" and "great" are subjective judgements, so obviously this is just my own subjective opinion of Mozart.


Not at all. Overrated is simply a wrong judgement. The fact is that most people with any musical sense rate him very highly and acknowledge his greatness. Funny, but only cranks like Glenn Gould disagree.


----------



## Helgi

_Re: Bruckner_

I'm a relative newbie and getting to know Bruckner is a fascinating journey. His masses and motets have become desert island stuff for me, and then I read something like this article from The Guardian: "Sex, death and dissonance: the strange, obsessive world of Anton Bruckner"

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2...onance-anton-bruckner-concertgebouw-orchestra



> There's no doubt Anton Bruckner was an oddball, a man with an unhealthy interest in dead bodies and teenage girls. But the composer's obsessions and terrors also gave us some astonishing music





> A credulous yokel who propositioned girls half his age. A death-obsessed ghoul who kept a photo of his mother's corpse. A cranky, backwards-looking obsessive. The composer of some of the 19th century's greatest, grandest and most ambitious symphonies. Anton Bruckner was all of these things.


:tiphat:

Sounds like someone with Asperger's - and I did a double take when I was looking over a list of his motets and saw one with the title "Asperges me".

Shows how much I know about Catholic liturgy but I thought it was funny!


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> I doubt that anyone wants your personal opinion on Schubert's music.
> Your confession of your reason for listening to Schubert is sickeningly honest. How long do you intend to go on indulging your childish compulsion to pull the wings off of butterflies? *The compulsion to "rate" and "rank" composers is bad enough.* To devalue art which is widely esteemed and loved and has made the world a more beautiful place is to spread disease among the healthy.
> Go back to your sickroom. Leave Schubert to those whose reasons to listen to him do him the honor he deserves.


You have some good points. (But, see, I'm not the one who started the "shitstorm" in this thread either.)
I think there's some truth to what janxharris and Jacck said as well, - just because something has been considered 'great' in the tradition, (such as Bach's cantatas for example) it doesn't mean everyone wants to hear it all the time. 
But also, there are sometimes arguments on the forum that I find plain worrisome - the "revisionist" ones that seem to suggest that one of the Big Three "wasn't really that important" in the development and history of music. If Schubert was just as important as Mozart (for example), why did he fail to inspire generations like Mozart did? He was NOT.

But of course, I respect other people's preference in disliking the "powdered wig". This is why I don't generally participate in rankings and ratings, such as the ones by Art Rock. I don't see much of a purpose in them. In fact, people should be _discouraged_ from making them. I don't know what's the use of rating composers by placing them in 1~100th places. The composer placed in 56th is better than the one in 57th? This is ridiculous. Art can't be measured this way. And there are only very few ranking/rating results on TC that I personally agree with.

And everyone should remember whenever they dismiss something as overrated: 
_"Nobody gives a damn about my own rating. I should just keep it to myself."_


----------



## Jacck

Helgi said:


> A credulous yokel who propositioned girls half his age. A death-obsessed ghoul who kept a photo of his mother's corpse. A cranky, backwards-looking obsessive. The composer of some of the 19th century's greatest, grandest and most ambitious symphonies. Anton Bruckner was all of these things.


keeping photos of dead people has been a fashion at that time
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-36389581


----------



## Fabulin

Helgi said:


> _Re: Bruckner_
> 
> I'm a relative newbie and getting to know Bruckner is a fascinating journey. His masses and motets have become desert island stuff for me, and then I read something like this article from The Guardian: "Sex, death and dissonance: the strange, obsessive world of Anton Bruckner"
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/music/2...onance-anton-bruckner-concertgebouw-orchestra
> 
> :tiphat:
> 
> Sounds like someone with Asperger's - and I did a double take when I was looking over a list of his motets and saw one with the title "Asperges me".
> 
> Shows how much I know about Catholic liturgy but I thought it was funny!


It was doubly funny to me, because my numerical memory tells me it was published exactly a hundred years before Hans Asperger's 1944 thesis


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> You have some good points. (But, see, I'm not the one who started the "shitstorm" in this thread either.)
> I think there's some truth to what janxharris and Jacck said as well, - just because something has been considered 'great' in the tradition, (such as Bach's cantatas for example) it doesn't mean everyone wants to hear it all the time.
> But also, there are sometimes arguments on the forum that I find plain worrisome - the "revisionist" ones that seem to suggest that one of the Big Three "wasn't really that important" in the development and history of music. If Schubert was just as important as Mozart (for example), why did he fail to inspire generations like Mozart did? He was NOT.
> 
> But of course, I respect other people's preference in disliking the "powdered wig". This is why I don't generally participate in rankings and ratings, such as the ones by Art Rock. I don't see much of a purpose in them. In fact, people should be _discouraged_ from making them. I don't know what's the use of rating composers by placing them in 1~100th places. The composer placed in 56th is better than the one in 57th? This is ridiculous. Art can't be measured this way. And there are only very few ranking/rating results on TC that I personally agree with.


It's fine to say that you dislike rating composers. But ranking things is merely an innocent (if fairly useless) sport for the otherwise unemployed. Now if only you could realize that trying repeatedly to bring sacred cows to the slaughterhouse is not a sport, and is not innocent but hostile. Any excuse will do for you to take shots at certain composers, and when people become annoyed at your latest tedious reiteration of the same obnoxious slams, you make excuses in self-justification, offer make-believe conciliations like "you have some good points," and pretend that we're having a reasonable conversation. But this is not a reasonable situation. You've run out of justifications - which were never good to start with - and seem incapable of realizing it.

There are a few people on the forum - very few, thankfully - who can't resist expressing the same negatory views over and over again. People get sick of it, but the perpetrators seem oblivious. Or, perhaps, the annoyance and outrage of others is exactly what they want. In the internet world we call these people trolls. So which is it? Are you oblivious to the fact that knocking Schubert or Chopin or Beethoven every few days is obnoxious and makes you look like a jerk? Or are you trolling us for the perverse pleasure it gives you? It's just a question. I assume there's an answer. Maybe you can find it lodged somewhere deep in your brain. Or maybe all you'll find is another excuse for bad manners.


----------



## Woodduck

Fabulin said:


> It was doubly funny to me, because my numerical memory tells me it was published exactly a hundred years before Hans Asperger's 1944 thesis


I love it!...................


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> There are a few people on the forum - very few, thankfully - who can't resist expressing the same negatory views over and over again. People get sick of it, but the perpetrators seem oblivious. Or, perhaps, the annoyance and outrage of others is exactly what they want. In the internet world we call these people trolls. So which is it? Are you oblivious to the fact that knocking Schubert or Chopin or Beethoven every few days is obnoxious and makes you look like a jerk? Or are you trolling us for the perverse pleasure it gives you? It's just a question.


No. I'm not trolling. I'm being genuine with how I feel. As much as you're upset with my behavior, I'm also constantly disappointed with other members' behavior. In my eyes, they're the ones who _keep asking for it_ every time. I find some of them so presumptuous I'm disgusted every time. _"Sheep mentality"_. -I take this personally.
I listen to Mozart's vespers-so much richness of voice-leading and contrasting/developing ideas.. Then listen to Schubert's masses-so static, so pathetic to the point of being laughable. I keep wondering "Why is this amateur constantly being ranked 4th~5th in TC composer rankings when there are so many other composers who deserve that place?" Rosamunde quartet - another work that suffers from fits of vamps and padding. Maybe we should be asking how much of Schubert's output is really good.


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> No. I'm not trolling. I'm being genuine with how I feel. As much as you're upset with my behavior, I'm also constantly disappointed with other members' behavior. In my eyes, they're the ones who _keep asking for it_ every time. I find some of them so presumptuous I'm disgusted every time. _"Sheep mentality"_. -I take this personally.
> I listen to Mozart's vespers-so much richness of voice-leading and contrasting/developing ideas.. Then listen to Schubert's masses-so static, so pathetic to the point of being laughable. I keep wondering "Why is this amateur constantly being ranked 4th~5th in TC composer rankings when there are so many other composers who deserve that place?" Rosamunde quartet - another work that suffers from fits of vamps and padding. Maybe we should be asking how much of Schubert's output is really good.


You rank Mozart above Schubert but don't do ranking?


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> You rank Mozart above Schubert but don't do ranking?


I wish TC didn't do any rankings. But they always do, so there are always controversies "[X] is overrated/underrated". This is what ultimately annoys me.


----------



## Helgi

Jacck said:


> keeping photos of dead people has been a fashion at that time
> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-36389581


Yikes!

So our relationship to both death and photography have changed but I wonder if it's any healthier these days.


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> I wish TC didn't do any rankings. But they always do, so there are always controversies "[X] is overrated/underrated". This is what ultimately annoys me.


and if x = schubert?


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> No. I'm not trolling.


Engaging repeatedly in negative behavior that you know does nothing but create annoyance and dissension is trolling.



> I'm being genuine with how I feel.


How touching!

Another member, who just spent several days on this thread savaging Bruckner and in the process making more ridiculous comments and annoying more people than anyone on the forum except probably you, made the excuse that everything he said was "genuine."

Being "genuine" justifies nothing. It's possible to be genuinely obnoxious.



> As much as you're upset with my behavior, I'm also constantly disappointed with other members' behavior.


How terrible to be "disappointed." If everyone who's "disappointed" responded by attacking some great composer they don't happen to appreciate, this forum would be even more of a snake pit than it already is.



> In my eyes, they're the ones who _keep asking for it_ every time.


Asking for WHAT? Are you setting out to punish people? For not being musically perceptive enough "in your eyes"? For saying that a Schubert song means more to them than a Mozart sonata? For not being sufficiently impressed by imitative counterpoint?



> I find some of them so presumptuous I'm disgusted every time.


Presumptuous how?



> _"Sheep mentality"_. -I take this personally.


Poor boy! You decide that someone undervalues counterpoint, and you experience an overwhelming urge to ATTACK SCHUBERT??? Day after day, week after week? And you think that's a constructive, or even minimally sensible, response? That's what you want to spend your time doing? That's what you expect other people here to read?



> I listen to Mozart's vespers-so much richness of voice-leading and contrasting/developing ideas. Then listen to Schubert's masses-so static, so pathetic to the point of being laughable. I keep wondering "Why is this amateur constantly being ranked 4th~5th in TC composer rankings when there are so many other composers who deserve that place?" Rosamunde quartet - another work that suffers from fits of vamps and padding. Maybe we should be asking how much of Schubert's output is really good.


Maybe YOU should be asking why "this amateur" is ranked 4th or 5th (though you claim not to care about rankings), why some of the world's greatest musicians love and perform his works, why Artur Schnabel once said that he thought Schubert was the "greatest composer," and why you can't appreciate his music more.

But you don't want to ask that, or simply to admit that you, like all of us, have musical blind spots, that there are things in art which defy your academic presuppositions about what's good and bad. You, like that arrogant fool who kept trying to tell us that Bruckner had "no creative talent" and that setting him beside Mahler was like setting Harry Potter beside Goethe, think you're the arbiter of greatness in music, and that what you've decided is unworthy needs to be whipped until it bleeds to death and we all fall down in reverence before your administration of divine justice.



> I wish TC didn't do any rankings. But they always do, so there are always controversies "[X] is overrated/underrated". This is what ultimately annoys me.


If someone liking something too much or too little to suit you is what "ultimately annoys you," you need to get into therapy. Or just drink yourself into oblivion.


----------



## Flossner

Newbie here. Nice and "lively" discussion here. I'm glad that there are many here that care to talk about Bruckner, whether positively or negatively.

I've found Bruckner to be a difficult to fathom composer at first, but have discovered incredible riches once fathomed. I'm still trying to unlock most of the symphonies, so far have done that for the 4th, 7th and 8th symphonies. Does anyone have suggestions on which one to press upon next? Perhaps the 5th?


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Flossner said:


> Newbie here. Nice and "lively" discussion here. I'm glad that there are many here that care to talk about Bruckner, whether positively or negatively.
> 
> I've found Bruckner to be a difficult to fathom composer at first, but have discovered incredible riches once fathomed. I'm still trying to unlock most of the symphonies, so far have done that for the 4th, 7th and 8th symphonies. Does anyone have suggestions on which one to press upon next? Perhaps the 5th?


Try the 6th next. The first movement is like refined Star Wars music (not an insult at all!), the Adagio is not typically Brucknerian but absolutely heart-rending, and the second half contains some of his most interesting writing even if it isn't always totally inspired. I would save the 9th for last.


----------

